Motiti Island: Customary Interests and Crown Engagement

Home , Bay of Plenty, Motiti Island, Onepu, Pukehina

Wai 2521, #A16

A Report for the Wai-2521 Claim

Dr Vincent O’Malley March 2018

Contents

1. Introduction ...... 1 2. Motiti Island ...... 2 3. Early Settlement ...... 5 4. Te Hapū ...... 6 5. Te Patuwai ...... 11 6. Early European Contacts ...... 13 7. Ngāpuhi Raids ...... 15 8. Tribal Disputes ...... 16 9. The New Zealand Wars ...... 25 10. Whakatane Confiscation Reserves ...... 28 11. Other Confiscation Awards ...... 35 12. Confiscation and the Native Land Court’s Jurisdiction over Motiti ...... 37 13. The Title Investigation ...... 41 14. Late Nineteenth Century Occupation of Motiti ...... 56 15. Subdividing Southern Motiti ...... 58 16. Motiti B ...... 60 17. Motiti North ...... 69 18. The 1894 Rehearing ...... 71 19. Motiti A – Alienation, Occupation and Partition ...... 73 20. Twentieth Century Occupation ...... 80 21. Shifting Tribal Definitions ...... 85 22. The Kinship Review ...... 98 23. Wāhi Tapu ...... 103 24. Access to Motiti ...... 104 24. Fishing ...... 109 25. Planning Issues and Resource Consents ...... 119 26. Summary ...... 125 Bibliography of Works Cited ...... 128 Appendix One: Motiti Island Timeline ...... 138 Appendix Two: Index to Document Bank ...... 149

List of Figures

MAP 1: NATIVE LAND COURT BOUNDARIES ...... 4

MAP 2: PLAN OF MOTITI, 1867 (ML614) ...... 43

MAP 3 PLAN OF MOTITI NORTH SUBDIVISIONS (ML9428) ...... 72

MAP 4 PLAN OF MOTITI SUBDIVISIONS (ML614 ABC) ...... 76

1. Introduction

1. This report was commissioned for the Wai-2521 claim lodged by Graham Hoete, Umuhuri Matehaere, Kataraina Keepa, Jacqueline Taro Haimona and Te Atarangi Sayers on behalf of Ngā Hapū o te Moutere o Motiti (defined as ‘Ngāi Te Hapū me ōna karanga hapū, namely Ngāti Makerewai, Ngāti Takahanga, Ngāti Kauaewera, and Ngāti Pau’ in the second amended statement of claim) on 22 June 2015.1 Among other things, the claimants allege that the Crown has failed to appropriately recognise and engage with them as tangata whenua of Motiti Island in terms of both their historic and contemporary Treaty issues. The report considers the history of Māori use and occupation of Motiti island, the relationships between different iwi and hapū as they pertain to Motiti historically, the history of land ownership and title adjudications on Motiti, and how the Crown has engaged with the people of Motiti historically.

2. In examining these matters, the report draws upon a variety of published and unpublished, primary and secondary, sources as identified in the references provided. For a small island, Motiti has a surprisingly large repository of archival records relating to its history, only a very small fraction of which appear to have been consulted for the purposes of recent Office of Treaty Settlements’ inquiries into the merits of the Wai-2521 claim. My report is also informed by a visit to Motiti in March 2018, when I was welcomed onto Te Ruakopiha marae and visited many important sites on the island in the company of local kaumātua.

3. At times this report traverses matters of whakapapa and custom based on evidence presented in the Native Land Court and elsewhere in so far as these are relevant to understanding the history of Motiti. However, it is not my intention to question anyone’s whakapapa today – or indeed their right to identify as they choose. Neither does the report reach any conclusions about who the tangata whenua of Motiti are today and how they relate to other iwi and hapū. That is more appropriately addressed in tangata whenua evidence. Likewise, matters of current Crown Treaty settlements policy are addressed only in so far as they relate to the interpretation of historical evidence concerning Motiti.

1 Second Amended Statement of Claim, 14 November 2017, Wai-2521, #1.1.0001(b), p.1.

1 4. Because the labels and terminology used to describe different people are critical issues in the history outlined in this report, a brief explanation of the approach adopted here seems necessary. Obviously, in direct quotations, the tribal name is reproduced exactly as it appeared in the source document. Where I paraphrase from particular sources and the label used in them is important (census returns, for example) then I have sought to remain faithful to the source. When seeking to distinguish between the Patuwai people of Motiti and those of Whakatane, I have used the names Patuwai ki Motiti and/or Patuwai ki Whakatane. In other cases, the context makes clear which group I refer to. Elsewhere, I use Ngāi Te Hapū, Patuwai or Ngāi Te Hapū/Patuwai to refer to the people of Motiti described in the Wai-2521 claim.

2. Motiti Island

5. Motiti Island is located in the Bay of Plenty, 21 kilometres north-east from Tauranga and approximately 12 kilometres in a northerly direction from the closest onshore point at Papamoa. The island is approximately 7.5km2 or 720 hectares in area and rises only 56 metres above sea level, consisting mostly of a volcanic plateau with steep cliffs along many of the coasts. Motiti is held under a mix of general and Māori land titles. The greater part of the island was awarded to members of Ngāi Tauwhao by the Native Land Court. Out of the 1090 acres they received, 890 acres was alienated to a private European party and a further 200 acres set aside as a reserve. The northern end of the island awarded to members of Ngāi Te Hapū/Patuwai (565 acres) remains in their ownership, along with a further 166 acres secured through a land exchange. There is no Crown land on the island (a small section gifted for a Native School having been returned to Māori ownership following the school’s closure in the 1960s) and no public infrastructure.

6. The island itself is surrounded by multiple reefs and islets as identified by Ngā Hapū o Te Moutere o Motiti in their application for recognition orders pursuant to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011. The islets include Motu Haku, Motu Nau, Motu Puta, Motu Kahakaha, Motu a Rua, Motu Patiki, Motu o Turita, and Motu Tapu. The associated reefs or sacred rocks (toka tipua) within the same area include Te Tau o Taiti (Otaiti or Astrolabe Reef), Okarapu, Porotiti, Okani, Omaroa, Otawhao, Ru o Tane, and Tokoroa. Many more locations of significance have been identified by Ngā Hapū o Te Moutere o Motiti.

7. The name Motiti means ‘extirpated’ but might also be a contraction of ‘Motu Iti’ (little island), a spelling employed by early European visitors to the island such as Ernst Dieffenbach.2 A third explanation is that it was named after a place in Hawaiki because both places lacked firewood.3

8. Despite the lack of bush, Motiti’s rich volcanic soils, warm climate and ready access to freshwater through natural springs mean it has long been an attractive location for human settlement. The island was, according to most accounts, first occupied by members of the Te A rawa waka and has been much contested since that time. Today over 4815 Māori landowners are listed for the 55% of the island remaining in Māori ownership, consisting of the northern portion of the island and a smaller area in the south east.4

2 A.H. Matheson, Motiti Island, Bay of Plenty, Whakatane: Whakatane and District Historical Society, 1979, p.vii. 3 Maharaia Winiata, ‘Leadership in Pre-European Society’, Journal of the Polynesian Society, 65 (3), 1956, pp.212-231. 4 Statement of Claim, 22 June 2015, Wai-215, #1.1.1, pp.3-4.

Map 1: Native Land Court Boundaries

3. Early Settlement

9. Most accounts of the occupation of Motiti begin with Ngātoroirangi, the tohunga on board the Te Arawa waka. When the Te Arawa left Hawaiki, Ngātoroirangi’s younger sister Kuiwai remained behind with her husband Manaia. But one day Manaia cursed both Kuiwai and Ngātoroirangi, prompting Kuiwai’s daughter to travel to Aotearoa in order to tell Ngātoroirangi of the curse. When Kuiwai met with Ngātoroirangi at Maketu, he vowed to return to Hawaiki at the earliest opportunity. Ngātoroirangi claimed utu on his return by attacking Manaia’s village at Whaitirikapapa. Manaia escaped, however, and upon his return to New Zealand Ngātoroirangi and his wife settled on Motiti, building a pā called Matarehua on the small islet called Taumaihi a short distance south of Motiti (and connected with it by a reef known as Horopupu which provides access across at low tide) and a carved house named Taimaihi-o- Rongo.5

10. One evening a fleet of canoes commanded by Manaia appeared on the horizon. Manaia told Ngātoroirangi to come down from Motiti and fight them before it got too dark but Ngātoroirangi advised them to wait until the morning when they could see one another more clearly. Ngātoroirangi then spent the night praying for the assistance of the gods. In the morning, just before daybreak, an enormous storm sprang up, with waves so high that all of Manaia’s fleet were swamped and their occupants drowned. The event later became known as the slaughter of Maikukutea and Ngātoroirangi named the storm Te Aputahi-a-Pawa.6

11. As discussed later in this brief, the Te Arawa connection with Motiti forged through Ngātoroirangi’s original occupation would be continued through subsequent associations with the island, including through the eponymous ancestor Te Hapū, who descended in one line from the Te Arawa ancestor Waitaha.7

5 D.M Stafford, Te Arawa: a History of the Arawa People, Wellington: Reed, 1967, pp.51-54. According to Matheson, the islet he built the pā on was called Taumaihi and it connected with the southern end of Motiti at low tide. A.H. Matheson, Motiti Island, Bay of Plenty, Whakatane: Whakatane and District Historical Society, 1979, p.1. 6 D.M Stafford, Te Arawa: a History of the Arawa People, Wellington: Reed, 1967, pp.54-55; Takaanui Tarakawa, ‘The coming of Te Arawa and Tainui canoes from Hawaiki to New Zealand’, (translated by S. Percy Smith), Journal of the Polynesian Society, Vol. 2, No.4, 1893, pp.231-252, http://www.jps.auckland.ac.nz/document/?wid=340 (accessed 20 January 2017). 7 Tauranga MB 1, p.33.

4. Te Hapū

12. The Mataatua waka, captained by Toroa, the son of Irakewa, was another important ancestral canoe for the Bay of Plenty region. Upon arriving in the eastern Bay of Plenty, the canoe’s crew found the region already occupied by various tribes, most of whom were referred to as Te Tini o Toi.8 Extensive intermarriage followed and many important Bay of Plenty iwi, including Ngāti Awa, Te Whakatōhea, Tūhoe and others, can trace their origins to the Mataatua ancestors and their union with the descendants of Toi.

13. Although there were many movements and migrations among the Mataatua ancestors and their descendants, one of the most important came several generations later, when Te Rangihouhiri led his followers from eastern Bay of Plenty across to Maketu after a dispute with a neighbouring group, Ngāti Hā, who were later to become known as Ngāti Pūkenga. The migration itself was, as Angela Ballara describes it, a ‘slow, leap-frogging progress westwards; the migration took many years and moved in fits and starts in response to relations with their various hosts’.9

14. The story is a complex one because of conflicting accounts of just which groups took part in the migration and the implications of this movement for customary rights across the Bay of Plenty. These were matters that came to the fore during the various Native Land Court title investigations of the 1860s and 1870s.10

15. Te Hapū, a direct descendant of Toroa, captain of the Mataatua waka, was among those who took part in the migration. Toroa’s grandson was Tamatea ki te Huatahi, who lived in the Urewera district. Tamatea’s oldest son was Ueimua and the eponymous ancestor Tūhoe Potiki was his younger brother. The two brothers fought one another and Tūhoe Potiki killed Ueimua, whose people moved to Ōhiwa Harbour and became known as Ngāti Ruaroa.11

8 Elsdon Best, Tuhoe: The Children of the Mist, Wellington: Reed for the Polynesian Society, 1972, p.720. 9 Angela Ballara, ‘Tribal Landscape Overview, c.1800-c.1900, in the Taupō, Rotorua, Kaingaroa and National Park Inquiry Districts’, report commissioned by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 2004, p.57. 10 Angela Ballara, ‘Tribal Landscape Overview, c.1800-c.1900, in the Taupō, Rotorua, Kaingaroa and National Park Inquiry Districts’, report commissioned by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 2004, p.55. 11 Elsdon Best, Tuhoe: The Children of the Mist, Wellington: Reed for the Polynesian Society, 1972, pp.243-244.

16. Te Hapū, the grandson of Ueimua, married a local woman of mana called Waipai and built a pā known as Te Horanga close to the harbour outlet. He later formed a relationship with Romai, who was the daughter of Pūkenga, the eponymous ancestor of Ngāti Pūkenga, who also trace descent through Toroa of the Mataatua and through Tanemoeahi, the third brother to Ueimua and Tūhoe Potiki.12

17. Te Hapū and his relative Maruahaira over time migrated westwards as part of the larger migration under Te Rangihouhiri.13 Pūkenga and her followers also moved west and through intermarriage and other links forged close bonds with Te Hapū and his descendants over many generations. Ngāti Pūkenga later unsuccessfully sought to be included in the Motiti titles awarded by the Native Land Court.14 Some Patuwai gained admission into Ngāti Pūkenga land titles elsewhere, including the Manaia block awarded by the Native Land Court in 1872.15 Patuwai members regularly spent time with Ngāti Pūkenga and relatives who had intermarried with them at Manaia.16 Some Ngāti Pūkenga in turn spent time on Motiti and this intermittent residence may have encouraged later, unsuccessful claims for inclusion in the Motiti land titles adjudicated by the Native Land Court.17

18. While Te Rangihouhiri carried on to Tauranga, where his descendants eventually became known as Ngāi Te Rangi, Te Hapū and Maruahaira both left the heke before it reached Tauranga. Maruahaira, the founding ancestor of Ngāti Whakahemo, instead attacked several coastal pā, including Pukehina, several miles to the east of Maketu.18 This helped solidify control of coastal Bay of Plenty in the hands of Mataatua-affiliated groups. Inter-marriage with other groups already in occupation of

12 Ngati Pukenga Nga Tapuwae Kura (The Sacred Footprints), http://ngatipukenga.com//uploads/27/nga%20tapuwae%20kura%20pdf.pdf (accessed 19 January 2017). 13 W.E. Gudgeon, ‘ Notes on the paper by Timi Wata Rimini, “On the fall of Pukehina and other pas”’, Journal of the Polynesian Society, Vol. 2, No.2, 1893, pp.109-112, http://www.jps.auckland.ac.nz/document/?wid=164 (accessed 20 January 2017). 14 Office of Treaty Settlements, Preliminary Appraisal of Historical Information Assocated with Customary Marine Title Applications under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 for the CMCA Surrounding Motiti Island, June 2013, p.6. 15 Martin Mikaere, ‘A History of Ngāti Pukenga’, MA thesis, University of Auckland, 1993, p.66. 16 John Aramete Wairehu Steedman, He Toto: Te Ahu Matua A Nga Tupuna, Tauranga: J. Steedman, 1996, p.95. 17 J.W. Steedman, Pukenga: The Lament of Pukenga – “Where Are All My People?”, Tauranga: J.W. Steedman, 1995, p.11. 18 Timi Wata Rimini, ‘The fall of Pukehina, Oreiwhata, and Poutuia Pas, Bay of Plenty, New Zealand’, Journal of the Polynesian Society, 2 (1), 1893, pp.43-50.

the area helped to consolidate their presence. For example, Maruahaira’s daughter Kuaotakapū married Te Ārairehe of Waitaha at Pukehina.19

19. Te Hapū did not join in the occupation of Pukehina either but instead travelled on directly to Motiti.20 According to a nineteenth century account from Timi Wata Rimini, when off the coast of Ōtamarakau pā:

Maruahaira said to Te Hapu: “Let us two go (enter) ashore!” Te Hapu said: “Go thou ashore, whilst I go on to Motiti.” Enough; Te Hapu sailed away to Motiti, whilst Maruahaira went on direct to Pukehina.21

20. In Ngāi Te Hapū traditions the island was unoccupied at the time of this movement, while other sources refer to Waitaha as resident on Motiti.22 If the island was under tapu at the time of the movement (the most credible motive offered for Te Hapū’s journey there, as discussed below) then Motiti would have been unoccupied at the time of his arrival.

21. Different explanations have been provided for this decision to go to Motiti. Elsdon Best believed that the move came about as a result of friction with a neighbouring tribe, Ngāi Te Kapo. After fighting, Ngāi Te Kapo withdrew to Waimana, while Ngāi Te Hapū, fearing retaliation, decided to relocate from the mainland, and gathered up their possessions for the journey to Motiti. But before they could reach there, the party was intercepted at sea, losing a number in battle, and Best claimed that this was the origin of the Te Patuwai label. He noted that they had inter-married with Ngāti Awa to a considerable extent, as a result of which they were ‘looked upon as a portion of that tribe’.23 It is not clear what Best based this narrative on and the version he offered is not supported in nineteenth century Native Land Court testimony. It appears that Best had probably conflated Te Hapū’s migration to Motiti with the story of the later clash with Whakatōhea that is usually credited as the source for the Patuwai name.

19 Angela Ballara, ‘Tribal Landscape Overview, c.1800-c.1900, in the Taupō, Rotorua, Kaingaroa and National Park Inquiry Districts’, report commissioned by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 2004, p.58. 20 W.E. Gudgeon, ‘Notes on the Paper by Timi Wata Rimini, “On the Fall of Pukehina” and Other Pas’, Journal of the Polynesian Society, 2 (2), 1893, pp.109-112. 21 Timi Wata Rimini, ‘The fall of Pukehina, Oreiwhata, and Poutuia Pas, Bay of Plenty, New Zealand’, Journal of the Polynesian Society, 2 (1), 1893, pp.43-50. 22 Des Tatana Kahotea, ‘Te Moutere o Motiti: Cultural Heritage Report’, report commissioned by the Department of Internal Affairs, 2012, p.20; A.H. Matheson, Motiti Island, Bay of Plenty, Whakatane: Whakatane and District Historical Society, 1979, p.27. 23 Elsdon Best, Tuhoe: The Children of the Mist, Wellington: A.H. & A.W. Reed, 1972, p.82.

22. A more credible version has it that Te Hapū had, on his own initiative, gone to the island to remove a tapu placed on it. Ngamanu Te Wharau of Ngai Te Hapū told the Native Land Court in 1891 that:

Te Hapu is the ancestor on whom I base my claim. When Te Hapu was living at his place at Ohiwa no persons were living on Motiti. One of [the] person[s] called Rangikatua of Ngaiterangi went there to fish. Hikapa of Waitaha heard about it – he killed Rangikatua – he killed him for a different reason when Motiti was without inhabitants. Te Hapu came, his war party came from Maketu and Ngaiterangi asked Te Hapu where he was going [;] he said to Motiti. Ngaiterangi told him it was under tapu because Rangikatua was killed there. Te Hapu said I will take off the tapu. He went there and remained permanently, no person was there to object to his occupation. [H]is son Rongopukai was born there.24

23. On the other hand, other witnesses who appeared before the Native Land Court sought to portray Te Hapū’s occupation of Motiti as being with the permission of Ngāi Te Rangi. According to Tiaki Rewiri, for example:

Te Hapu came from Ohiwa to Maketu and thence to Tauranga to Opureora pa[.] after living there some time, he went back to Maketu, while there, Motiti was tapu and all the people had left it & gone to Tauranga & Maketu, at that time Hinewai was a widow living at Maketu and she married Tutonu – when they married, they were starting in their canoe south, towards Whakatane, Roropukai’s canoe was on the beach and Tutonu was in the water, at that time Motiti was given to Te Hapu by Kotorerua of N’ Te Rangi, then Roropukai’s canoe was launched. Then Kotorerua said, “bite the tail of your fish, Motiti is to be your kainga” meaning he was to go straight to Matarehua, south end of [the] island. Then all the canoes steered straight for Motiti.

Then Te Hapu lived there on his right and subsequently N’ Te Rangi came to live there, as they were related by marriage.25

24. Te Hapū did not need permission to occupy Motiti since he had access through his own Waitaha grandmother. Another version has it that it was the Waitaha chief Waiokehu who had asked Te Hapū to take possession of the island by uplifting the tapu that had been placed on it when Waitaha left.

25. The ties between the two groups (Ngāi Te Hapū and Waitaha) were furthered through Te Hapū’s own son, Roropukai, who married Ripa-o-te-Rangi of Waitaha, and through their son Tutonu, who married Hinewai, also of Waitaha.26 From Te Hapū’s first son, Manu, born to his first wife Waipai at Ōhiwa, came the hapū Ngāti

24 Tauranga MB3, p.157. 25 Von Sturmer MB11, p.53. 26 Des Tatana Kahotea, ‘Te Moutere o Motiti: Cultural Heritage Report’, report commissioned by the Department of Internal Affairs, 2012, p.19.

Pau following Manu’s migration to Motiti. Roropukai, the second son born to Romai, was born on Motiti at Okaitoro pā, at Whariki-parangaranga-ra on the eastern coast of the island. Roropukai and his descendants gave rise to the hapū Ngāti Tutonu, Ngāti Kauaewera, Ngāti Makerewai and Ngāti Takahanga.27

26. It is said that Te Hapū had personally divided the island between his two sons, with the boundary running from Ōkoronui on the western coast, inland to Te Horete and Kawakawa and across to Te Huruhi on the eastern coast. Manu received the northern portion and Roropukai lived at the southern end. Te Hapū was buried at Matarehua, at the southern end of the island.28 This is the same boundary that was later given in the Native Land Court as having been agreed on in the 1850s, when Ngāi Tauwhao claims were disputed by Te Arawa and Ngāi Te Hapū.29

27. It was said that it was through Hinewai’s son, Rawahirua, whose father was Tarake of Ngāi Te Rangi, that Ngāi Tauwhao (or Te Whānau a Tauwhao) came to jointly occupy Motiti with Ngāi Te Hapū. Another version had it that this connection came through Hinetapu, a half-sister of Tutonu. In this telling, Ripa-o-te-Rangi was not just Waitaha but also Ngāi Te Rangi (Ngāi Tauwhao?) and Hinetapu and Tutonu lived together at the southern end of Motiti, until a dispute arose about the plundering of a fern pit, resulting in Tutonu’s descendants moving to the northern end, while Hinetapu’s descendants remained at the south.30

28. Another version had it that the rift between Ngāi Te Hapū and Ngāi Tauwhao began with a rivalry between two sisters, Rangitupukiwaho and Tauwhao. Rangitupukiwaho’s five sons occupied the northern end of the island that was later awarded to Ngāi Te Hapū/Patuwai. The long history of subsequent conflict between the two tribes helps to explain the disproportionately large number of pā given the small size of the island.31

29. Tauwhao, the eponymous ancestor, was (like Te Hapū) a direct descendant of Toroa. But unlike Te Hapū, she was also descended through Awanuiārangi, the

27 Affadavit of Nepia Ranapia, 19 August 2016, Wai-2521, #A4, p.2. 28 Nepia Ranapia, ‘Motiti Island Tribal Estate’, n.d., p.1. 29 Maketu MB 1, p.46. 30 Des Tatana Kahotea, ‘Te Moutere o Motiti: Cultural Heritage Report’, report commissioned by the Department of Internal Affairs, 2012, p.20. 31 Evelyn Stokes, Whanau a Tauwhao: A History of a Ngaiterangi Hapu, Hamilton: Centre for Maori Studies and Research, University of Waikato, 1980, p.17.

eponymous ancestor of Ngāti Awa. She married Tamaoho, Te Rangihouhiri’s grandson, and in time Ngāi Tauwhao came to be seen as a Ngāi Te Rangi hapū (often referred to as Te Papaunahi in the nineteenth century). Besides Motiti, Ngāi Tauwhao also claimed interests on the mainland at Otawhiwhi (Bowentown), and on Tūhua (Mayor Island) and at Rangiwaea.32

30. However, Richard Boast has cautioned against imposing a simple hierarchical model in which Ngāi Tauwhao are seen as subsidiary to Ngāi Te Rangi. Indeed, during the first Motiti Native Land Court hearing Ngāi Tauwhao witnesses denied any connection with Ngāi Te Rangi, though (as discussed in more detail below) the context in which that hearing took place, with any interests on Motiti found to belong to Ngāi Te Rangi subject to potential confiscation, may have influenced that stance. Professor Boast also notes that the Ngāi Tauwhao presence on Motiti was through ‘rights by settlement and descent quite unconnected with the Ngai Te Rangi conquest and settlement of Tauranga led by Te Rangihouhiri’.33

5. Te Patuwai

31. According to one version, the conflict between Ngāi Te Hapū and Ngāi Tauwhao on Motiti provided the origins of the Te Patuwai name. It was said that ‘Ngatiawa down south heard that N’ Te Hapu were to be all slaughtered and they came to Motiti and occupied the pas and waited for N’ Te Rangi’.34 Ngāi Te Rangi launched their canoes and headed for Motiti but were intercepted at sea by Ngāi Te Hapū and Ngāti Awa and their canoes were capsized. According to Tiaki Rewiri this sea battle became known as Whakataketake.35

32. Following the battle, Ngāi Te Hapū returned to Whakatane to help Ngāti Awa in fighting Te Whakatōhea. During this time a Ngāti Awa chief tried to seduce the wife of Parahamuti of Ngāi Te Hapū. When Tawhiwhi heard of this he went to kill the man but was prevented from doing so. Tawhiwhi, according to Tiaki Rewiri, was so ashamed at this outcome that he gathered up some of his followers and went to fight Te Whakatōhea ‘recklessly’. But the party were intercepted by Te Whakatōhea and

32 Evelyn Stokes, Whanau a Tauwhao: A History of a Ngaiterangi Hapu, Hamilton: Centre for Maori Studies and Research, University of Waikato, 1980, p.1. 33 R.P. Boast, ‘Confiscation and Regrant: Matakana, Rangiwaea, Motiti and Tuhua: Raupatu and Related Issues’, November 2000, Wai-215, #J1, p.12. 34 Evidence of Tiaki Rewiri, Von Sturmer MB 11, p.54. 35 Evidence of Tiaki Rewiri, Von Sturmer MB 11, p.55.

many killed ‘and the name of that fight was Te Patuwai’.36 Ngāi Te Hapū and Ngāi Tauwhao subsequently made peace, shortly before Motiti was attacked by Ngāpuhi in the early nineteenth century.37

33. Te Patuwai was therefore the name of a battle at sea rather than referring to a particular ancestor and the term itself, referring to being attacked at sea, is a direct reference to this event. Over time the Patuwai label became a way of remembering the event when many people had been killed, as well as a way of binding together those who had been attacked. Te Patuwai became a way of recognising their connection to a common event ‘but they nonetheless were still separate tribes with different ancestors and different tribal estates’.38

34. Other accounts confirm this outline of the origins of the Te Patuwai label. Where differences existed in the evidence given in the Native Land Court it was concerning who was involved in the battle, their affiliations and the location of the events described. Tiaki Rewiri described Tawhiwhi as belonging to Ngāti Ikapuku and Ngāti Kauae.39 In another instance, when claims to lands at Whakatane were being considered by the Native Land Court, Tiaki Rewiri told the court that Tawhiwhi was the ancestor for Te Patuwai, that he descended from Te Hapū and Awanuiārangi and that the name came from his drowning.40

35. However, as Des Kahotea points out, in this instance Tiaki Rewiri was making out a case for the Te Patuwai name belonging to the people of Whakatane rather than Motiti, since at stake was the issue of whether Te Patuwai of Motiti could jointly claim the lands of Te Patuwai at Whakatane. Another witness, Timi Waata, had asserted that Te Hapū was the ancestor of Te Patuwai.41 But Tiaki Rewiri rejected this outright and it was in this context that he stated that Tawhiwhi was the original ancestor and that the people of Motiti were not the ‘Patuwai proper’.42 In his view, it was more accurate to call them Ngāi Te Hapū, while the Te Patuwai of Whakatane were Ngāti Maumoana. Tiaki Rewiri could hardly be accused of having an anti-Motiti bias: he was born on the island and later lived at Whakatane, claiming interests in both places

36 Evidence of Tiaki Rewiri, Von Sturmer MB 11, p.55. 37 Des Tatana Kahotea, ‘Te Moutere o Motiti: Cultural Heritage Report’, report commissioned by the Department of Internal Affairs, 2012, p.21. 38 Affidavit of Nepia Ranapia, 19 August 2016, Wai-2521, #A4, p.3. 39 Tauranga MB 3, p.171. 40 Whakatane MB 5A, p.31. 41 Whakatane MB 5A, p.16. 42 Whakatane MB 5A, pp.31, 42.

but through different ancestral lines. Te Hapū, according to him, was the ancestor for Motiti and the people of Ngāi Te Hapū but was not a tupuna through whom any rights at Whakatane could be claimed (Tiaki Rewiri described him as ‘a remote ancestor’).43 Ikapuku was the ancestor for the Whakatane section of what became known as Patuwai, he added.44 Asked whether Motiti had been awarded to Te Patuwai, Tiaki Rewiri denied this, insisting that the court had awarded the lands to the descendants of Te Hapū. He had, he claimed, never heard any mention of Patuwai in the Motiti awards.45 At the same time he declared that the people of Motiti had ‘no ancestral take’ over the Whakatane lands.46 Before, the incident at sea that had given rise to their new name, the hapū name was Ngāti Ikapuku.47 Instead, the label Te Patuwai would stick, and with it confusion about who was included under this label and their relationships with one another. Relatedly, both Te Patuwai and Ngāti Maumoana continued to be treated as distinct hapū at Whakatane.48

36. In evidence to the Waitangi Tribunal’s Ngāti Awa raupatu inquiry, one witness stated that Ngāti Maumoana were ‘related through marriage to a hapu called Te Patuwai of Whakatane and also Ngai Tehapu [sic] of Motiti Island’. In time, the witness added, Ngāti Maumoana and Te Patuwai ‘merged’.49 The witness therefore agreed that Patuwai of Whakatane and Ngāi Te Hapū of Motiti were distinct, albeit (thanks to intermarriage) closely related, people.

6. Early European Contacts

37. On 2 November 1769 the Endeavour sailed along the Bay of Plenty coastline in a westerly direction, observing the heavily palisaded pā all along the coast. Captain James Cook steered the ship between Motiti and the coast, observing that he had passed a large ‘Flat Island’.50 Although Cook had dealings with Māori elsewhere along the coast, and Tupaia, the Tahitian tohunga accompanying Cook, had spoken at length with people from Moutohora (spelt "Mow tohora" on Cook's Chart 1769)

43 Whakatane MB 5A, p.32. 44 Whakatane MB 5A, p.82. 45 Whakatane MB 5A, p.85. 46 Whakatane MB 5A, p.117. 47 Whakatane MB 5A, p.117. 48 Des Tatana Kahotea, ‘Te Moutere o Motiti: Cultural Heritage Report’, report commissioned by the Department of Internal Affairs, 2012, pp.47-48. 49 Brief of Evidence of Joseph Mason, n.d., Wai-46, #A32, p.6. 50 James Cook, Journal, 2 November 1769, http://southseas.nla.gov.au/journals/cook/17691102.html (accessed 26 January 2017).

(Whale Island),51 there is no evidence of any encounter with the people of Motiti. However, Cook’s map of New Zealand charted during this voyage clearly identified Motiti as among the islands off the Bay of Plenty coast.

38. In February 1827 the French ship Astrolabe, captained by Dumont D’Urville, found itself caught in a terrible storm and close to being wrecked on the reef that was subsequently named after the ship.52 More recently, and in particular since the wreck of the MV Rena on 5 October 2011, the reef has also been known by its original name, Te Tau o Taiti (Otaiti). That name was originally bestowed on the reef by Ngātoroirangi.53

39. Anglican missionary Henry Williams sailed for ‘Flat Island’ in April 1828 in the Herald, but failed to reach the island before dark and was obliged to stand off until the morning. He noted in his journal that ‘At daylight discovered a very dangerous sunken rock which we had passed near in the night. The sea was breaking fearfully upon it.’54 It would seem that Williams was referring to the Astrolabe Reef. Williams visited Motiti again in 1831.55

40. Ernst Dieffenbach, the New Zealand Company naturalist who visited the Bay of Plenty in 1841, wrote that ‘Off Muketu [sic] is the island of Motu-iti, of considerable extent, and said to have been purchased by the Americans.’56 It is unclear what Dieffenbach based this latter statement on, though in the period immediately preceding the imposition of Crown pre-emption in January 1840, private buyers (some of them American) had attempted to purchase as much land as they could.

51 Anne Salmond, Two Worlds: First Meetings Between Maori and Europeans 1642-1772, Auckland: Penguin Books, 1991, p.187. 52 Jules-Sebastian-Cesar Dumont D’Urville, New Zealand, 1826-1827, from the French of Dumont D’Urville: An English Translation of the Voyage de l ’Astrolabe in New Zealand Waters, Wellington: Wingnut Press for Olive Wright, 1950, pp.137-38, http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei- WriNewZ-t1-g1-t2-body-d5.html (accessed 26 January 2017). 53 Waitangi Tribunal, Final Report on the MV Rena and Motiti Island Claims, Wellington: Legislation Direct, 2015, p.13. 54 Henry Williams, Journal, 7 April 1828, in Lawrence M. Rogers (ed.), The Early Journals of Henry Williams, Senior Missionary in New Zealand of the Church Missionary Society, 1826-1840, Christchurch: Pegasus Press, 1961, p.120, http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz//tm/scholarly/tei-RogEarl-t1- body-d2.html#n119 (accessed 26 January 2017). 55 Henry Williams, Journal, 4 November 1831, , in Lawrence M. Rogers (ed.), The Early Journals of Henry Williams, Senior Missionary in New Zealand of the Church Missionary Society, 1826-1840, Christchurch: Pegasus Press, 1961, p.201, http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz//tm/scholarly/tei-RogEarl-t1- body-d5.html (accessed 13 February 2017). 56 Ernst Dieffenbach, Travels in New Zealand: With Contributions to the Geography, Geology, Botany, and Natual History of that Country, London: John Murray, 1843, Vol. 1, p.405.

The total area subsequently claimed before the Land Claims Commission established to inquire into these transactions exceeded the total land mass of New Zealand. There does not appear to be any recorded old land claim (as these were termed) lodged in respect of Motiti. A claim was lodged in respect of Motiti Island by William White, but this referred to an islet in the Hokianga Harbour.57

7. Ngāpuhi Raids

41. Matters on the island entered a state of flux in the early nineteenth century. In 1806 the brig Venus was seized by her convict crew at Van Diemen’s Land (Tasmania) and sailed to northern New Zealand. At the Bay of Islands and elsewhere in the north several Maori women and girls were abducted and taken south to the Bay of Plenty and East Coast, where they were handed over to the local tribes. Among their number was a woman named Tawaputa, who was unloaded when the vessel called at Motiti and sold as a slave wife to Hukere of Ngāi Tauwhao. Subsequently another chief called Te Waru came into a dispute with Hukere over Tawaputa, as a result of which Te Waru killed her and had her remains cooked and eaten. Tawaputa was the niece of high-ranking Ngāpuhi rangatira Te Morenga. Another one of the kidnapping victims was related to Hongi Hika and years later Ngāpuhi would set out to claim utu for the fate of their relatives.58

42. Te Morenga’s war party set out early in 1818, attacking the Ngāi Tauwhao pā Matarehua (once occupied by Ngātoroirangi). Although Te Waru managed to escape, his uncle Te Tawhio was killed along with many others and his wife carried off into slavery. As a result of ongoing tensions between the two tribes, it was said that members of Ngāi Te Hapū, led by the chief Ahikaiata, actively assisted Te Morenga’s party in their attack on Matarehua.59 Following the battle, the surviving Ngāi Tauwhao retired from the island to join their Ngāi Te Rangi relatives at Tauranga. Meanwhile, Ngāi Te Hapū, perhaps anticipating a retaliatory raid, withdrew to Whakatane.60

57 D. Moore, M. Russell and B. Rigby, Old Land Claims (Rangahaua Whanui Series), Wellington: Waitangi Tribunal, 1997, p.131. 58 Ron Crosby, The Musket Wars: A History of Inter-Iwi Conflict, 1806-45, Auckland: Reed, 1999, pp.45- 46. Matheson says that it was Te Morenga’s sister who was sold on Motiti and later killed and eaten, while his niece was deposited at Tauranga and killed there by Te Waru. A.H. Matheson, Motiti Island, Bay of Plenty, Whakatane: Whakatane and District Historical Society, 1979, p.2. 59 A.H. Matheson, Motiti Island, Bay of Plenty, Whakatane: Whakatane and District Historical Society, 1979, p.3. 60 Angela Ballara, ‘Tribal Landscape Overview, c.1800-c.1900, in the Taupō, Rotorua, Kaingaroa and National Park Inquiry Districts’, report commissioned by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 2004, p.293.

43. At least some Ngāi Tauwhao had returned to Motiti by 1830, when the trader Philip Tapsell arrived at Maketu. They might also have been present when the brig Haweis, carrying the missionary Henry Williams, visited the Bay of Plenty two years earlier.61 It is possible that some Ngāi Te Hapū also periodically returned to the island. Movements of small parties back and forth between Motiti and the mainland would not always necessarily be recorded, especially at a time when only a handful of missionaries and other Europeans were around to document such events.

44. In 1831 another Ngāpuhi taua, this time led by Te Haramiti, attacked Motiti after first assaulting Tūhua, where many Ngāi Tauwhao were killed. A handful of survivors made their way to Tauranga, where they raised the alarm. Ngāi Te Rangi and their allies Ngāti Hauā raised a war party but meanwhile Te Haramiti and his taua had moved on to Motiti, which they found deserted. When Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngāti Hauā reached Motiti they overwhelmed Te Haramiti, killing or enslaving all but a handful of the Ngāpuhi taua.62

8. Tribal Disputes

45. Through this period Ngāi Te Rangi (often assisted by their Ngāti Hauā allies) contested ownership of the coastal area around Maketu with Te Arawa hapū. In that conflict the ownership of Motiti also came into play, especially given the upheavals in residence on the island throughout this period of fighting. The presence of Tapsell at Maketu, where he traded muskets in return for flax, only heightened this contest given that the acquisition of firearms was key to survival (especially at a time when Ngāpuhi continued to launch further retaliatory raids).63

46. In March 1836 Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngāti Hauā attacked and destroyed Tapsell’s trading station at Maketu. Te Arawa retaliated weeks later, defeating Ngāi Te Rangi at Te Tumu and with it consolidating their control over Maketu. Signalling their

61 A.H. Matheson, Motiti Island, Bay of Plenty, Whakatane: Whakatane and District Historical Society, 1979, p.3. 62 Ron Crosby, The Musket Wars: A History of Inter-Iwi Conflict, 1806-45, Auckland: Reed, 1999, pp.231- 233; A.H. Matheson, Motiti Island, Bay of Plenty, Whakatane: Whakatane and District Historical Society, 1979, pp.4-5. 63 Vincent O’Malley and David Armstrong, The Beating Heart: A Political and Socio-Economic History of Te Arawa, Wellington: Huia Publishers, 2008, pp.7-8.

revived claims on Motiti, soon after the Te Tumu victory, senior Te Arawa rangatira Tohi Te Ururangi went over to the island to plant there. Later, they also released pigs onto the island.64 The local missionary at Te Papa, Alfred Nesbit Brown, recorded other assertions of right over Motiti, this time on the part of Tauranga Māori. In December 1840 he noted in his journal:

A party of natives left Tauranga with the professed objective of planting potatoes at Motiti, an island off Maketu which is claimed by the Rotorua and Tauranga tribes.65

47. The following day Brown observed another party of Māori who were preparing their canoes to join those already on Motiti, though he feared that their real object was to attack Maketu.66

48. In May 1841 the officer Ensign Best recorded that Wiremu Nera Te Awaitaia, a very senior Tainui rangatira from Whaingaroa (Raglan), had been to see him:

to beg that I would represent to the Governor that the People of Matta Matta [Ngāti Hauā of Matamata] were tired of the war they were waging with the Tribes of Mukatoo [Maketu] and to beg his interference. By his account Matta had formerly conquered Mukatoo and taken possession of the Island of Motete but on their enemies representing that they had no ground they allowed them to reside on and cultivate Motete and now these very people wish to assert their right to it vi te armis [by forcible trespass].67

49. In 1842 Edward Shortland, the Sub-Protector of Aborigines based at Maketu was invited to a large meeting of the leading rangatira of Te Arawa. He later wrote that:

among the matters then discussed was the nature of their claim to the land whereon they dwelt, and to an island called Motiti, only a few miles distant. This island had at one time fallen into the hands of another tribe, had afterwards been retaken, and was now a debateable ground on which neither party ventured to settle.68

64 D.M. Stafford, Te Arawa: A History of the Arawa People, Wellington: A.H. & A.W. Reed, 1967, p.334. 65 A.N. Brown, Journal, 18 December 1840, quoted in A.H. Matheson, Motiti Island, Bay of Plenty, Whakatane: Whakatane and District Historical Society, 1979, p.10. 66 A.H. Matheson, Motiti Island, Bay of Plenty, Whakatane: Whakatane and District Historical Society, 1979, p.10. 67 Nancy M. Taylor (ed.), The Journal of Ensign Best, 1837-1843, Wellington: Government Printer, 1966, p.317. 68 Edward Shortland, Traditions and Superstitions of the New Zealanders: With Illustrations of their Manners and Customs, London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans & Roberts, 1856, p.11.

50. During the course of this hui an elderly tohunga named Tatahau was called upon to recite the history of Te Arawa claims over the island, stretching back to the arrival of their waka. Tatahau declared:

Listen all ye Waikato, all ye Naitirangi, to the title of my land – of Maketu; how my canoe, the Arawa, came here, and landed at Maketu. My own is my land, the spot where my canoe touched the shore at the entrance of the river. Don't meddle with my land. Mine is Maketu. Mine is Motiti. For it was Ngatoroirangi who won the battle at Motiti, the battle of Maikukutea.69

51. Shortland claimed that he had subsequently read the Arawa account to Waikato and Tauranga Māori, who had agreed with its accuracy (though Tainui pointed out that Ngātoroirangi had originally been on the Tainui waka before being kidnapped and taken aboard the Te Arawa).70

52. Later that year, in December 1842, Hori Tupaea from Tauranga, a leading rangatira of Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngāi Tauwhao, went to Motiti, supported by a Ngāti Hauā party, possibly seeking utu for a Te Arawa raid on Tūhua earlier in the year.71 They found the island deserted but left with a load of pigs.72

53. Shortland had not been able to convince Te Arawa against planting on the island.73 When the missionary A.N. Brown visited the Ngāti Hauā settlement of Matamata in October 1843 he recorded in his journal:

Many of the Natives absent, and rumours of war again afloat. Pohipohi left yesterday for Tauranga, it is conjectured for the purpose of arranging measures to occupy Motiti, an Island off Maketu, and which would inevitably lead to a continuation of hostilities between Tauranga & Rotorua.’74

69 Edward Shortland, Traditions and Superstitions of the New Zealanders: With Illustrations of their Manners and Customs, London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans & Roberts, 1856, p.12. 70 Edward Shortland, Traditions and Superstitions of the New Zealanders: With Illustrations of their Manners and Customs, London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans & Roberts, 1856, pp.12-13. 71 Evelyn Stokes, Whanau a Tauwhao: A History of a Ngaiterangi Hapu, Hamilton: Centre for Maori Studies and Research, University of Waikato, 1980, p.45. 72 Evelyn Stokes, Whanau a Tauwhao: A History of a Ngaiterangi Hapu, Hamilton: Centre for Maori Studies and Research, University of Waikato, 1980, p.45. It was reported that they had caught and killed 50 pigs. Nancy M. Taylor (ed.), The Journal of Ensign Best, 1837-1843, Wellington: Government Printer, 1966, p.391. 73 Evelyn Stokes, Whanau a Tauwhao: A History of a Ngaiterangi Hapu, Hamilton: Centre for Maori Studies and Research, University of Waikato, 1980, p.45; Nancy M. Taylor (ed.), The Journal of Ensign Best, 1837-1843, Wellington: Government Printer, 1966, p.388. 74 A.N. Brown, Journal, 5 October 1843, qMS-0277, Alexander Turnbull Library.

54. When Tainui hosted a huge feast and hui on their lands at Remuera in April 1844, the attendees included representatives from both Te Arawa and Ngāi Te Rangi. Leading Tainui rangatira Te Wherowhero (later to become first Māori King), raised the issue of Motiti before Governor FitzRoy, who was also in attendance:

The case is this: there is a little island called Motiti, near Tauranga. I am now come myself with Pohepohe, chief of Matamata, Tupaea, chief of Tauranga, and several other chiefs, to talk to you about a claim they have on that place. On the Governor’s arrival, I spoke to him, wishing that he should consent to the Ngatiwakaaue vacating the island in a quiet way. I call the Governor to witness, that contrary to our old and acknowledged rules, we have come to be put in possession of this island. See, contrary to our old ways, are we come, that it may be adjusted quietly; not by force of arms to dispossess the present inhabitants; but breaking through those customs we are come, that by the intervention of the Governor, the tribe of Ngatiwakaaue may be persuaded to depart in a peaceable and qui[e]t manner.75

55. Kiripaka, who appears to have been a Te Arawa rangatira, responded that the island was as sacred to him as the head and that, as the ‘original proprietor of the island of Motiti’, all he asked is that he be allowed to retain the island.76

56. Pohepohe, described as belonging to Matamata, appears to be the same person who was reported to have been planning the occupation of Motiti the previous October. He also claimed Motiti on account of his brothers and children ‘all killed in supporting the claims to that island’. He denied that Ngāti Whakaue had any claim on the island and asked the governor to consent to his occupying it, adding:

I have been repeatedly told that the place was bitter, and that I had better give it up; but I am determined to hold the island; although others may be tired of the place, and it may be bitter to them, it is not so with me. It is as dear to me as my back-bone…to give it up would be to consume my own bowels.77

57. Te Kanawa of Kāwhia believed that securing Motiti to Pohepohe would prevent much evil, while Wiremu Nera also believed that the Maketu people should be ‘sent off as

75 Governor FitzRoy to Lord Stanley, 25 May 1844, Great Britain Parliamentary Papers – Colonies New Zealand (Irish University Press edition), vol. 4, 1843-1845, p.230. 76 Governor FitzRoy to Lord Stanley, 25 May 1844, Great Britain Parliamentary Papers – Colonies New Zealand (Irish University Press edition), vol. 4, 1843-1845, p.230. 77 Governor FitzRoy to Lord Stanley, 25 May 1844, Great Britain Parliamentary Papers – Colonies New Zealand (Irish University Press edition), vol. 4, 1843-1845, p.231.

early as possible, in order to prevent mischief arising out of their retaining possession of Motiti’.78

58. FitzRoy told the assembled chiefs that:

I see how very anxious you are to regain possession of land which you tell me once belonged to yourselves, and to which you say you have the best claim. If I were to do as my feelings prompt me, I should say that I would assist you to recover possession of Motiti. But if I were to do that, because I hear only your arguments, not having heard anything from those who are living on the spot and at a distance, would you think me just?

I am anxious to oblige your great chief, Te Whero Whero, and to use my influence with our friends at Motiti, to give up the island. I will send an officer, in whom I can confide, to those parties who are now holding it; and I will do all that I can, fairly and with justice, to induce them to give it up peaceably, knowing as I do how many of you have strong claims upon it.

I wish you to understand, that I will not interfere by hostile measures; but I will use fair and reasonable influence by arguments, with the people now living there, and by showing them the strength of your claims; and, so far as I can, peaceably and quietly, I will try to persuade them to quit Motiti.79

59. Wiremu Nera Te Awaitaia responded that the arrangement to send an officer was a good one. Tohi (presumably Tohi Te Ururangi) had visited the Remuera camp but Te Wherowhero refused to see him, instead relaying a message that Te Arawa must abandon Motiti. Tohi responded that he did not object to Motiti being given up to Hori Tupaea because he had a better claim upon it than that of the Waikato chiefs.80 However, it appears that those Waikato chiefs were asking for Motiti to be handed over to them not on the basis of any customary claims but merely as a way of defusing the ongoing dispute over its ownership.

60. An unnamed chief reminded those present of the claims of Ahikaiata, described elsewhere as belonging to Patuwai, to which Te Wherowhero assented, saying that ‘other chiefs, amongst whom was Ahikaiata (connected with the Rotorua party) were interested in the place’.81 Through their strong connections with Waitaha in particular,

78 Governor FitzRoy to Lord Stanley, 25 May 1844, Great Britain Parliamentary Papers – Colonies New Zealand (Irish University Press edition), vol. 4, 1843-1845, p.231. 79 Governor FitzRoy to Lord Stanley, 25 May 1844, Great Britain Parliamentary Papers – Colonies New Zealand (Irish University Press edition), vol. 4, 1843-1845, p.231. 80 Governor FitzRoy to Lord Stanley, 25 May 1844, Great Britain Parliamentary Papers – Colonies New Zealand (Irish University Press edition), vol. 4, 1843-1845, p.231. 81 Governor FitzRoy to Lord Stanley, 25 May 1844, Great Britain Parliamentary Papers – Colonies New Zealand (Irish University Press edition), vol. 4, 1843-1845, p.232; A.H. Matheson, Motiti Island, Bay of Plenty, Whakatane: Whakatane and District Historical Society, 1979, p.12.

Patuwai were often assumed to be a Te Arawa tribe at this time and that continued through much of the nineteenth century.82

61. In September 1844 Shortland reported that some of the Waikato chiefs had recently visited Rotorua, where it had been agreed that ‘Ngatiwakaue should not meddle with Motiti, as long as Waikato and Ngatiawa remained quiet’. At Matamata, the chief Pohepohe also concurred in these arrangements, assuring Shortland that Waikato would not be first to interfere with Motiti and promising to go and talk to Hori Tupaea at Tauranga (who had previously been non-committal).83

62. In September 1845 over 400 Māori travelled from Rotorua to Tauranga to conclude peace between the tribes. The Rotorua missionary Thomas Chapman, who travelled with Te Arawa for the ceremony, wrote that:

We were well received and peace was ratified. However the possession of the island of Motoiti [sic] caused some contention, and this was at last left undecided. Still peace is made, and should Motoiti be allowed to remain – that is, should no one of either party locate there – the cruel Southern war, may now be said to have ended.84

63. According to fellow Church Missionary Society missionary Alfred Nesbit Brown, although peace was concluded, ‘the terms were not clearly defined, as few speeches were made. It seems probable that neither tribe will go over to Motiti to plant, and thus all parties tacitly resign their claim to that much disputed Island’.85

64. Matters concerning Motiti remained in abeyance until 1852, when the dispute flared as a result of a quarrel between two Te Arawa chiefs over an unrelated issue. Te Amohau and Tohi Te Ururangi both claimed ownership of some stones at the mouth of the Kaituna River that were intended to be gifted for the entrance of a new chapel at Maketu. Te Amohau warned that the stones should not be touched. The quarrel soon spread to other iwi, in part, it was said, because Tohi’s ‘heart was still dark’ at

82 Martin Mikaere, ‘A History of Ngāti Pukenga’, MA thesis, University of Auckland, 1993, p.62. 83 Shortland to George Clarke, Chief Protector of Aborigines, 7 September 1844, Great Britain Parliamentary Papers – Colonies New Zealand (Irish University Press edition), vol. 4, 1843-1845, pp.318-319. 84 Angela Ballara, Taua: ‘Musket Wars’, ‘Land Wars’ or Tikanga? Warfare in Māori Society in the Early Nineteenth Century, Auckland: Penguin Books, 2003, p.274. 85 A.H. Matheson, Motiti Island, Bay of Plenty, Whakatane: Whakatane and District Historical Society, 1979, p.13.

the loss of his own son, Ngakai (or Ngaki), at the hands of Ngāi Te Rangi in 1842.86 Chapman recorded in his journal that:

Tohi to carry out his aversion to te Amohau, resolved upon going to Motuiti (Flat Island opposite) and plant potatoes there upon an old sacred Pa. This he and his party did, disturbing the graves of the deceased relatives of Tauranga, friends and relations also by their genealogical tables to te Amohau. This has been warmly taken up by Tauranga, Waikato have joined as Allies – the island has again been occupied and two pa’s built by the Tauranga natives and Waikato.87

65. Tohi Te Ururangi had planted potatoes at Matarehua, the pā established by Ngātoroirangi and later occupied by Ngāi Tauwhao. The next morning they sailed on to Otungahoro, where Patariki Te Huirae of Patuwai was asked to show them the boundary of his land. According to evidence given to the Native Land Court in 1867 by Te Otira Te Mihikoroturua of Ngāti Uenukukopako, the boundary pointed out in response ran from Ōkoronui on the western coast through Te Horete and Te Kawakawa to Te Huruhi on the eastern shoreline. Tohi agreed to this, promising that ‘the part portioned out to the Patuwai’s [sic] would not be interfered with by the Arawas’.88 However, he claimed the rest of the island for Te Arawa, and a knee-deep ditch was dug to mark the boundary.89 Word was sent to Patuwai still at Whakatane to occupy the portion of the island marked off for them, while others notified Hori Tupaea at Tauranga of Tohi Te Ururangi’s actions. Backed by Waikato, he refused to recognise the line laid down by Tohi.90

66. Tohi’s actions had overturned the peace agreement of 1845, with its tacit understanding that the island would not be occupied or claimed by anyone. At a hui at Maketu in June 1852, Tohi declared that he would not abandon his claims on the island, though at the same time he had no objections to both sides planting (presumably so long as the boundary he had laid down was respected). Soon after this Patuwai returned to the island; a short time later they returned to Maketu with the

86 Angela Ballara, ‘Tribal Landscape Overview, c.1800-c.1900, in the Taupō, Rotorua, Kaingaroa and National Park Inquiry Districts’, report commissioned by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 2004, p.344; Jenifer Curnow. 'Tohi Te Ururangi', from the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography. Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/biographies/1t102/tohi-te-ururangi (accessed 8 March 2017). 87 Angela Ballara, Taua: ‘Musket Wars’, ‘Land Wars’ or Tikanga? Warfare in Māori Society in the Early Nineteenth Century, Auckland: Penguin Books, 2003, p.275. 88 Maketu MB 1, p.46. 89 Maketu MB 1, pp.46-47. 90 Maketu MB 1, p.47; A.H. Matheson, Motiti Island, Bay of Plenty, Whakatane: Whakatane and District Historical Society, 1979, p.14; Angela Ballara, Taua: ‘Musket Wars’, ‘Land Wars’ or Tikanga? Warfare in Māori Society in the Early Nineteenth Century, Auckland: Penguin Books, 2003, p.275.

news that Waikato people were on Motiti. Subsequent to this, Hori Tupaea and a large number of followers sailed for the island, where they found Patuwai had already returned.91 Both parties commenced building pā and it was said that when he heard that Patuwai were at one end of the island and Hori Tupaea at the other, Tohi Te Ururangi, ‘wanted to go after Hori’, but the other Te Arawa rangatira would not consent.92

67. Matheson speculates that Tupaea and his Waikato allies might have built a pā on the northern side of Huruhi Bay, while a chart completed in 1853 by HMS Pandora showed the only settlement on the island, marked as ‘native village and cultivations’ as being at Otungahoro, on the north-western end of Motiti. It was here that Tohi had met with some Patuwai during his raid on the settlement. Otungahoro was also recorded as the principal Patuwai settlement by 1863.93

68. In July 1852 Thomas Henry Smith, who had taken over as the government official based at Maketu, travelled to Motiti with Thomas Chapman. There was a great deal of traffic to and from Motiti at this time, including (in early August) a party from Whakatane described as belonging to the northern part of the island.94 In September Chapman and some Te Arawa rangatira travelled to Motiti to ask Waikato to leave so that the local parties could sort out the dispute themselves. But despite being well- received, nothing was achieved and Chapman recorded that ‘neither party [was] satisfied or edified’.95

69. Fearing a fresh outbreak of fighting, in October the government sent the survey ship HMS Pandora to the area. It arrived early the following month and officers from the ship endeavoured to engineer a meeting on board the Pandora between Tohi Te Ururangi and Hori Tupaea. However, Tupaea flat out refused, while at the same time

91 A.H. Matheson, Motiti Island, Bay of Plenty, Whakatane: Whakatane and District Historical Society, 1979, pp.15-16. 92 Maketu MB 1, p.48. 93 A.H. Matheson, Motiti Island, Bay of Plenty, Whakatane: Whakatane and District Historical Society, 1979, p.17. 94 A.H. Matheson, Motiti Island, Bay of Plenty, Whakatane: Whakatane and District Historical Society, 1979, p.19. 95 Angela Ballara, ‘Tribal Landscape Overview, c.1800-c.1900, in the Taupō, Rotorua, Kaingaroa and National Park Inquiry Districts’, report commissioned by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 2004, p.346.

declaring his intention to remain quietly on Motiti unless Te Arawa came and attempted to forcibly remove him.96

70. That same month, Tohi Te Ururangi wrote to Governor Grey, warning him that war was approaching and explaining the long history behind the conflict. He told the governor:

Friend – I shall soon be engaged in a War. the earth will be covered with blackness & so will be the grave. The fighting will be between myself & Tupaea...Friend – this is not a warfare commencing as it were today. [O]n the contrary it is one of old standing & in reference to Motiti now in possession of the people, the descendants of my ancestors; some of whom have been killed by the other party of Te Punohu, then in revenge for his death Tukutehi was killed, he being the ancestor of Tupaea, then in revenge for Tukutehi, Tatahau was killed, then in revenge for him, fell Te Rangikohiri an ancestor of Tupaea, his place of residence at Kohakuranui. Now listen friend, there have been eight generations concerned in this matter, last of all myself and Tupaea. Rangihouhiri was the ancestor of Tupaea, Tatahau was my ancestor.97

71. Tatahau, according to Don Stafford, was a leading chief at Maketu, belonging to the Tapuika tribe.98 Tohi went on to ask Grey to send soldiers to the district to protect and defend whichever party might be attacked first. It might have been his letter that caused the HMS Pandora to be sent to the Bay of Plenty.

72. In December Chapman wrote that Tohi ‘seems much inclined to give up his claim to Motiti only asking now for permission to plant’. Chapman personally believed that the best solution was for the government to buy the island. But there was no such purchase, and it was not until 1856 that Te Arawa and Ngāi Te Rangi concluded peace. In February of that year, Resident Magistrate Smith recorded that ‘Tohi, I believe, calls at Motiti to make his peace with Tupaea’.99 Although it was said that Tohi made no further claims on the island prior to his death in 1864, Te Arawa did put up unsuccessful cases in the Native Land Court in 1867, while Ngāi Te Hapū, who were successful, emphasised their own Te Arawa connections at a time when it was seen as prudent to stress loyalty to the Crown.

96 A.H. Matheson, Motiti Island, Bay of Plenty, Whakatane: Whakatane and District Historical Society, 1979, pp.21-22. 97 Tohi Te Ururangi to Grey, 21 October 1852, Grey New Zealand Maori Letters, GNZMA 690, Auckland City Library. 98 D.M Stafford, Te Arawa: a History of the Arawa People, Wellington: Reed, 1967, pp.118, 120. 99 A.H. Matheson, Motiti Island, Bay of Plenty, Whakatane: Whakatane and District Historical Society, 1979, p.23.

9. The New Zealand Wars

73. When war came to the Tauranga district after 1860, Ngāi Te Hapū and Ngāi Tauwhao found themselves on opposite sides of the divide. Ngāi Te Hapū came to be seen as a ‘loyalist’ and Te Arawa aligned group. Meanwhile, Ngāi Tauwhao were branded by Crown officials as one of many ‘rebel’ hapū within Ngāi Te Rangi. The effect of these polarising influences was felt in the 1867 Native Land Court investigation of title to Motiti, when some Ngāi Tauwhao witnesses attempted to dissociate themselves from Ngāi Te Rangi, while Ngāi Te Hapū by contrast emphasised their Waitaha connections with Te Arawa.

74. Whakapapa and other connections between Ngāi Te Rangi and the Waikato tribes, and especially Ngāti Hauā, had been reflected in the strong Tainui support given to Ngāi Te Rangi in their various conflicts with Te Arawa before 1845. When Potatau Te Wherowhero of Ngāti Mahuta (Waikato-Tainui) was raised up as the first Māori King by Wiremu Tamihana of Ngāti Hauā in 1858, many Ngāi Te Rangi rangatira and their communities were strong supporters. Conversely, Te Arawa, who had long been rivals of Tainui, mostly refrained from supporting the Kīngitanga.100 When British troops attacked Te Ātiawa at Waitara in March 1860, many Waikato Māori went to the aid of Wiremu Kingi Te Rangitake. Some Tauranga Māori also appear to have fought in the Taranaki War (1860-61).101

75. It appears that some Te Patuwai from Whakatane (but not Motiti) also went to Taranaki during later conflicts in the region (see below).102 An even larger number of Tauranga Māori went to the aid of their Waikato kin following the Crown invasion of Waikato in July 1863. Resident Magistrate T.H. Smith’s February 1864 return of adult males at Tauranga who had joined the ‘insurgents’ since the commencement of hostilities, indicated that 11 out of 22 adult males from Ngāi Tauwhao (listed as Te Whānau a Tauwhao and Te Papaunahi) living on Motiti at Orongatia had done so.103 That was a higher percentage than the overall total of 233 out of 571 adult males at

100 Vincent O’Malley and David Armstrong, The Beating Heart: A Political and Socio-Economic History of Te Arawa. Wellington: Huia Publishers, 2008, pp.40-42. 101 Waitangi Tribunal, Te Raupatu o Tauranga Moana: Report on the Tauranga Confiscation Claims, Wellington: Legislation Direct, 2014, pp.67-68. 102 Des Tatana Kahotea, ‘Te Moutere o Motiti: Cultural Heritage Report’, report commissioned by the Department of Internal Affairs, 2012, p.6. 103 AJHR, 1864, E-2, p.13, https://atojs.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/atojs?a=d&d=AJHR1864-I.2.1.6.3&e (accessed 21 March 2018).

Tauranga. Meanwhile, of 35 Te Patuwai men listed in the same return as living on Motiti at Otungahoro none had joined the hostilities.104

76. In January 1864 a 600-strong force of imperial troops under Colonel George Carey was landed at Tauranga. Carey’s expedition was intended to act as a check on one of the most important supply routes for the Kīngitanga, with large numbers of additional fighters, food and other supplies, having been transported from Tauranga, across the Kaimai Range to the Kīngitanga defenders in Waikato. The arrival of such a large body of troops caused consternation among the Tauranga tribes, many of whom believed it was merely a matter of time before they were attacked. The government had already confirmed plans for a ‘frontier line’ that stretched across the island from Kāwhia or Raglan to Tauranga, involving land confiscations and the establishment of military posts.105

77. On 29 April 1864 Crown forces attacked Pukehinahina (Gate Pā), a fortified position a short distance from the main British camp on the Te Papa peninsula. The British suffered heavy losses in their assault on the pā, whose defenders appear to have consisted mainly of members of Ngāi Te Rangi and other local iwi (including some Waitaha under their rangatira Hakaraia Mahika).106 The British reversed this outcome at Te Ranga on 21 June 1864, when they inflicted significant casualties on the Māori defenders of the partially constructed pā. The defeated Māori party was this time more diverse, including members of various Te Arawa tribes, including Ngāti Pikiao, Ngāti Makino and Ngāti Rangiwewehi, along with Hakaraia and other Waitaha.107

78. Although there is no evidence of Ngāi Te Hapū involvement, an unconfirmed newspaper report from July 1864 claimed that, after a delegation from Whakatane had visited the island on 6 July, twenty Patuwai, including men, women and children, had left the island and ‘gone over to the King’.108 Witnesses in the Native Land Court much later spoke of various Patuwai travelling from Motiti to Whakatane in 1864 at

104 AJHR, 1864, E-2, p.13, https://atojs.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/atojs?a=d&d=AJHR1864-I.2.1.6.3&e (accessed 21 March 2018). 105 Waitangi Tribunal, Te Raupatu o Tauranga Moana: Report on the Tauranga Confiscation Claims, Wellington: Legislation Direct, 2014, pp.83-85. 106 James Cowan, The New Zealand Wars: A History of the Maori Campaigns and the Pioneering Period, Wellington: Government Printer, 1983, vol. 1, pp.422-423; Mary Gillingham, ‘Waitaha and the Crown, 1864-1981’, report commissioned by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 2001, Wai-215, #K25, p.37. 107 Daily Southern Cross, 7 July 1864; Mary Gillingham, ‘Waitaha and the Crown, 1864-1981’, report commissioned by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 2001, Wai-215, #K25, p.44. 108 New Zealand Spectator and Cook’s Strait Guardian, 23 July 1864, http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZSCSG18640723.2.13.

the invitation of the tribes there, while others remained behind on the island.109 It was said that a few Patuwai had gone to Taranaki and fought against Crown forces there, before being taken prisoner at Waitotara in 1865. The Patuwai prisoners were taken to Wellington but subsequently freed after the war, when Hori Tunui went there to secure their release.110 It was said that those who fought at Taranaki belonged to the Patuwai ki Whakatane, rather than Motiti.111

79. Hori Tupaea initially remained neutral, however, retreating inland to Patetere and refusing to take any part in hostilities. Despite this, Tupaea came to identify with the Pai Marire faith of founder Te Ua Haumene, and was seized by Te Arawa ‘loyalist’ forces early in 1865, taken to Auckland and briefly held, before being released upon taking an oath of allegiance to Queen Victoria.112

80. Meanwhile, some Ngāi Te Hapū men fought alongside Te Arawa as part of a Crown force at Kaokaoroa (Matata) in April 1864 that prevented a large taua from travelling along the coast to join Kīngitanga defenders in the Waikato.113 As the Tairāwhiti taua had made its way along the coast it had recruited additional supporters as it went and a number of Ngāti Awa joined the war party that fought Te Arawa at Kaokaoroa.114 It is not clear whether this included members of Ngāti Maumoana. According to the Waitangi Tribunal, the hapū from whom additional recruits came were located at the western end of Ngāti Awa’s rohe, where the taua had camped while they pondered their next moves.115

81. Some Ngāi Te Hapū also fought alongside other Crown forces during the Tauranga Bush Campaign of 1867 and in the subsequent pursuit of Te Kooti (te whai a te Motu) through Te Urewera after July 1868.116 In 1869 the Tauranga Civil Commissioner, H.T. Clarke, requested that a full-sized red ensign flag be presented

109 Whakatane MB 5A, p.61. 110 Whakatane MB 5A, p.10. 111 Whakatane MB 5A, p.19. 112 Alister Matheson and Steven Oliver. 'Tupaea, Hori Kingi', from the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography. Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/biographies/1t112/tupaea-hori-kingi (accessed 12 December 2016). 113 Des Tatana Kahotea, ‘Te Moutere o Motiti: Cultural Heritage Report’, report commissioned by the Department of Internal Affairs, 2012, p.6. 114 James Cowan, The New Zealand Wars: A History of the Maori Campaigns and the Pioneering Period, Wellington: Government Printer, 1983, vol. 1, p.415; Waitangi Tribunal, The Ngati Awa Raupatu Report, Wellington: Legislation Direct, 1999, pp.37-38. 115 Waitangi Tribunal, The Ngati Awa Raupatu Report, Wellington: Legislation Direct, 1999, p.37. 116 Whakatane MB 5A, p.11; Des Tatana Kahotea, ‘Te Moutere o Motiti: Cultural Heritage Report’, report commissioned by the Department of Internal Affairs, 2012, p.6.

to ‘the Patuwai of Motiti’, declaring that ‘this hapu are deserving of this attention from the Government’.117

82. Meanwhile, ongoing war and upheaval affected settlement patterns on Motiti. Reneti Te Whauwhau told the Native Land Court in 1884 that Ngāi Tauwhao abandoned Motiti during the time of the war at Tauranga:

During the war time the people abandoned both Tuhua and Motiti, and concentrated at Tauranga to fight the Europeans. After the close of the war some of us went to Otumoetai, others elsewhere. When peace returned we laid down our arms but did not remain at Tauranga:- we went to Whangamata to purvey ourselves clothing etc. by digging gum. We had another reason for going in our having joined the Hauhau party. Then we heard that we were to be attacked by the Arawa; though it was but a false alarm;- so we fled to Hauraki and were therefore out of the way when the Motiti case was brought on in the Court.118

83. Ngāi Te Hapū continued their own occupation of Motiti, though the involvement of a number of men in the different campaigns alongside Te Arawa forces would likely have resulted in a depleted population at times as those involved in the war moved back and forth. Hori Tupaea later claimed that he had built the pā at Karioi and that Patuwai had only occupied this after he had left the island in 1863.119

10. Whakatane Confiscation Reserves

84. In the eastern Bay of Plenty, the killing of missionary Carl Sylvius Völkner at Ōpotiki in March 1865 and James Fulloon at Whakatane in July 1865 were used to justify military operations targeted against Ngāti Awa and other local iwi, followed by the confiscation of some 448,000 acres. Although hapū members who could prove their loyalty to the Crown received some lands back via the Compensation Court process established under the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863 and later amendments, these areas were not under customary title (since that had been extinguished in the original confiscation) and often did not correspond to lands owned by them before the wars. The Waitangi Tribunal noted in its Ngati Awa Raupatu Report that this applied especially to the Whakatane reserves awarded to members of Te Patuwai and other

117 Clarke to Resident Minister, 2 July 1869, ACFL A1628 8170 Box 7 di 69/61, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 118 Tauranga MB2, p.217, quoted in R.P. Boast, ‘Ngai Te Rangi Before the Confiscation: A History Based on Native Land Court and Commissioners’ Court Sources’, report commissioned by Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Te Rangi/Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 2000, p.90. 119 Maketu MB 1, p.86.

hapū.120 The question of whether the Patuwai people had customary interests in the lands awarded them would be hotly debated in later Native Land Court cases, as would the issue of whether the Patuwai ki Motiti people were entitled to share in these Whakatane lands.

85. In 1875 the returned lands were partitioned and lists of owners drawn up for each. A major later point of contention when it came to the lands awarded Te Patuwai (lots 29 and 32, Parish of Rangitaiki) was whether Patuwai ki Motiti were entitled to share in the Whakatane lands. The Motiti people had been brought to Whakatane to boost the size of the grants that could be awarded to Te Patuwai, which were determined by population (an 1867 census of the Bay of Plenty tribes had recorded 40 members of Te Patuwai living at Whakatane, along with a further 25 Ngāti Maumoana).121

86. But (as is discussed in some detail below) some of the Whakatane claimants later argued variously that they were not entitled at all, did not have an equal interest with the Whakatane Te Patuwai or that they were not really Te Patuwai at all.122 It was argued that the name Te Patuwai belonged to the Whakatane people alone, also called Ngāti Maumoana, and that the Ngāi Te Hapū people of Motiti had no claims at Whakatane, just as the Whakatane people had none on Motiti. Any rights that had been established between the two parties came by way of intermarriage, creating ancestral claims in the offspring.123 That coincides with Ngāi Te Hapū’s insistence today that Ngāti Maumoana have no rights at Motiti, being a Whakatane-based group.

87. The Whakatane Grants Validation Act 1878 provided for lot 29, consisting of 1330 acres, to be issued to Iharaira Matahihiria, Rewiri Parera, Hone Te Ngarotahi, Maihi Pateoro, Pene Rangitikei and Wepiha Apanui ‘in trust for the Patuwai Tribe’. The same six men were appointed trustees on behalf of Patuwai in respect of lot 32, consisting of 7654 acres. These awards were distinct from others made in trust on behalf of the ‘Ngatiawa Tribe’.124

120 Waitangi Tribunal, The Ngati Awa Raupatu Report, Wellington: Legislation Direct, 1999, p.90. 121 Census Schedule of the Maori Population in part of the Bay of Plenty District, 1867, Opotiki Confiscation Box 2/10, Raupatu Document Bank, vol. 123, p.47385. 122 Des Tatana Kahotea, ‘Te Moutere o Motiti: Cultural Heritage Report’, report commissioned by the Department of Internal Affairs, 2012, pp.45-46. 123 Des Tatana Kahotea, ‘Te Moutere o Motiti: Cultural Heritage Report’, report commissioned by the Department of Internal Affairs, 2012, p.47. 124 Schedule, Whakatane Grants Validation Act 1878.

88. When Native Minister John Ballance attended a meeting with Māori at Tauranga in February 1885, Ngamanu Te Wharau raised the issue of the lot 32 lands, complaining that the two of the six trustees had ‘consumed’ all the money received from leasing the land, denying the remaining owners any share. Although this issue had been raised with the trustees, their response, according to Te Wharau, was that they could do as they pleased. Most of the 109 owners condemned the actions of the trustees, he added. Ballance, in response, promised to inquire into the matter.125

89. Herbert Brabant’s subsequent report into the allegations noted that, in his capacity as Tauranga Resident Magistrate, he had received ‘repeated verbal and written complaints’ that the rents were not properly divided by the trustees.126

90. When the lease of lot 32 was investigated by a commission of inquiry in 1886 Wepiha Apanui, one of the named trustees, stated that ‘In my opinion the Motiti Patuwais had not an equal interest with the Whakatane section of Patuwai. The Whakatane are the principal owners.’127 Tiaki Rewiri praised the clear manner in which the commissioner conducted the Ngāti Awa case and hoped that Patuwai would receive the same consideration. He told the commissioner that the ‘two tribes’ were highly pleased with the way in which the inquiry had proceeded.128

91. Complaints over the unfair distribution of the rental income continued. Eventually the government took action. Section 2 of the Native Trusts and Claims Definition Registration Act 1893 allowed for those excluded from the titles issued under the Whakatane Grants Validation Act to seek inclusion under the provisions of the Native Equitable Owners Act 1886 where trustees had been legally placed in the position of outright owners.

92. Relative interests in lot 32, known as Pekapekatahi, were determined by the court in 1895. At the outset of the case, objections were raised to over 20 names listed in the 1875 decision on beneficial owners. At the same time, a proposal was made by Tiaki Rewiri to give the Patuwai people of Motiti 1000 acres, leaving the balance to the

125 Extract from Notes of an Interview of Hon. Native Minister, 14 February 1885, J 1 669/h 1901/1299, Archives New Zealand. 126 Brabant, report on subject no.1, 7 April 1885, J 1 669/h 1901/1299, Archives New Zealand. 127 Tony Walzl, ‘Ngati Awa Land 1870-1970’, 1996, Wai-46, #M18, p.142. 128 Bay of Plenty Times, 18 March 1886, http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/BOPT18860318.2.8 (accessed 18 January 2017).

remaining owners.129 Although the parties were unable to agree to this, the subsequent hearing was focused in large part on the respective rights of Patuwai ki Motiti and Whakatane. Tiaki Rewiri told the court there were three parties to the case: firstly, those 20 or so persons whose inclusion on the title was challenged; secondly, the 44 Patuwai of Motiti; and thirdly, the remaining Patuwai of Motiti.130

93. Timi Waata Rimini, representing the 20, told the court that none of them belonged to Patuwai or could trace descent from Te Hapū. Most had married into Patuwai and some lived on Motiti. They had been promised a share of the Whakatane lands in return for military service, and although the Patuwai claims were originally included in those of Ngāti Pukeko, a separate claim in the name of Patuwai was subsequently prepared, relying in part on the inclusion of the Motiti people. That had resulted in Patuwai receiving the two blocks in their own right.131

94. Tiaki Rewiri disputed this version of events and claimed that the two Whakatane blocks were ones that Patuwai had customary interests in prior to the confiscation. Only after the lists of owners had been prepared, did he become aware that ‘outsiders’ had been included. It was then that he petitioned Parliament to have the beneficial owners inquired into again. He challenged other aspects of the evidence, telling the court:

Timi Waata says that Te Hapu was the original ancestor of Te Patuwai[.] I say no. I say Tawhiwhi was the original ancestor of that tribe – though Tawhiwhi was descended from that ancestor and also from Awanuiarangi. Tawhiwhi was drowned at sea. The Patuwai of Whakatane were formerly called N. Ikapuku, those of the same tribe living at Motiti were called Ngai Te Hapu – but when Tawhiwhi was drowned at sea the tribe took the name of Patuwai.132

95. He drew a distinction between ‘Patuwai proper’, defined by Tiaki Rewiri as the Patuwai of Whakatane (including Ngāti Maumoana), and the people of Motiti, who were ‘not the Patuwai proper’ (except the descendants of Te Puia and Taiwhakaaea) but instead Ngāi Te Hapū.133 He added that:

Te Hapu the ancestor went from Ohiwa to Motiti. His descendants acquired rights there. They intermarried with my ancestors here [at Whakatane] and

129 Whakatane MB 5A, pp.4, 6. 130 Whakatane MB 5A, p.8. 131 Whakatane MB 5A, 16. 132 Whakatane MB 5A, pp.31-32. 133 Whakatane MB 5A, pp.42, 49.

so acquired rights here. My ancestors acquiring rights at Motiti in the same way. We do not live at Whakatane by right of descent from Te Hapu. That ancestor has no right whatever here.134

96. The court was handed a copy of an 1880 letter from Brabant in answer to one from some of the Patuwai ki Whakatane people ‘asking Mr Brabant to have the Patuwai of Motiti struck out from the list of owners’. Brabant in reply wrote that the list of names for the land had been settled and could not now be altered.135 It was only legislation passed subsequently (the Native Trusts and Claims Definition and Registration Act 1893 and section 10 of the Native Land Claims and Boundaries Adjustment and Titles Empowering Act 1894) that gave the Native Land Court fresh authority to inquire into the beneficial owners again.136

97. The court struck out 21 names found not to belong to Patuwai.137 It then proceeded to hear evidence on the question of relative interests among those remaining on the original list of 109 owners. That list had originally been drawn up by a Patuwai committee formed to represent the interests of the owners and the court heard considerable evidence about its composition and the influence of particular members on the drafting of the list. One of the twelve members was Tiaki Rewiri, although he was only a young boy at the time and did not have any meaningful input into the names included. Tiaki Rewiri told the 1895 hearing that a revised offer of 1564 acres had been made to the Patuwai of Motiti to settle the question of relative interests but continued to be rejected, while the people of Whakatane were not inclined to allow persons with no ancestral claims on the land to have equal shares with themselves.138 He proposed four classes of shares, assigning lesser interests to the descendants of Te Hapū as ‘that ancestor had no right to lands here’.139

98. Considerable evidence was heard concerning the respective interests of the different parties, again traversing the claims of the ‘outsiders’, Ngāi Te Hapū and others who married into Patuwai, against the rights of the Whakatane people. In its judgment, the court noted that in deciding the ownership it was necessary to understand the circumstances under which this confiscated land was returned and to whom. It noted that ‘the hapu to whom this part of the land was granted’ belonged to Ngāti Awa and

134 Whakatane MB 5A, p.48. 135 Whakatane MB 5A, p.98. 136 Whakatane MB 5A, p.4. 137 Whakatane MB 5A, pp.105-107. 138 Whakatane MB 5A, p.109. 139 Whakatane MB 5A, p.112.

Ngāti Pukeko ‘under the name of Patuwai’.140 It assumed that the government, ‘in returning the land, intended it for those whose lands had been confiscated’. The returned land had been divided into three parts, one for Ngāti Awa, another for Ngāti Pukeko and a third for Patuwai ‘which had up to the time of the division been considered as part of Pukeko’.141

99. Without examining the issues raised by Tiaki Rewiri’s evidence differentiating Patuwai ki Whakatane from Ngāi Te Hapū, the court rejected proposals for different classes of rightholders and instead insisted that all those found to be owners were entitled to share equally in the land. At the same time, it struck out a further three names, reducing the list of owners from the original 109 named in 1875 down to 85.142

100. Evidence given in the later 1905 case with respect to lot 29 (discussed below) revealed that the real reason for their removal was that they were all childless, and many of them deceased, and the owners were attempting to keep the lands in Patuwai ownership by avoiding admitting outsiders as successors to their interests. Although lot 29 was initially considered as well during the 1895 hearing, this was withdrawn.143

101. In 1905 the Native Land Court partitioned lot 29, also known as Pupuaruhe. Tiaki Rewiri told the court that Patuwai living permanently on Motiti and not occupying the Whakatane lands would receive five shares, while those who lived on the block would get six.144 He also told the court that ‘Te Hapu had no mana over Whakatane lands’, and this was the reason he had objected to Te Hapū during the Pekapekatahi case.145

102. In the 1895 hearing into lot 32, 24 names had been objected to, but ten of these were now accepted, leaving a further 14 that continued to be challenged. Pauawha Te Meihana told the court that at the time the block was awarded them in 1875, Patuwai were called Ngāti Maumoana and were closely associated with Ngāti Pukeko. They numbered fewer than 30 and Judge Halse told them that this was not

140 Whakatane MB 5A, p.236. 141 Whakatane MB 5A, p.238. 142 Whakatane MB 5A, pp.238-239. 143 Tony Walzl, ‘Ngati Awa Land 1870-1970’, 1996, Wai-46, #M18, pp.88-89. 144 Whakatane MB 8, p.206. 145 Whakatane MB 8, p.234.

enough to give them a separate block. And so, after seeking advice from Wepiha Apanui, ‘a list was made up of all the Motiti people including those living at other places and the Patuwai tribe was established’. It was only then that Judge Halse agreed to separate the Ngāti Maumoana and Patuwai from Ngāti Pukeko and award them the land.146 Patuwai was ‘only a recent name given to a section’ of the people who met with a ‘disaster at sea’ and who were formerly known as Ngāti Maumoana, the witness added.147

103. Another witness, Tamati Waaka, told the court that Ngāti Maumoana were a different people from Patuwai.148 Timi Waata had another view, insisting that Patuwai, Ngāti Pukeko, Ngāti Whakahemo and Ngāti Pūkenga were ‘really all one people – merely different hapus of Ngatiawa’.149 In this instance the witness was defending the claim of his mother, who he admitted was Ngāti Pukeko and Ngāti Awa, but could not state whether she was also Patuwai.

104. Ngawhiki Te Otimi endorsed the story about how a separate Patuwai claim was set up before Judge Halse and the numbers of those included expanded to over 100 in order to meet his criterion for receiving lands as a separate tribe.150 In its judgment, the court observed that:

When the Lists of names were made and passed in 1875, the Court believes that very many persons were improperly admitted to the Patuwai list who had no rights, and that this was done deliberately with a view to swelling the area sought to be allocated to this section.151

105. It proceeded to strike out 13 of the 14 names objected to, observing that all of them were dead and had no issue. Shares were issued in equal value and various subdivisions ordered.152

106. Appeals were subsequently heard against its decision. Arona Paora, one of the appellants, declared that ‘the land was intended for Maumoana and not for the people of Motiti’.153 Another witness stated that Ngāti Maumoana was a hapū of Ngāti

146 Whakatane MB 8, p.209. 147 Whakatane MB 8, p.211. 148 Whakatane MB 8, p.213. 149 Whakatane MB 8, p.214. 150 Whakatane MB 8, p.217. 151 Whakatane MB 8, p.350. 152 Whakatane MB 8, pp.351-52, 362-72. 153 Whakatane MB 9, p.15.

Awa and Ngāti Pukeko.154 The court noted that its jurisdiction was different from that with respect to lot 32, which had been heard under the Native Equitable Owners Act 1886 and was therefore restricted to the terms of the Crown grant. In this instance the court was empowered to go behind the terms of the grant and determine the persons for whom the land was reserved. It noted that the commissioners in 1875 ‘described these persons as the Patuwai, but it seems to us that they used the word Patuwai as a descriptive name, not as a definition’.155 The persons now objected to, although not Patuwai by birth, were entitled to come under the description by marriage and the court therefore found that those whose names were included in the commissioners’ report were the people entitled to share in the land, effectively overturning the earlier decision to omit some of the named owners.156

107. In further evidence on relative interests, Arona Paora observed that Tiaki Rewiri had previously ‘struck out all the Motiti names’.157 The court approved the relative interests proposed by Tiaki Rewiri, awarding the 14 ‘outsiders’ one share each and proceeding to make fresh subdivisional orders.158 Throughout the cases involving the two blocks, multiple witnesses had emphasised that the people of Motiti and the Patuwai ki Whakatane were distinct groups. For one thing, as Tiaki Rewiri had explained, Te Hapū had no mana at Whakatane. By contrast, he was the ancestor through whom all successful ‘Patuwai’ claims on Motiti were based.

11. Other Confiscation Awards

108. There were other lands awarded to Patuwai arising out of the New Zealand Wars. According to later Native Land Court testimony, members of Patuwai received 1900 acres at Te Awa-o-te-Atua alongside members of Te Arawa granted lands in the area. An 1869 plan of the confiscated lands shows a 1306 acre block (allotment no. 19, Parish of Matata) awarded to Patuwai.159 A block of exactly the same area was listed in official returns as having been purchased from Patuwai by the Crown,

154 Whakatane MB 9, p.16. 155 Whakatane MB 9, p.48. 156 Whakatane MB 9, p.48. 157 Whakatane MB 9, p.91. 158 Whakatane MB 9, p.101. 159 Hirini Moko Mead and Jeremy Gardiner, Te Kaupapa o te Raupatu i te Rohe o Ngati Awa: Ethnography of the Ngati Awa Experience of Raupatu, Whakatane: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa, 1995, p.110.

through agents C.O.B. Davis and Henry Mitchell, on 18 November 1874.160 The pair had targeted lands in this area for purchase since receiving a list of owners earlier in the year.161

109. A 21-acre area at Matata within the township of Richmond was also said to have been granted to members of Patuwai ki Motiti.162 That appears to be allotment no. 9, Parish of Matata, consisting of 24 acres. In 1879 Patuwai offered to sell this land to the Crown.163 An area of 87,000 acres was said to have been ‘Given to the Arawa Tribe’,164 although at other times these were described as being ‘returned’ to Te Arawa (who asserted customary claims over at least some of these lands).165 The lands granted to members of Patuwai fell within this area awarded to Te Arawa.

110. Te Patuwai of Motiti were also awarded lands at Tauranga being lot 79, Parish of Te Papa, located within the 50,000-acre area known as the confiscated block. Although this has been assumed to have been an award for military service,166 the land was in fact promised them in return for abandoning their opposition to the Native Land Court’s division of Motiti and especially its award to Ngāi Tauwhao of an area (Motiti B) that was being occupied and cultivated by them at the time. Because Patuwai refused to abandon the disputed area, the Crown withheld title to the Tauranga lands from them. As is discussed in more detail below, this 100-acre award was much later exchanged for the 166 acre portion of the Motiti B block that had been at the heart the dispute between Ngāi Te Hapū and Ngāi Tauwhao over the location of a boundary line between them.

111. The conflicts of the early 1860s helped to restoke Te Arawa claims to Motiti that had lain dormant since 1856. This came at a time when the Crown was heavily reliant upon Te Arawa military support, especially once British army regiments began to be withdrawn from the colony. In June 1865 H.T. Clarke reported that:

160 AJHR, 1878, G-4, p.5, https://atojs.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/atojs?a=d&cl=search&d=AJHR1878- I.2.2.2.6&srpos=1&e (accessed 16 Februry 2017). 161 Kathryn Rose, ‘The Bait and the Hook: Crown Purchasing in Taupo and the Central Bay of Plenty in the 1870s’, report commissioned by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, July 1997, pp.127-29. 162 Whakatane MB 5A, p.200. 163 Henry Mitchell, 12 August 1879, MA-MLP 1 5/f 1879/293, Archives New Zealand. 164 J.A. Wilson, Crown Agent, memorandum, 9 June 1867, AJHR, 1867, A-18, p.2, https://atojs.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/atojs?a=d&d=AJHR1867-I.2.1.2.27 (accessed 10 February 2017). 165 Waitangi Tribunal, He Maunga Rongo: Report on Central North Island Claims, Wellington: Waitangi Tribunal, 2008, vol. 1, pp.262-66. 166 Evelyn Stokes, Te Raupatu o Tauranga Moana: The Confiscation of Tauranga Lands, Hamilton: University of Waikato, 1990, p.253.

The question of the island Motiti will have to be considered by the Government. The island has been for many years a bone of contention between the Arawa and Ngaiterangi; it was generally thought that the Arawa had given up all claim to it in favour of the Ngaiterangi, but since the Tauranga natives took part in the late war against us the Arawa consider that they have forfeited their right to it and they now claim the whole island. At the meeting of the Arawa alluded to, the Governor told them that he would hold Motiti until the matter had been properly settled. Ngaiterangi are still jealously watching the Arawa, and every attempt at occupation is complained of. If the matter is left in the hands of the Arawa there is but little doubt that they will occupy and hold it against any force the Ngaiterangi could bring against them.167

112. In October 1865 Clarke informed the Native Minister that ‘The question of Motiti is continually being raised, and ought to be speedily settled’.168

12. Confiscation and the Native Land Court’s Jurisdiction over Motiti

113. In all other districts proclaimed as confiscated under the provisions of the New Zealand Settlements Act, including Whakatane, the confiscation proclamations defined a specific area of land as being brought under the legislation. But at Tauranga Crown officials had from the outset persisted in describing the district as belonging to ‘Ngaiterangi’, even after multiple other hapū and iwi had made known their claims within the district. That wording was reflected both in official reports of an August 1864 agreement to take no more than a quarter of the lands of Tauranga ‘rebels’ (described as being addressed ‘to the Ngaiterangi Natives’,169 and in the order in council by which Tauranga was declared subject to the Settlements Act. Dated 18 May 1865, and published in the New Zealand Gazette on 27 June 1865, the proclamation declared that:

all the lands of the tribe “Ngaiterangi” described in the Schedule to this Proclamation, shall be a District within the provisions of the “New Zealand Settlements Act, 1863,” and...doth declare that the said Lands are required for the purposes of the said Act and are subject to the provisions thereof, and doth order that the said Lands shall be and the same are hereby set

167 AJHR, 1867, A-20, p.13, https://atojs.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/atojs?a=d&cl=search&d=AJHR1867- I.2.1.2.29&srpos=3&e (accessed 13 January 2017). 168 Clarke to Native Minister, 10 October 1865, AJHR, 1867, A-20, p.19, https://atojs.natlib.govt.nz/cgi- bin/atojs?a=d&cl=search&d=AJHR1867-I.2.1.2.29&srpos=3&e= (accessed 13 January 2017). 169 Notes of Speeches Made at the Pacification Meeting, 5-6 August 1864, AJHR, 1867, A-20, p.5, https://atojs.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/atojs?a=d&cl=search&d=AJHR1867-I.2.1.2.29&srpos=3&e= (accessed 13 January 2017).

apart and reserved as sites for settlements and colonization agreeably to the Provisions of the said Act; And doth order, that in accordance with the promise made by His Excellency the Governor at Tauranga, on the sixth day of August, 1864, three-fourths in quantity of such lands shall be set apart for such persons of the tribe Ngaiterangi as shall be determined by the Governor, after due enquiry shall have been made.170

114. The schedule to this proclamation described the Tauranga confiscation district as encompassing:

All that land estimated to contain 214,000 acres, known as the Tauranga Block

Bounded on the north-east by the sea from the mouth of the Wairakei Creek to Ngakuria-whare Point; on the south-east by a line bearing south 45° west (true) 16 miles; thence on a south-west line by a line bearing 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 to Ngakuria-whare Point.

Together with the Island of Tahua [sic] 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.171

115. It is clear from the final reference to Motiti or that part of it adjudged as belonging to the ‘Ngaiterangi Tribe’ that officials assumed the remainder of the district as described coincided with the area over which Ngāi Te Rangi could legitimately claim exclusive customary rights. Less clear were the implications of the proclamation for customary title over Motiti or the rest of the area described. Relatedly, also left uncertain was the Native Land Court’s jurisdiction to inquire into such lands. The wording made it seem that the area to be confiscated on Motiti would only be clarified after the extent of Ngāi Te Rangi’s ownership had been adjudged (presumably by the Native Land Court), therefore marking this out as the only part of the area mentioned in the proclamation over which the Crown had any doubts as to Ngāi Te Rangi’s exclusive ownership.

116. As is discussed below, by the time of this proclamation members of Te Arawa had made clear their renewed claims on Motiti, having signed an application for investigation of its title in May 1865. This fact, combined with the Crown’s reliance upon the military support of Te Arawa ‘loyalists’, might have influenced the proclamation’s ambiguous wording when it came to Motiti, potentially opening the way for the Native Land Court to investigate title.

170 New Zealand Gazette, 27 June 1865, no.22, p.187. 171 New Zealand Gazette, 27 June 1865, no.22, p.187.

117. As early as October 1865 F.D. Fenton, Chief Judge of the Native Land Court, advised Crown officials of his intention to fix a sitting of the court at Tauranga for December of that year.172 Although the intended sitting was postponed at the last minute when the cases were withdrawn, Fenton rejected the arguments advanced by Crown officials that the Native Land Court had no jurisdiction at Tauranga because all of the lands there had been confiscated and were now the property of the Crown. He remained adamant that it was a matter for the court to determine its own jurisdiction and pointed out, in a letter addressed to the Native Minister, that:

no block of land has been confiscated in Tauranga but merely the lands of a certain Tribe in a defined Territory. If the Courts over which I have the honor to preside have no jurisdiction how will the question of which are lands of this tribe be settled.173

118. Attorney General James Prendergast, to whom this matter was referred for legal opinion, declared simply that upon it being ascertained that a particular claim fell within the limits of a district proclaimed under the New Zealand Settlements Act, the court would be obliged to dismiss the case on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction to hear it.174

119. He evidently failed to grasp Fenton’s main point, which was that the Native Land Court would first need to decide which lands belonged to Ngāi Te Rangi within the schedule to the confiscation proclamation before the lands which had been confiscated could be determined. The proclamation itself had hinted at this with respect to Motiti. But Fenton was now arguing that this applied across the whole of the area mentioned in the confiscation proclamation.

120. Until the lands belonging to Ngāi Te Rangi had been determined, the area confiscated would remain uncertain. On the other hand, any lands that were found to belong to Ngāi Te Rangi within the confiscation proclamation would be deemed confiscated under the Settlements Act. It was little wonder then that Hori Tupaea would subsequently go to great lengths during the Motiti case to distinguish Ngāi

172 Fenton to T.H. Smith, 28 October 1865, ‘Correspondence of Chief Judge Fenton, 1865-1867’, Tauranga Confiscation File 2/8, DOSLI, Hamilton, Raupatu Document Bank, vol.125, p.47889. 173 Fenton to Native Minister, 22 January 1866, DOSLI Hamilton 2/8, Raupatu Document Bank, vol.125, p.47907. 174 Prendergast, memorandum for the Native Minister, 16 January 1866, DOSLI Hamilton 2/8, Raupatu Document Bank, vol.125, p.47911.

Tauwhao from Ngāi Te Rangi. After all, if they were the latter then any lands they were found to be customary owners of would likely be confiscated.

121. Fenton remained unconvinced and in August 1867 advised the government of a list of applications for title investigation at Tauranga which would require him to soon fix a sitting for the district. It is possible that Motiti was among the applications sent, since the first applications in respect of the island had been sent two years earlier, in 1865 (see below). The Chief Judge was advised in response that the government would shortly be introducing legislation which would ‘set at rest’ any doubts as to the validity of the original order in council.175

122. The Tauranga District Lands Bill was introduced to Parliament in September 1867 and passed into law the following month. De facto Native Minister J.C. Richmond explained that, with reference to the May 1865 proclamation, ‘a question had been raised whether the terms of that Order in Council were not vague and uncertain; and some legal doubts had arisen as to its validity.’176 As several ‘large interests’ had arisen since that time it had been deemed necessary to ask the House of Representatives to declare the proclamation valid. The Bill was thus intended ‘to give effect to certain past transactions, or rather to remove any doubts in reference to them, and to prevent future litigation.’177

123. The effect of the Tauranga District Lands Act was to declare all of the Tauranga district to be Ngāi Te Rangi land which had been duly confiscated by order in council in May 1865 under the provisions of the New Zealand Settlements Act. But the schedule retained the same wording as the original proclamation with respect to Motiti; that is, including such of it as was adjudged to belong to the Ngāi Te Rangi tribe or individual members thereof within the area deemed to be taken. As such it did not materially assist in clarifying the Native Land Court’s jurisdiction with respect to Motiti.

124. In the event, Henry Tacy Clarke, the Commissioner of Tauranga Lands appointed to carry out the Crown’s allocation of confiscated lands in the district, waived any

175 William Rolleston to Fenton, 22 August 1867, DOSLI Hamilton 2/8, Raupatu Document Bank, vol.125, p.47933. 176 New Zealand Parliamentary Debates, 19 September 1867, p.978. 177 New Zealand Parliamentary Debates, 19 September 1867, p.979.

objections to the court proceeding with a title investigation to Motiti.178 That still failed to clarify the legal position with respect to the court’s jurisdiction. However, Fenton himself many years later recalled that:

Mr Fenton then said, having himself been the Judge when the [Motiti] case was heard, he could best reply to the question which the Court had raised – he proceeded to read a [copy?] of the Judgment then delivered by him, on the 18 Oct 1867. This grant was made to Hori Tupaea alone, in consequence of the limitation of the number of names that could be legally inserted in any Grant to Ten.

No formal Order of Court was made in this case, because the land was not really within the Jurisdiction of the Court being confiscated land – Mr HT Clarke, then Commissioner of the District, has agreed to abandon the Crown right. The abandonment set up the Jurisdiction of the Court, and it was therefore tried: - but, as the abandonment of the Crown had not been formally or legally made, no Order of Court followed. The Crown Grant, however, embodied the [decision?] and was made upon the lists in it.179

125. Fenton’s statement, made in 1884 when appearing before the court after his retirement in the Motiti South partition case, contained a number of ambiguities, including his statement that the land was ‘not really within’ the court’s jurisdiction. Either it was or was not. If the court did have jurisdiction then Clarke’s statement on behalf of the Crown was immaterial. If it did not have jurisdiction, then the statement did not alter that fact since it had no legal status.

126. The Crown could easily have clarified this by formally abandoning its claims to Motiti under section 6 of the New Zealand Settlements Amendment and Continuance Act 1865. That allowed the Crown to in effect restore customary title over any confiscated lands by abandoning the confiscation, provided claims for compensation under the Settlements Act had been received. But because it failed to do this, and the court did not make formal orders, the highly contested Native Land Court investigation of title to Motiti that took place in 1867 lacked legal standing.

13. The Title Investigation

127. An application for investigation of title to Motiti had been signed on 13 May 1865 by Retireti Tapsell and 14 others, described as belonging to Ngāti Whakaue, Ngāti

178 Richard Boast, The Native Land Court, 1862-1887: A Historical Case Study, Cases and Commentary, Wellington: Brookers, 2013, p.415. 179 Richard Boast, The Native Land Court, 1862-1887: A Historical Case Study, Cases and Commentary, Wellington: Brookers, 2013, pp.415-416.

Uenukukopako and Ngāti Pikiao.180 In June 1867 Tapsell wrote to Chief Judge Fenton concerning delays in having the island surveyed:

Friend, your letters have reached me, that is for Motiti and other pieces of land…It is very good. This is my word to you. Formerly I gave that island to be surveyed, it was prevented by Mr Nisbitt, I was sad; lately I gave it to Mr Turner to survey, it has been prevented also by Mr Clarke; I was then sad on account of this work; and an inquiry what work is this? My desire is this, to survey, that it may soon go into the Court for investigation. But what is the reason of this work of the Government? Now they have prevented the survey. But perhaps we had better investigate in the common way – i.e. – without the survey being made – because I will presently be killed by the surveyors. Great is my desire to see you, and the Governor, about this work, of Motiti. It is fear on my part on account of the money being expended in going hence. O, Sir, should you consent to ask the Governor about this work, do you write to me, what he says, or what he does. But the others have been surveyed. It is only Motiti that there is any difficulty about.181

128. Rewi Tereanuku wrote to Fenton in the same month that the ‘sole cause of delay has been the prevention of the survey by Mr Clarke’.182 Turner also wrote to Fenton that he had been instructed by Clarke not to carry out the survey of Motiti that Te Arawa had hired him to undertake.183

129. In the same month Wiremu Maruki wrote to Fenton to advise that Te Arawa were not the only party wishing to advance claims over Motiti:

We have heard of the letter from the Arawa having reached you to have Motiti investigated. It is well to have it investigated, but we also have claims over that island. The name of our tribe is the Patuwai.184

130. In July 1867 Civil Commissioner James Mackay wrote to Fenton that the reason the Crown had objected to the Motiti survey was not because the island was included in the area confiscated but because ‘the Ngaiterangi objected to the Arawa surveying the island, and a very serious political difficulty might have arisen’. That difficulty had since subsided and Turner had been given permission to commence his survey. At the same time Mackay indicated that ‘As far as the Government claims on Motiti are

180 Motiti No.1 Title Applications, 1867-1902, BACS A622 25436 Box 192 a T296/301, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 181 Tapsell to Fenton, 24 June 1867, Motiti Correspondence, BACS A622 25436 Box 300 b T296, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 182 Rewi Tereanuku to Fenton, 22 June 1867, Motiti Correspondence, BACS A622 25436 Box 300 b T296, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 183 Turner to Fenton, 25 June 1867, Motiti Correspondence, BACS A622 25436 Box 300 b T296, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 184 Wiremu Maruki to Fenton, 19 June 1867, Motiti Correspondence, BACS A622 25436 Box 300 b T296, Archives New Zealand (Auckland).

concerned, I think it most probable that the Government will surrender these under section 6 of the N.Z. Settlements Act’.185 Fenton forwarded Mackay’s comments to Daniel Pollen, the Agent for the General Government at Auckland, at the same time seeking to know the government’s position.186

Map 2: Plan of Motiti, 1867 (ML614)

185 Mackay, marginal note, 23 July 1867, Motiti Correspondence, BACS A622 25436 Box 300 b T296, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 186 Fenton, marginal note, 22 August 1867, Motiti Correspondence, BACS A622 25436 Box 300 b T296, Archives New Zealand (Auckland).

131. As noted previously, when the Motiti case opened, Ngāi Tauwhao, through their senior rangatira Hori Tupaea, went to some lengths to distance themselves from Ngāi Te Rangi. Conversely, the Patuwai/Ngāi Te Hapū claimants stressed their connections with Te Arawa. Both approaches were entirely understandable. After all, with the confiscation proclamation still hanging over Motiti, any lands found by the Native Land Court to belong to Ngāi Te Rangi might potentially be seized by the Crown. A report in the Daily Southern Cross newspaper shortly before the hearing commenced raised this very prospect, speculating that the government might look to make up any shortfall in the confiscated lands at Tauranga through taking land on Motiti.187 At the same time, for Te Patuwai/Ngāi Te Hapū it was probably considered prudent given the highly politicised context in which the Motiti hearing took place to emphasise their connections with strong ‘loyalist’ Te Arawa groups.

132. Motiti was called on 17 October 1867, with Chief Judge Fenton and Judge Munro presiding. Retireti (Retreat) Tapsell immediately objected to proceeding with the two assessors, ‘as they were of the party of Ngaiterangi who had fought about it’.188 The court stated that it would allow the objection if persisted in. However, Tapsell’s objection went unsupported by other claimants to Motiti. Mr Davis, representing Te Patu of Papaunahi (Ngāi Tauwhao) and Hone Whetuki, representing Te Patuwai, both stated that they had no objection to the assessors. The case was adjourned for a day to allow Tapsell to consider his position, and the assessors remained in place.

133. When the case was called again Patu appeared for Ngāi Tauwhao and Tapaihunui (Ngāi Te Rangi) and Hone Te Whetuki for ‘the Patuwai hapu of Waitaha’, who were described as ‘related to the Arawa’. Hori Tupaea told the court that Patu appeared for him and at this point was willing to admit ‘they were hapus of the Ngaiterangi’. Rangitukehu, described as belonging to the Ngāti Awa tribe, also appeared as a claimant and asked Davis to appear on his behalf. Wi Kepa, for whom no tribal affiliation was recorded, also stated that he claimed Motiti, as did Te Waata of Ngatitatakainga and Te Pohika of Ngāti Pikiao.189

134. It was, though, Hone Te Whetuki, who was first to give evidence. He told the court that:

187 Daily Southern Cross, 30 September 1867, http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DSC18670930.2.12. 188 Maketu MB 1, pp.12-13. 189 Maketu MB 1, p.27.

I live at Motiti. I belong to the Ngaitehapu of Patuwai. My ancestors have lit a fire upon that Isd. a long time ago and it still burns now. The hapu is the name of my first ancestors. He is an ancestor of the Patuwai, from Te Hapu descended Horo Pokai, from him Tutonu from him Tohiora, from him Kaitarau, from him Whare Potae, from him Te Whetuki. I am the last.190

135. He then proceeded to list all the men of Ngāi Te Hapū living on Motiti at that time whose names he knew. He added that Te Hapū was the name of his first ancestor and that he had lived and died on Motiti. Te Whetuki had himself been born on the island at Otungahoro, where his own house and cultivations were located. It appears that he gave a list of Ngāi Te Hapū pā on Motiti but these were not recorded in the court’s minutebook.191 Te Whetuki further stated that:

The fire was tried to be extinguished but it was not put out. Hori Tupaea tried to put it out. I and Hori Tupaea at the present time are not one. The Whanaukawa have a claim on Motiti, in 1863 the Papaunahi left Motiti. The Patuwai never left the Island. No other tribe went to that Isd [Island]. I know nothing about Ngatiwhakaue and Ngatipikiao going there. I don’t know whether Rangitukehu has any claim on the Isd. The Patuwai claim only a portion of the Isd. I know the boundary line of the Patuwai’s. Okoronui is the boundary on the western side then to the Horete a stone in the centre of a swamp, thence to the Huruhi…to the east coast of the Isd. In a straight line. The boundary I have mentioned is the real boundary of the Patuwai line, but I have cultivated on the other side…I have a claim on both sides of the boundary. Titiro, Hoana & myself have a claim on the other side of the boundary. We were driven out of the land by Ngapuhi under Hongi Hika when I was a boy[.] We returned to the Isd. without assistance.192

136. Retireti Tapsell then cross-examined Hone Te Whetuki on behalf of Ngāti Whakaue. Te Whetuki maintained under questioning that Ngāi Te Hapū had held possession and authority over Motiti from the time of Te Hapū onwards. He stated that he was living at Maketu, with about 100 others of Ngāi Te Hapū at the time of Hans Tapsell’s arrival (in 1830). He denied that the island had been divided or that other tribes had cultivations there. All he saw were pigs, which he had killed.193

137. Although the questions asked by Tapsell are not recorded in the official minutes, Hone Te Whetuki admitted that he had taken an oath of allegiance to the Crown and that ‘The Governor did say in Auckland that he would take Motiti in payment for our misdeeds but it was only a word, he did not do it’. He added that he knew nothing of Governor Browne’s request that the island should be handed over to the Crown until

190 Maketu MB 1, p.28. 191 Maketu MB 1, p.29. 192 Maketu MB 1, pp.29-30. 193 Maketu MB 1 , p.30.

such time as the dispute between Hori Tupaea and Winiata had been settled.194 This would appear to be a reference to the Motiti dispute that flared in the 1850s between Ngāi Te Rangi and Te Arawa.

138. Hone Te Whetuki was cross-examined by many of the other parties. Again, the questions are not recorded but from the tenor of the answers it is clear that they were primarily interested in securing an acknowledgement of their own interests over Motiti. He told a Ngāi Te Rangi interlocutor that the boundary line between them was an old one, while a Ngāti Pikiao questioner was told that ‘You were the first person with me who lighted fires on Motiti & Tuhua’. He added that he (meaning Ngāi Te Hapū) had joined Te Arawa in fighting against Ngāi Te Rangi (during the ‘Musket Wars’) and that, when peace was made at Tauranga, Motiti had been handed over to Ngāi Te Rangi. However, some of the Ngāti Pikiao objected to this ‘and consented to our return to the Isd.’.195

139. In response to other questions, Te Whetuki continued to emphasise Te Arawa connections with Motiti while downplaying Ngāi Te Rangi ones. He stated, for example, that Ngāti Whakaue, Ngāti Pikiao, Ngāti Kereru, and Ngāti Uenukukopako, among others, had all lit fires on Motiti. He further noted Te Hapū’s line of descent through Waitaha and his occupation of Motiti at a time when no one else was there. He also stated that he had left Motiti at the time of the Ngāpuhi invasion but returned in 1852, when he heard that Te Arawa had gone there.196 Responding to a question from Tamati Hapimana, Te Whetuki stated that the ‘whole of the Arawas’ had lit fires on Motiti, whereas there was ‘never was any fire of Ngaiterangi on that Island, because they had no claim on the land’.197

140. Wi Maruki was next to give evidence and told the court that he belonged to Patuwai and that his ancestor was Te Hapū. He lived at Motiti, along with twenty other Patuwai, having first gone there in 1851, when he heard that Ngāti Whakaue were going to fight there. He denied that they or Ngāi Te Rangi had any claims on the island, but did accept that Ngāti Pikiao had a claim. He claimed the whole island and denied that they had ever sought permission from Tohi Te Ururangi to occupy it.198 Questioned by the court, he stated that Patuwai had gained the better in the fighting

194 Maketu MB 1, p.31. 195 Maketu MB 1, p.32. 196 Maketu MB 1, pp.32-33. 197 Maketu MB 1, p.33. 198 Maketu MB 1, p.37.

with Ngāi Te Rangi before 1840. Between that date and the early 1850s no one lived on the island. At that time Patuwai and Hori Tupaea had both occupied the island, with Ngāi Te Rangi fencing off the larger part to of it to demarcate their own portion. However, Hori Tupaea had left Motiti when the fighting broke out at Waikato (1863). Wi Maruki said that Patuwai had objected to the lines but did not cultivate to the south of them until after Ngāi Te Rangi had left. He stated that Patuwai were the only people with any claim on the island, and denied that Te Arawa had any claim.199

141. Wi Warena Potaha also claimed Motiti through Te Hapū, having gone there during Governor Browne’s time (in the 1850s). He added that Ngāti Pikiao also had a claim through Te Hapū, from whom they descended.200 When the hearing resumed after a lunch break, Wiremu Maihi Te Rangikaheke warned that it would take very little for ‘the assembled Natives [to] take up arms on hearing the statements of the witness Te Maruki’.201 However, some Te Arawa witnesses confirmed the Patuwai claim over Motiti, including Te Otira of Ngāti Uenukukopako and Te Pokiha of Ngāti Pikiao. The latter told the court that his claim on the island was through an ancestor only and that if the Patuwai consented to their going on to the land they could do so, but not otherwise.202

142. Wiremu Matene, also of Ngāti Pikiao, confirmed Te Pokiha’s evidence. Wiremu Maihi Te Rangikaheke of Ngāti Rangiwewehi added that in his view the claims of Hori Tupaea and Patuwai over Motiti were valid. He noted that the Arawa had not lived at Motiti since peace had been made, despite strong associations with the island through the ancestors on their founding canoe.203

143. As Richard Boast has noted, this was one of the first important Native Land Court cases to take place in the Bay of Plenty. Feelings ran high, not just over the history of Motiti but also given the wider context of relations between the different iwi at that time. Many Te Arawa groups continued to actively assist Crown forces, including during the Tauranga Bush Campaign that had been waged earlier that year. For many of them, Boast suggests, giving evidence during the Motiti case was an opportunity to ‘give Arawa’s understanding of the dramatic events of the 1830s and

199 Maketu MB 1, pp.40-41. 200 Maketu MB 1, p.45. 201 Maketu MB 1, p.45. 202 Maketu MB 1, p.49. 203 Maketu MB 1, p.53.

1840s’ in an important public forum, but without really contesting the claims of Hori Tupaea (or Patuwai) to Motiti.204

144. Henare Te Pukuatua presenting the case for Ngāti Whakaue, told the court that when peace was made in 1845 Hori Tupaea had asked for a piece of Motiti. The Ngāti Whakaue chiefs had agreed to let him have a portion, along with Mumuhu, a Patuwai chief, and in 1852 Hori Tupaea had gone to Motiti.205

145. Petera Te Pukuatua endorsed the story about Te Arawa consenting to the division of Motiti between Hori Tupaea and Te Patuwai at the time of the peace making. Tohi Te Ururangi had at first been angry when Hori Tupaea went to Motiti but had eventually consented to peace being made.206 He denied that Patuwai had any legal right to the island, as did Hamuera, who stated that he put them down on account of their ‘presumption’ in joining the King, ‘and turning around to fight me’. Wi Maruki, Hone Te Whetuki and Te Puhi had remained on Motiti and did not join the King. Others only returned, he claimed, ‘because they saw the Arawas become powerful under the Queen’.207 It appears that he was angry at what he saw as the effects of many Patuwai downplaying their sympathies for and apparent involvement with those fighting against the Crown and Te Arawa, in consequence of which he was not prepared to countenance their claim on the island. Rewi Tereamuku told the court that when Tohi Te Ururangi heard that Motiti had been given to Hori Tupaea, he ‘sent the Patuwai there’ to ‘kindle the fires and take possession of Motiti’.208

146. Rangitukehu, described as presenting a Ngāti Awa case to the court, stated that he belonged to both Te Whānau a Tauwhao and Ngāti Awa and claimed Motiti through his ancestor Hikutu. Unlike many of the other witnesses, he also stated that Patuwai were a section of Ngāti Awa. At the time of the Ngāpuhi attack in 1818, Te Whānau a Tauwhao were living at one end of the island with Ngāti Hinewai and Patuwai at the other end. After both parties evacuated the island, Patuwai’s eventual return was, he claimed, in consequence of Hori Tupaea agreeing that they should return.209

204 Richard Boast, The Native Land Court, 1862-1887: A Historical Case Study, Cases and Commentary, Wellington: Brookers, 2013, p.415. 205 Maketu MB 1, pp.55-58. 206 Maketu MB 1, p.63. 207 Maketu MB 1, p.67. 208 Maketu MB 1, p.72. 209 Maketu MB 1, pp.76-77.

147. When Hori Tupaea opened his own case he told the court that he belonged to the Whānau a Tauwhao, Ngāti Raukawa and Ngāti Awa tribes. But despite being widely considered the paramount chief of Ngāi Te Rangi, in the context of the Motiti inquiry (and with the threat of confiscation hanging over the island) he steadfastly denied a Ngāi Te Rangi connection, telling the court ‘I have nothing to do with Ngaiterangi. The Ngaiterangi are on shore and the Whakautauwhao [sic] on two Islands Tuhua & Motiti. 12 generations we have been there.’210 He denied any Arawa claims on Motiti but acknowledged Patuwai occupation of the northern end, while at the same time noting an old quarrel between the two about the location of the boundary line between them.211

148. Referring to the earlier tribal conflicts, Hori Tupaea told the court that when Te Tumu fell (in 1836), Maketu came into the possession of Te Arawa but not Motiti. Later one of the Te Arawa chiefs had asked him to let Patuwai return to Motiti and he had agreed to do so. He told the court that Patuwai wanted the boundary line to be at Te Horetu and that this was ‘an old dispute’. The Karioi pā, he added, had been built by him but taken possession of by Patuwai only after he had left the island (in 1863).212

149. The Ngāi Tauwhao boundary line he laid down ran considerably further north than the old Ōkoronui to Te Huruhi one mentioned as having been agreed in the 1850s. Hori Tupaea claimed that his boundary began at the critically important Wairanaki waterfront, one of the most important landing places on the island. From there it extended across Te Kupenga-o-Taramanuka to Pukepuke Ariki to Te Onepu, Ruakopiha, Ngautakaka, Waitapu, Te Umu-o-Kahakaha to Kaiwhaka reef.213 This boundary encompassed an estimated 1300 acres out of the 1650 acres on the island (besides the area named by Hori Tupaea that extended out to sea, which was not included in the area adjudged by the court). The two different boundary lines (and the third line between them eventually decided upon by the court) are shown in Map 1.

150. Following an adjournment until the following April, further Te Arawa witnesses were heard. In February 1868 Temuera Te Amohau had written to the Chief Judge challenging the notice issued for the hearing and insisting that ‘the whole of the

210 Maketu MB 1, p.85. 211 Maketu MB 1, p.85. 212 Maketu MB 1, p.86. 213 Maketu MB 1, p.86.

Arawa tribe’, and not just some groups, were entitled to talk about Motiti.214 But the main lines of claim had already been clearly established. The surveyor, A.C. Turner, was last to give evidence, telling the court that Wi Maruki (of Patuwai) had accompanied him on the survey over the island, pointing out the various places and pā sites. The survey had not been interrupted and no internal boundaries had been pointed out. Retireti Tapsell had employed him to undertake the survey.215

151. The court reached its own verdict on a boundary line, ignoring the one referred to as having been set down in the 1850s, along with Hori Tupaea’s much more northerly division of the island. At the conclusion of the evidence on 28 April 1868:

Court expressed opinion as to ownership. South end to Hori Tupaea & Whanau a Tauwhao tribe. North end to the Patuwai tribe. Dividing boundary from Ruakaramea to the centre of Karioi, from thence to the mouth of the Motukahakaha Stream.216

152. During the months between the first hearing and the court’s expression of its ‘opinion’ on the evidence received, officials and judges had continued to debate the question of jurisdiction. In February 1868 the Native Under Secretary, William Rolleston, on behalf of the Native Minister responded to a previous message from Fenton concerning Motiti:

I have the honour by direction of Mr Richmond to acknowledge the receipt of your letter no 194 of January 27th in which you state that the claim to Motiti will be further investigated at a court for which notice has been given, and call attention to the fact that the case remained undecided at the last Court, because the Crown Title under the New Zealand Settlements Acts still hung over it. In reply I am to state that the Government do not propose to maintain the Crown Title to the island as in terms of the Order in Council of May 18th 1865 the claims of the Ngaiterangi only were confiscated and the proportion of one-fourth of the lands which was to be retained was represented by the Papa and Puna lands. The lands on Motiti must therefore be returned to their owners.

Mr Richmond is of opinion that the return will have to be effected by making a reserve under the Confiscated Lands Act 1867 and referring the reserve to the Native Lands Court for division among those interested.217

153. A draft reply from Fenton expressed doubts as to whether the government could legally reserve the island under the Confiscated Lands Act, given that the Tauranga

214 Temuera Te Amohau to Fenton, 17 February 1868, BACS A622 25436 Box 300 b T296, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 215 Maketu MB 1, pp.106-107. 216 Maketu MB 1, p.107. 217 Rolleston to Fenton, 18 February 1868, Motiti Correspondence, BACS A622 25436 Box 300 b T296, Archives New Zealand (Auckland).

Lands Act 1867 expressly confirmed the confiscation of Motiti and suggested that a better course would be abandonment under the New Zealand Settlements Act.218

154. In April 1868 the Native Minister informed Fenton that the government had ‘not seen their way to the precise action proposed’ (that is, abandonment of the confiscation proclamation over Motiti) but that:

if the Native Lands Court at its next sitting for the investigation of claims on that island should express an opinion as to the ownership of any part, although unable to make any order or issue any certificate owing to the supposed effect of the Order in Council as explained by the Tauranga District Act of last session, the Government will act upon such opinion as if it had been an Order of the Court.

The practical importance of closing this question without delay will I trust be thought to justify the Court in such a direction.219

155. Fenton instructed his clerk to inform the Native Minister that his wishes would be carried out. He noted also that at the first hearing they had concluded that the island belonged to Hori Tupaea and his ‘private family (Ngaitau…[illegible, Ngāi Tauwhao?]’ and to Patuwai but that the line of separation between them had not been quite settled.220

156. On 17 June 1868 Judge Munro informed Fenton that the adjourned hearing for Motiti had terminated on 28 April. Although further evidence had been heard from various Te Arawa witnesses, he found ‘no reason to alter the opinion which we formed last year respecting the ownership of the island’, namely that the northern end belonged to Te Patuwai and the southern portion to Hori Tupaea of Whānau a Tauwhao.221

157. In September 1868 the Registrar of Deeds advised the Chief Judge that the two grants for Motiti had been registered.222 Hori Tupaea received a grant for 1090 acres while Hone Te Whetuki and Te Puhi Kirika were awarded 565 acres at the northern end of the island ‘upon trust for the benefit of themselves and other members of the

218 Fenton to Richmond, 26 February 1868 (draft), Motiti Correspondence, BACS A622 25436 Box 300 b T296, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 219 Richmond to Fenton, 3 April 1868, Motiti Correspondence, BACS A622 25436 Box 300 b T296, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 220 Fenton, marginal note, 8 April 1868, Motiti Correspondence, BACS A622 25436 Box 300 b T296, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 221 Munro to Fenton, 17 June 1868, Motiti Correspondence, BACS A622 25436 Box 300 b T296, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 222 Registrar of Deeds to Fenton, 4 September 1868, Motiti Correspondence, BACS A622 25436 Box 300 b T296, Archives New Zealand (Auckland).

tribe called Te Patuwai’.223 Hone Te Whetuki and Te Puhi Kirika claimed through descent from the ancestor Te Hapū. Hone Te Whetuki had told the court that he belonged to ‘the Ngaitehapu of Patuwai’. He made no reference to Ngāti Awa (but by contrast at one point described Patuwai as a hapū of Waitaha) and it was striking just how little Ngāti Awa featured in the evidence.

158. The court’s decision met with opposition. In February 1869 Ngahuruhuru, Paora Te Amohau and other Te Arawa rangatira wrote to the government:

This is a request that you will reopen the Court for Motiti because the disposal of that island was not clearly understood on account of the jealousy between some of the Hapus of the Arawas and some of the people of Ngatiwhakaue [;] from this cause the Hapus of the Arawa were in a state of confusion at the investigation of that island.224

159. Native Minister J.C. Richmond instructed that a reply should state that there was ‘no possibility of re-opening the case’ and that if there was any hardship then it must have been the fault of the claimants, who had plenty of time and several hearings to prepare their case.225

160. Henare Te Pukuatua also wrote in February 1869, denouncing the ‘foolish resolutions’ of his own tribe and stating that it was Petera who proposed sending an armed party to Motiti.226 Besides attempting to get up an armed party to go to Motiti, Henare alleged that Petera and others were also seeking to reopen the Motiti investigation of title.227 This might have been a reference to his own brother, Petera Te Pukuatua, another prominent Te Arawa rangatira.

161. But Ngāi Te Hapū also strongly objected to the court’s decision with respect to Motiti. The court did not fully inquire into the purpose of the line described as being laid down in the 1850s, including whether it was intended to mark the outer limits of the lands claimed by either party or whether it served a more limited purpose. And it later

223 Des Tatana Kahotea, ‘Te Moutere o Motiti: Cultural Heritage Report’, report commissioned by the Department of Internal Affairs, 2012, p.30. 224 Ngahuruhuru and others to the Government of New Zealand, 22 February 1869, Motiti Correspondence, BACS A622 25436 Box 300 b T296, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 225 Richmond, marginal note, 26 May 1869, Motiti Correspondence, BACS A622 25436 Box 300 b T296, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 226 Henare Te Pukuatua [to Fenton?], 21 February 1869, Motiti Correspondence, BACS A622 25436 Box 300 b T296, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 227 Henare Te Pukuatua to Fenton, 15 February 1869, Motiti Correspondence, BACS A622 25436 Box 300 b T296, Archives New Zealand (Auckland).

became apparent that, whatever the reason for the line, Te Patuwai did not accept it as marking the southern boundary of their own Motiti interests. They had made it clear during the course of the hearing that they claimed the whole of the island while also acknowledging the existence of the line laid down in the 1850s running from Ōkoronui across to Te Huruhi.

162. Prior to the grants being awarded, an attempt was made to survey the boundary line laid down by the court since the original survey had not laid down any internal boundary. H.T. Clarke later recalled that:

In 1869 an attempt was made by the Surveyors to lay off the boundary line between Hori Tupaea’s people and Te Patuwai hapu on Motiti Island in accordance with the judgment of the Native Land Court. The latter hapu resisted, and would not allow the survey to be made – they at the same time made complaint to the Native Minister (the late Sir Donald MacLean). I was requested to inquire into the matter. I did so. The complaint was that the Native Land Court had laid down the boundary between themselves and their opponents through the centre of their pa Karioi – or as they put it through the centre of their houses. They at the same time complained that the govt had never shown them the same consideration as other hapus on account of services rendered. They asked for an allotment in Tauranga as a stopping place on occasions when they visited the mainland. You will remember this was a time of great anxiety owing to Te Kooti’s movements and it was considered expedient to conciliate the natives as much as possible.

I pointed out to the complainants that the boundary as laid down by the court must be adhered to although it appeared there was a hardship connected therewith, as a set off to this I promised to lay their grievance before the Native Minister. The result was they were promised Lot 79 Te Papa, provided that they would withdraw their opposition to the subdivisional survey being carried out.228

163. Clarke had first reported ‘the dissatisfaction expressed by the Patuwai hapu in reference to the division of the Island of Motiti’ in June of that year, when he had first suggested allocating fifty to 100 acres to Patuwai within the Tauranga confiscated block as a way of allaying their concerns. Lot 79, Parish of Te Papa, consisting of 100 acres, was promised to members of Te Patuwai. But as is discussed below, title was withheld while they continued to dispute the ownership of Motiti B and the issue only finally resolved in the 1880s when ownership of the two land blocks was exchanged between Patuwai and George Douglas, the European land buyer of southern Motiti.

228 Clarke to Native Under Secretary, 10 November 1884, MA 1 1209 1919/385, Archives New Zealand.

164. In the early 1870s the location of the boundary line continued to be a major grievance for Patuwai, prompting Clarke to visit Motiti in an effort to resolve the matter. In February 1870 Clarke informed the Native Department that he:

went to Motiti to visit the Patuwai, and endeavour to settle a long-pending dispute, respecting the boundary line, between Hori Tupaea and the Patuwai. This having been accomplished, I returned to Tauranga the same day.229

165. In October 1870 the Daily Southern Cross also reported Te Patuwai dissatisfaction with the outcome of the Native Land Court case. The newspaper reported that, at the original hearing, title had been disputed between Hori Tupaea and Te Patuwai:

no decision was come to by the Judges at that time, and...Judge Munro, on leaving, informed the Patuaai [sic] that he would forward to them his decision in writing. This, however, he failed to do, and while the natives were waiting for the expected document, Hori Tupaea was granted more than two-thirds of the island. On this, the Patuaai tribe at once applied to Mr. Commissioner Clarke for a new trial in the case, feeling that they had not been fairly dealt with; but, instead of the trial being granted, they were offered by him a piece of land in the vicinity of Tauranga, in lieu of the lost island. This, however, they refused to accept; and informed the Commissioner that they should oppose Hori Tupaea should he endeavour to take possession.230

166. Whether coincidental or not, Hori Tupaea’s son Akuhata had advertised land on Motiti to be leased within weeks of the grants for the land being made out, contrary to earlier intimations that the land would be reoccupied.231 By November 1868 a deed of lease had been signed with George Alexander Douglas.232

167. There is no record of a formal application for rehearing on the part of Te Patuwai at this time. It would appear probable that, rather than assist them with making such an application to the Native Land Court, Clarke had instead sought to buy off their opposition to the court’s judgment with the offer of a small area of land at Tauranga. Later evidence (cited above) made it clear that the offer of lot 79 at Huria had, from the Crown’s perspective, been conditional upon Patuwai abandoning their claims

229 Clarke to Native Under Secretary, 22 February 1870, AJHR, 1870, A-8A, p.72, https://atojs.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/atojs?a=d&d=AJHR1870-I.2.1.2.11&pg=51&e= (accessed 13 January 2017). 230 Daily Southern Cross, 22 October 1870, http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DSC18701022.2.26 (accessed 20 December 2016). 231 Des Tatana Kahotea, ‘Te Moutere o Motiti: Cultural Heritage Report’, report commissioned by the Department of Internal Affairs, 2012, p.38. 232 Deeds Register Book k1, Cooks County, BAJZ A1660 23656 Box 781 a K1, p.231, Archives New Zealand.

over the disputed area on Motiti (even though Patuwai were known to be in occupation of this at the time).

168. However, the issue did not disappear. In June 1874 the Bay of Plenty Times reported that Captain Turner, the district engineer, and Hopkins Clarke from the Civil Commissioner’s officer had left for Motiti ‘to settle some land boundary disputed by the natives of that island’.233 A few days later the same newspaper reported that the pair had returned from their trip to Motiti. It noted that:

Much opposition was at first shown by the Patuwai to the surveying of the boundary line between themselves and Papaunahi. Ultimately the line was correctly defined and laid on the plan. Before leaving the island Mr. Clarke cautioned the Patuwai against cultivating any portion of land across the boundary.234

169. Patuwai had previously indicated that they claimed the whole of Motiti and had cultivated, fished and hunted pigs south of the line laid down by Hori Tupaea (which ran through their Karioi pā). As the sole remaining Māori group on Motiti by the early 1870s they continued to assert and exercise the same claims.

170. It should be noted that the Waitangi Tribunal has repeatedly found that the Native Land Court was an inappropriate body to determine matters of customary rights and interests (a view supported by many historians to appear before it. In its report on the Central North Island claims, for example, the Tribunal found that ‘the Native Land Court was not an appropriate body to deal with the complex matter of determining customary rights, which required a deep knowledge of history, whakapapa and relationships among the various kin groups with rights to land and resources in a district’.235 The Tribunal held that in denying Māori meaningful involvement in the process of determining customary rights, the Crown failed to support Māori in the exercise of their rangatiratanga, breaching the Treaty principles of partnership, autonomy and active protection. It further found that the operations of the Native Land Court ‘resulted in prejudice to communities of right-holders whose rights were

233 Bay of Plenty Times, 10 June 1874, http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/BOPT18740610.2.11 (accessed 20 December 2016). 234 Bay of Plenty Times, 13 June 1874, http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/BOPT18740613.2.8 (accessed 20 December 2016). 235 Waitangi Tribunal, He Maunga Rongo: Report on Central North Island Claims, Wellington: Waitangi Tribunal, 2008, vol.2, p.537.

not recognised, or were inadequately recognised, by its determination of customary rights’.236

14. Late Nineteenth Century Occupation of Motiti

171. Available century census figures for the later nineteenth century record a substantial Patuwai population on Motiti (but no other Māori group on the island). The official returns cover the period between 1874 and 1886 and give the following numbers of Patuwai on Motiti:

1874 – 69237 1878 – 64238 1881 – 109239 1886 – 91240

172. Herbert Wardell, the Tauranga Resident Magistrate responsible for compiling these figures, noted that although the 1886 census showed a decline in the Motiti Māori population, some people who were at Motiti in 1881 had gone to Maketu by the time of the 1886 census. Likewise, the substantial increase in the numbers between 1878 and 1881 was attributed to many people returning to the island over the intervening period. It is clear that there was a high degree of mobility among the population.

173. Although Patuwai are described in the census returns as a hapū of Ngāti Awa, these categorisations were not self-selecting (as a result of which a recent Office of Treaty Settlements document citing these returns as evidence ‘that many Patuwai residents of Motiti did identify as Ngāti Awa’ is entirely without substance).241 Commenting on the 1886 census, the Registrar-General noted that:

The selection of the designated principal tribes was made by Mr. Henry Tacy Clarke when he held the office of Under-Secretary for Native Affairs; he,

236 Waitangi Tribunal, He Maunga Rongo: Report on Central North Island Claims, Wellington: Waitangi Tribunal, 2008, vol.2, p.537. 237 AJHR, 1874, p.8, https://atojs.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/atojs?a=d&cl=search&d=AJHR1874- I.2.2.3.16&srpos=1&e= (accessed 12 January 2017). 238 AJHR, 1878, G-2, p.21, https://atojs.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/atojs?a=d&cl=search&d=AJHR1878- I.2.2.2.3&srpos=1&e= (accessed 12 January 2017). 239 AJHR, 1881, G-3, p.21, https://atojs.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/atojs?a=d&cl=search&d=AJHR1881- I.2.2.3.5&srpos=1&e= (accessed 12 January 2017). 240 AJHR, 1886, G-12, p.7, https://atojs.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/atojs?a=d&cl=search&d=AJHR1886- I.2.3.2.14&srpos=1&e= (accessed 12 January 2017). 241 Office of Treaty Settlements, Draft Report in Response to Wai 2521 claim regarding the nature of the relationship between Ngāi Te Hapū and Patuwai of Ngāti Awa, 22 April 2016, p.5.

from his knowledge of Maori history and traditions, having been deemed a reliable authority on the subject. The number of subtribes and hapus given in 1886 of which the names did not appear in the returns for 1881 necessitated a reference back to the various Native officers for the purpose of allocating the various members according to the several principal tribes from which they were descended, and to which they should belong.242

174. In other words, Pākehā Crown officials decided on the labels themselves and, as Dr Angela Ballara has demonstrated at length, in doing so they frequently ignored ‘the complexities of local descent and authority patterns’, instead preferring to ‘categorise their districts into more convenient groupings’.243 In particular:

The notion grew of large ‘tribes’ or ‘nations; of which smaller tribes were dependent parts; these smaller groups were called ‘hapū’, ‘clans’ or ‘subtribes’, or sometimes ‘subdivisions’ or ‘branches’; these terms were understood interchangeably as subdivisions of a larger whole in a hierarchical power structure.244

175. And so, in the minds of Crown officials, an iwi, hapū, whānau (tribe, subtribe, extended family) hierarchy took shape, with iwi elevated to pre-eminence and hapū that were previously dominant (and could often, as with the case of Ngāi Te Hapū, trace their affiliations through multiple tribal groupings) placed in a position of subservience. Dr Ballara provides multiple examples of the way in which this influenced how different groups were categorised in census and other official returns. She also shows how, over time, this preference for larger tribal groupings ruled by paramount chiefs, inevitably influenced the way that Māori began to think of their own social organisation, especially at a time when the challenges posed by colonisation called for increasing cooperation across larger units.245

176. A 1908 roll of those who had voted in the Eastern Maori electorate included a small number of voters who gave Motiti as their address (twenty in all by my count). Of this number, fourteen listed Patuwai as their hapū, one gave Patuwai and Ngāti Takahanga, two ‘Ngati Makiriwai’ (Ngāti Makerewai), one ‘Ngai Tauwhau’ (Ngāi Tauwhao), one ‘Ngai te Ranginui’ (Ngāti Ranginui), and one Ngāti Takanga. Apart

242 Results of a Census of the Colony of New Zealand taken for the night of the 28th March 1886, https://www3.stats.govt.nz/Historic_Publications/1886-census/Results-of-Census-1886/1886-results- census.html (accessed 15 March 2018). 243 Angela Ballara, Iwi: The Dynamics of Māori Tribal Organisation from c.1769 to c.1945, Wellington: Victoria University Press, 1998, p.79. 244 Angela Ballara, Iwi: The Dynamics of Māori Tribal Organisation from c.1769 to c.1945, Wellington: Victoria University Press, 1998, p.70. 245 Angela Ballara, Iwi: The Dynamics of Māori Tribal Organisation from c.1769 to c.1945, Wellington: Victoria University Press, 1998, p.279.

from the two Ngāi Tauwhao and Ngāti Ranginui (both described as hapū of the Ngāi Te Rangi tribe) all were listed as belonging to the Ngāti Awa tribe.246 It is not clear whether these tribes were named by the electors or assigned by the electoral officers in a similar manner to nineteenth century census returns. Ballara quotes a 1947 report that half of those registering to vote on the Māori electoral rolls did not know the name of their tribes.247

177. Although formal rolls were prepared for the first time for the 1949 election, many did not register (total votes exceeded registered electors in the Māori electorates), while those who were officially deemed to be less than ‘half caste’ could not vote in the Māori electorates before 1975.248 These kinds of factors mean official returns such as the rolls and early census data are of at best limited utility as guides to how Māori identified themselves. The shifting tribal identities and official categorisations of Motiti island and its Māori population in the twentieth century are further explored below.

15. Subdividing Southern Motiti

178. Hori Tupaea died in 1881 and his son Akuhata Tupaea duly applied to succeed to his interests on Motiti in July of that year.249 Douglas, the lessee over the portion of land awarded to Hori Tupaea, had also been negotiating to purchase the land since at least 1874, offering £1 per acre (he had been leasing the area for £70 per annum). But he encountered difficulties because Tupaea held the land in trust for his tribe and Douglas’s lawyer told him that the chief could not legally convey the land to him. Douglas then sought to lobby the government but in 1878 Native Minister John Sheehan told him that as the land was held in trust the freehold could not be disposed of and no Trust Commissioner could approve a deed of sale. Despite such warnings, Douglas continued paying advances to the amount of £553, hoping the restrictions against alienation of the land would be removed.

246 Eastern Maori Electoral District: List of Maori Electors Who Voted at the General Election in Above- Named Electorate in 1908, Wellington: Government Printer, 1911, pp.7, 10, 15, 20, 26, 28, 31, 34, 49, 51, 59, 67-69, 78, 80, 91-92, 97. 247 Angela Ballara, Iwi: The Dynamics of Māori Tribal Organisation from c.1769 to c.1945, Wellington: Victoria University Press, 1998, p.282. 248 Parliamentary Library, The Origins of the Māori Seats (Parliamentary Library Research Paper), Wellington: Parliamentary Library, 2003 (2nd. ed. 2009), https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/research- papers/document/00PLLawRP03141/origins-of-the-m%C4%81ori-seats (accessed 16 March 2018). 249 Motiti No.1 Title Applications, 1867-1902, BACS A622 25436 Box 192 a T296/301, Archives New Zealand (Auckland).

179. In 1882 he petitioned Parliament’s Native Affairs Committee on the matter. Douglas appeared before the committee, giving evidence and getting cross-examined over the course of two days. He told the committee that he had only offered to purchase the land after learning that the owners were in negotiation to sell to another European. When Douglas suggested that, as lessee, he should have first right of purchase in the event of a sale, this was readily agreed to and negotiations commenced soon after. Douglas added that he had recently met with the Native Minister, John Bryce, who agreed that he had ‘done no moral wrong’ and that the case was one deserving of attention.250 The committee reported that ‘the question involved is one of a very serious nature, inasmuch as there are so many cases in existence similar to that of the petitioner’. It concluded that ‘the difficulty is one which can only be met by special legislation, and it cannot recommend any legislation which will not deal with the whole subject’.251

180. The Native Affairs Committee reported on Douglas’s petition in August 1882. By September of the same year legislation had been passed that appeared to provide a legal mechanism whereby the original grant in trust could be cancelled and annulled, allowing the land to be sold. In December 1882 Akuhata Tupaea applied for subdivision of the 1090-acre block.252 He made a similar application under section 11 of the Native Land Division Act 1882 on 29 November 1883. Section 11 of the Act stated that, in the case of a grant to a tribe or hapū or a named person on behalf of either, application could be made to the Native Land Court for division of the land in question. Thereafter the land could be dealt with in like manner as land granted to persons absolutely and delivery of the original grant to court would be deemed a surrender, allowing the Minister of Lands to cause the record of the grant to be cancelled. In effect, this allowed the grant of land to Hori Tupaea in trust to be annulled.

181. In December 1884 the Native Land Court considered the subdivision application. Judge H.T. Clarke duly cancelled the previous grant to Hori Tupaea in trust for his people and replaced this with a new grant to Akuhata Tupaea, Akuhata Te Ninihi, Matiu Tarera, Wiremu Tatara and Meneira Turere. Motiti B, consisting of 890 acres, was duly sold to Douglas for the sum of £1030. After discussions with the owners, an

250 Evidence of G.A. Douglas, 3 August 1882, no.299/1882, Le 1/18826, Archives New Zealand. 251 AJHR, 1882, I-2, p.19, https://atojs.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/atojs?a=d&d=AJHR1882-I.2.2.5.6&e= (accessed 21 December 2016). 252 Motiti No.1 Title Applications, 1867-1902, BACS A622 25436 Box 192 a T296/301, Archives New Zealand (Auckland).

area of 166 acres (Motiti B) was excluded from the sale. The Motiti A block, consisting of 200 acres, also remained as an inalienable reserve for the owners. Akuhata Tupaea and 21 others were named as owners of Motiti A, which was leased to Douglas at a nominal rate.253 In January 1887 Akuhata Tupaea wrote that the lines of the 200 acres at Motiti (Motiti A) did not reach the boundary with Patuwai but stopped abruptly in the middle of the land of ‘Takirihi’ (Douglas). Following an agreement reached with Douglas, the southern boundary of the lands owned by Patuwai members would be the 166-acre Motiti B block. Akuhata Tupaea appears to have been referring to the fact that there was a gap between the Motiti A and B blocks.

16. Motiti B

182. It would appear that the Motiti subdivision case reignited Ngāi Te Hapū dissatisfaction with the original Native Land Court decision in 1868 and especially the boundary line laid down that legally restricted their ownership to the northern one- third or so of Motiti. At the same time, this question was tied up with the fate of the 100-acre lot 79 at Huria that had been promised Patuwai in return for abandoning their opposition to the Motiti boundary as defined by the Native Land Court. Through the early 1880s members of Patuwai made multiple applications to Crown officials to receive title to the lands at Tauranga. Hone Wirihana and others wrote to the Native Minister in December 1880 that the land had been promised them for their ‘good conduct’.254

183. Ngamanu Te Wharau and others, writing in August 1881, were more specific, stating that the land had been ‘given to us for services rendered to the Government during the fighting’. But despite that, Clarke had told them that title to the Huria land would not be handed over until they accepted the Native Land Court’s decision with respect to Motiti, a linkage that the writers condemned as a ‘wrongful proceeding’.255 Not only did they continue to object to the Native Land Court’s original finding, but the 166

253 Motiti No.1 Title Applications, 1867-1902, BACS A622 25436 Box 192 a T296/301, Archives New Zealand (Auckland); A.H. Matheson, Motiti Island, Bay of Plenty, Whakatane: Whakatane and District Historical Society, 1979, p.36. 254 Hone Wirihana and others to Native Minister, 8 December 1880, MA 1 1209 1919/385, Archives New Zealand. 255 Ngamanu Te Wharau and others to Native Minister, 17 August 1881, MA 1 1209 1919/385, Archives New Zealand.

acres offered them did not encompass all of the area mentioned as included within their own boundary.

184. However, the government remained adamant that the Huria lands would only be handed over once Patuwai had finally agreed to accept the Motiti boundaries. In November 1884 H.T. Clarke, who had negotiated the setting aside of the reserve, observed that, if Patuwai, finally agreed to accept the Native Land Court defined boundaries on Motiti, then the government would be ‘morally bound to carry out the promise originally made’. At the same time he recommended that they should be made to understand that if they did not abide by the boundary line, the court’s order would be carried out regardless and they would forfeit all claims on the Huria land.256

185. In February 1885 the matter was raised in person with Native Minister John Ballance when he met with Māori at Tauranga. Ngamanu Te Wharau raised the issue of the Huria lands. Ballance reminded him that one of the conditions for receiving the 100 acres was accepting the Native Land Court imposed boundary on Motiti. He asked whether they were prepared to agree to the boundary and was told in response that they had ‘nearly arrived at a conclusion in respect of that matter’. Ballance advised them that once they had done so, the other part of the agreement would be fulfilled (that is, they would receive title to the Huria lands once they accepted the Motiti boundaries).257

186. It seems a decision was made, but not the one that Ballance might have been anticipating. In April 1885 the lawyer E.T. Dufaur wrote to the Registrar of the Native Land Court on behalf of his Patuwai clients, seeking a rehearing into Motiti on the following grounds:

1. That they did not know their land was included in the application before the Court. 2. That they have occupied the land they claim for very many years and still occupy it and have no other settlement. 3. That they number upwards of a hundred people and have their Pa and graves of their ancestors on the land. 4. That their occupation of the land has never been disputed.

256 H.T. Clarke to Native Under Secretary, 10 November 1884, MA 1 1209 1919/385, Archives New Zealand. 257 Extract from notes of an interview with the Native Minister, 14 February 1885, MA 1 1209 1919/385, Archives New Zealand.

5. That the people to whom the land has been awarded have never occupied this particular portion of the land and that the land so awarded includes their graves pas and houses.258

187. Dufaur noted in a follow up note that ‘The natives who instructed me to apply for a rehearing stated positively that the survey line cut off a large portion of their settlement including the graves’.259 A few days later he advised that Patuwai had settled the subdivision dispute among themselves and had asked him not to proceed further with the rehearing application.260 It appears that the solution might have involved Douglas agreeing to gift Motiti B to Patuwai in exchange for their Huria land, although it was another seven months before an agreement to this effect was signed.

188. In November 1885 Douglas agreed to transfer the Motiti B land to Patuwai in exchange for the 100 acres owned by them in the form of lot 79, Parish of Te Papa, at Huria. A document signed by representatives of the ‘Ngati Patuwai Tribe’ stated that by Douglas consenting to this agreement the long-standing difficulty would finally be settled.261 Brabant suggested that members of Patuwai had first proposed the exchange as a way of confirming their title to the disputed Motiti lands, which they had never abandoned. He recommended that the government give its blessing to the deal, subject to Douglas paying any legal and survey expenses involved.262 The following month the Native Department approved the proposed settlement of matters and authorised Brabant to oversee the necessary arrangements.263

189. In February 1886 a meeting was held at Tauranga to agree the list of owners for the Motiti B land. Herbert Brabant, the Tauranga Resident Magistrate, attended the meeting of Patuwai at Tauranga and stated that they had spent several days discussing the matter before agreeing on 187 names of those to whom the Motiti B land should be awarded to in exchange for the 100 acres at Huria.264 Subsequent to this, Brabant wrote a memorandum outlining the history of the Motiti lands. He noted that:

258 Dufaur to Registrar, Native Land Court, 9 April 1885, Motiti Correspondence, BACS A622 25436 Box 300 b T296, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 259 Dufaur to E. Hammond, 10 April 1855, Motiti Correspondence, BACS A622 25436 Box 300 b T296, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 260 Dufaur to E. Hammond, 13 April 1885, Motiti Correspondence, BACS A622 25436 Box 300 b T296, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 261 Te Puhi Kehukehu and others to Douglas, 18 November 1885, MA 1 1209 1919/385, Archives New Zealand. 262 Brabant to Native Under Secretary, 13 November 1885, MA 1 1209 1919/385, Archives New Zealand. 263 Native Under Secretary to Brabant, 2 December 1885, MA 1 1209 1919/385, Archives New Zealand. 264 Brabant to Native Under Secretary, 18 February 1886, MA 1 1209 1919/385, Archives New Zealand.

the Native Land Court awarded the Island of Motiti between the Ngaitauwhao and Te Patuai tribes, when whether designedly or by misadventure I do not know which, the former tribe had included in their portion about 170 acres which the latter were occupying as a pa and cultivations. The Patuai refused to move off and have occupied ever since.265

190. He explained that Clarke had travelled to Motiti in June 1869 in an effort to resolve the dispute and, as he believed Patuwai ‘had some grounds for dissatisfaction’ recommended that they receive 100 acres at Tauranga (lot 79). Douglas had meanwhile leased the Ngāi Tauwhao portion but had never been able to get possession of the disputed area. As Patuwai refused to move off the land, the government would not put them in possession of the 100 acres at Huria. That was the situation until Douglas and Patuwai had jointly applied to the Native Minister to sanction their exchange, formalising Patuwai occupation of the 166 acres on Motiti in exchange for the 100-acre section on the mainland that they had never been formally granted. At the well-attended February meeting, Brabant added, he had expressed his view that the land should be awarded to those actually in occupation. But he could not secure agreement to this approach. A majority of those in attendance wanted the land ‘conveyed to their old chief Te Puhi in trust for the tribe’. Others disagreed and some wanted it awarded to their own group, to the exclusion of all others. Brabant told the meeting that he had no judicial powers in the matter and did not see any way to decide it unless they could themselves agree on a list of owners. It took four days of debate before they agreed on the list of 187 names.266

191. Subsequent to the February 1886 meeting at Tauranga, members of Patuwai wrote to the Chief Judge to complain that the arrangement had included people who had no claim on the land. In March 1886 Maihi Pateoro and others ‘on behalf of the whole of Patuai’ sought a rehearing into the piece of land that had been given by ‘Takirihi’ (Douglas) to Te Patuwai. They objected that the whole of Ngāti Pūkenga had been admitted into the block, even though they had no claim upon it, whereas Patuwai had permanent cultivations, burial grounds, and ‘the pas of our ancestors, our fathers, and ourselves’ on the land.267 They were advised in response that the court had nothing to do with the arrangement made with Douglas. Brabant had advised the Native Department that those seeking a rehearing had no grounds of complaint and

265 Brabant, memorandum, 30 March 1886, MA 1 1209 1919/385, Archives New Zealand. 266 Brabant, memorandum, 30 March 1886, MA 1 1209 1919/385, Archives New Zealand. 267 Maihi Pateoro and ‘the whole of Patuai’ to Chief Judge, Native Land Court, 18 March 1886, Motiti Correspondence, BACS A622 25436 Box 300 b T296, Archives New Zealand (Auckland).

that some of their own party would have been excluded from the title had his own suggestion to confine this to those in occupation of the land been agreed by those in attendance.268

192. Following the February 1886 meeting the Native Department had proposed that the land should be vested in the Public Trustee. Brabant noted that this idea had been ‘sent to the Island for consideration by the natives there and will very likely be adopted’.269 In April 1886 Brabant informed the Native Department that he had not considered it necessary to call a second meeting in order to discuss this proposal but had instead asked Ngamanu Te Wharau, who was going to Motiti, to lay the proposal before the tribe. He subsequently told Brabant that the tribe had agreed to vest the lands in the Public Trustee for the 187 owners, with power to lease the land for 21 years or less on being satisfied that it was the wish of the beneficiaries for the land to be leased.270

193. Paragraph 12 of the schedule to the Special Powers and Contracts Act 1886 empowered the Crown to issue a Crown grant to George Alexander Douglas for Lot 79, Parish of Te Papa, containing 100 acres, upon his conveying to the Public Trustee, in trust for the 187 people determined at a meeting of the Patuwai tribe in February 1886, title to 166 acres, being the northern portion of the Motiti B block. It further stated that the Public Trustee would be authorised to lease the land for a term of 21 years, should the beneficial owners so desire it. The first column of the schedule referred to it being deemed ‘desirable that an exchange of land should be made between certain Natives of the Patuwai Tribe, Tauranga, and George Alexander Douglas’.

194. By May 1888 the certificate of title for Motiti B transferring title from Douglas to the Public Trustee in trust for the beneficial owners was forwarded to the Native Department.271 The Native Department forwarded the title to the Public Trustee and prepared a Crown grant for lot 79, Parish of Te Papa, in favour of Douglas in fulfilment of the terms of the exchange. In June 1888 Ngamanu Te Wharau and others wrote to the Native Minister from Motiti asking whether the government had

268 Brabant, memorandum, 30 March 1886, MA 1 1209 1919/385, Archives New Zealand. 269 Brabant, memorandum, 30 March 1886, MA 1 1209 1919/385, Archives New Zealand. 270 Brabant to Native Under Secretary, 7 April 1886, MA 1 1209 1919/385, Archives New Zealand. 271 Crown Solicitor to Native Under Secretary, 22 May 1888, MA 1 1209 1919/385, Archives New Zealand.

received the document signed by Takirihi (Douglas) agreeing to allow them to have a portion of the land purchased by him. They explained that:

This particular portion has formerly been disputed by us, and now the same has been given to us by the said European in exchange for the 100 acres which the Government awarded to us, Te Patuwai, at Tauranga.272

195. The writers asked that they be sent a copy of the agreement signed by Douglas and that the government survey off the 166 acres, lest they be deceived by him. In this respect, they went on to complain that, since 1870, they had built and maintained a fence between Douglas and themselves at their own expense, with Douglas refusing to contribute in any way, even when his own cattle damaged it. In response, the Native Minister instructed that a copy of Douglas’ conveyance of the land to the Public Trustee should be sent to the Resident Magistrate at Tauranga.273 A Crown grant for lot 79, Parish of Te Papa, in favour of Douglas was prepared in October 1888.274

196. In September 1889 the Native Under Secretary advised that the Public Trustee wished to know the names of the 187 Māori that had been agreed at the February 1886 meeting as the recipients of the land Douglas had agreed to convey to them at Motiti.275 However, it soon became clear that the list had been lost and Herbert Brabant, the former Tauranga Resident Magistrate who had been in attendance at the meeting where the list had been agreed, was unable to recall how it had been disposed of.276

197. Two years later, in April 1891, Tamihana Tikitere wrote from Motiti to inquire into the status of the Huria lands.277

198. In 1894 some of the owners of Motiti B wrote to the Native Land Court Registrar in Auckland asking for information as to the administration of the land. They appeared

272 Ngamanu Te Wharau and others to Native Minister, 21 June 1888, MA 1 1209 1919/385, Archives New Zealand. 273 Native Minister, minute, 6 July 1888, MA 1 1209 1919/385, Archives New Zealand. 274 Native Under Secretary, minute, 24 October 1888, MA 1 1209 1919/385, Archives New Zealand. 275 T.W. Lewis, Native Under Secretary, to Registrar, Native Land Court, 25 September 1889, Motiti Correspondence, BACS A622 25436 Box 300 b T296, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 276 Brabant to Native Under Secretary, 14 October 1889, MA 1 1209 1919/385, Archives New Zealand. 277 Tamihana Tikitere to Native Under Secretary, 20 April 1891, MA 1 1209 1919/385, Archives New Zealand.

to be unaware that the Public Trustee administered the block but could only lease it if the owners so desired.278

199. In November 1896 the Public Trustee asked the Native Minister to authorise another search for the missing list of names.279 Over the Christmas holidays in 1896 Brabant spent two days in Tauranga and half a day in the Auckland Native Land Court offices searching in vain for the list of owners.280

200. In August 1901 the Public Trustee informed one correspondent that the list of 187 owners had never been received at his office and was lost. As the law stood, the Native Land Court had no legal power to determine who the 187 owners were and the Public Trustee had alerted the Department of Justice to this fact in 1897 and suggested that legislation was required on the matter.281 However, nothing was done and in October 1899 the Education Department applied for a school site on part on the reserve. The Public Trustee stated in response that he was legally unable to grant a legal title but had no objection to the erection of a school on the proposed site.282

201. In October 1901 Tiaki Rewiri and 54 others petitioned for the Native Land Court to be empowered to decide the owners of Motiti B.283 Petera Te Ninihi and nine others, and Hori Rewa Rangitikei and 165 others, filed similar petitions during the same parliamentary session.284 The committee reported that it had no recommendation to make since the government already had the matter in hand.

202. Section 14 of the Native Land Claims Adjustment and Laws Amendment Act 1901 empowered the Native Land Court to determine the 187 persons decided at a February 1886 meeting of the Patuwai tribe as owners of the Motiti B block. At some point prior to 1889 that list had been lost since in that year was noted that, although Brabant, the Commissioner of Tauranga Lands, had referred to the list in a letter

278 Riria Te Puhi and others to Registrar, Native Land Court, 7 March 1894, MA 1 1209 1919/385, Archives New Zealand. 279 Public Trustee to Native Minister, 17 November 1896, MA 1 1209 1919/385, Archives New Zealand. 280 Brabant to Under Secretary for Justice, 28 January 1897, MA 1 1209 1919/385, Archives New Zealand. 281 Public Trustee to Under Secretary for Justice, 5 February 1897, MA 1 1209 1919/385, Archives New Zealand. 282 Public Trustee to Asher, 22 August 1901, MA 1 1209 1919/385, Archives New Zealand. 283 AJHR, 1901, I-3, p.24, https://atojs.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/atojs?a=d&cl=search&d=AJHR1901- I.2.4.3.3&srpos=5&e= (accessed 21 December 2016). 284 AJHR, 1901, I-3, pp.8, 28, https://atojs.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/atojs?a=d&cl=search&d=AJHR1901- I.2.4.3.3&srpos=5&e= (accessed 21 December 2016).

dated 18 February 1886, a search of the Tauranga office since that time had failed to unearth the list.285

203. In 1903-04 the Native Land Court confirmed a list of 187 owners for Motiti B.286 The court opened with Rewiri Tiaki reading a list of those who had been named in 1886.287 He subsequently provided a list of about twenty people who had been included in other lists of owners of Te Patuwai lands. Although he stated that they should have been included on the original list, at the same time he expressed his view that the list should stand since those who had prepared it were now dead, even though it was thought that some of the names included belonged to Ngāti Pūkenga or Te Whānau-a-Apanui and had been included merely out of friendship.288

204. The court had before it the 1886 letter from Te Patuwai complaining about the inclusion of Ngāti Pūkenga people on the original list. But Tiaki Rewiri told the court that, with the distance of time, it was impossible to tell who those people might be.289 One witness told the court that some of those on the list provided belonged to both Te Patuwai and Ngāpuhi. But most witnesses were able to shed little light on the 1886 list. In February 1903 Tiaki Rewiri asked the court to confirm ownership in the 145 names he had provided the court. However, the court stated that it was legally unable to do that, since the statute which gave it jurisdiction in the matter explicitly required it to confirm exactly 187 owners and no more or less than that.290 The hearing, held at Maketu, was attended by only a small number (around 20 or so) of those interested in the lands. They had arrived from a concurrent sitting of the court being held at Whakatane. At the time the hearing into the Motiti partition was advertised, the court was warned that most interested owners would be absent at the Whakatane sitting.291 Others on Motiti failed to attend, something which Brabant was told could be attributed to a tangi being held on the island for a prominent rangatira.292

285 T.W. Lewis, Native Under Secretary, to Registrar, Native Land Court, 25 September 1889, Motiti Correspondence, BACS A622 25436 Box 300 b T296, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 286 Maketu MB 27, pp.302-312, 315-324. 287 Maketu MB 27, pp.302-306. 288 Maketu MB 27, pp.306-307. 289 Maketu MB 27, p.310. 290 Maketu MB 27, p.311. 291 David Asher to Registrar, Native Land Court, 11 November 1903, BACS A622 25436 Box 300 b T296, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 292 Interlocutory judgment, 20 Feburary 1903, BACS A622 25436 Box 192 b T296/301, Archives New Zealand (Auckland).

205. Brabant had consulted the Chief Judge of the Native Land Court, who advised him to let the matter stand over in the hope of amended legislation that did not require the court to find exactly 187 owners. Brabant also believed the section under which the court had been empowered to investigate Motiti B was ‘unworkable’, as it was ‘impossible’ to form a list of 187 names precisely. He also pointed out that the legislation made no provision for successors to those named in the title. Brabant offered, in the event the government decided to amend the legislation, to draft fresh provisions himself.293 But despite these concerns, no action was taken to amend the legislation.

206. When the investigation resumed in January 1904, after an adjournment of over 11 months, Tiaki Rewiri supplied a list of a further 40 names. Others also supplied further lists. The court decided without further explanation to strike out seven names that had previously been included, before confirming a list of 187 owners.294 In November 1904 the order confirming the 187 as beneficial owners of the block was signed by the court.295

207. Under section 21 of the Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1919, the 166-acre northern portion of Motiti B was vested in the beneficial owners, in effect cancelling the trust which the Public Trustee held over the land. The Public Trust Office noted at the time this move was made that ‘The Public Trustee has never dealt with this land, the same having been occupied by the beneficial Native owners’.296 It added that although the Native Land Court had purported to partition the land subsequent to the investigation of beneficial owners, the petition orders had never been signed and were treated as invalid. Because the Public Trustee had not administered the land, he had no objections to handing the legal right to manage it back to the beneficial owners.

208. The land remains in Ngāi Te Hapū/Patuwai ownership today. However, even with this additional 166 acres, a substantial area of land (perhaps another 150 acres) extending south to the old dividing line at Ōkoronui and across to Horete was denied Ngāi Te Hapū/Patuwai and this remains a source of ongoing grievance. One of the

293 Brabant to P. Sheridan, 27 June 1903, MA-MLP 1 66 ai 1903/55, Archives New Zealand. 294 Maketu MB 27, pp.318-324. 295 Registrar, Native Land Court, 11 November 1904, MA-MLP 1 72 e 1904/92, Archives New Zealand. 296 Acting Solicitor, Public Trust Office, to Native Under Secretary, 16 July 1919, MA 1 1209 1919/385, Archives New Zealand.

first things pointed out to visitors to the island today is what residents refer to as the ‘confiscation line’.

17. Motiti North

209. In March 1891 the Native Land Court sat to consider applications for the partition of the 565-acre section of Motiti awarded to members of Te Patuwai. Applications for partition had been received from Ngamanu Te Wharau (1887 and 1888) and Te Puhi Rereka (1888).297 But Te Patuwai were far from unanimous as to the need to subdivide the land, potentially exposing it to future alienation, and this became apparent as the 1891 hearing proceeded.

210. Ngamanu Te Wharau asked that, as the title had been vested in Hone Te Whetuki and Te Puhi Kirikai as trustees for the Patuwai tribe, the title be investigated. He claimed on behalf of Ngāti Makerewai, a hapū of Patuwai. Like the other witnesses to appear in the case, he claimed through descent from Te Hapū.298 He told the story of Te Hapū going to Motiti to remove the tapu on the island but when asked by the court stated that he believed Te Hapū (and by extension the Te Patuwai people he claimed Motiti through) belonged to Waitaha. Te Hapū’s people, he added, were called, Ngāi Te Hapū.299 The whakapapa he provided the court with showed subsequent intermarriage with Ngāti Awa. But he did not claim through Ngāti Awa. Ngamanu Te Wharau also explained once again to the court that the name Patuwai came from the conflict that had taken place at sea and not to a particular ancestor.300 Under cross- examination, he conceded that Ngāti Takahanga, Ngāti Pau and Ngāti Kauaewera were also hapū of the Patuwai tribe but rejected others on the basis that their claim derived through Ngāi Te Rangi or Ngāti Awa.301

211. Across the various Native Land Court cases into Motiti, the various witnesses who were asked to place the Te Hapū descent group in a wider tribal setting provided different answers. That was hardly surprising perhaps given the strong Ngāi Te Hapū affiliations with many Bay of Plenty tribal groups, underlining the difficulty of defining them reductively as a hapū of Ngāti Awa.

297 Des Tatana Kahotea, ‘Te Moutere o Motiti: Cultural Heritage Report’, report commissioned by the Department of Internal Affairs, 2012, p.39. 298 Tauranga MB 3, pp.156-157. 299 Tauranga MB 3, p.158. 300 Tauranga MB 3, p.159. 301 Tauranga MB 3, p.163.

212. Tiaki Rewiri told the court that he would set up a case on behalf of all of the hapū of Patuwai, given Ngamanu Te Wharau had claimed the entire block for Ngāti Makerewai. He gave the court a whakapapa that showed Te Hapū’s descent from Toroa, captain of the Mataatua waka, through Wairaka but not Awanuiārangi, the eponymous ancestor of Ngāti Awa.302 He stated that the only person he objected to in the whakapapa provided by Ngamanu Te Wharau was Ngamanu himself, whose father belonged to Ngāti Pūkenga and mother to Ngāti Awa.303 In his view Ngāti Awa ancestry did not make Ngamanu eligible for inclusion in the Motiti title. Tiaki Rewiri also said that Timi Waata, whose claim Ngamanu was presenting to the court, belonged to Ngāti Whakahemo rather than Patuwai.304 He also stated that the hapū he represented did not want to have the land subdivided but wished to have the names of the rightful owners and their respective shares determined.305

213. The court subsequently dismissed the application for partition, stating that it was evident that neither party sought to subdivide the land (since the Ngāti Makerewai claim was to the full 565 acres) and instead announcing that it would proceed as a determination into relative interests.306 When Ngamanu Te Wharau presented a list of owners, Tiaki Rewiri objected that they belonged to Ngāti Pūkenga and one person to Ngāti Whakahemo.307 Ngamanu Te Wharau in turn objected to some of the people named on Tiaki Rewiri’s list. The court duly heard evidence concerning the various objections, in its decision striking out all those found not to belong to Patuwai. A two acre urupā to be known as Motiti C was partitioned out and the balance of the land, known as Motiti D, awarded to those on the finalised lists.308

214. The Bay of Plenty Times reported that the 565-acre block, minus the two acre urupā, had been awarded to 134 members of the Patuwai tribe, of whom 74 were adults and 60 minors.309

302 Tauranga MB 3, p.165. 303 Tauranga MB 3, p.167. 304 Tauranga MB 3, p.173. 305 Tauranga MB 3, p.175. 306 Tauranga MB 3, p.176. 307 Tauranga MB 3, p.178. 308 Tauranga MB 3, p.214. 309 Bay of Plenty Times, 3 April 1891, http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/BOPT18910403.2.6 (accessed 9 January 2017).

18. The 1894 Rehearing

215. A rehearing into the list of owners for the 565-acre portion of Motiti awarded to Patuwai was held in 1894. Three different cases were presented. Again, the claimants described themselves as Te Patuwai and based their claims on descent from Te Hapū. The court heard that some of those who were Te Patuwai were not descended from Te Hapū and had no rights on Motiti. On the other hand, all of the descendants of Te Hapū were called Te Patuwai.310 In other words, while all of Ngāi Te Hapū were Patuwai, the two groups were not synonymous: there were other people called Patuwai who could not trace descent from Te Hapū and had no rights at Motiti. Ngati Maumoana at Whakatane was specifically pointed to as a Patuwai party who had no rights at Motiti.311

216. There was general agreement that descent from Te Hapū was a requirement for inclusion on the lists of owners. Whakapapa presented to the court again showed Te Hapū as descended from Toroa.312 The court heard again how the name Patuwai had been conferred on the survivors of the attack on water by Te Whakatōhea, rather than referring to a common ancestral lineage.313

217. Tiaki Rewiri told the court on 27 February 1894 that it had been agreed among the contending parties that two acres should be set aside at Wairanaki as a landing place for all of the people.314 This subsequently became known as Motiti North G. He added that they had also agreed that the original reserve at Oromai (Motiti North F) should be the part north of the ditch and bank, near the sea. Beyond this, the parties agreed that there should be three divisions: one in the west for Ngāti Makerewai; a central portion for Ngāti Kauae, Ngāti Te Uru and ‘certain’ Ngāti Makerewai; and an eastern portion for Ngāti Takahanga, Ngāti Pau and ‘certain’ Ngāti Makerewai. The parties agreed that the court should decide the area to be allocated to each division.315

218. Ngawhika told the court that Wairanaki was a sandy beach. He proposed that the front of the reserve should run from the beach, extending inland to a sufficient extent

310 Judge O’Brien MB 28, p.206. 311 Judge O’Brien MB 28, p.231. 312 Judge O’Brien MB 28, p.214. 313 Judge O’Brien MB 28, p.218. 314 Judge O’Brien MB 28, p.251. 315 Judge O’Brien MB 28, p.251.

to encompass two acres. The parties had agreed that there should be six trustees for the reserve, two from each of the three parties.316

219. The previous partition of the land was amended as part of the rehearing. The court awarded 203 acres, being Motiti North C to Wi Tere and 54 others of Ngāti Takahanga and Ngāti Pau. Tiaki and 34 others of Kauaewera and Ngāti Te Uru were awarded an adjoining block (Motiti North D) of 129 acres. Ngawhika and 61 others of Ngāti Makerewai were awarded 230 acres (Motiti North E); and one acre at Oromai was to be awarded to all the people in equal shares as an urupā reserve (Motiti North F), in addition to the two acre landing reserve at Wairanaki (Motiti North G).317

Map 3 Plan of Motiti North Subdivisions (ML9428)

316 Judge O’Brien MB 28, p.252. 317 Judge O’Brien MB 28, p.252.

220. It was subsequently found that Motiti North contained 25 acres less than previously thought (537 acres rather than 562 acres, exclusive of the three acres of reserves). The court’s decision to deduct this deficit from Motiti E rather than pro rata across all the blocks prompted complaints that were subsequently referred to the Appellate Court for inquiry.318 The owners of Motiti E had written to their local MP, Apirana Ngata, seeking his assistance with resolving the matter.319 In 1911 the Deputy Chief Judge directed that the deficiency in area should be deducted pro rata across the three blocks (C, D and E).320

19. Motiti A – Alienation, Occupation and Partition

221. The fate of the 200-acre Motiti A block became a matter of controversy in the early twentieth century. Following the earlier lease to Douglas, by November 1900 a new lease agreement had been signed with William Paterson.321 In May 1901 some of those interested in the block, fearing that their rights as successors to deceased owners were being overlooked, decided to occupy Motiti A. They did so after securing legal advice that no lease of the land had been registered, as a result of which they would be within their legal rights to peaceably occupy Motiti A.322

222. In June 1901 an advertisement appeared in the Bay of P lenty Times signed by Riki Pohue, described as agent for the owners of Motiti A, and John St. Clair, their solicitor. It stated that the owners desired that a fence be made between Motiti A and B immediately. The notice was addressed to William Paterson as owner, and William May as occupier of Motiti B block.323 The notice appeared days after those who had

318 Clerk, Native Land Court, to Chief Judge, 23 February 1909, BACS A622 25436 Box 192 b T296/301, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 319 Hori Rewa Rangitikei and others to Ngata, 29 January 1908, BACS A622 25436 Box 192 b T296/301, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 320 Registrar, Native Land Court, to Chief Surveyor, 14 July 1911, BACS A622 25436 Box 300 b T296, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 321 A.H. Matheson, Motiti Island, Bay of Plenty, Whakatane: Whakatane and District Historical Society, 1979, p.36. 322 Auckland Star, 14 August 1901, http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AS19010814.2.54.2 (accessed 6 January 2017). 323 Bay of Plenty Times, 5 June 1901, http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/BOPT19010605.2.39.1 (accessed 6 January 2017).

occupied Motiti appeared in the Tauranga Resident Magistrate’s Court, where they were committed for trial in the Auckland Supreme Court in August 1901.324

223. A group of ten Māori subsequently appeared in the Supreme Court charged with forcible entry onto Motiti Island. Riki Pohue was among their number. During the trial, counsel for the accused told the court that the party had been very careful to avoid trespassing on Motiti B when they went to the island. However, Mr May (Paterson's manager) stated that the group had cut down trees and deprived his cattle from reaching water by camping next to the water-hole on the property, causing him inconvenience. The judge told the accused that they had been well advised to plead guilty and might have been sentenced to a long term of imprisonment. They had received bad legal advice, he added, since if they wanted to assert their legal titles it would have been quite sufficient for one of them to have gone to the island. He fined the group £5 each.325

224. The lawyer for the party later wrote to the Justice Minister seeking a remission of the fines. He stated that those who were fined were among the very large number of landless Māori at Tauranga and were very poor and ‘absolutely without funds’ to pay the fine.326 The application was referred to the presiding judge in their case, who denied that the land had been occupied peaceably and stated that the fines barely covered the costs of prosecution.327 The Minister of Justice rejected the plea for remission of the fines.328

225. In June 1903 William Paterson secured permission from the Waiariki District Maori Land Council to purchase the interests of any owners in Motiti A whose shares he had not acquired prior to the passage of the Maori Lands Administration Act 1900. Paterson subsequently entered into an agreement with Tupaea Akuhata to pay the latter £5 for each share in Motiti A he acquired at the rate of £28 for each full share. Tupaea Akuhata (the son of Akuhata Tupaea, whose own father was Hori Tupaea) subsequently obtained the signatures of seven people he fraudulently claimed were owners, giving each £2 for their involvement and retaining the remainder of the

324 A.H. Matheson, Motiti Island, Bay of Plenty, Whakatane: Whakatane and District Historical Society, 1979, p.36. 325 Auckland Star, 14 August 1901, http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AS19010814.2.54.2 (accessed 6 January 2017). 326 John St. Clair to Justice Minister, 15 August 1901, J 1/1901/966, Archives New Zealand. 327 Edward Connolly to Minister of Justice, 26 August 1901, J 1/1901/966, Archives New Zealand. 328 Under Secretary of Justice to St. Clair, 14 October 1901, J 1/1901/966, Archives New Zealand.

funds.329 After these fraudulent practices were uncovered, he was tried and sentenced in the Supreme Court in 1906 to five years imprisonment.330

226. In 1904 the Native Land Court agreed to the partition of Motiti A, allocating Motiti A1 of 50 acres to Paterson, representing the interests he had acquired in the land.331 As part of these negotiations, Paterson agreed to allow a right of way through the land.332 However, the right of way was never recorded on the title because the court did not have jurisdiction to include this in its orders.333 Various other trails today allow residents of the island to access the foreshore and other areas of the island, although these are usually by grace and favour, and legal access remains an issue.334 When a Crown-subsidised jetty was under consideration in the 1950s, and Paterson’s land was identified as the most suitable site, it was noted that construction would be dependent on Paterson’s agreement to ‘free and continual’ Māori access to the jetty.335 The land titles issued in respect of the Paterson land extended only as far as the high water line and so did not legally impede Māori from accessing coastal and marine resources beyond that point.336

329 Taranaki Daily News, 7 July 1906, http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TDN19060707.2.13.1 (accessed 6 January 2017); Wanganui Chronicle, 22 March 1894, http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WC18940322.2.23 (accessed 12 April 2017). 330 Auckland Star, 2 August 1906, http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZH19060802.2.85 (accessed 6 January 2017). 331 Des Tatana Kahotea, ‘Te Moutere o Motiti: Cultural Heritage Report’, report commissioned by the Department of Internal Affairs, 2012, p.39. 332 Des Tatana Kahotea, ‘Te Moutere o Motiti: Cultural Heritage Report’, report commissioned by the Department of Internal Affairs, 2012, p.64. 333 Chief Surveyor to Registrar, Native Land Court, 29 June 1931, BACS A622 25436 Box 305 b T1024, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 334 Nepia Ranapia, Motiti Island Native Cultural Policy Management and Administration Plan, August 2012, p.23. 335 District Engineer to Secretary for Maori Affairs, 12 November 1956, ABKK W4357 889 Box 467 63/373, Archives New Zealand. 336 Crown grant under the Confiscated Lands Act 1867 to Hori Tupaea, 14 July 1868, BAJZ A1660 23663 Box 1000 a 1GK, Archives New Zealand (Auckland).

MOTITI •B· ~ -

Arnroved ~ "hhr~ L Chld"SUI'!IlJOf 1"'- "7 // Jl -PJ.A-.-,-N 8U:Jli1Jj '/})"JOJ'J .S' NiiJillJ'J JSJ./]JIJfJ 7-E-I'U.M y 8V1l Y£ y .£)15 7:. J!t.t. ()(Jj{ '

Map 4 Plan of Motiti Subdivisions (ML614 ABC)

227. Members of the Paterson family leased or purchased other portions of Motiti A through the twentieth century. In 1916 Motiti A2A, consisting of just over 22 acres,

was approved for sale to the Patersons for the sum of £225.337 Motiti A3A (10 acres) was approved for alienation in the same year to Helen Paterson for the sum of £100.338 In 1921 Motiti A2B, of just over 40 acres, was approved for sale to M.K. Paterson of Tauranga.339 Members of Ngāi Te Hapū also acquired parts of Motiti A via purchase or lease. In 1921 Akuhata Heta and others were approved to purchase Motiti A3B2 (27 acres) for the sum of £400.340 Dr Kahotea describes multiple leases of other portions of Motiti A by what he describes as ‘Te Patuwai people’.341 From the time of the first Native Land Court hearings into Motiti onwards, members of Ngāi Te Hapū/Patuwai had asserted claims over the whole of the island and these transactions helped to place on a formal legal footing ongoing utilisation of lands that had previously been awarded to Ngāi Tauwhao, who according to Dr Kahotea had ‘no history of...land use [on Motiti] since the 1870s’.342

228. In the 1920s Patuwai also attempted to purchase all of the land (described as 800 acres) still belonging to William Paterson. That would have ensured nearly all of the island was in their ownership, albeit under individualised legal title rather than a customary one, with the exception of those parts of Motiti A still held by individual members of Ngāi Tauwhao. However, the proposal was an ambitious one, requiring large funds that Patuwai ki Motiti did not have access to, as a result of which they sought assistance from elsewhere. In August 1925, J.H. Ralfe, a Te Puke-based lawyer acting on behalf of Patuwai, wrote to the Native Trustee outlining the idea. He stated that his clients owned 600 acres on the island and desired to acquire the 800 acres owned by Paterson. He noted that:

For some years past my clients have been engaged extensively in the cultivation of maize on Motiti Island and have been doing all the labour on Mr Paterson’s area receiving a proportion of the profits for their work. It is doubtless well known to you that Motiti is eminently suited for maize growing and the amount of maize shipped each year from the Island runs into many thousand bags and the resulting income is in like proportion.343

337 President, Waiariki District Maori Land Board, to Native Under Secretary, 23 May 1916, MA 1 1916/1818, Archives New Zealand. 338 President, Waiariki District Maori Land Board, to Native Under Secretary, 24 November 1916, MA 1 1916/4189, Archives New Zealand. 339 Native Under Secretary to Registrar, Waiariki District Maori Land Board, 19 August 1921, MA 1 1921/272, Archives New Zealand. 340 Native Department, minute, 18 July 1921, MA 1 1916/248, Archives New Zealand. 341 Des Tatana Kahotea, ‘Te Moutere o Motiti: Cultural Heritage Report’, report commissioned by the Department of Internal Affairs, 2012, p.64. 342 Des Tatana Kahotea, ‘Te Moutere o Motiti: Cultural Heritage Report’, report commissioned by the Department of Internal Affairs, 2012, p.63. 343 Ralfe to Native Trustee, 6 August 1925 (copy to A.T. Ngata), MA 1 1391 1926/295, Archives New Zealand.

229. Despite this substantial income, Ralfe added that it was still insufficient in terms of what Patuwai required:

Many of the Patuwai Tribe are far from prosperous since much of the land owned by this Tribe apart from the area at Motiti is of extremely poor quality and is not therefore productive to any great extent. To bring their present lands into a state of productivity a considerable amount of capital is required which these Natives have not any prospect of finding.344

230. It was nevertheless the strong desire of Patuwai to acquire the land from Paterson so that they could generate a sufficient income to keep tribal members in a ‘fair state of prosperity’. For these purposes, negotiations had been opened with William Paterson, who had indicated his willingness to sell at £30 per acre and to take a mortgage for a portion of the payment. Ralfe believed that the land might be secured at a lower rate, estimating the likely purchase price at somewhere in the range of £20,000 to £24,000.

231. Ralfe proposed that the area to be acquired from Paterson, together with the 600 acres already owned by Patuwai tribal members, be vested in a board of trustees consisting of the Native Trustee and ‘some of the more influential Natives of the Tribe’. The full 1400 acres could then be offered as security for a mortgage to be raised to pay Paterson for the land and any income generated from the land, including all maize sales, would be handled entirely by the board. He added that it was ‘common knowledge that the land on the Island is extremely valuable and if [the] proposals submitted can be carried out then my clients, the Putawai [sic] Tribe, will be placed in a position of comparative affluence.’345

232. Ralfe’s lengthy letter to the Native Trustee was met by a short reply stating that:

in view of the limited amount of funds available for investment purposes and the number of applications awaiting consideration it has been decided that the amount involved renders it impossible for this Department to entertain the proposal.346

344 Ralfe to Native Trustee, 6 August 1925 (copy to A.T. Ngata), MA 1 1391 1926/295, Archives New Zealand. 345 Ralfe to Native Trustee, 6 August 1925 (copy to A.T. Ngata), MA 1 1391 1926/295, Archives New Zealand. 346 Native Trustee to Ralfe, 18 August 1925, MA 1 1391 1926/295, Archives New Zealand.

233. However, Ralfe had also copied his letter to the Prime Minister, Gordon Coates, and to the local Māori Member of Parliament, Apirana Ngata. Further inquiries into the land were conducted by officials, including a search of the titles to establish which lands the Paterson family had acquired and how much they had paid.347 From this and the contemporary valuation information, it was concluded that a £30 per acre price was too high, judged against the 1921 valuation of the same land at £19 per acre.348

234. Ralfe was advised of this when he wrote again on the matter in 1926. The lawyers stated that there were 16 families on Motiti who wished to purchase the Paterson land. Considerable discussions had occurred with Ngata but the sticking point remained the lack of finance. He noted that most of the families also had other land interests and were prepared to offer these as additional security for the purchase of the Paterson estate. At that time, he added, the families cultivated 400 acres of their own lands on Motiti and 250 acres of Paterson’s land. From this 650-acre area, 22,800 bushels of maize worth £5700 were produced annually. They proposed to double the area in production, therefore ensuring a much greater return.349

235. Coates informed Ralfe in September 1926 (in his capacity as Native Minister) that there was ‘no way’ the government could assist with the purchase other than through the usual state lending processes.350 Those usual processes were ones that tended to disadvantage Māori, especially where large numbers of owners were included in the titles.

236. Ralfe told Coates that Paterson now agreed to sell the land at £20 per acre, equating to £16,000 in total, which ‘materially alters the aspect’. The families were aiming to raise £3000 in cash from their maize proceeds and Paterson had stated that ‘the natives could pay off the purchase price in 5 years without any difficulty’.351 But in 1927 Coates replied that this did not alter matters and that there was no way the government could give the assistance required.352

347 Registrar, Native Land Court, Waiariki, 21 August 1925, MA 1 1391 1926/295, Archives New Zealand. 348 Coates to Ralfe, 26 July 1926, MA 1 1391 1926/295, Archives New Zealand. 349 Ralfe to K.S. Williams, 18 June 1926, MA 1 1391 1926/295, Archives New Zealand. 350 Coates to Ralfe, 10 September 1926, MA 1 1391 1926/295, Archives New Zealand. 351 Ralfe to Coates, 31 July 1926, MA 1 1391 1926/295, Archives New Zealand. 352 Coates to Ralfe, 7 June 1927, MA 1 1391 1926/295, Archives New Zealand.

237. The government’s unwillingness to intervene meant the proposed purchase never happened. However, the sustained efforts of the Ngāi Te Hapū owners of Motiti North to acquire the Paterson estate further reinforces the significance of the entire island to them, and not just those portions awarded them by the Native Land Court.

238. In 1947 the Paterson family offered to sell their interests on Motiti to the Crown for £30 per acre. Had the sales proceeded, this might have provided a further opportunity to restore the balance of the island to Māori ownership. However, officials had other ideas. The Registrar of the Native Land Court at Rotorua reported that the lands in question appeared ‘ideal for subdivision and development, and shows some prospects for citrus growing’.353 The island was visited in order to inspect and value the lands in question. But for reasons that remain unclear, no sale took place.

20. Twentieth Century Occupation

239. Despite being highly mobile, for much of the twentieth century the Māori population of Motiti remained relatively stable in official census returns, while only a small handful of Pākehā lived on the island. In 1911 three Pākehā were recorded as living on Motiti, compared with four in 1906.354 By contrast, in 1911 it was reported that 64 Māori lived on Motiti, owning 105 horses and 455 pigs and having 376 acres of maize, 40 acres of potatoes and 37 acres of kumara cultivations.355 In 1926 the total population (including Pākehā) was 89, rising to 103 a decade later. It remained at this level until the late 1950s, when permanent residence on the island started to decline as families moved to the mainland.356 As snapshots of the population recorded at particular moments in time, these figures may not have captured others from Motiti who were away at places such as Maketu to trade or procure supplies when the returns were recorded.

353 Registrar to Valuer General, 20 March 1947, BACS A622 25436 Box 305 b T1024, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 354 Bay of Plenty Times, 1 May 1911, http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/BOPT19110501.2.15 (accessed 9 January 2017). 355 Bay of Plenty Times, 27 March 1911, http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/BOPT19110327.2.6 (accessed 9 January 2017). 356 A.H. Matheson, Motiti Island, Bay of Plenty, Whakatane: Whakatane and District Historical Society, 1979, p.30.

240. By the mid-nineteenth century Motiti had developed a reputation as a fertile and productive place for the cultivation of various crops. As one newspaper commented in the 1870s:

We understand that the Island of Motiti is a most valuable possession, being fertile in the extreme, and famous for the growth of every variety of vegetable production known in Maori husbandry.357

241. A hostel for Māori visiting Tauranga to trade was constructed on a quarter acre section on The Strand in 1873. A new hostel was built on the same site in 1902-03 and remained in operation until 1956.358 It was commonly known as the Motiti Hostel because many of those who used it for overnight accommodation were from Motiti.359 In 1963 the land was gazetted for a Māori community centre.360 The site later housed the offices of the Tauranga Moana Māori Trust Board.

242. Prior to the alienation of much of the southern portion of the island by Ngāi Tauwhao, this trade from Motiti was conducted exclusively by Māori. In 1888 one report noted that Motiti Māori had received the considerable sum of £2500 for the previous season’s maize crop.361 The Tauranga correspondent for the Bay of P lenty Ti mes noted one trading expedition to the township two decades earlier, in 1868:

On Friday, last the 17th, a large party of Maoris from the Island of Motiti put in here bringing an enormous supply of native produce, consisting of potatoes, onions, fowls, fish, peaches, eggs &c.; and perfectly glutted our market in such quantities that they had, contrary to Maori usage, to remain overnight and complete their sales the following day.362

357 Des Tatana Kahotea, ‘Te Moutere o Motiti: Cultural Heritage Report’, report commissioned by the Department of Internal Affairs, 2012, p.58. 358 Matthews and Matthews Architects Ltd in association with Jinty Rorke, Jennie Gainsford, Lisa Truttman, R.A. Skidmore & Associates, Central Tauranga Heritage Study: Part One: Prepared for Tauranga City Council/Environment Bay of Plenty, April 2008, pp.65, 70, http://tauranga.kete.net.nz/documents/0000/0000/0353/2008_Tauranga_Heritage_Study.pdf (accessed 8 March 2018). 359 ‘The Strand c.1875’, http://tauranga.kete.net.nz/tauranga_local_history/images/show/2254-the- strand-c-1875-99-1188 (accessed 8 March 2018). 360 Matthews and Matthews Architects Ltd in association with Jinty Rorke, Jennie Gainsford, Lisa Truttman, R.A. Skidmore & Associates, Central Tauranga Heritage Study: Part One: Prepared for Tauranga City Council/Environment Bay of Plenty, April 2008, pp.65, 70, http://tauranga.kete.net.nz/documents/0000/0000/0353/2008_Tauranga_Heritage_Study.pdf (accessed 8 March 2018). 361 New Zealand Herald, 7 February 1888, http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZH18880207.2.57 (accessed 13 January 2017). 362 Bay of Plenty Times, 24 January 1868, http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DSC18680124.2.16 (accessed 9 January 2017).

243. The beach at Wairanaki was in 1894 reserved as a landing place for all of Ngāi Te Hapū and in the late nineteenth century the main settlement was nearby at Otungahoro.363

244. In 1899 one visitor to the island estimated that about 80 Māori lived there. He stated that more than half of the Māori land on the island was covered in maize and the rest was used as a common for their cattle, horses and pigs, ‘all of which were in great numbers’. The visitor stated that Māori on the island had all kinds of farming implements and succeeded in ‘obtaining heavy crops of maize for many years in succession without manure’, exporting more than 2000 sacks annually.364

245. By the early twentieth century Karioi had become the main settlement on Motiti (one witness in the Native Land Court was asked about and confirmed the movement of houses from Otungahoro to Karioi).365 The 1904 partition of the lands awarded to Ngāi Te Hapū/Patuwai ‘did not create disparate groups of landowners’ and neither did it fundamentally alter centuries of cultivation based on collective enterprise and the sharing of resources.366

246. No doubt aided by a sound economic base, the early twentieth century appears to have been an era of great dynamism among the Māori residents of Motiti. The vitality of Ngāi Te Hapū’s presence on Motiti was underlined by the opening of two new meeting houses at Karioi in the early twentieth century. The Ngāti Takahanga meeting house Tamatea-ki-te-huatahi was opened in 1900, replacing an earlier structure that had fallen into disrepair. By about 1928 the dining hall Hinewai, named after the Waitaha ancestor who married Tutonu, grandson of Te Hapū, had been built alongside it on Te Ruakopiha marae.367 In 1901 Ngāti Makerewai opened Te Hiinga- o-te-Ra before a large crowd of invited guests. Its dining hall, Puna, had been opened by 1934.368

363 Des Tatana Kahotea, ‘Te Moutere o Motiti: Cultural Heritage Report’, report commissioned by the Department of Internal Affairs, 2012, p.58. 364 New Zealand Herald, 4 March 1899, http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZH18990304.2.73.8 (accessed 14 December 2017). 365 Des Tatana Kahotea, ‘Te Moutere o Motiti: Cultural Heritage Report’, report commissioned by the Department of Internal Affairs, 2012, p.69. 366 Des Tatana Kahotea, ‘Te Moutere o Motiti: Cultural Heritage Report’, report commissioned by the Department of Internal Affairs, 2012, pp.67-68. 367 A.H. Matheson, Motiti Island, Bay of Plenty, Whakatane: Whakatane and District Historical Society, 1979, pp.30-31. 368 A.H. Matheson, Motiti Island, Bay of Plenty, Whakatane: Whakatane and District Historical Society, 1979, p.31.

247. Following a visit to the island by Native Minister Apirana Ngata an area of 852 acres of Māori-owned land was added to the Maketu land development scheme allowing funds to be advanced for fencing and other purposes.369 In 1935 a reported noted that around £1000 had been advanced for fencing and fertilisers. It was observed that ‘The Motiti Maoris have cultivated their lands for years, growing maize which is reputed to be the highest quality obtainable in New Zealand...The islanders – members of the Patuwai Tribe – are a particularly healthy and industrious community, who have good living quarters and show keen interest in the scheme.’370

248. Further evidence of the strength of communal activity on Motiti came with the opening of Motiti Native School in 1908 after more than twenty years of campaigning on the part of tribal leaders on the island (and after earlier short-lived but unofficial schooling efforts).371 The school opened with 38 children on the roll, on part of the 166-acre Motiti B block exchanged with Ngāi Te Hapū/Patuwai in the 1880s by George Douglas.372 Prior to this time some families had been sending their children to school at Whakatane.373

249. Motiti School finally closed its doors in 1965, at a time when the island’s permanent population had started to dwindle. That depopulation has been attributed to both a declining market for maize and the outbreak of a fungal disease within the kumara crop in the post-World War Two era. From a total population of 93 in 1956 (75 of whom were Māori), the numbers dropped to 61 (42 Māori) by 1961.374

250. As recently as 1956 the school’s roll had been 34 pupils.375 That was a very modest drop from an average roll in 1949 of just over 35.376 The school closed when the role

369 AJHR, 1932, G-10, p.33, https://atojs.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/atojs?a=d&cl=search&d=AJHR1932-I- II.2.2.6.8&srpos=38&e= (accessed 30 March 2017). 370 AJHR, 1935, G-10, p.14, https://atojs.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/atojs?a=d&cl=search&d=AJHR1935- I.2.2.6.4&srpos=44&e= (accessed 30 March 2017). 371 ‘Motiti Island Native School 1889-1908’, BCDQ A739 1050 Box 1552 a 26/1/91 part 3, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 372 A.H. Matheson, Motiti Island, Bay of Plenty, Whakatane: Whakatane and District Historical Society, 1979, pp.56-58. 373 Bay of Plenty Times, 22 April 1904, http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/BOPT19040422.2.3 (accessed 13 January 2017). 374 Des Tatana Kahotea, ‘Te Moutere o Motiti: Cultural Heritage Report’, report commissioned by the Department of Internal Affairs, 2012, p.63. 375 District Superintendent of Education to Headteacher, Motiti Island Maori School, 13 February 1956, BAAA A440 1001 Box 968 a 44/6, Archives New Zealand (Auckland).

dropped to five children in 1965, and with reports that this would fall to three in 1966.377 Under the Education Act in place at the time schools required a minimum roll of nine in order to stay open. Reports in 1967 that a number of families had moved back to Motiti prompted the Department of Education to defer disposing of the school facilities until it became clearer whether the school might need to re-open at some point.378 By 1973, when the population on the island had not increased sufficiently to justify re-opening of the school, the property was declared surplus.379 The land, having originally been gifted by Māori, was returned to its former owners in 1976, together with the school buildings (handed over at no cost), and subsequently placed in a trust.380

251. As noted elsewhere, by 1983 Correspondence School pupils on the island were undertaking their lessons with the help of a paid supervisor in the former Motiti School buildings. In 1987 there were eight students attending these classes.381 A visitor to the island in 1984 noted that at times there might be as many as 14 children attending these lessons or at other times none. The population was described as ‘extremely transient’ by this time, often leaving the island at short notice to pursue casual or seasonal employment opportunities, such as fruit-picking.382

252. In 1962 one official reported that ‘Motiti Island people can be said to be in great financial difficulty and with the deterioration of their main source of income – black rot has effected [sic] their kumaras and the maize crop has decreased over the past five years – the parents are having a difficult time to keep good faith with the shop

376 H. Henderson, District Superintendent, to Headteacher, Motiti School, 31 October 1949, BAAA A440 1001 Box 968 a 44/6, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 377 Director-General to Minister of Education, 26 November 1965, BAAA A440 1001 Box 968 a 44/6, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 378 District Officer, memorandum, 22 March 1968, BBFZ A1115 4946 Box 128 e 4/25/1/9 part 1, Archives New Zealand (Auckland); District Commissioner of Works to Regional Superintendent, Department of Education, 28 April 1967, BAPP A1365 5113 Box 1379 b 39/318/0 part 1, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 379 N.J. Henderson for Regional Superintendent to District Commissioner of Works, 27 July 1973, BAPP A1365 5113 Box 1379 b 39/318/0 part 1, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 380 T.G. Loomb, General Manager, memoradum, March 1982, YCAU A738 1601 Box 613 e 1/84, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 381 Trevor Loomb, General Manager, to Secretary, NZ Education Boards Association, 16 June 1987, YCAU A738 1601 Box 613 e 1/84, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 382 T.G. Loomb, General Manager, to Director-General of Education, 12 April 1984, YCAU A738 1601 Box 613 e 1/84, Archives New Zealand (Auckland).

keepers [at Tauranga]’.383 By 1963 most of the families had moved to the mainland, although at various times groups of people returned to the island to settle.384

253. By the time of the 2013 census the Motiti population had dropped to 27, with 15 occupied dwellings and 48 unoccupied dwellings.385 However, census data represents a snapshot at a particular point so does not capture those who return to the island periodically, including the many Ngāi Te Hapū who return regularly to participate in marae activities, fish and maintain their connections with Motiti, especially at Christmas and other holiday periods.

21. Shifting Tribal Definitions

254. The development of a new port at Mount Maunganui from the 1950s, together with the expansion of forestry and milling operations elsewhere in the Bay of Plenty, proved enticing for many former Motiti residents once their crops on the island began to fail. Besides Tauranga, many of those who left Motiti went to Whakatane, where intermarriage over many generations, along with official categorisations of the Patuwai ki Motiti people as a hapū of Ngāti Awa, had helped to further blur the distinctions that Ngāi Te Hapū representatives had drawn in their earlier Native Land Court cases, when explaining that the Patuwai ki Whakatane people had no rights on Motiti.386

255. For much of the nineteenth century, if Patuwai (ki Motiti) were not described simply as a tribe, they were more likely to be considered a part of Te Arawa than Ngāti Awa. In 1899, for example, when the electoral boundaries for the Kotahitanga movement’s (unofficial) Māori Parliament were published, the two members representing Motiti were included within the Te Arawa takiwā (boundaries), rather than that of Ngāti

383 R.G. Falconer, Acting Resident Officer, memorandum, 20 March 1962, BBFZ A1115 4946 Box 128 e 4/25/1/9 part 1, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 384 District Officer, memorandum, 22 March 1968, BBFZ A1115 4946 Box 128 e 4/25/1/9 part 1, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 385 Quick Stats About Motiti Island: Census 2013, http://www.stats.govt.nz/Census/2013-census/profile- and-summary-reports/quickstats-about-a- place.aspx?request_value=13986&parent_id=13985&tabname=&sc_device=pdf (accessed 9 January 2017). 386 Des Tatana Kahotea, ‘Te Moutere o Motiti: Cultural Heritage Report’, report commissioned by the Department of Internal Affairs, 2012, p.70.

Awa.387 Because the Crown refused to recognise the Maori Parliament, the determination of electoral boundaries for it was not something that Crown officials were involved in deciding. The process was instead one solely involving Kotahitanga supporters. As noted previously, Patuwai received lands within the Bay of Plenty confiscated lands described in Crown reports as having been allocated to Te Arawa. And at various Native Land Court hearings, the people of Motiti emphasised their Waitaha connections.

256. The unique situation of the island and its resident Māori population was often reflected in disputes between differing mainland iwi over which administrative boundaries Motiti should be included within. In January 1884 twelve districts were proclaimed under the Native Committees Act 1883. The Act provided for the election by Māori of officially sanctioned committees that could arbitrate in local disputes and investigate customary land titles for the information of the Native Land Court.388 Two large districts covered the Bay of Plenty region: Rotorua and Ōpotiki, with Motiti included within the boundaries of the former.389

257. In February 1885 ‘a petition from us the Hapus of Ngaiterangi’ asked for a separate committee district to be created for them. They set forth the boundaries of the area they sought to be included within this new district. Motiti was included in their boundaries.390 Native Minister John Ballance had met with Tauranga Māori days earlier, when they had requested a separate Native Committees Act district as they were ‘not sufficiently represented in the Rotorua Committee’.391 Ballance had advised them to send in a petition on the subject, containing the names of the tribes to be included and the boundaries the proposed district would cover.392

258. In February 1886 a new ‘Ngaiterangi’ district was carved out of the Rotorua one. Motiti was now included in the ‘Ngaiterangi’ district under the 1883 Act.393 When the

387 Te Tiupiri, 28 September 1899, http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/JUBIL18990928.2.4 (accessed 27 March 2018). 388 Vincent O’Malley, Agents of Autonomy: Maori Committees in the Nineteenth Century, Wellington: Huia Publishers, 1998, pp.150-51. 389 New Zealand Gazette, no.8, 24 January 1884, p.111. 390 Petition to Native Minister, 23 February 1885, MA 23/13B, Archives New Zealand. 391 Notes of meeting, NO 85/810, MA 23/13B, Archives New Zelaand. 392 AJHR, 1885, G-1, p.62, https://atojs.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/atojs?a=d&d=AJHR1885-I.2.2.5.1&pg=51&e (accessed 3 February 2017). 393 New Zealand Gazette, no.9, 18 February 1886, p.203.

Rotorua and ‘Ngaiterangi’ districts were freshly proclaimed in May 1886, Motiti remained in the latter district.394

259. Meanwhile, further east, Ngāti Awa were agitating to have their own committee under the Act. When the Native Minister, John Ballance, met with them at Ōpotiki in April 1886, tribal representatives outlined the boundaries of the area they wished to encompass. There was no mention of Motiti. Ballance stated in response that the estimated 600 people who would be encompassed by the proposed new district was insufficient and that they should expand their boundaries to take in at least 1000 people.395 A month earlier, Ngāti Awa had written to Ballance asking to have the existing committee districts amended as the current one ‘divides Ngatiawa into two’. They sought to have the coastal boundary moved from Te Putere to Waitahanui (Ōtamarakau), terminating at Ōhiwa. Again, there was no mention of Motiti.396

260. It would seem that Ngāti Awa took Ballance’s advice, proposing new boundaries that encompassed a larger area. That prompted a complaint from Tūhoe representatives, who alleged that the new area included some of their own territory.397 Resident Magistrate R.S. Bush met with Ngāti Awa in May 1887 to discuss the issue and was again told the boundaries of the area Ngāti Awa wished to include. Although they had expanded these to take in a larger population, including some Tūhoe, still Motiti was not mentioned.398 By 1889 Ngāti Awa leaders were trying a new tack, apparently dropping Tūhoe in favour of a coalition with a number of smaller neighbouring groups. In May of that year they wrote to the Native Minister that:

We, the Ngatiawa, N’Pukeko, Ngaitaiwhakaea, Te Patuwai, Te Pahipoto, Ngatiahi, Warahoe, Te Tawera, N’Rangitihi, Ngamaihi, Ngaitamaoki and all our Hapus residing on the shores of the Bay of Plenty and in the Province of Auckland, hereby request that a Committee for our district be appointed under the Act of 1883 in as much as you have power to define smaller Native Committees...We consider that the district occupied by the Hapus and Tribes above enumerated is large enough to form a Native Committee District.399

261. It was clear from this wording that the writers did not purport to claim all of the various groups mentioned as hapū of Ngāti Awa. Ngāti Rangitihi, for example, is

394 New Zealand Gazette, no.29, 13 May 1886, pp.593-94. 395 Extract from notes of Native Meetings, Opotiki, 24 April 1886, MA 23/13B, Archives New Zealand. 396 [Ngāti Awa] to Ballance, 12 March 1886, MA 23/13B, Archives New Zealand. 397 Hetaraka Te Wakaunua to Ballance, 18 March 1887, MA 23/13B, Archives New Zealand. 398 Bush to Lewis, 27 May 1887, MA 23/13B, Archives New Zealand. 399 Te Hurunui Apanui and others to Native Minister, 14 May 1889, MA 23/13B, Archives New Zealand.

generally regarded as a core part of the Te Arawa tribal confederation. This time, the petitioners did not specify the boundaries of the area that they wished to be encompassed by a new committee district, simply asking that the Native Minister cut off such portions of the Rotorua and Ōpotiki districts as he deemed appropriate. Yet whereas Ngāi Te Rangi had included the island in the boundaries of the new committee district they asked for, nowhere in any of this correspondence from Ngāti Awa representatives had Motiti been mentioned, even when told to enlarge their boundaries.

262. Motiti was more prominent in discussions around later official bodies for Māori. When the boundaries of the districts created under the Maori Councils Act 1900 were gazetted in January 1901, Motiti was included in the Te Arawa district rather than the Mataatua one.400 The Act provided for the election of Maori Councils within defined districts that would be responsible for various measures relating to the health, welfare and ‘moral well-being’ of their communities.401

263. In 1901 Tiaki Rewiri and 49 others petitioned the Native Minister, James Carroll, on behalf of the Patuwai tribe, asking that Motiti be exempted from the Arawa Maori Council boundaries under the Maori Councils Act 1900. They did not seek for it be placed under another council such as Mataatua (including Ngāti Awa) but rather asked Carroll ‘to exempt us & our Island of Motiti from the operation of any Council whatsoever, let it remain a Maori reserve for us and for our children’.402 To this effect they asked the government to pass a law exempting Motiti from the operations of any council and explained that Tiaki Rewiri would shortly be leaving the island to explain their reasons to Carroll in person. One official wrote in response that there was ‘every reason to place this Island under the Tauranga Council should we establish one’.403 That rather missed the point of the petition, namely that they did not wish to be placed under any council.

264. Meanwhile, Tupaea Akuhata and others of Tauranga informed the Native Minister in the same year that – with the exception of Motiti – they approved of the boundaries of

400 New Zealand Gazette, no.1, 7 January 1901, p.13. 401 Richard S. Hill, State Authority, Indigenous Autonomy: Crown-Maori Relations in New Zealand/Aotearoa 1900-1950, Wellington: Victoria University Press, 2004, p.50. 402 Tiaki Rewiri and others to Native Minister, 8 August 1901, MA-MLP 1 1 1901/228, Archives New Zealand. 403 Marginal note on Tiaki Rewiri and others to Native Minister, 8 August 1901, MA-MLP 1 1 1901/228, Archives New Zealand.

the Waiariki council (in this instance probably referring to the body set up under the Maori Lands Administration Act 1900, since the Waiariki Maori Land district included Motiti).404 In this respect, the authors of the letter pointed out that they still owned some lands on Motiti and therefore had an interest in the matter. The petitioners identified themselves by hapū, a number signing as Whānau-a-Tauwhao and other Ngāi Te Rangi affiliated groups.405 When the boundaries of the Waiariki Maori Land district were amended in December 1901, Motiti continued to be included.406

265. In 1903 a General Conference was held of representatives appointed under the Maori Councils Act 1900. Among the matters considered was the appropriate district to include Motiti within. The record of proceedings noted that:

After hearing evidence as to the claim of the Tauranga Maori Council to have Motiti included in that district, also the objections raised against the proposal by the Arawa Council, and having also considered the statement by the Hon. the Native Minister, the Conference adopted the following resolution: “It will be for the Natives dwelling on Motiti to decide; and a majority of them must settle in which district they would prefer to be included.”407

266. That question was answered in favour of neither Tauranga nor Te Arawa (significantly, the Mataatua Maori Council does not appear to have even entered considerations, other than a statement from its chairman declaring that it had no comment on the issue). Instead, the people of Motiti petitioned Parliament in 1904 seeking a separate council district under the Maori Councils Act for Motiti. Parliament’s Native Affairs Committee recommended the petition (signed by 53 people) to the government for its favourable consideration, suggesting that it viewed this as reflecting the overriding will of the people of Motiti.408 During the 1904 general conference of Maori Councils in March of that year the people of Motiti had been reminded that they needed to make a decision on the matter.409 However, Motiti remained in the Te Arawa Council district and was subject to a June 1905 proclamation under the Licensing Acts Amendment Act 1904 prohibiting the sale of

404 New Zealand Gazette, no.1, 7 January 1901, p.10. 405 Tupaea Akuhata and others to Native Minister, 26 March 1901, MA-MLP 1 1 1901/179, Archives New Zealand. 406 New Zealand Gazette, no.106, 19 December 1901, p.2412. 407 AJHR, 1903, G-1, p.6, https://atojs.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/atojs?a=d&d=AJHR1903-I.2.2.5.1&e (accessed 27 January 2017). See also minutes of general conference of Maori Councils, 20 April 1903, pp.20, 22, MA-MC 3/2, Archives New Zealand. 408 AJHR, 1904, I-3, p.20, https://atojs.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/atojs?a=d&d=AJHR1904-I.2.3.3.7&e (accessed 27 January 2017). 409 Minutes of general conference of Maori Councils, 18 March 1904, pp.112, 114, MA-MC 3/2, Archives New Zealand.

off-license liquor to Māori within the Te Arawa Council boundaries.410 At that year’s general conference of Maori Councils in March 1905 an alternative petition signed by 29 people praying that Motiti be included in the Mataatua Council was discussed. Tiaki Rewiri appeared in person to support the petition, declaring that it was appropriate for Motiti to join Mataatua as their lands and people were in that rohe.411 Although the conference supported the motion it is unclear whether Motiti was moved under the jurisdiction of the Mataatua Council. It is possible that the more numerously signed petition of 1904 in favour of a separate council for Motiti had left the government uncertain as to how to proceed.

267. In 1904 it was reported that a new meeting house was under construction at Maketu and was being built ‘by the Motiti Natives for their accommodation when visiting the township’.412 The new whare, known as Te Awhe, was opened in August of that year, when a large crowd of 400 to 500 people, including many visitors from Motiti, gathered for the occasion. It was reported that the new house would be used for ‘all meetings or ceremonies connected with the Whakahemo Tribe’ and was also to be placed at the disposal of Motiti Māori on their visits to the mainland.413 The whare was destroyed by fire in 1937.414 Although the involvement of Motiti Māori in the construction of this whare points to enduring connections with the Maketu area, Ngāti Whakahemo (close kin of Ngāi Te Hapū) defied easy categorisation as a hapū of Te Arawa. As noted elsewhere, their situation bears some striking similarities with that of Ngāi Te Hapū.

268. Over the twentieth century the links with Mataatua generally and Ngāti Awa in particular tended to be emphasised more. In 1928 Parliament’s Native Affairs Committee reported favourably on a petition from Takotohiwi Ngahau and others asking for Motiti to be excluded from the Arawa Maori Trust Board’s boundaries and instead be included in those of the Mataatua Maori Council District.415 The petitioners’ stated that, besides three Te Arawa, ‘all the natives resident at Motiti

410 New Zealand Gazette, no.56, 15 June 1905, p.1453. 411 Minutes of general conference of Maori Councils, 16 March 1905, pp.172, 174, MA-MC 3/2, Archives New Zealand. 412 Bay of Plenty Times, 6 April 1904, http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/BOPT19040406.2.3 (accessed 14 February 2018). 413 Bay of Plenty Times, 12 September 1904, http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/BOPT19040912.2.5 (accessed 14 February 1904). 414 Alister Matheson, ‘The Carved Houses of Maketu’, Historical Review, 53 (1), 2005, pp.22-24. 415 AJHR, 1928, I-3, p.4, https://atojs.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/atojs?a=d&cl=search&d=AJHR1928- I.2.3.3.3&srpos=1&e= (accessed 26 January 2017).

Island are members of the Patuwai tribe’, which they described as ‘a sub-tribe’ of Ngāti Awa.416 The Arawa Maori Trust Board had been established pursuant to section 27 of the Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1922 in order to give effect to an agreement with the government in respect of 14 lakes in the Rotorua district and, among other things, guaranteed Te Arawa ongoing customary access to their ‘ancient fishing-rights’.417 Under further legislation passed in 1925 (section 17 of the Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act), it had assumed the roles and responsibilities formerly held by the Te Arawa Council. The petitioners declared that they had ‘no community of tribal interest with other natives living in the Te Arawa Maori Council District’ but did share interests with others in the Mataatua district.418

269. One official reported that the statements contained in the petition were ‘quite correct’. The majority of the residents of Motiti were members of the Patuwai tribe and ‘[t]he sympathies of the tribe are with the Whakatane people and not with Te Arawa’. For its part, the chair of the Arawa Maori Trust Board had indicated that the board was sympathetic to the petition.419

270. A proclamation was prepared altering the boundaries accordingly.420 For reasons that are unclear, the change was not formally gazetted until 1931.421 It appears to have been in the early twentieth century that the first Patuwai marae was established at Whakatane, on part of the Pupuaruhe estate. In the post-World War Two period, when Motiti islanders began migrating to the mainland in search of employment opportunities, many gravitated towards the Patuwai ki Whakatane marae named Toroa, further helping to blur distinctions between the Whakatane and Motiti groups.422

271. Yet when tribal districts were proclaimed under the Maori Social and Economic Advancement Act 1945 in January 1948 Motiti was included in the Ranginui Tribal

416 Petition of Tokotohiwi Ngahau and others, no.52, 1928, Le 1/1928/19, Archives New Zealand. 417 Vincent O’Malley and David Armstrong, The Beating Heart: A Political and Socio-Economic History of Te Arawa, Wellington: Huia Publishers, 2008, pp.276-77. 418 Petition of Tokotohiwi Ngahau and others, no.52, 1928, Le 1/1928/19, Archives New Zealand. 419 Registrar to Native Under Secretary, 9 August 1928, Le 1/1928/19, Archives New Zealand. 420 Native Department 1928/403 (minute sheet), 29 August 1928, MA 1 1455 1928/403, Archives New Zealand. 421 New Zealand Gazette 5 February 1931, no. 9, p.221, BBFZ A1207 5015 Box 5 a 11 part 1, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 422 Des Tatana Kahotea, ‘Te Moutere o Motiti: Cultural Heritage Report’, report commissioned by the Department of Internal Affairs, 2012, pp.69-70.

District.423 The Act provided for the election of tribal executives and beneath them tribal committees within defined tribal districts. Exactly how and why Motiti had come within the Ngāti Ranginui district is unclear. A Patuwai Tribal Committee area was proclaimed within the Ngatiawa Tribal District. But it did not include Motiti, encompassing only lands in the Whakatane area.424 In 1959 John Rangihau of the Maori Affairs Department estimated that there were approximately 200 Patuwai living in the Whakatane region. He noted that there was ‘a close affinity between these people and the people from Motiti Island’, which was not quite the same as suggesting they were one and the same people.425

272. A separate Motiti Tribal Committee (at times called the Motiti Island Tribal Committee) was established under the legislation and remained active over many years. In 1950, for example, it sought subsidies to renovate the wharekai (dining halls) Puna and Hinewai.426 Three years later the Motiti Tribal Committee sought further subsidies for radio telephone equipment connecting Motiti with the mainland.427 The committee continued to be active over the following decades. As noted below, in 1958 it applied to the government for Motiti to be made a fishing reserve under section 33 of the Maori Social and Economic Advancement Act. Although local officials from both the Marine and Maori Affairs departments reported favourably on this request, no reserve was established. That appears to have reflected Marine Department head office concerns that the use of this provision, which would have had the effect of excluding non-Māori from fishing on the island, was separatist.

273. Following an amendment to the Maori Social and Economic Advancement Act in 1948, Tribal Committees operating in isolated regions could be empowered to function as Tribal Executives. In 1959 the Motiti Tribal Committee had conferred upon it all the powers of a tribal executive under the 1945 Act.428 That followed a request from the Motiti Tribal Committee based on their distance from the mainland

423 New Zealand Gazette, no.2, 8 January 1948, p.4. 424 New Zealand Gazette, no.2, 8 January 1948, p.13. 425 J. Rangihau for District Officer to Head Office, 13 November 1959, BBFZ A1115 4945 Box 73 a 18/11/5/0 part 1, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 426 Maori Affairs Under Secretary to Minister of Maori Affairs, 13 January 1950, AAMK W3730 Box 59 35/95/2/3, Archives New Zealand. 427 Maori Affairs Under Secretary to Minister of Maori Affairs, 11 November 1953, AAMK W3730 Box 59 35/95/2/3, Archives New Zealand. 428 Extract from New Zealand Gazette, 10 December 1959, no. 76, p.1886, District Officer, memorandum, 22 March 1968, BBFZ A1115 4946 Box 128 e 4/25/1/9 part 1, Archives New Zealand (Auckland).

and the lack of regular and reliable transport.429 Their application had been endorsed by the Rotorua district officer, who described the 17 Māori families on Motiti as ‘a thriving community, who are really trying to help themselves’.430

274. The Motiti Island Tribal Executive met in 1962 and considered a number of matters, including a renewed application for a fishing reserve around the island. The failure of the kumara crop due to black rot, and declines in maize production, were also noted and possible alternative crops considered. The reasons for migration to the mainland, including the search for employment and lands owned elsewhere that were being returned to the owners after being leased, were also discussed, along with transport and communication problems on the island.431

275. The Maori Welfare Act of 1962 amended the 1945 legislation by providing for district councils along with a National Māori Council. Following this change, the Tauranga area under the 1945 Act was transferred from the Waiariki region to the Waikato- Maniapoto District Council. In 1963 the Tauranga Tribal Executive met to consider these developments. One of the items discussed was the Motiti Tribal Committee. It chairman made a special flight over from the island to attend the meeting and argue that Motiti should remain in the Waiariki district because of their ‘close connection’ with the people at Whakatane. Members of the Tauranga Tribal Executive raised no objections to this proposal and undertook to liaise with the Waiariki District Council.432

276. By 1968 it seems that there had been a change of mind. In that year one local Māori Affairs Department official noted that in 1963, because of the low yield for their maize and kumara, resulting in financial difficulties, most of the families on the island had moved to the mainland, many to Whakatane or Tauranga. Following several meetings, in 1967 a number of families moved back to Motiti and it was even thought that the recently-closed school on the island might need to reopen, with as many as 18 potential pupils who could attend. The same official stated that the ‘Motiti Maori

429 S. Hoete, Secretary, Motiti Island Tribal Committee, to Acting Resident Officer, Tauranga, 21 September 1959, BBFZ A1115 4946 Box 128 e 4/25/1/9 part 1 Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 430 J. Rangihau for District Officer to Head Office, 16 October 1959, BBFZ A1115 4946 Box 128 e 4/25/1/9 part 1 Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 431 Minutes of Motiti Island Tribal Executive, 27 January 1962, BBFZ A1115 4946 Box 128 e 4/25/1/9 part 1 Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 432 District Officer to Resident Officer, Tauranga, 10 September 1963, BBFZ A1115 4946 Box 128 e 4/25/1/9 part 1, Archives New Zealand (Auckland).

Committee’ wished to be under the jurisdiction of the Tauranga Maori Executive and therefore within the Waikato-Maniapoto district.433

277. Another official reported that ‘Motiti Island is definitely tied with the Tauranga district and accordingly our own [Waikato-Maniapoto] district’. The request to resume affiliation with Waikato-Maniapoto and Tauranga was therefore supported.434

278. While the island was transferred, the Patuwai Maori Committee at Whakatane remained in the Waiariki district. However, it appears that at times (perhaps when the Motiti Tribal Committee was inactive) the Patuwai Maori Committee saw the island as within its area of responsibility. In 1974 the Maori Affairs Department’s Rotorua office advised their Tauranga office that, after discussions with the Patuwai Maori Committee chairman, ‘It appears that residents of Motiti Island are desirous of affiliating with one of your Executives in Tauranga, rather than being part and parcel of the Maori Committee at Toroa Marae’. The report went on to note that:

It has been indicated that there was a previous arrangement that Motiti be affiliated to Patuwai of Whakatane, for purposes of administration, however, it transpires that Motiti is somewhat out on a limb, and it would be more appropriate for a fresh Maori Committee, say in the name of Motiti, to be formed, and currently affiliated to one of your Executives.435

279. The resident officer at Tauranga responded that it appeared that, at some point since 1963, ‘the affairs of the Motiti Island people were vested in the Patuwai Maori Committee’ but there was ‘some dissatisfaction with this arrangement’, particularly among Motiti people then living at Tauranga, and there was now a desire to set up a separate committee for the island that would be affiliated with the Tauranga Maori Executive. It was said that the Patuwai Maori Committee were in favour of this change and the Tauranga Maori Executive was also happy with the proposal.436

280. While the outcome of these latest discussions is unclear, Motiti’s position remained ambiguous and uncertain. By 1983 the former school on Motiti had reopened as a place where the island’s children undertook Correspondence School lessons under a

433 District Officer, memorandum, 22 March 1968, BBFZ A1115 4946 Box 128 e 4/25/1/9 part 1, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 434 M. Raureti for District Officer, memorandum, 27 March 1968, BBFZ A1115 4946 Box 128 e 4/25/1/9 part 1, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 435 S. Jaram for District Officer to Tauranga office, 22 April 1974, BBFZ A1115 4945 Box 73 c 18/11/5/0 part 1, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 436 J.K. Barrett for Resident Officer to Whakatane Office, 24 April 1974, BBFZ A1115 4945 Box 73 c 18/11/5/0 part 1, Archives New Zealand (Auckland).

paid supervisor. An application was made to the Maori Affairs Department in Hamilton for a grant in support of this initiative.437 An Assistant District Officer reported with respect to this application that:

Ngati Patuwai have always been a part of Waiariki District since the migration of Islanders to Whakatane, Te Puke, Tauranga, in the late 1950s and early 1960s as a result of pest destructions to their maize crops and kumara.

Later, members returned to the Island and some wanted to come under the Tauranga-Moana District, however, the majority of Ngati Patuwai in Whakatane decided in the late 1960s to stay with Waiariki and have done so and been affiliated ever since.438

281. Some months later the Patuwai Maori Committee at Whakatane submitted an application for a subsidy towards renovating marae buildings on Motiti, prompting officials to discuss the ‘novel’ situation in which a committee located in one district (Waiariki) sought funding in respect of lands situated in another (Waikato- Maniapoto).439

282. When the Waitangi Tribunal heard Ngāti Awa’s claims in 1994 and 1995 no hearings were held on Motiti and little or no evidence was received concerning Motiti.440 The main traditional history report commissioned for the claim makes no direct reference to Motiti or to Te Hapū (although the two marae on the island are listed as belonging to Ngāti Maumoana). A map of Ngāti Awa hapū at 1840 included within the report does not show Patuwai.441

283. Although Motiti was included within the Waitangi Tribunal’s Tauranga Moana district inquiry, the only evidence commissioned or heard with respect to Motiti concerned the portion awarded to Ngāi Tauwhao through the Native Land Court. Motiti was later included in the area covered by the Ngāti Awa Claims Settlement Act 2005, while Te Patuwai were officially listed as one of the hapū of Ngāti Awa encompassed by the settlement. Schedule 8 of the legislation, consisting of a statutory acknowledgement

437 I. Nuku to Registrar, Maori Affairs, Hamilton, 22 September 1983, BBFZ A1115 4946 Box 128 e 4/25/1/9 part 1, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 438 N. Waaka, Assistant District Officer, memorandum, 6 May 1983, BBFZ A1115 4946 Box 128 e 4/25/1/9 part 1, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 439 H. P. Martin, District Officer, memorandum, 4 May 1983, BBFZ A1115 4946 Box 128 e 4/25/1/9 part 1, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 440 Des Tatana Kahotea, ‘Te Moutere o Motiti: Cultural Heritage Report’, report commissioned by the Department of Internal Affairs, 2012, p.52. 441 Hirini Moko Mead, ‘Ngati Awa me ona Karangarangatanga: Ngati Awa and its Confederation of Tribes’, report commissioned by Te Runanga o Ngati Awa, 1994, pp.59, 92.

in respect of part of Ōhiwa Harbour, refers to Te Hapū as the son of Tāroakaikaha, described as ‘the founding ancestor of the Patuwai hapū of Ngāti Awa’.442 Toroakaikaha (spelt Tāroakaikaha in the settlement legislation) is usually shown in whakapapa charts as a descendant of Wairaka but not of Awanuiārangi.

284. As part of cultural redress included in the settlement, the Crown also agreed to consult with Ngāti Awa in respect of any review of local government administration of various offshore islands, including Motiti.443 Ngāti Awa negotiators had previously asked that their governance entity should become the territorial authority for these islands, informing the Office of Treaty Settlements that (as summarised by one Crown official) they had been ‘asked to take over the administration of the islands by the Patuwai people, the tangata whenua for Motiti’. It was said that ‘The Patuwai people prefer the status quo where they were responsible for meeting their own needs for services such as sewerage and water’.444 During the course of negotiations, the notion of some kind of role for Ngāti Awa in the management of customary fisheries, including those within a five kilometre radius of Motiti, had been raised.445 Although the Ngāti Awa settlement did include a fisheries protocol it made no specific reference to Motiti.446

285. There are no statutory acknowledgements in the Ngāti Awa settlement concerning Motiti. A statutory acknowledgement recognises the association of a particular Māori community with a specified area and stipulates that the relevant Treaty settlement governance entity must be notified in the event of resource consent applications concerning the area in question. There are no other statutory acknowledgements in respect of Motiti contained in other Treaty settlement legislation.447

442 Ngāti Awa Claims Settlement Act 2005, p.141, http://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/hist_act/nacsa20052005n28290/ (accessed 16 February 2017). 443 Deed of Settlement to Settle Ngāti Awa Historical Claims, 27 March 2003, p.139, https://www.govt.nz/dmsdocument/5074 (accessed 24 January 2018). 444 Belinda Clark, Director, Office of Treaty Settlements, to Fiona Coster, Department of Internal Affairs, 21 April 1997 (OTS.004.0016). 445 Mawae Morton, Office of Treaty Settlements, to Terry Lynch, Ministry of Fisheries, 4 March 1998 (OTS.002.0010). 446 Deed of Settlement to Settle Ngāti Awa Historical Claims: Schedules, 27 March 2003, Schedule 5.22, Form of Ministry of Fisheries Protocol, pp.148-54, https://www.govt.nz/dmsdocument/5077 (accessed 24 January 2018). 447 Reply evidence of Shadrach Rolleston, 17 February 2017, ENV-2016-AKL-42 and 45, Attachment 2: Treaty Claims & Settlements: Statutory Acknowledgements, Areas of Interest, and Statements of Association, and Claims Unresolved.

286. In the Waitangi Tribunal’s Ngati Awa Raupatu Report the Tribunal began its chapter described as an introduction to the tribes by clarifying its understanding of Ngāti Awa at the time of the 1860s land confiscations:

We clarify our meaning of ‘Ngati Awa’ as applied at that time. Basically, it refers to a collection of independent and autonomous tribes or hapu that acknowledged their common origin from Awanui-a-rangi and where each had social obligations to the collective identity and to their relations in the other hapu.448

287. Based on this definition, the people of Motiti – whether they be called Patuwai or Ngāi Te Hapū – would fail this test since they do not trace their descent from Awanuiārangi. The Patuwai ki Motiti do have strong links with Ngāti Awa and some opt to emphasise that connection. But they also have strong connections with other groups, including Waitaha, Ngāti Pūkenga, Ngāti Whakahemo and Ngāi Tauwhao.449

288. Indeed, their situation closely resembles that of Ngāti Whakahemo, whom the Office of Treaty Settlements insisted were a hapū of Te Arawa (who they had close relationships with), before later admitting that this assumption was wrong. Ngāti Whakahemo had been included in the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapū Claims Settlement Act 2008 as a ‘subgroup’ of Ngāti Pikiao but maintained that their historical Treaty claims through the ancestor Maruahaira, who was not a descendant of the eponymous ancestor Pikiao (or even of any Te Arawa ancestor), had not been extinguished by virtue of this legislation. The Crown eventually conceded the point.450

289. Ngāti Pūkenga, with whom Patuwai ki Motiti also have close whakapapa connections, also share a similar history. For much of their existence, Ngāti Pūkenga have been ‘widely portrayed as hapū of various other iwi including Ngāti Maru, Te Arawa and Ngāi Te Rangi’.451 Today they are acknowledged as an iwi in their own right and in 2013 signed a deed of settlement with the Crown in respect of their historical Treaty claims.

290. Historically, it was common for relatively small groups to be labelled as hapū of larger tribes. At Tauranga, officials in the nineteenth century tended to regard all of the resident hapū as belonging to Ngāi Te Rangi, even reflecting that assumption in the

448 Waitangi Tribunal, The Ngati Awa Raupatu Report, Wellington: Legislation Direct, 1999, p.13. 449 Response by Wai 2521 Claimants to OTS’ second draft reported dated 26 April 2016 regarding the nature of the relationship between Ngāi Te Hapū and Patuwai, 27 May 2016, Wai-2521, #A3(a), p.1. 450 Ririnui v Landcorp Farming Ltd [2014] NZHC 1128. 451 Martin Mikaere, ‘A History of Ngāti Pukenga’, MA thesis, University of Auckland, 1993, p.107.

way in which the confiscation proclamation for the district was worded.452 Ironically, Ngāi Te Rangi were themselves at times described as belonging to Ngāti Awa. That description was not as misleading as it sounded given ancestor Rangihouhiri was (unlike Te Hapū) a direct descendant of Awanuiārangi.453 But it did reflect a mindset in which Māori social structures were viewed in hierarchical and simplistic terms.454

291. As noted previously, Crown policies encouraged the grouping of Māori into a small number of recognised tribes. That was perceived as administratively convenient for a variety of reasons: it made it easier for Crown agents to negotiate land purchases, for example, besides being easier to comprehend than the elaborate patchwork of intricate customary relations and intertwined whakapapa that was the reality in most places. Meanwhile, Māori communities increasingly found it necessary to band together into larger units for the purposes of attempting to ‘achieve greater control over their lives and property’.455 Both dynamics saw a trend from the mid-nineteenth century towards fewer, but larger, recognised tribal entities and their absorption of groups that were previously recognised in their own right.

292. In the case of Motiti, however, arguably an even stronger sense of separate identity evolved over time because of the physical separation from the mainland. Hapū and iwi are living entities: their composition and even names are not fixed in stone but evolve over time (as the story about how the name Patuwai came about indicates). A model of tribal organisation based on a hierarchical and fixed membership is inconsistent with contemporary scholarship and understandings and instead perpetuates ethnographic assumptions of the colonial era.

22. The Kinship Review

293. I noted at this outset of this report that it was not my intention to examine contemporary Crown Treaty settlement policies and practices concerning Motiti except insofar as these related to the interpretation of historical evidence. The

452 Waitangi Tribunal, Te Raupatu o Tauranga Moana: Report on the Tauranga Confiscation Claims, Wellington: Legislation Direct, 2004, pp.43-45. 453 Angela Ballara, Iwi: The Dynamics of Māori Tribal Organisation from c.1769 to c.1945, Wellington: Victoria University Press, 1998, p.60. 454 Waitangi Tribunal, Te Raupatu o Tauranga Moana: Report on the Tauranga Confiscation Claims, Wellington: Legislation Direct, 2004, pp.44-45. 455 Angela Ballara, Iwi: The Dynamics of Māori Tribal Organisation from c.1769 to c.1945, Wellington: Victoria University Press, 1998, p.279.

notable document in this respect is what has been referred to in the statement of issues as the ‘kinship review’, an internal assessment conducted by the Office of Treaty Settlements between October 2015 and May 2016 to determine whether there remained any unsettled historical Treaty claims in respect of Motiti island.

294. Although referred to as ‘the’ kinship review, by my count there are at least four different versions of this, all marked or described as drafts:

• 23 October 2015456 • 22 April 2016457 • 26 April 2016 (with tracked changes)458 • 2 May 2016 (with tracked changes).459

295. I have not seen or located a document described as the final or approved version of the kinship review. Some of the changes to the draft review followed meetings with or communications from the Wai-2521 claimants and other interested parties. A full chronology and sequence of events at this time is not attempted here. Nor do I seek to offer a comprehensive commentary on the kinship review. My comments instead highlight some key points pertaining to the historical research it relies upon.

296. In addition to the four versions of the kinship review noted above, an internal memorandum was prepared by the historian involved in preparing the multi-authored review. That memorandum, dated 14 October 2015, set out and summarised the historical evidence that had been reviewed in relation to the assertion made in the Wai-2521 claim for urgency that the claim had not been settled as part of the Ngāti Awa Treaty settlement because their tupuna Te Hapū did not descend from Awanuiārangi II, the eponymous Ngāti Awa ancestor.460

297. The author of the 14 October memorandum comments that the ‘available evidence confirms that the ancestor Te Hapū does not descend from Awanuiarangi II’. He goes on to highlight various documents that underline the importance of Awanuiārangi II in the literature concerning the Ngāti Awa settlement. These include the background

456 Office of Treaty Settlements, Initial OTS report on Wai 2521 claim that Ngāi Te Hapū historical claims have not been settled, 23 October 2015, (OTS.010.0001). 457 Office of Treaty Settlements. Draft Report in response to Wai 2521 claim regarding the nature of the relationship between Ngāi Te Hapū and Patuwai of Ngāti Awa, 22 April 2016, (OTS.010.0024). 458 Office of Treaty Settlements. Draft Report in response to Wai 2521 claim regarding the nature of the relationship between Ngāi Te Hapū and Patuwai of Ngāti Awa, 26 April 2016, (OTS.011.1592). 459 Office of Treaty Settlements. Draft Report in response to Wai 2521 claim regarding the nature of the relationship between Ngāi Te Hapū and Patuwai of Ngāti Awa, 2 May 2016, (OTS.011.2481). 460 John Armstrong to Sue van Daatselaar, 14 October 2015, (OTS.011.2876).

section of the deed of settlement, which includes a statement that ‘the eponymous ancestor Awanuiarangi II, great-grandson of Toroa, is acknowledged by Ngati Awa as the paramount and principal identifying ancestor to which all hapu of Ngati Awa can trace descent’.461 He also notes an undated OTS report that states that ‘for the purposes of the settlement, Ngati Awa has been defined as those people who descend from the eponymous ancestor Awanuiarangi II of the Mataatua waka’, along with a media release from the time of the settlement that describes Ngāti Awa as ‘an iwi of the Eastern Bay of Plenty descended from Awanuiarangi II of the Mataatua waka’. In addition, the historian comments that ‘Records produced during the Ngāti Awa negotiations suggest that descent from Awanuiarangi II was a key consideration in determining the proper treatment of some shared hapū’.462 He further notes that, while all of the claimants to Motiti during the 1891 hearing cited Te Hapū as the ancestor, none cited descent from Awanuiārangi II.

298. All of the comments cited in the previous paragraph from the historian’s own review of the evidence were omitted from the first draft of the kinship review that was released on 23 October 2015. This multi-authored document instead concluded that, ‘based on the available information cited in this report...Ngāi Te Hapū are included in the definition of Ngāti Awa for the purposes of Treaty settlements’. That conclusion rested in part upon the definition of Ngāti Awa contained in the Ngāti Awa settlement legislation, but also purported to draw upon historical evidence suggesting that ‘many Motiti Island residents affiliated to Ngāti Awa in the late nineteenth century and at least until 1949’ along with the supposed absence of historical evidence showing the people of Motiti as identifying as Ngāi Te Hapū during this same period.463

299. As set out in this report, the evidence is considerably more complex than suggested in the first draft of the review. At various times the people of Motiti were regarded as part of Te Arawa, or seen to be aligned to Tauranga. At times, a Ngāti Awa connection did not even feature in the discussion. And the evidence for the people of Motiti identifying as Ngāi Te Hapū is contained in the very Native Land Court cases under which the island was claimed through the ancestor Te Hapū and in which the label Ngāi Te Hapū appears frequently. A more comprehensive review of the available evidence would have made both points apparent. And it seems the notes of

461 John Armstrong to Sue van Daatselaar, 14 October 2015, (OTS.011.2876). Bolded section as appears in the source document. 462 John Armstrong to Sue van Daatselaar, 14 October 2015, (OTS.011.2876). 463 Office of Treaty Settlements, Initial OTS report on Wai 2521 claim that Ngāi Te Hapū historical claims have not been settled, 23 October 2015, (OTS.010.0001).

100

caution contained in the historian’s memorandum of 14 October were not considered helpful when it came to preparing a draft kinship review for external release some nine days later.

300. Following the release of this first draft of the kinship review, the Wai-2521 claimants met with the Office of Treaty Settlements to express their concerns over the contents. They were particularly concerned that the draft report took as its starting point the very broad definition of Ngāti Awa contained in the settlement legislation rather than beginning with the history and whakapapa of the people of Motiti. The claimants noted once again that Te Hapū was not a descendant of Awanuiārangi II.464

301. The Office of Treaty Settlements agreed to hold kinship review hui or workshops with all interested parties to advance matters. Hui attended by various parties were held in Tauranga in December 2015 and February 2016.465 During the course of this second hui kaumātua and tribal historian Nepia Ranapia gave a detailed presentation on the history of Motiti, its people and their relationship with other tribes, explaining the origins of the Patuwai name among other things. As part of this presentation, he explained how the two branches of Patuwai descended from different tupuna, Te Hapū and his two sons Manu and Roropukai in the case of the people of Motiti but Ikapuku and his grandson Te Puia in respect of Patuwai ki Whakatane.466

302. On 22 April the second draft of the kinship review document was released. It was longer than the first draft (47 paragraphs plus an appendix, compared with 28 paragraphs plus appendix in the first draft) but still far from a comprehensive appraisal of the available evidence. Despite this, the authors of the report did not hesitate to reach the sweeping – and erroneous – conclusion that ‘most residents of Motiti self-identified as Patuwai and Ngāti Awa from at least the mid-1860s’. The authors nevertheless stated that they ‘do not feel that it is appropriate, on the basis of the Native Land Court minutes we have examined, for OTS to make a judgement about whether or not Te Hapū should be considered a Ngāti Awa ancestor, or whether it is appropriate to view Ngāi Te Hapū and the karanga Hapū as distinct from

464 Affidavidt of Te Atarangi Sayers, 18 May 2016, Wai-2521, #A2, p.2. 465 Office of Treaty Settlements, Record of hui regarding Motiti Island, the Tauranga Moana Framework and Wai 2521, 11 December 2015, (OTS.011.0954); Office of Treaty Settlements, Record of hui to discuss who the tangata whenua of Motiti Island are, 4 February 2016, (OTS.011.1316). 466 Office of Treaty Settlements, Record of hui to discuss who the tangata whenua of Motiti Island are, 4 February 2016, (OTS.011.1316).

101

Patuwai ki Whakatane as the Wai 2521 claimants suggest’.467 The evidence on this point was, they stated, ‘inconclusive’ but their understanding remained that the descendants of Te Hapū were part of Patuwai and covered by the Ngāti Awa Treaty settlement. Nevertheless, the authors stated that they were not experts in the interpretation of whakapapa and were not qualified to make judgements about the correctness of whakapapa material provided by claimants or recorded in the relevant Native Land Court minutes.468

303. Some small changes were made to the draft on 26 April 2016, notably the addition of a new paragraph describing a Customary Marine Title application made in respect of Motiti by the Patuwai Tribal Council.469 On 27 April 2016 the Wai-2521 claimants again met with the Office of Treaty Settlements to express their concerns over the kinship review. They stated that the report was based on incomplete historical evidence and did not take into account the information previously supplied them. They expressed their sadness and dismay at the report’s findings and asked whether there was any point in continuing to respond.470

304. On 2 May 2016 a further draft of the kinship review was released. The revised draft included new text about it not being considered ‘appropriate for OTS to make any judgements’ about the different evidence given in the Native Land Court, along with a paragraph based on one page of the Pekapekatahi Native Land Court minutes from 1895 that had been supplied to the Office of Treaty Settlements.471 The Pekapekatahi minutes were among the evidence not canvassed as part of previous drafts of the kinship review, with the historian on the team evidently believing that the minutes of various Native Land Court cases bearing upon Motiti were ‘located in Auckland’.472 Copies of all of the relevant minutes are available in hard copy or on microfilm at the Archives New Zealand head office just across the road from the Office of Treaty Settlements in Thorndon, Wellington. However, even were that not the case, one would question the apparent reluctance to travel to Auckland to consult

467 Office of Treaty Settlements. Draft Report in response to Wai 2521 claim regarding the nature of the relationship between Ngāi Te Hapū and Patuwai of Ngāti Awa, 22 April 2016, (OTS.010.0024). 468 Office of Treaty Settlements. Draft Report in response to Wai 2521 claim regarding the nature of the relationship between Ngāi Te Hapū and Patuwai of Ngāti Awa, 22 April 2016, (OTS.010.0024). 469 Office of Treaty Settlements, Draft Report in response to Wai 2521 claim regarding the nature of the relationship between Ngāi Te Hapū and Patuwai of Ngāti Awa, 26 April 2016, (OTS.011.1592). 470 Office of Treaty Settlements, Record of hui between OTS and Wai 2521 claimants, 27 April 2016, (OTS.011.1568). 471 Office of Treaty Settlements, Draft Report in response to Wai 2521 claim regarding the nature of the relationship between Ngāi Te Hapū and Patuwai of Ngāti Awa, 2 May 2016, (OTS.011.2481). 472 John Armstrong to Sue van Daatselaar, 14 October 2015, (OTS.011.2876).

102

crucial documents of direct relevance to the issues in contention. (Research for the present report included three days in Auckland, spent at the regional office of Archives New Zealand).

305. The 2 May 2016 draft of the kinship review, the final version of the document seen by the Wai-2521 claimants, did not materially differ from previous versions in its conclusions. Faced with this situation, the Wai-2521 claimants decided to return to the Waitangi Tribunal and pursue an application for urgency with respect to their claim.

306. The kinship review in its various manifestations had traversed only a fraction of the evidence considered in the course of preparing the present report. Yet for all the diffidence expressed in it about reaching a ‘conclusive’ view about Te Hapū, his descendants and their relationship with Ngāti Awa, the report did not hesitate to make rather sweeping statements about how the people of Motiti viewed themselves historically. Those conclusions were again based on only a fraction of the evidence available on this topic and consequently quite erroneous. Whereas the initial historian’s judgments were rightly somewhat cautious in his memorandum of 14 October 2015 given just how little of the evidence had been canvassed, the response from the Office of Treaty Settlements was not to commission more comprehensive research into the matter, which would have been a logical next step, but rather to continue to insist that no conclusion could be reached on whether any historic Treaty claims based on descent from Te Hapū remained unsettled.

23. Wāhi Tapu

307. Numerous wāhi tapu have been identified on Motiti, reflecting its long history of human habitation. As Dr Kahotea notes, historically pā sites on Motiti were located along the coast, providing both natural defences in the form of the many steep cliffs but also the opportunity to observe potential attackers as they approached from sea (and where necessary to escape from the island at those sites suitable for launching of waka).473

473 Des Tatana Kahotea, ‘Te Moutere o Motiti: Cultural Heritage Report’, report commissioned by the Department of Internal Affairs, 2012, p.76.

103

308. In 1971 Ken Moore of the New Zealand Archaeological Association recorded the known archaeological sites on Motiti based on extant information (but without visiting the island). Later field surveys revealed more information about the known sites as well as revealing new sites. In 1987 Bruce McFadgen and Tony Walton of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust (now Heritage New Zealand) undertook a field survey around the coastal edge of Motiti, revealing 13 new sites, including four new pā sites and seven occupation sites.474 Dr Kahotea describes the 1987 field survey as ‘hurried and...very inaccurate’. He conducted his own survey, employing GIS technology to more accurately pinpoint the known sites, while identifying new sites, consisting of terrace sites along the slopes of Motiti’s cliff edges.475

309. In addition, the Motiti Hapū Management Plan that was developed between 2006 and 2011 identified 31 sites, many of them rocks or reefs, located within the seabed and foreshore around Motiti that are also considered wāhi tapu. A number of these sites feature ancient rock carvings. Others are rocks historically used to measure things such as the changing seasons, equinoxes and solstices.476

310. Additionally, many reefs surrounding Motiti are also considered wāhi tapu, including Otaiti (Astrolabe), Porotiti, Okarapu, and others. The same applies to a number of small islands or islets including Motu Haku, Motu Nau and others. The wreck of the MV Rena on Otaiti (Astrolabe) reef on 5 October 2011 and the inquiries and hearings that followed from that saw a considerable body of evidence collated on the significance of the Otaiti reef to tangata whenua upon Motiti. But those relationships with the marine and coastal environment apply equally as much to the many other sites identified by tribal leaders, archaeologists and others as sites of significance.

24. Access to Motiti

311. As agriculture and farming developed on Motiti in the nineteenth century, a key challenge became landing supplies and livestock on and off an island lacking good

474 Des Tatana Kahotea, ‘Te Moutere o Motiti: Cultural Heritage Report’, report commissioned by the Department of Internal Affairs, 2012, p.77. 475 Des Tatana Kahotea, ‘Te Moutere o Motiti: Cultural Heritage Report’, report commissioned by the Department of Internal Affairs, 2012, p.77. 476 Motiti Island Environmental Management Plan (MIEMP), Appendix 3: Schedule of Cultural Heritage and Archaeological Sites. https://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/Files/Motiti_Island_Environmental_Management_Plan_May 2016/$file/Appendix-3-Schedule-May-2016-pg1-to-150.pdf (accessed 22 March 2017).

104

natural harbours. As noted previously, Wairanaki in the north was one important location for these purposes and for this reason had been set aside as a two-acre landing reserve when the Motiti North block was subdivided in 1894. In the south of the island the Paterson family had also developed its own solution. At Orongatea Bay, a tramline that extended out into the water was constructed. Along it ran a punt that according to one 1882 report could accommodate between 15 and 20 cattle.477

312. Over time, the tramline was repaired and modified, including in 1888,478 1894,479 1896,480 and subsequently. However, the tramline was limited in that it could only be operated in relatively calm seas and by 1913 a breakwater and stone wharf had been constructed as an alternative. Located south of the Te Rotoharakeke pā site, the small harbour formed by these means, later became known as Paterson’s Inlet.481 The wharf, described as about 150 feet in length, was reported as finally enabling vessels to dock at Motiti ‘at all stages of the tide and in any weather’.482 However, at least one Māori-owned vessel was reportedly wrecked inside the breakwater, which appears to have been destroyed in a storm sometime prior to 1921.483 Although the breakwater was later repaired and improved, frequent storms caused further damage, resulting in repeated efforts to strengthen and fix it.484

313. That might have prompted contemplation of a new Crown-subsidised jetty in the 1950s, as noted previously. In 1955 a District Officer within the Maori Affairs Department reported that landing facilities were ‘definitely required’ on Motiti and would be of direct benefit to the island’s Māori residents, who were prepared to contribute labour towards the construction of a new wharf.485

477 Bay of Plenty Times, 16 November 1882, http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/BOPT18821116.2.4 (accessed 13 February 2017). 478 Bay of Plenty Times, 8 October 1888, http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/BOPT18881008.2.7 (accessed 13 February 2017). 479 Bay of Plenty Times, 5 January 1894, http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/BOPT18940105.2.10 (accessed 13 February 2017). 480 Bay of Plenty Times, 8 May 1896, http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/BOPT18960508.2.5 (accessed 13 February 2017). 481 A.H. Matheson, Motiti Island, Bay of Plenty, Whakatane: Whakatane and District Historical Society, 1979, p.38. 482 Bay of Plenty Times, 14 April 1913, http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/BOPT19130414.2.5 (accessed 13 February 2017). 483 A.H. Matheson, Motiti Island, Bay of Plenty, Whakatane: Whakatane and District Historical Society, 1979, p.43. 484 A.H. Matheson, Motiti Island, Bay of Plenty, Whakatane: Whakatane and District Historical Society, 1979, p.44. 485 District Officer to Secretary, Department of Maori Affairs, 12 January 1956, MA 1 354 19/1/128, Archives New Zealand.

105

314. A 1956 report into landing facilities on Motiti noted that the island had a Māori population of 32 adults and 35 children and that all goods were at that time landed by dinghy. This included large quantities of maize, kumara and onions exported from the island to the mainland, from which came petrol and oil, food stuffs and other essential items.486 The Minister of Maori Affairs wrote that the provision of adequate landing facilities ‘could be a decisive factor in the full development of the island’.487 A report prepared by the Tauranga Resident Engineer for the Ministry of Works identified two possible sites for a new facility: ‘Maori Bay’, which was favoured by the island’s Māori residents and was where goods were then loaded by dinghy (but which would require a 120 foot breakwater to be viable); or Paterson’s Inlet, access to which was via the Paterson estate, requiring assurances of ‘free and continual’ Māori access to the jetty once constructed.488

315. In January 1957 a meeting was held on Motiti to discuss the proposed facilities. An official stated that after a discussion with Paterson concerning a legal right of way, he was confident that ‘no difficulty would be experienced’ should Paterson’s Inlet be selected for the new jetty. The gathering was told that this site would be much cheaper. A report on the meeting noted that the island’s Māori residents ‘expressed the urgent need for a jetty but maintained that their contributions towards the project would be by way of labour only’ as they could not make any financial assistance available. On this basis, they agreed to the cheaper option of a jetty at Paterson’s Inlet ‘but passed a resolution that a proper legal access be provided together with sufficient space for a storage shed, which would be definitely necessary on account of the distance to travel’. A suggestion was made that if a financial contribution was still required, a levy on goods freighted to or from the island might be the best means of providing for this.489

486 Secretary for Maori Affairs to Commissioner of Works and others, 14 March 1956, MA 1 354 19/1/128, Archives New Zealand. 487 Minister of Maori Affairs to G.A. Walsh, 3 July 1956 (draft), MA 1 354 19/1/128, Archives New Zealand. 488 Resident Engineer to District Commissioner of Works, 8 October 1956, MA 1 354 19/1/128, Archives New Zealand. 489 District Officer to Secretary, Department of Maori Affairs, 1 April 1957, MA 1 354 19/1/128, Archives New Zealand.

106

316. Officials subsequently identified lack of funding as a key impediment to proceeding with the project, which lapsed as a result.490 In 1958 Paterson applied to the Department of Maori Affairs for permission to extend the existing breakwater facility at Paterson’s Inlet. The Marine Department noted that ‘Mr Paterson has stated that he would permit access down to the breakwater-jetty through his land, but would require priority in its use for shifting his cattle’. It was noted that the Marine Department had no objection to this, ‘but before a license is issued we will obtain Mr Paterson’s written undertaking to allow access by land to the wharf’.491

317. Because of the large number of Māori resident on Motiti, the Maori Affairs Department was asked to advise whether it had any objections to Paterson’s proposal. It was not asked to consult Māori on Motiti concerning this and did not do so. Instead, in July 1958 the Secretary for Maori Affairs advised that ‘no reason can be seen for opposing Mr Paterson’s proposals’. He added that ‘The Department cannot say for certain whether the Maori residents would have any objections but it is thought not’. It was suggested that should the Marine Department desire to be certain on this point, it should call a meeting of the residents and discuss the matter directly with them.492 There is no indication that this happened.

318. In 1968 the Bay of Plenty Times reported that the Motiti tribal committee representing Motiti’s resident Patuwai tribe had imposed a ban on all unauthorised persons landing on those parts of the island still in their ownership. The ban followed extensive damage done by trespassers visiting the island, including theft of boat gear, a fire, cattle gates left open leaving stock free to wander, and other sources of annoyance. The Maori Affairs Department’s resident official at Tauranga was reported as stating that the residents were well within their legal rights in imposing such a ban.493 In the early 1970s it was reported that diving clubs were continuing to use the Māori-owned Wairanaki Bay, despite landing in the area ‘being strongly discouraged by the Maori owners’. It was said that divers would use this location more often ‘if permitted’ to do so by the Māori owners.494

490 Secretary, Department of Maori Affairs to Secretary, Department of Island Territories, 27 May 1957, MA 1 354 19/1/128, Archives New Zealand. 491 Secretary for Marine Department to Secretary, Department of Maori Affairs, 18 July 1958, MA 1 354 19/1/128, Archives New Zealand. 492 Secretary, Department of Maori Affairs, to Secretary for Marine Department, 25 July 1958, MA 1 354 19/1/128, Archives New Zealand. 493 Bay of Plenty Times, 20 April 1968, MA 1 354 19/1/128, Archives New Zealand. 494 R.G. McQuiod, Senior Planning Officer, to Chief Surveyor, Hamilton, 13 May 1980, BAOB A1239 1542 Box 1412 b 3/2895 part 1, Archives New Zealand (Auckland).

107

319. Through much of the mid-twentieth century officials took a close interest in vessels operating to and from Motiti, their seaworthiness and whether the usual regulations governing commercial vessels should apply to them. In 1933 Tai Mitchell of the Native Department advised Native Minister Apirana Ngata that a shipping inspector at Tauranga had recently informed Motiti owners of launches that they were not permitted to bring goods from Motiti to Tauranga or vice versa unless these happened to be the property of the owner. At the same time it was explained that this new rule would not prevent vessel owners from carrying goods belonging to others so long as no freight charges were applied. Mitchell commented that there were ‘seven launches belonging to the Motiti people which are operating at the present time and this prohibition is a very serious matter to the Motiti Maoris’, who were the owners of all seven vessels.495

320. Those concerned told Mitchell that they had been ‘plying between the Island and Tauranga, Maketu, Whakatane, and even as far as Te Kaha for over 60 years’. Mitchell noted that the fleet of launches at Motiti was ‘the only connection they have with the main land in case of accident, serious sickness or of death from unknown or violent causes’ and that the service they provided was ‘an absolute necessity’ for the residents of Motiti.496

321. Subsequent to this, the Marine Department received information concerning the vessels on Motiti and their owners, along with a request that these be exempted from the provisions of the Shipping and Seamen Act. The Chief Surveyor of Ships later recommended that the launches should be assumed to be ‘owned not individually but by the Maori community at Motiti Island’.497 The Māori-owned vessels of Motiti island were subsequently treated as exempt from survey under the legislation in recognition of their central importance to the people of Motiti.498

322. In March 1945 the Collector of Customs at Tauranga asked the Marine Department whether ‘under the conditions which prevail at the Island as far as transport is concerned, the practice which has been in existence for the last forty years may be

495 Mitchell to Native Minister, 21 November 1933, M 1 891 12/781, Archives New Zealand. 496 Mitchell to Native Minister, 21 November 1933, M 1 891 12/781, Archives New Zealand. 497 Chief Surveyor of Ships to Secretary, Marine Department, 14 December 1934, M 1 891 12/781, Archives New Zealand. 498 Secretary, Marine Department, to Tauranga Harbourmaster, 16 January 1935, M 1 891 12/781, Archives New Zealand.

108

allowed to continue’, enabling the Māori residents of Motiti to continue to operate non-surveyed vessels. He pointed out in support of this stance that there was ‘no telephonic or wireless communication’ between the island and Tauranga, in consequence of which it was impossible to charter a surveyed boat from Tauranga. The Motiti boats were ‘used extensively for the conveyance of maize and kumaras to the main-land’, while it had always been the practice to convey islanders to Tauranga free of charge.499

323. Presented with this account of the ongoing importance of the Māori boats on Motiti, the Marine Department ruled that the status quo could continue, with the vessels not having to be surveyed.500 However, officials continued to express concern regarding alleged overloading and inadequate safety equipment into the 1950s.501

24. Fishing

324. Customary (and at times also commercial) fishing has been an integral part of Ngāi Te Hapū/Patuwai culture and lifestyle on Motiti over many generations. The Motiti Hapū Management Plan identified and mapped the locations of multiple fishing grounds located all around the coastline of Motiti.502 These grounds have been used by members of Ngāi Te Hapū/Patuwai for customary fishing from the time of their first occupation of the island through to today. The evidence of historical usage is abundant and the fish species, shellfish and crustaceans that have historically been caught or collected varied and extensive. Some are seasonal and others caught or harvested throughout the year. Some kinds of kaimoana were used for medicinal purposes and particular fish species processed, dried and packed for trade purposes. Other species, like the maomao (blue fish) were staples of the local diet.503

325. In the early nineteenth century offshore fishing was conducted in customary waka (canoes). Although these continued to be used, from the 1870s whale boats and other European-style vessels became increasingly common, coinciding with a period

499 Collector of Customs to Secretary, Marine Department, 1 March 1945, M 1 891 12/781, Archives New Zealand. 500 Acting Secretary, Marine Department, to Collector of Customs, 16 March 1945, M 1 891 12/781, Archives New Zealand. 501 Surveyor of Ships to Chief Surveyor of Ships, 8 December 1950, M 1 891 12/781, Archives New Zealand. 502 Des Tatana Kahotea, ‘Te Moutere o Motiti: Cultural Heritage Report’, report commissioned by the Department of Internal Affairs, 2012, pp.80-81. 503 Nepia Ranapia, Motiti Island Native Resource Management Plan, August 2012, p.124.

109

in which the Motiti residents periodically engaged in whaling from the island.504 In 1872 three whales were caught by Motiti residents.505 A decade later, in 1882, the Bay of Plenty Times reported an ‘exciting chase after a [humpback] whale’ spotted on the seaward side of Motiti and pursued by three boats, ‘manned by Patuwai natives’.506 In this instance, the whale eventually managed to escape, but a calf whale was caught not long after. By the 1883 whaling season, four whale boats had been fitted out by Māori on Motiti and a 70-feet long whale was reported as the first catch of the season.507

326. Visitors to Motiti often commented on the importance of customary fishing practices for Māori on the island. In 1889, for example, a visitor to the island wrote that:

Fishing is one of the principal occupations in the summer time. Large quantities of crayfish are caught, both by diving and in baskets. Many of these are sold in Tauranga. All the ordinary kinds of fish abound, and are readily caught by throwing out a line from the shore. The hapuku fishing ground, a little to the east of the island, is one of the very best to be found anywhere. These fish are caught in large numbers. The natives have a peculiar way of preserving them by steaming in their ovens and drying in the sun. In this form they are often sent as presents to other tribes.508

327. This report indicates that fish were still being used as part of customary gift- exchanges with other iwi aimed at reinforcing relations between the groups, therefore playing a vital part in the maintenance of customary practices among the Motiti residents.

328. Other accounts highlighted the prolific and varied fisheries to be found at Motiti and the huge catches regularly made by Māori on the island. In 1899 one unnamed visitor to the island stated:

I think it not at all unlikely that Motiti may ere long become the centre of an important fishing industry, as they are famous fishing grounds, both for hapuku and tarakihi close to it. The natives catch large numbers of the former, and preserve them, after cooking in their hangis, and send them as

504 A.H. Matheson, Motiti Island, Bay of Plenty, Whakatane: Whakatane and District Historical Society, 1979, p.74. 505 A.H. Matheson, Motiti Island, Bay of Plenty, Whakatane: Whakatane and District Historical Society, 1979, p.82. 506 Bay of Plenty Times, 13 November 1882, http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/BOPT18821113.2.7 (accessed 10 January 2017). 507 Bay of Plenty Times, 23 October 1883, http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/BOPT18831023.2.5 (accessed 10 January 2017). 508 New Zealand Herald, 7 December 1889, http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZH18891207.2.55.6 (accessed 10 January 2017).

110

presents to the inland tribes. Lobsters abound round the island, and are frequently brought over in the numerous sailing boats to sell in Tauranga.509

329. Similar observations and predictions (possibly from the same author) were made just a few years later. In 1903 JW Duffus, writing in the New Zealand Herald, predicted that:

Motiti is probably destined to become the centre of an important fishing industry, as many famous fishing grounds are in its vicinity. Those for hapuka and tarakihi are the more prized by the natives, but there are others, where all manner of fish can be obtained – schnapper, kahawai, barracouta, crayfish, and many other varieties. The Motiti natives catch large quantities of hapuka, and dry them, after cooking in their hangis, and send as presents to the inland tribes. They state that two men can in a very short time fill a boat with these monsters, some of which weigh 120lb.510

330. During the 1894 rehearing into the 565-acre portion of Motiti awarded to Patuwai, Ngawhika Otimi gave evidence concerning customary fishing grounds. Ngawhika stated that Wairanaki was a beach where nets were set for fishing, especially for barracoota. The sea at Wairanaki, where the barracoota were caught, was known as Te Poroporo. Makahuri was a conger eel hole in the sea. Te Rahu was a crayfish ground. Te Manaiti was a crayfish rāhui, indicating the maintenance of customary practices to ensure sustainable kaimoana harvest. On the eastern side, Ngawhika named Motu Puta as a maomao fishing ground. Oruamahanga was the name of a rock or reef that was another barracoota fishing spot.511 In each instance he named particular ancestors under whose mana these locations were held and emphasised that no one else could fish at these places. The extent to which these rights were specified was apparent in his discussion of Oruamahanga, with Ngawhika stating that the northern and southern ends of the reef were held under the mana of two different ancestors.512 He provided evidence on these fishing grounds and locations by way of proof of his party’s claims on the land.

331. As documented by Dr Kahotea, there are multiple accounts of fishing on Motiti and close to its shoreline between the nineteenth century and the mid-twentieth.513 Many of these accounts explicitly note the involvement of Patuwai, or Māori from Motiti, in

509 New Zealand Herald, 4 March 1899, http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZH18990304.2.73.8 (accessed 14 December 2017). 510 New Zealand Herald, 5 December 1903, http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZH19031205.2.75.44 (accessed 10 January 2017). 511 Judge O’Brien MB 28, pp.197-198. 512 Judge O’Brien MB 28, p.198. 513 Appendix 5: Matrix of Fish Information from Newpapers 1870-1940, Statement of Evidence of Desmond Tatana Kahotea, ENV-2016-AKL-42, 43 and 45.

111

such fishing. In some cases their local expertise as to fishing grounds was tapped by visitors from the mainland who employed Motiti Māori as guides for their fishing parties. Excursions to Motiti conducted under the auspices of the Māori landowners on the island were also popular in the late nineteenth century.514

332. Recreational and commercial fishers were increasingly drawn to the area by reports of the abundant fisheries to be caught there and over time this inevitably had some impact on fish stocks. In 1920 an inquiry was conducted into trawling in the western Bay of Plenty and the suggestion made that this be confined to three miles beyond the north-eastern extremity of Motiti.515 But even in the 1950s it was said that Māori on Motiti could ‘catch all the fish they wanted simply by throwing out lines from the shore.’516

333. Motiti Māori sought to vigorously defend fish stocks and kaimoana supplies on and around the island, and were quick to highlight perceived threats to longstanding fishing practices. In 1957 George Aukaha, the secretary of the Motiti Island Tribal Committee, informed the Secretary for Maori Affairs that:

We are so situated that we have to entirely depend on our sea foods for sustenance and we have been enjoying the privilege which is no doubt denied to others of our Maori people.

With the advent of spear fishing I fear that this privilege is going to be denied us. There is evident signs of depletion and even in this very short time that the spear fishing has been practised the crayfish is fast becoming scarce.

We no doubt do spear fishing but whereas we do so as a means of catching food to others it is merely a sport, a wanton waste of necessary foods to us. It is not unusual for us to catch crayfish with wounds effected by spears. Parties up to 80 invade our beaches weekly and shoot anything in sight and the day being ended fish that are not to the pakeha taste are just thrown away.517

334. This complaint was referred to the Marine Department for investigation, the Maori Affairs Department at the same time observing that while Māori on Motiti relied ‘a

514 Office of Treaty Settlements, Preliminary Appraisal of Historical Information Assocated with Customary Marine Title Applications under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 for the CMCA Surrounding Motiti Island, June 2013, p.10. 515 Bay of Plenty Times, 10 August 1920, http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/BOPT19200810.2.11 (accessed 11 January 2017). 516 A.H. Matheson, Motiti Island, Bay of Plenty, Whakatane: Whakatane and District Historical Society, 1979, p.81. 517 G. Aukaha to T. Ropiha, 8 April 1957, AAMK W3074 869 Box 1129 43/1 c part 3, Archives NZ.

112

good deal on fish for their diet’, it was doubtful whether it was the sole source of their sustenance.518

335. The Marine Department rejected complaints about the impact of commercial fishing and trawling, pointing out that the latter was already prohibited throughout much of the Bay of Plenty. However, it did find that there were legitimate grounds for concern with respect to the ‘indiscriminate killing of fish’ by recreational spear fishers.519 The Marine Department sent an official to a national conference of spear fishers to address the gathering on the impact that such indiscriminate killing of fish had on Māori communities that relied to a large degree on fish for their sustenance. The Secretary of the Motiti Island Tribal Committee was informed that the Marine Department viewed such talks as ‘the best way of getting spear fishermen’s cooperation in limiting their catches to reasonable quantities’.520

336. More effective responses were available. Section 33 of the Maori Social and Economic Advances Act 1945 enabled the Crown to declare any fishing ground or shell-fish area a reserve ‘for the exclusive use of Maoris of any tribe or section of a tribe of Maoris’. Such a reserve could be vested in a tribal executive or tribal committee established under the same Act, which would also be empowered to make such by-laws as it saw fit for the management, control and preservation of such reserves. However, as the Marine Department commented in 1958, these provisions had never been utilised, ‘since a concession would thereby be conferred on one section of the community, and the rest debarred from enjoying the same privilege’. The department’s approach had instead been to ban all fishing or to work with the tribal committees to gain approval for commercial fishing in their areas.521

337. In February 1958 the Motiti Island Tribal Committee formally applied for section 33 of the 1945 legislation to be implemented with respect to Motiti and its adjacent fishing grounds. The committee wrote that:

518 Secretary for Maori Affairs to Secretary for Marine, 18 April 1957, AAMK W3074 869 Box 1129 43/1 c part 3, Archives NZ. 519 Secretary for Marine to Secretary for Maori Affairs, 30 April 1957, AAMK W3074 869 Box 1129 43/1 c part 3, Archives NZ. 520 Secretary for Maori Affairs to G. Aukaha, 30 May 1957, AAMK W3074 869 Box 1129 43/1 c part 3, Archives NZ. 521 Secretary for Marine to Secretary for Maori Affairs, 15 July 1958, AAMK W3074 869 Box 1129 43/1 c part 3, Archives NZ.

113

WE, the Maori people of Motiti Island ask you to make urgent representation to the authorities concerned regarding a matter of the utmost importance to us.

We ask you to have Motiti Island and its environs (we suggest at least one mile) entirely prohibited for fishing except by the inhabitants thereof.

In recent years Motiti has become increasingly popular with both commercial and private fishing boats.

Trawlers are coming in closer, and, almost daily, launches, plying for hire, are bringing large fishing parties close inshore, at times landing their passengers. Frequently, these are underwater fishermen, whose depredations to fish are well known.

Smaller launches, both commercial and private, not only come close inshore, but also land to fish and set crayfish pots.

We have, of necessity, in our isolation, always depended greatly on the sea for our food. Now, because of these inroads made on the fish, we can no longer always procure sufficient for our needs and our standard of living has been most seriously lowered.522

338. Arapeta Awatere of the Maori Affairs Department’s Rotorua office replied that ‘[y]our case is reasonable’. He asked the petitioners to mark on a map the area they wanted reserved. Once they had done this the information would be sent to the Maori Affairs head office in Wellington, along with a request that they sponsor and support the application to the Marine Department.523 Awatere also informed the resident departmental officer at Tauranga that the case presented ‘appears to be sound’.524

339. Following this petition, a meeting was convened on Motiti Island on 27 June 1958 that was attended by officials from both the Marine and Maori Affairs Departments. The District Inspector of Fisheries, attending on behalf of the Marine Department, later wrote that during the meeting, it was stated that the 200 or so Māori on the island ‘depend on the harvest of the sea for 90% of their food’. He further recorded that the Māori residents on Motiti shared equally all proceeds from their sale of their maize ‘and all fish or crayfish caught are divided equally among the people’. However, since the arrival of the spear fishers, it was becoming increasingly difficult to catch sufficient fish for their own needs, as a result of which they sought to prohibit all fishing by non-residents for an area of 400 yards (365 metres) around Motiti Island. The inspector offered his view that ‘the request of the Motiti island maoris [sic]

522 Petition of Motiti Island Tribal Committee, 27 February 1958, AAMK W3074 869 Box 1129 43/1 c part 3, Archives NZ. 523 A. Awatere to G. Asher, Secretary, Motiti Island Tribal Committee, 3 April 1958, BBFZ A1115 4946 Box 128 e 4/25/1/9 part 1 Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 524 Awatere to Resident Officer, Tauranga, 3 April 1958, BBFZ A1115 4946 Box 128 e 4/25/1/9 part 1 Archives New Zealand (Auckland).

114

to have the fishing reserved for their people is most reasonable’.525 Given the opposition to such reserves from head office on ideological grounds, this support from the local Marine Department official was both uncommon and highly significant.

340. That view was also supported by the Maori Affairs Department District Officer in attendance. He recorded that ‘This Office is convinced that the statements made by the Tribal Committee and the people of Motiti Island are wellfounded and correct’. He added that there had been extensive checking and cross-checking of statements in order to reach this conclusion, including discreet inquiries conducted among some of the Pākehā residents of Tauranga. The officer strongly recommended that the department support the application made by the Motiti Island Tribal Committee.526

341. However, news of a possible prohibition on non-residents fishing at Motiti prompted a swift rear-guard action. By August 1958 the Tauranga Fishermen’s Association, having heard of the proposed ban, met to condemn the proposal. They agreed that spear fishing was having a very real negative effect on fishing stocks at Motiti but pointed out that most of their members were liner fishers with quite small boats. They claimed that it was ‘manifestly absurd’ for Motiti Māori to claim 90% of their food supply came from the sea and argued that their own activities had no real effect on them.527

342. The Maori Affairs Department head office advised their Rotorua officials that the matter had been taken up with the Marine Department. That department was said to be ‘fully alive to the position and...sympathetic to the Motiti Island peoples’ request’. It had undertaken to ‘do what it can to conserve the fishing supplies of the island’.528

343. While the Marine Department’s local office had been sympathetic to the concerns of Motiti Māori, head office had always opposed the creation of fishing reserves for Māori on the grounds that this was separatist. It advised that limits would be imposed on the amount of crayfish that could be caught by recreational fishers.529 But there

525 District Inspector of Fisheries to Secretary for Marine, 30 June 1958, AAFZ W1711 7910 Box 7 2/12/116, Archives NZ. 526 District Officer to Head Office, Department of Maori Affairs, 8 August 1958, AAMK W3074 869 Box 1129 43/1 c part 3, Archives NZ. 527 Petition to Minister of Marine, 6 August 1958, AAFZ W1711 7910 Box 7 2/12/116, Archives NZ. 528 Head Office to District Officer, Rotorua, 18 August 1958, BBFZ A1115 4946 Box 128 e 4/25/1/9 part 1 Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 529 Minute on Head Office to District Officer, Rotorua, Department of Maori Affairs, 18 August 1958, AAMK W3074 869 Box 1129 43/1 c part 3, Archives NZ.

115

were, in its view, ‘a number of problems’ with the proposal advised by Motiti Māori for fishing reserves to be created around the island.530

344. Further inquiries in 1960 revealed that the matter had been allowed to lapse and it was still the case that not a single reserve had been created under the 1945 Act anywhere in the country.531 The secretary of the Motiti Island Tribal Committee had asked about the progress of their application. The Maori Affairs Department’s head office stated that they had lost their files on the matter. It was suggested that an application should be made by the committee directly to the Marine Department.532

345. In 1961 the National Film Unit released a 10-minute documentary called Visit t o Motiti, in which a group of city children travelled to the island to learn about life there.533 In the same year, and presumably following the film crew’s visit to the island, H. Bennett from the National Film Unit wrote to the Minister of Marine making ‘representations on behalf of the Maori residents of Motiti Island for restrictions of the activities of commercial fishermen who crayfish in that area’.534

346. The minister replied that the question of a ban had been mooted in 1958, when the Tauranga Fishermen’s Association had protested, claiming that they were mainly line fishers with small boats and that Motiti Māori were exaggerating their reliance on fish and seafood for their food supplies. He added that no further action had been taken at the time but informed Bennett that since then amateur catch limits on crayfish had been introduced. The limits meant that any boat party could not lawfully carry more than 30 crayfish on any one trip. Despite this, examination of crayfish landed at Tauranga by commercial fishers revealed that this had risen steadily, tripling since 1952. The minister added that:

there is no provision in the Fisheries Act whereby a reserve for only one section of the people can be made. Indeed, it would seem wise not to grant

530 Secretary for Marine to District Inspector of Fisheries, 9 July 1958, AAFZ W1711 7910 Box 7 2/12/116, Archives NZ. 531 Head Office to District Office, Rotorua, Department of Maori Affairs, 15 November 1960, AAMK W3074 869 Box 1130 43/1 a part 4, Archives NZ. 532 Head Office to Rotorua District Office, 15 November 1960, BBFZ A1115 4946 Box 128 e 4/25/1/9 part 1 Archives New Zealand (Auckland); J. Rangihau for District Officer, memorandum, 18 November 1960, BBFZ A1115 4946 Box 128 e 4/25/1/9 part 1 Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 533 Visit to Motiti, National Film Unit, 1961, AAOJ W5034 Box 204 A8134, Archives New Zealand; John O’Shea, Don’t Let it Get You: Memories – Documents, Wellington: Victoria University Press, 1999, p.69. 534 Minister of Marine to Bennett, 4 May 1961, BBFZ A1115 4946 Box 128 e 4/25/1/9 part 1, Archives New Zealand (Auckland).

116

a concession of this nature whereby one part of the community could fish, and the rest debarred from the same privilege. Indeed, such a vesting of fishing rights in one body of persons, as suggested for Motiti Island, could create a division of feeling between Maori and Europeans, thus undermining the equality both enjoy at the present time.535

347. The minister’s response was either disingenuous or misinformed, since he ignored the provision contained in the Maori Social and Economic Advancement Act for fishing reserves to be set aside for the exclusive use of Māori. The minister also ignored the fact that at least one local official from within his own ministry had previously supported using this provision and agreed that they relied heavily on the sea for the bulk of their food supplies. That was substantially different from the recreational and commercial fishers from the mainland who were plundering fish and kaimoana stocks on and around the island.

348. In 1962 the Motiti Island Tribal Executive met and resolved to make a formal application to the Marine Department for a reserve under the 1945 Act of ‘those fishing grounds within 400 yds of the Island low water-line of the Northern part of the Island delineated by a straight line from Cave Island (Moti-puta) in the East across to Pana Turu Pa on the Western Coast of the Island’.536 The executive expressed concern at the scarcity of crayfish and fish close to the island. It was thought that this was a result of trawlers dragnetting too close to the island and causing destruction to fishing grounds, along with encroachments on the crayfish grounds along the shore.537

349. In April 1962 the Minister of Marine responded to a formal request under the 1945 Act made the previous month. He repeated the previous assertions that reserves under this provision had never been made anywhere in the country since these would be for the exclusive use of Māori and it was ‘considered expedient not to do so, since the practical outcome would be an unfortunate and undesirable distinction and segregation of two races which have lived and intermarried happily together’. It followed, the minister declared, ‘that nothing is to be gained, and much would be lost, by pressing representations for a separation of sea or foreshore into separate areas

535 Minister of Marine to Bennett, 4 May 1961, BBFZ A1115 4946 Box 128 e 4/25/1/9 part 1, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 536 Minutes of Motiti Island Tribal Executive, 27 January 1962, BBFZ A1115 4946 Box 128 e 4/25/1/9 part 1 Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 537 Minutes of Motiti Island Tribal Executive, 27 January 1962, BBFZ A1115 4946 Box 128 e 4/25/1/9 part 1 Archives New Zealand (Auckland).

117

for Maori and European, since a division of feeling could result, thus undermining the equality both races enjoy at present’.538

350. Besides this ideological objection to the concept of such reserves, the minister also disputed the necessity for one at Motiti, asserting that ‘it has not been shown conclusively that the local people are as adversely affected as they claim’. Applications under the 1945 Act had been lodged from ‘the far north to the far south’ of the country and could be sustained. Moreover, the minister pointed to the restrictions imposed on crayfish takes and other restrictions on seafood harvesting near centres of Māori population. He declared that he could not look favourably on the request for a fishing reserve on Motiti.539 Motiti Māori had evidently amended their initial 1958 application encompassing all of the island in favour of a more modest proposal that covered around half of the island. One official stated that they had asked that ‘half of Motiti Island be reserved for Maori fishing and the remaining half for Pakeha’.540 But if this was an attempt to appease the concerns of those opposed to solely Māori fishing reserves, then it evidently failed. In 1965, when Motiti Māori indicated their intention to raise the matter of a fishing reserve again, no further progress had been made towards any kind of reserve on Motiti.

351. In 1973 the Department of Lands and Survey considered declaring the waters around Motiti a marine reserve under section 3 of the Marine Reserves Act 1971. This followed a coastal survey investigation of Motiti conducted in 1972. The survey concluded that lands between the cliff tops and sea around the island should be acquired as a reserve. It was also recommended that the many different coastal pā sites should be contiguous with this reserve and either acquired separately as historic reserves or be set aside by their owners as Māori reserves.541

352. In response to this investigation, it was suggested that creation of a marine reserve around Motiti might be a bigger priority.542 The Commissioner of Crown Lands,

538 R.G. Gerard, Minister of Marine, to Minister of Maori Affairs, 10 April 1962, BBFZ A1115 4945 Box 73 c 18/11/5/0 part 1, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 539 G. Gerard, Minister of Marine, to Minister of Maori Affairs, 10 April 1962, BBFZ A1115 4945 Box 73 c 18/11/5/0 part 1, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 540 J. Lovelock, memorandum, 6 November 1965, BBFZ A1115 4945 Box 73 c 18/11/5/0 part 1, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 541 K.R. Locke, Senior Surveyor, Coastal Reserve Investigation, July 1972, BAOB A1239 1542 Box 1412 b 3/2895 part 1, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 542 R.J. Armstrong, District Surveyor, to Chief Surveyor, Hamilton, 9 November 1972, BAOB A1239 1542 Box 1412 b 3/2895 part 1, Archives New Zealand (Auckland).

118

following discussion with the district surveyor, commented that there was no point in reserving a strip around the island merely to protect the pohutukawa trees along the cliff tops. However, he did support the creation of specific reserves, including known pā sites.543 The Tauranga Underwater Club was asked for their views as to whether a marine reserve should be established in the waters surrounding Motiti.544 The club responded that in its view the waters surrounding Motiti did not meet the criteria for a marine reserve.545

353. Under the Act marine reserves could be established in areas that contained underwater scenery, natural features or marine life of such distinctive quality, or so typical, or beautiful or unique, that their continued preservation was in the national interest. Creation of a marine reserve was, among other things, intended to ensure that marine life within the designated area was ‘as far as possible’ protected and preserved.546 The Commissioner of Crown Lands recommended against creation of such a reserve in respect of Motiti.547 No reserve was established.

354. Although the volumes may be much less than what they once were, customary fishing practices have remained a central feature of life on Motiti today, both among the island’s permanent residents and those who return regularly to maintain their customary connections. In this respect, fishing is a key factor in what together forms the unique culture of Motiti.

25. Planning Issues and Resource Consents

355. Motiti fell outside the boundaries of any territorial authority and so for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning Act 1977 the Minister of Works was deemed to be the council for the purposes of approving any proposed developments under the legislation. The Minister of Works had assumed formal planning responsibility for

543 A.E. Turley, Commissioner of Crown Lands, to Director-General, 31 July 1972, BAOB A1239 1542 Box 1412 b 3/2895 part 1, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 544 A.E. Turley, Commissioner of Crown Lands, to Secretary, Tauranga Underwater Club, 28 June 1973, BAOB A1239 1542 Box 1412 b 3/2895 part 1, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 545 Secretary, Tauranga Underwater Club, to Department of Lands and Survey, 5 November 1973, BAOB A1239 1542 Box 1412 b 3/2895 part 1, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 546 Section 3, Marine Reserves Act 1971, http://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/hist_act/mra19711971n15205/ (accessed 17 January 2018). 547 A.E. Turley, Commissioner of Crown Lands, to Director-General, 8 June 1973, BAOB A1239 1542 Box 1412 b 3/2895 part 1, Archives New Zealand (Auckland).

119

Motiti in 1972 (or 1966 according to the Waitangi Tribunal).548 Prior to that, in 1957 the Maori Affairs Department wrote to the Department of Island Territories (which had responsibility for New Zealand dependencies and mandated territories, including Samoa, the Cook Islands, Niue and Tokelau) believing that it also administered Motiti.549 However, there does not appear to be any other evidence indicating that this was the case.

356. Changes in land ownership on the Pākehā part of Motiti resulted in plans for further development. The Paterson family sold the last of their Motiti lands in 1979.550 In the same year the new owners submitted a proposed subdivision plan to the Minister of Works. The proposal envisaged dividing the European portion of the island into three separate farms of near equal size, along with a fourth jointly-owned allotment for residences, sheds and a landing area.551

357. Lawyers acting for the new owners also argued that the subdivision should be exempt from the requirements of the Local Government Act 1978 to create a foreshore reserve, arguing that to create such a reserve strip would not provide access from land to the sea as the Act required but rather (since this was an island) sever such access.552

358. The Department of Lands and Survey rejected this argument.553 The Historic Places Trust also argued that any subdivision should include a requirement that any proposed change in land use of the many known pā sites included within the lands should be subject to these coming under the jurisdiction of the Historic Places Act 1954 and requiring prior Historic Places Trust approval.554 The Minister of Lands

548 Waitangi Tribunal, Report of the Waitangi Tribunal on a Claim Concerning Proposed Administrative Changes Affecting Motiti Island, Wellington: Waitangi Tribunal, 1985. 549 Secretary, Department of Maori Affairs to Secretary, Department of Island Territories, 27 May 1957, MA 1 354 19/1/128, Archives New Zealand. 550 A.H. Matheson, Motiti Island, Bay of Plenty, Whakatane: Whakatane and District Historical Society, 1979, p.45. 551 District Planner, Planning Report, Subdivision on Motiti Island, 25 February 1980, AATE A947 5113 Box 191 b 60/47/2, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 552 Couldrey, Martin and Co. to District Commissioner of Works, 22 August 1979, AATE A947 5113 Box 191 b 60/47/2, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 553 Chief Surveyor to District Commissioner of Works, 3 September 1979, AATE A947 5113 Box 191 b 60/47/2, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 554 Senior Archaeologist to Ministry of Works and Development, 14 February 1980, AATE A947 5113 Box 191 b 60/47/2, Archives New Zealand (Auckland).

120

subsequently notified the owners that the requirement for a foreshore reserve would not be waived.555

359. Speculation in 1984 that Motiti might be included within the boundaries of the Tauranga County Council as the Local Government Commission considered this idea prompted a member of the Historic Places Trust to express fears that this might lead to the island becoming a ‘Surfers Paradise-type holiday resort’. Dr Neil Begg told the Bay of P lenty Ti mes that the effects of rating policies, zoning and other regulatory powers ‘might change the lives of the traditional inhabitants’ and ‘though such changes were unthinkable it would be pleasant to have official reassurance’.556 In 1985 it was reported that one party had inquired about the availability of marae accommodation on Motiti while the island’s feasibility as a tourist destination was also explored.557

360. The council’s manager responded to Begg’s concerns by stating that without any planning controls in place it was possible that the island might become a resort. If Motiti was included within the Tauranga County Council then a planning scheme would be prepared in consultation with the owners. But he warned that even then the council would not be in a position to regulate or control the sale of private property on the island.558 The Local Government Commission’s proposal to include Motiti within Tauranga County Council prompted what one official described as ‘a flood of opposition from Motiti Islanders’.559

361. In 1986 it was reported that the commission had received a total of 1035 objections to its proposed additions to the Tauranga County Council, most from people objecting to the inclusion of Motiti.560 The county had indicated it was prepared to take over administration of the island but a spokesperson for Māori on Motiti said they unanimously rejected the proposal. They stated that they had looked after the

555 Commissioner of Crown Lands to District Commissioner of Works, 31 October 1980, AATE A947 5113 Box 191 b 60/47/2, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 556 ‘Way is open for tourist development on Motiti’, Bay of Plenty Times, 20 March 1984, in AATE A947 5113 Box 191 c 60/47/2/1, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 557 Patuwai Maori Committee Newsletter, 6 June 1985, BBFZ A1115 4946 Box 128 e 4/25/1/9 part 1, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 558 ‘Way is open for tourist development on Motiti’, Bay of Plenty Times, 20 March 1984, in AATE A947 5113 Box 191 c 60/47/2/1, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 559 W.G. Wharton for District Commissioner of Works to the Commissioner of Works, 2 August 1985, AATE A947 5113 Box 192 a 60/47/2/2, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 560 Bay of Plenty Times, 26 September 1986, BAOB A1239 1542 Box 1412 c 3/2895, Archives New Zealand (Auckland).

121

island since first settling it, building their own roads, protecting their heritage and even treating their dogs for hydatids.561

362. Under section 22 of the Local Government Act 2002 the Minister of Local Government is the territorial authority for Motiti and the Department of Internal Affairs provides administrative support to the minister. The Bay of Plenty Regional Council has regional council responsibilities for the island, including approving resource consent applications lodged in respect of it. Several resource consents have been issued for Motiti under the Resource Management Act 1991.

363. Consent number 62709 was issued by the Bay of Plenty Regional Council to Motiti Avocados Ltd in June 2004 for the purpose of constructing a vehicle access track from the foreshore onto the consent holder’s property at Wairere Bay. The consent expired on 30 November 2005. Environment Bay of Plenty’s Principal Resource Consents Officer recommended favourably on the application, noting that the proposed works were located entirely within the applicant’s property and that appropriate mitigation measures had been proposed to address the adverse environmental effects of the activity.562

364. Consent number 62427 was issued in March 2004 and provided retrospective consent for an existing landing facility at Paterson’s Inlet that had been constructed prior to 1991. The barge landing facility provides the sole vehicle access to the island and, according to the report of the Principal Environmental Consents Officer for Environment Bay of Plenty, had been constructed 60 or 70 years earlier. This might have been the same structure that the Crown had considered subsidising the construction of in the 1950s, subject to assurances of ‘free and continual’ Māori access to the site. The Consents Officer observed that the facility was ‘integral to the ferrying of people, vehicles and products to and from Motiti Island’.563 He also observed that the five-metre wide pier (which extended about 30 metres beyond the mean high water spring tide) would not result in any reduction of existing public access to and along the coastal marine area. The consent expires on 31 December 2023.

561 Bay of Plenty Times, 26 September 1986, BAOB A1239 1542 Box 1412 c 3/2895, Archives New Zealand (Auckland). 562 Report from B.W. O’Shaughnessy, Principal Environmental Consents Officer, 22 June 2004, Non- Notified Resource Consent Application Number 62709, Motiti Avocados Limited, Motiti Island. 563 Report from B.W. O’Shaughnessy, Principal Environmental Consents Officer, 23 January 2004, Resource Consent (Non-Notified) Application Number 62427, Donald Geoffrey Wills, Motiti Island.

122

365. Consent number 62867 was issued to Motiti Avocados Ltd in 2005 and expires in March 2040. It provides for the construction and use of two barge landing ramps at Wairere Bay intended to provide all-weather access to Motiti Island for the applicant. Construction was expected to take approximately eight weeks, and a report on the application concluded that it would not cause any significant barrier to public access to and along the foreshore in the area.564 In 2013 the applicant sought approval to amend the consent following significant damage to one of the barge landing structures sustained during a storm in 2011. The original consent had stipulated that all rock material used in construction of the ramps be sourced from an identified rock extraction site on Motiti Island. The change provides for imported rocks to be used, subject to assurance that these did not come from wāhi tapu or sites of high significance to tangata whenua associated with the location of the quarry.565

366. For many Māori on Motiti, potential subdivision of the general lands on the island had long been a cause of concern, sparking fears that this might result in an intensification of land use, and increase the numbers of Pākehā living there.566 Besides placing a strain on the island’s practically non-existent infrastructure and roading, it was feared that such developments might also result in greater intervention from the mainland, eroding the unique culture and lifestyle of Motiti.

367. In 1994 the Pākehā owners of Taumaihi Island (members of the Wills family) put a proposal to the Māori Land Court to gift the island to the Ngāi Tauwhao people because of its ‘historical and ancestral significance’ to them. The lawyer explained that this proposal had emerged out of a separate resource consent application to subdivide the Wills’ freehold title into five rural allotments.567 However, a number of Māori appeared before the court hearing in Tauranga to oppose the application. They challenged the court’s jurisdiction to hear the case and declared that the land was theirs. The judge announced that in view of this opposition the court was unable to vest the island in its former owners (those to whom it had been originally awarded by the Native Land Court). However, he was prepared to recommend that a Māori reservation be set aside under the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 ‘as a place of

564 Report from B.W. O’Shaughnessy, Principal Environmental Consents Officer, 27 May 2005, Resource Consent (Limited-Notified) Application Number 62867, Motiti Avocados Limited, Motiti Island. 565 Report from Luke Faithfull, Senior Consents Officer, Non-Notified Change to Consent Number 62867, Motiti Avocados Limited, Motiti Island. 566 Hoete, G. & S., & Ors v Minister of Local Government, [2012] NZEnC 282, p.21. 567 Tauranga MB 53, pp.181-84.

123

historic interest for the whanau o Tauwhao’.568 The reserve was gazetted in November 1994.569 The court’s minutes noted that ‘The objection of all members of the whanau present is recorded’.570 The effect of the order was to create a reservation in favour of those named while retaining the underlying title in the Wills family ownership.571

368. An application for a subdivision consent in 1995 prompted a review into the regulatory framework for Motiti and lead the Department of Internal Affairs to commission a draft district plan for the island. In January 1997 the Environment Court gave final approval to the proposed subdivision of the Wills family lands into five rural lots (plus the Taumaihi reserve), subject to various conditions. These included a requirement to fence off pā sites and to take all reasonable care not to disturb, modify or destroy sites of cultural or archaeological significance without prior approval from the Historic Places Trust (now Heritage New Zealand) under the Historic Places Act 1989.572 The court noted in its judgment a ‘deep-seated sense of grievance’ stemming from the belief that the land had wrongfully passed out of Māori ownership in the nineteenth century had contributed to strong opposition to the subdivision application.573 In 2012 the Environment Court described the process of drafting the district plan as ‘fraught and divisive’. It noted that there had been ‘strong resistance’ to the plan from the island’s residents.574 The island had ‘a strong Maori culture’, but ‘no real infrastructure’ and ‘no local body and no government presence’.575

369. Many Motiti residents feared that the introduction of a plan would limit their ability to exercise rangatiratanga over the island, as well as undermining its unique culture and heritage. After considerable litigation, in 2015 the Environment Court gave final approval to a Motiti Island Environmental Management Plan. The court noted ongoing opposition to the plan. It also expressed the hope that in future the plan

568 Tauranga MB 53, pp.181-84. 569 New Zealand Gazette, no.124, 24 November 1994, p.3663; New Zealand Gazette, no.176, 5 December 1996, p.4645. 570 Tauranga MB 53, p.184. 571 Tauranga MB 53, p.184. 572 Berkett v Minister of Local Government, A006/1997 [1997] NZEnvC 12, pp.19-21. 573 Berkett v Minister of Local Government, A006/1997 [1997] NZEnvC 12, pp.2-3. 574 Hoete, G. & S., & Ors v Minister of Local Government, [2012] NZEnC 282, p.5. 575 Hoete, G. & S., & Ors v Minister of Local Government, [2012] NZEnC 282, p.4.

124

might be revised to integrate a hapū management plan.576 Despite the fact that a majority of the island population is Māori, the Minister of Local Government as territorial authority retains complete decision-making power under the district plan without any devolution of powers to the tangata whenua of Motiti. The approved plan records the tangata whenua of Motiti as being Ngāi Te Hapū, Te Patuwai and Te Whānau a Tauwhao ki Motiti.577

26. Summary

370. Ngāi Te Hapū claim descent from eponymous ancestor Te Hapū, through whom title to the northern portion of Motiti was awarded in 1868. Te Hapū was a direct descendant of Toroa of the Mataatua waka. But he was not a descendant of founding Ngāti Awa ancestor Awanuiārangi II. Many different groups who are not considered part of Ngāti Awa trace their descent back to Toroa.

371. The name Patuwai refers not to a particular ancestor but to a battle that took place at sea. While all Ngāi Te Hapū could claim to be Patuwai, not all Patuwai were Ngāi Te Hapū or could claims rights at Motiti.

372. The Patuwai ki Whakatane group, also at times known as Ngāti Maumoana, were closely related through intermarriage with Patuwai ki Motiti (Ngāi Te Hapū). But they were not one and the same, and the distinctions between the Whakatane and Motiti parties were explained in various Native Land Court cases, including by Patuwai ki Whakatane representatives during hearings concerning the confiscated lands at Whakatane awarded to members of Patuwai. They told the court that they did not live at Whakatane by right of descent from Te Hapū, who had no rights in that area.

373. When the Native Land Court heard claims to Motiti in 1867-68, Ngāi Te Hapū/Patuwai witnesses tended to emphasise their connections to Te Arawa (through Te Hapū’s Waitaha grandmother, for example). They did not claim Motiti through Ngāti Awa or Awanuiārangi II, just as the Patuwai ki Whakatane did not claim lands at Whakatane through Te Hapū.

576 Environment Court Minute, 19 January 2015, https://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/Files/Motiti- Island/$file/Motiti-Minute-re-Preamble.pdf (accessed 8 March 2018). 577 Motiti Island Environmental Management Plan, Wellington: Department of Internal Affairs, 2016, p.1, https://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/Files/Motiti_Island_Environmental_Management_Plan_May 2016/$file/Motiti_Environmental_Management_Plan_Operative.pdf (accessed 12 March 2018).

125

374. Although the court divided the island in two, awarding the larger southern portion to Ngāi Tauwhao, Ngāi Te Hapū/Patuwai asserted interests over the entire island and objected to the court’s dividing line, which ran through places in the actual occupation of Ngāi Te Hapū/Patuwai members.

375. The lands awarded Ngāi Tauwhao were soon leased and later sold. Ngāi Tauwhao residents on the island had left in 1863 and did not return to settle permanently on the island.

376. Ngāi Te Hapū/Patuwai maintained their protest against the Native Land Court boundary for nearly two decades and in the 1880s received an additional area of land on the island in exchange for land at Huria. The areas awarded individual members of Ngāi Te Hapū/Patuwai remained in their ownership and in the twentieth century tribal members unsuccessfully sought financial assistance from the Native Trustee and government ministers to acquire the rest of Motiti.

377. Ngāi Te Hapū/Patuwai maintained a substantial presence on Motiti through the twentieth century, based on the cultivation of maize and other crops. However, a fungal disease following World War Two saw many residents migrate to the mainland in search of alternative employment opportunities and in 1965 the island’s school closed.

378. Many of those who left Motiti went to Whakatane, where existing close relations with Ngāti Awa and ongoing intermarriage further blurred whakapapa lines previously understood as distinct.

379. Through most of the nineteenth century, the Patuwai (Ngāi Te Hapū) residents of Motiti were generally more likely to be described as Te Arawa than Ngāti Awa in various official returns and other sources. The tendency on the part of Crown officials to categorise smaller groups of Māori as subsets of larger ones reflected a particular view of Māori tribal structures that is today widely considered outdated and misinformed. Administrative convenience was another factor behind this tendency.

380. Ngāi Te Hapū did have close relations with the Patuwai people of Whakatane. But they also shared connections with many other iwi and hapū, including Waitaha and other Te Arawa groups, Ngāti Pūkenga, Ngāti Whakahemo, Ngāi Tauwhao and

126

others. This did not mean that they were a subsidiary of any of these groups, and modern scholarship rejects a simplistic hierarchical assumption that places large iwi at the top of an apex.

381. When Ngāti Awa in the nineteenth century at various times described their rohe or constituent hapū, such as their various requests for their own district under the Native Committees Act 1883, they did not include Motiti. Although a Patuwai Tribal Committee was established under the Maori Social and Economic Advancement Act 1945 it did not include Motiti either, which instead had its own separate Motiti Tribal Committee.

382. When the people of Motiti were asked in 1903 whether they wished to be part of the Tauranga or Te Arawa district under the Maori Councils Act 1900, they responded by petitioning in 1904 to be included in neither, instead asking to have Motiti made a separate council district under the legislation. The Mataatua council district, which included Ngāti Awa, initially did not even feature in the discussions (although by 1905 a request had been made for Motiti to join with Mataatua).

383. Motiti did not feature significantly in the Waitangi Tribunal’s Tauranga Moana inquiry, which considered only the claims of Ngāi Tauwhao, and is hardly mentioned in the Ngāti Awa deed of settlement and accompanying legislation. There are no statutory acknowledgements in respect of Motiti, for example.

384. Motiti has a unique history that has yet to be fully told in any official forum. One aspect of that history that has been at least partly highlighted in the various inquiries concerning the wreck of the MV Rena has been the importance of Motiti’s marine and coastal resources for the island’s tangata whenua. Not only has customary fishing been an integral part of the island’s cultural life for as long as can be remembered, but Motiti is surrounded by multiple coastal and marine wāhi tapu and wāhi taonga, including rocks, reefs, islets and other sites of great significance. These factors contribute to the unique history, culture and environment of Motiti.

127

Bibliography of Works Cited

Books and Articles

Ballara, Angela, Iwi: The Dynamics of Māori Tribal Organisation from c .1769 to c .1945, Wellington: Victoria University Press, 1998

Ballara, Angela, Taua: ‘Musket Wars’, ‘Land Wars’ or Tikanga? Warfare in Māori Society in the Early Nineteenth Century, Auckland: Penguin Books, 2003

Best, Elsdon, Tuhoe: The Children of the Mist, Wellington: Reed for the Polynesian Society, 1972

Boast, Richard, The N ative Land C ourt, 1862 -1887: A H istorical C ase Study, C ases and Commentary, Wellington: Brookers, 2013

Cowan, James, The New Zealand War s: A History of the Maori Campaigns a nd the Pioneering Period, Wellington: Government Printer, 1983

Crosby, Ron, The M usket War s: A H istory of Inter -Iwi C onflict, 1806 -45, Auckland: Reed, 1999

Curnow, Jenifer, 'Tohi Te Ururangi', from the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography. Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/biographies/1t102/tohi-te- ururangi

Dieffenbach, Ernst, Travels in New Zealand: With Contributions to the Geography, Geology, Botany, and Natual History of that Country, London: John Murray, 1843

Dumont D’Urville, Jules-Sebastian-Cesar, New Zeal and, 1826 -1827, fr om the Fr ench of Dumont D’Urville: An English Translation of the Voyage de l ’Astrolabe in New Zealand Waters, Wellington: Wingnut Press for Olive Wright, 1950

Gudgeon, W.E., ‘ Notes on the paper by Timi Wata Rimini, “On the fall of Pukehina and other pas”’, Journal o f t he P olynesian S ociety, Vol. 2, No.2, 1893, pp.109-112, http://www.jps.auckland.ac.nz/document/?wid=164

128

Hill, Richard S., State A uthority, Indi genous Autonomy: C rown-Maori R elations in N ew Zealand/Aotearoa 1900-1950, Wellington: Victoria University Press, 2004

Matheson, A.H., Motiti Island, Bay of Plenty, Whakatane: Whakatane and District Historical Society, 1979

Matheson, Alister, ‘The Carved Houses of Maketu’, Historical Review, 53 (1), 2005, pp.22-24

Matheson, Alister, and Steven Oliver, 'Tupaea, Hori Kingi', from the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography. Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/biographies/1t112/tupaea-hori-kingi

O’Malley, Vincent, Agents of A utonomy: M aori C ommittees i n the N ineteenth C entury, Wellington: Huia Publishers, 1998

O’Malley, Vincent, and David Armstrong, The Beating Heart: A Political and Socio-Economic History of Te Arawa, Wellington: Huia Publishers, 2008

O’Shea, John, Don’t Let it Get You: Memories – Documents, Wellington: Victoria University Press, 1999

Parliamentary Library, The Origins of the Māori Seats (Parliamentary Library Research Paper), Wellington: Parliamentary Library, 2003 (2nd. ed. 2009)

Rimini, Timi Wata, ‘The fall of Pukehina, Oreiwhata, and Poutuia Pas, Bay of Plenty, New Zealand’, Journal of the Polynesian Society, 2 (1), 1893, pp.43-50

Rogers, Lawrence M. (ed.), The Early Journals of Henry Williams, Senior Missionary in New Zealand of the Church Missionary Society, 1826-1840, Christchurch: Pegasus Press, 1961

Salmond, Anne, Two Wor lds: Fi rst M eetings Between M aori and E uropeans 16 42-1772, Auckland: Penguin Books, 1991

Shortland, Edward, Traditions and Superstitions of the New Zealanders: With Illustrations of their Manners and Customs, London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans & Roberts, 1856 D.M Stafford, Te Arawa: a History of the Arawa People, Wellington: Reed, 1967

129

Steedman, John Aramete Wairehu, He Toto: Te A hu M atua A N ga Tupuna , Tauranga: J. Steedman, 1996

Steedman, J.W., Pukenga: The La ment of P ukenga – “Where A re A ll M y P eople?”, Tauranga: J.W. Steedman, 1995

Tarakawa, Takaanui, ‘The coming of Te Arawa and Tainui canoes from Hawaiki to New Zealand’, (translated by S. Percy Smith), Journal of the P olynesian S ociety, Vol. 2, No.4, 1893, pp.231-252

Taylor, Nancy M. (ed.), The J ournal of E nsign Best, 1837-1843, Wellington: Government Printer, 1966

Waitangi Tribunal, Report of the Waitangi Tribunal on a Claim Concerning Proposed Administrative Changes Affecting Motiti Island, Wellington: Waitangi Tribunal, 1985

Waitangi Tribunal, The Ngati Awa Raupatu Report, Wellington: Legislation Direct, 1999

Waitangi Tribunal, He Maunga Rongo: Report on C entral North Island Claims, Wellington: Waitangi Tribunal, 2008

Waitangi Tribunal, Te R aupatu o T auranga M oana: R eport on the Tau ranga C onfiscation Claims, Wellington: Legislation Direct, 2014

Waitangi Tribunal, Final Report on the MV Rena and Motiti Island Claims, Wellington: Legislation Direct, 2015

Winiata, Maharaia, ‘Leadership in Pre-European Society’, Journal of the Polynesian Society, 65 (3), 1956, pp.212-231

Research Reports and Briefs of Evidence

Ballara, Angela, ‘Tribal Landscape Overview, c.1800-c.1900, in the Taupō, Rotorua, Kaingaroa and National Park Inquiry Districts’, report commissioned by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 2004

130

Boast, R.P., ‘Confiscation and Regrant: Matakana, Rangiwaea, Motiti and Tuhua: Raupatu and Related Issues’, November 2000, Wai-215, #J1

Boast, R.P., ‘Ngai Te Rangi Before the Confiscation: A History Based on Native Land Court and Commissioners’ Court Sources’, report commissioned by Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Te Rangi/Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 2000

Gillingham, Mary, ‘Waitaha and the Crown, 1864-1981’, report commissioned by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 2001, Wai-215, #K25

Kahotea, Des Tatana, ‘Te Moutere o Motiti: Cultural Heritage Report’, report commissioned by the Department of Internal Affairs, 2012

Kahotea, Des Tatana, Statement of Evidence of Desmond Tatana Kahotea, ENV-2016-AKL- 42, 43 and 45.

Mason, Joseph, Brief of Evidence of Joseph Mason, n.d., Wai-46, #A32

Mead, Hirini Moko, ‘Ngati Awa me ona Karangarangatanga: Ngati Awa and its Confederation of Tribes’, report commissioned by Te Runanga o Ngati Awa, 1994

Mead, Hirini Moko, and Jeremy Gardiner, Te Kaupapa o te Raupatu i te Rohe o Ngati Awa: Ethnography of the N gati A wa E xperience of R aupatu, Whakatane: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa, 1995

Moore, D., M. Russell and B. Rigby, Old L and C laims ( Rangahaua Whanui S eries), Wellington: Waitangi Tribunal, 1997

Ranapia, Nepia, Affadavit of Nepia Ranapia, 19 August 2016, Wai-2521, #A4

Ranapia, Nepia, ‘Motiti Island Tribal Estate’, n.d.

Ranapia, Nepia, Motiti Island Native Cultural Policy Management and Administration Plan, August 2012

131

Rolleston, Shadrach, Reply evidence of Shadrach Rolleston, 17 February 2017, ENV-2016- AKL-42 and 45, Attachment 2: Treaty Claims & Settlements: Statutory Acknowledgements, Areas of Interest, and Statements of Association, and Claims Unresolved

Rose, Kathryn, ‘The Bait and the Hook: Crown Purchasing in Taupo and the Central Bay of Plenty in the 1870s’, report commissioned by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, July 1997

Stokes, Evelyn, Te R aupatu o Taur anga M oana: The C onfiscation of Taur anga Lands , Hamilton: University of Waikato, 1990

Stokes, Evelyn, Whanau a Tauwhao: A History of a N gaiterangi Hapu, Hamilton: Centre for Maori Studies and Research, University of Waikato, 1980

Wai-2521 claimants, Response by Wai 2521 Claimants to OTS’ second draft reported dated 26 April 2016 regarding the nature of the relationship between Ngāi Te Hapū and Patuwai, 27 May 2016, Wai-2521, #A3(a)

Walzl, Tony, ‘Ngati Awa Land 1870-1970’, 1996, Wai-46, #M18

Document Bank

Waitangi Tribunal, Raupatu Document Bank (RDB), 139 vols, Wellington: Waitangi Tribunal, 1990

Legal Cases

Berkett v Minister of Local Government, A006/1997 [1997] NZEnvC 12

Hoete, G. & S., & Ors v Minister of Local Government, [2012] NZEnC 282

Ririnui v Landcorp Farming Ltd [2014] NZHC 1128

Resource Consents

Bay of Plenty Regional Council, Report from B.W. O’Shaughnessy, Principal Environmental Consents Officer, 22 June 2004, Non-Notified Resource Consent Application Number 62709, Motiti Avocados Limited, Motiti Island

132

Bay of Plenty Regional Council, Report from B.W. O’Shaughnessy, Principal Environmental Consents Officer, 23 January 2004, Resource Consent (Non-Notified) Application Number 62427, Donald Geoffrey Wills, Motiti Island

Bay of Plenty Regional Council, Report from B.W. O’Shaughnessy, Principal Environmental Consents Officer, 27 May 2005, Resource Consent (Limited-Notified) Application Number 62867, Motiti Avocados Limited, Motiti Island

Bay of Plenty Regional Council, Report from Luke Faithfull, Senior Consents Officer, Non- Notified Change to Consent Number 62867, Motiti Avocados Limited, Motiti Island

Office of Treaty Settlements

Office of Treaty Settlements, Initial OTS report on Wai 2521 claim that Ngāi Te Hapū historical claims have not been settled, 23 October 2015, (OTS.010.0001)

Office of Treaty Settlements, Draft Report in Response to Wai 2521 claim regarding the nature of the relationship between Ngāi Te Hapū and Patuwai of Ngāti Awa, 22 April 2016, (OTS.010.0024)

Office of Treaty Settlements, Draft Report in response to Wai 2521 claim regarding the nature of the relationship between Ngāi Te Hapū and Patuwai of Ngāti Awa, 26 April 2016, (OTS.011.1592)

Office of Treaty Settlements, Draft Report in response to Wai 2521 claim regarding the nature of the relationship between Ngāi Te Hapū and Patuwai of Ngāti Awa, 2 May 2016, (OTS.011.2481).

Office of Treaty Settlements, Preliminary Appraisal of H istorical Information Assocated with Customary M arine Ti tle A pplications under the M arine and C oastal A rea ( Takutai Moana) Act 2011 for the CMCA Surrounding Motiti Island, June 2013

Office of Treaty Settlements, Record of hui regarding Motiti Island, the Tauranga Moana Framework and Wai 2521, 11 December 2015, (OTS.011.0954)

133

Office of Treaty Settlements, Record of hui to discuss who the tangata whenua of Motiti Island are, 4 February 2016, (OTS.011.1316)

Office of Treaty Settlements, Record of hui between OTS and Wai 2521 claimants, 27 April 2016, (OTS.011.1568)

Office of Treaty Settlements, Deed of Settlement to Settle Ngāti Awa Historical Claims, 27 March 2003, https://www.govt.nz/dmsdocument/5074

Office of Treaty Settlements, Deed of Settlement to Settle Ngāti Awa Historical Claims: Schedules, 27 March 2003, https://www.govt.nz/dmsdocument/5077

Office of Treaty Settlements, Belinda Clark, Director, Office of Treaty Settlements, to Fiona Coster, Department of Internal Affairs, 21 April 1997 (OTS.004.0016)

Office of Treaty Settlements, Mawae Morton, Office of Treaty Settlements, to Terry Lynch, Ministry of Fisheries, 4 March 1998 (OTS.002.0010)

Office of Treaty Settlements, John Armstrong to Sue van Daatselaar, 14 October 2015, (OTS.011.2876)

Official Publications

Appendices to the Journals of the House of Representatives (AJHR)

Eastern Maori Electoral District: List of Maori Electors Who Voted at the General Election in Above-Named Electorate in 1908, Wellington: Government Printer, 1911

Great Britain Parliamentary Papers – Colonies New Zealand (Irish University Press edition)

New Zealand Gazettes

New Zealand Parliamentary Debates

New Zealand Statutes

134

Results of a Census of the Colony of New Zealand taken for the night of the 28th March 1886, https://www3.stats.govt.nz/Historic_Publications/1886-census/Results-of-Census- 1886/1886-results-census.html

Statistics New Zealand, Quick Stats About M otiti Is land: C ensus 2013 , http://www.stats.govt.nz/Census/2013-census/profile-and-summary-reports/quickstats-about- a-place.aspx?request_value=13986&parent_id=13985&tabname=&sc_device=pdf

Thesis

Mikaere, Martin, ‘A History of Ngāti Pukenga’, MA thesis, University of Auckland, 1993

Websites

Department of Internal Affairs, Motiti Island Environmental Management Plan, Wellington: Department of Internal Affairs, 2016, https://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/Files/Motiti_Island_Environmental_Management_Pla n_May2016/$file/Motiti_Environmental_Management_Plan_Operative.pdf

Department of Internal Affairs, Motiti Island Environmental Management Plan (MIEMP), Appendix 3: Schedule of Cultural Heritage and Archaeological Sites, https://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/Files/Motiti_Island_Environmental_Management_Pla n_May2016/$file/Appendix-3-Schedule-May-2016-pg1-to-150.pdf

Environment Court, Minute, 19 January 2015, https://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/Files/Motiti-Island/$file/Motiti-Minute-re-Preamble.pdf

James Cook, Journal, 2 November 1769, http://southseas.nla.gov.au/journals/cook/17691102.html

Matthews and Matthews Architects Ltd in association with Jinty Rorke, Jennie Gainsford, Lisa Truttman, R.A. Skidmore & Associates, Central Taur anga H eritage S tudy: Part O ne: Prepared for Tauranga City Council/Environment Bay of Plenty, April 2008, http://tauranga.kete.net.nz/documents/0000/0000/0353/2008_Tauranga_Heritage_Study.pdf

Ngāti Awa Claims Settlement Act 2005, http://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/hist_act/nacsa20052005n28290/

135

Ngati Pukenga Nga Tapuwae Kura (The Sacred Footprints), http://ngatipukenga.com//uploads/27/nga%20tapuwae%20kura%20pdf.pdf

Papers Past, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/

‘The Strand c.1875’, http://tauranga.kete.net.nz/tauranga_local_history/images/show/2254- the-strand-c-1875-99-1188

Alexander Turnbull Library

Brown, Alfred Nesbit, Journal, 21 March 1835-27 October 1846, qMS-0277

Archives New Zealand, Head Office, Wellington

(See Index to Document Bank, pp.1-925)

Archives New Zealand, Auckland Regional Office

(See Index to Document Bank, pp.926-2459)

Auckland City Library

Tohi Te Ururangi to Grey, 21 October 1852, Grey New Zealand Maori Letters, GNZMA 690, http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/dbtw- wpd/exec/dbtwpub.dll?AC=PREV_RECORD&XC=/dbtw- wpd/exec/dbtwpub.dll&BU=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aucklandcity.govt.nz%2Fdbtw- wpd%2Fmsonline%2F&TN=Manuscriptsonline&SN=AUTO32108&SE=1705&RN=%201%20 &MR=5&TR=0&TX=1000&ES=0&CS=1&XP=&RF=WebReport&EF=&DF=WebRecord&RL= 0&EL=0&DL=0&NP=2&ID=&MF=WPEngMsg.ini&MQ=&TI=0&DT=&ST=0&IR=0&NR=0&NB =0&SV=0&SS=0&BG=&FG=&QS=&OEX=ISO-8859-1&OEH=ISO-8859-1

Māori Land Court

Maketu Minute Book 1

Tauranga Minute Book 3

136

Judge O’Brien Minute Book 28

Von Sturmer Minute Book 11

Whakatane Minute Book 5A

Whakatane Minute Book 8

Whakatane Minute Book 9

137

Appendix One: Motiti Island Timeline

2 November 1769 James Cook and the Endeavour sail pass Motiti, which he describes as a large ‘Flat Island’, a named sometimes used by Pākehā for the island.

1818 Ngāpuhi under Te Morenga raid Motiti, attacking Matarehua pā, where Te Tawhio of Ngāi Tauwhao is killed. Ngāi Tauwhao move to Tauranga and Patuwai/Ngāi Te Hapū to Whakatane.

1827 The French ship the Astrolabe, captained by Dumont D’Urville, is nearly wrecked on a large reef close to Motiti, subsequently named after the ship.

1830 Philip Tapsell sets up a trading post at Maketu, exchanging muskets for flax with local Māori.

1831 Te Haramiti leads a further Ngāpuhi war party against Motiti but is attacked by a Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngāti Hauā taua.

1836 Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngāti Hauā attack Tapsell’s Maketu trading station. Te Arawa retaliate, securing victory at Te Tumu and consolidating their control of Maketu. Te Arawa rangatira Tohi Te Ururangi goes to Motiti to plant there. Tensions with Ngāi Te Rangi over Motiti continue to simmer.

1842 Hori Tupaea visits Motiti but finds the island deserted.

1844 Competing claims to Motiti are debated at the large Remuera hui hosted by the Waikato tribes.

1845 Te Arawa and Ngāi Te Rangi agree to end their conflict, but the question of respective rights to Motiti is left undecided.

1852 Tohi Te Ururangi plants potatoes at Matarehua pā, reigniting tensions with Ngāi Te Rangi. Patuwai and Ngāi Tauwhao both return to the island, Patuwai occupying the northern end and Ngāi Tauwhao the southern part. Tohi Te Ururangi warns that a fresh war with Ngāi Te Rangi is likely but no fighting occurs.

138

1856 Tohi Te Ururangi travels to Motiti to make peace with Hori Tupaea, and is said to have abandoned his claims on the island.

1863 Hori Tupaea leaves Motiti. Ngāi Tauwhao do not return to settle permanently on the island.

1864 British troops land at Tauranga, attacking local Māori and their allies at Pukehinahina (Gate Pā) in April and Te Ranga in June. Te Arawa, with some Ngāi Te Hapū, defeat a large taua from Tairāwhiti attempting to cross their territory to reach the Waikato War in April.

1865 The deaths of Carl Sylvius Völkner and James Fulloon in March and July respectively are used to justify Crown military operations targeted against eastern Bay of Plenty iwi, including Ngāti Awa, followed by the confiscation of 448,000 acres of land. Some lands are ‘returned’ to Māori deemed ‘loyal’ via the Compensation Court.

13 May 1865 Retireti Tapsell and 14 others described as Ngāti Whakaue file the first of several applications for investigation of title to Motiti Island. They later complain at government interference in their efforts to have the island surveyed.

27 June 1865 ‘all the lands of the tribe “Ngaiterangi” within an area at Tauranga estimated at 214,000 acres (later found to contain 290,000 acres) is confiscated. The proclamation boundaries include ‘such portions of Motiti or Flat Island as shall be adjudged to belong to the Ngaiterangi Tribe’.

July 1867 Motiti Island survey completed by A.C. Turner (ML 614).

October 1867 The Native Land Court begins hearing claims to Motiti, with Chief Judge F.D. Fenton and H.A.H. Munro presiding.

April 1868 The Motiti hearing concludes on 28 April 1868, with the court expressing its ‘opinion as to ownership’ rather than making a formal judgment because of doubts over its jurisdiction, finding that Hori Tupaea and Whānau a Tauwhao should receive the southern end and the Patuwai tribe the northern part of the island.

139

July 1868 Crown grants are issued to Hori Tupaea in trust for Whānau a Tauwhao for 1090 acres and Hone Te Whetuki and Te Puhi Kirika for an area of 565 acres ‘upon trust for the benefit of themselves and other members of the tribe called Te Patuwai’. November 1868 A deed of lease with G.A. Douglas is signed in respect of the land held by Hori Tupaea.

1869 Surveyors attempting to lay off the boundary line on Motiti decided by the court are blocked by Patuwai/Ngāi Te Hapū, who reject the court’s division and complain that the line runs through the centre of their own Karioi pā. Patuwai are promised 100 acres at Tauranga (Lot 79, Parish of Te Papa) provided they withdraw their opposition to the subdivisional survey.

1870 H.T. Clarke travels to Motiti to attempt to placate Patuwai ki Motiti over the boundary. But the issue remains a long-standing grievance. Patuwai/Ngāi Te Hapū state that any attempt by Hori Tupaea to take possession of the disputed area would be opposed.

June 1874 Patuwai/Ngāi Te Hapū continue to object to the boundary line, which is finally surveyed, and warn against any attempt to cultivate lands across the boundary.

1874 69 Patuwai recorded living on Motiti in the census.

1874 Patuwai sell to the Crown a 1306-acre block (Allotment 19, Parish of Matata) awarded them within the 87,000 acre area described in official returns as ‘Given to the Arawa Tribe’.

1875 The confiscated lands at Whakatane to be ‘returned’ to Māori are partitioned and lists of owners drawn up for each. Te Patuwai are awarded Lot 29, Parish of Rangitaiki, consisting of 1330 acres (known as Pupuaruhe) and Lot 32, Parish of Rangitaiki, estimated at 7654 acres (known as Pekapekatahi). Debate quickly ensues as to whether Patuwai ki Motiti were entitled to share in these lands and on what basis. Ngāti Awa and Ngāti Awa receive separate allocations.

1878 Under the Whakatane Grants Validation Act Pupuaruhe and Pekapekatahi are awarded to six named trustees to administer ‘in trust for the Patuwai Tribe’.

140

1880 Members of Patuwai ki Motiti make the first of many applications for the 100 acres promised them at Huria, Tauranga, to be handed over.

1881 109 Patuwai listed as resident on Motiti.

1881 Hori Tupaea dies and his son Akuhata Tupaea applies to succeed to his interests in Motiti.

1882 G.A. Douglas petitions for the right to purchase the lands he leases, despite these being held in trust and subject to alienation restrictions. Douglas states that he had been making advances on the land since 1874. Legislation provides a mechanism for the original Crown grant in trust to be cancelled and annulled provided the land is subdivided.

1884 Motiti is included in the Rotorua district under the Native Committees Act 1883.

1884 Akuhata Tupaea’s subdivision application heard by the court. The original grant for 1090 acres is cancelled and a new grant for 890 acres (Motiti B) issued to Akuhata Tupaea and others. The block is sold to Douglas for £1030. Motiti A (200 acres) is set aside as an inalienable reserve for the benefit of the owners. It is leased to Douglas.

1885 Native Minister John Ballance tells Patuwai that the 100 acres would be handed over once they agreed to the Motiti boundary line. A lawyer acting on behalf of the tribe subsequently applies to the Native Land Court for a rehearing into Motiti, again complaining that the survey cut through the middle of their own settlement, including their urupā.

November 1885 Douglas agrees to transfer 166 acres (part Motiti B) to Patuwai in exchange for receiving the 100 acres that had been promised them at Huria as a means of settling ‘the long-standing difficulty’. The government subsequently approves the exchange.

141

February 1886 A meeting held at Tauranga to agree the list of owners for the Motiti B land spends several days considering the matter before agreeing on 187 names. The government suggests that the Motiti B land should be held in trust by the Public Trustee, on behalf of the 187 beneficial owners. Legislation authorises a Crown grant to Douglas for the Huria land upon his conveying the 166 acres to the Public Trustee on behalf of the 187 owners.

1886 91 Patuwai recorded as living on Motiti. 1886 A new Ngāi Te Rangi district is established under the Native Committees Act and includes Motiti. Ngāti Awa ask for their own committee district under the Act reflecting their tribal interests but make no mention of Motiti in their application.

1888 Motiti Māori are reported to have received £2500 for the previous season’s maize crop.

1889 Inquiries establish that the list of 187 names for the Motiti B lands agreed in 1886 has been lost.

1891 The Native Land Court determines relative interests in the 565-acre Motiti North block, awarding the land to 134 members of the Patuwai tribe, of whom 74 were adults and 60 minors.

1893 Following complaints concerning the alleged misappropriation of lease income from the Pekapekatahi block, legislation is passed providing for those excluded from titles issued under the Whakatane Grants Validation Act to seek inclusion through an inquiry by the Native Land Court under the Native Equitable Owners Act 1886.

1894 Relative interests in Motiti North are reheard and the block partitioned into three large blocks (Motiti North C, D and E) and two smaller reserves (Motiti North F urupā reserve and Motiti North G landing reserve at Wairanaki).

142

1895 The Native Land Court determines relative interests in Pekapekatahi (Lot 32, Parish of Rangitaiki) under the Native Equitable Owners Act 1886. Considerable evidence is heard concerning the respective rights and interests of Patuwai ki Whakatane and Patuwai ki Motiti, and arguments are mounted that ‘Patuwai proper’ are the people of Whakatane, while those at Motiti were really Ngāi Te Hapū. The court rejects proposals to award a lesser area of land to those from Motiti.

1897 William Paterson acquires the land previously owned by G.A. Douglas, purchasing from John Lawford, who had bought it from Douglas in 1893. The land remains in Paterson family ownership until 1979.

1900 Ngāti Takahanga meeting house Tametea-ki-te-huatahi opens at Te Ruakopiha marae, replacing an earlier whare that had fallen into disrepair. 1901 Ngāti Makerewai meeting house Te Hiinga-o-te-Ra opened at Karioi (Te Hihitaua) marae.

1901 Some of the owners of Motiti A, fearing that their interests had been overlooked in the recent transfer of the lease from Douglas to William Paterson, decided to occupy the land. They were subsequently fined for trespass.

1901 Petition of Tiaki Rewiri and 54 others that the Native Land Court may be empowered to decide the ownership of Motiti B Block. Similar petitions are filed by others during the same session of Parliament. Legislation provides for the Native Land Court to determine the 187 persons who were entitled to the Motiti B lands.

1901 Motiti is included in the Te Arawa district under the Maori Councils Act 1900. Tiaki Rewiri and 49 others ask for the island to be exempted from the Act and remain ‘a Maori reserve for us and our children’.

1903 A General Conference of Maori Councils declares that it was for the people of Motiti to decide which council they should be included in.

143

1903-04 The court’s hearing into the Motiti B owners is complicated by the legal requirement to list exactly 1897 names but an order confirming this number is finally issued in November 1904.

1904 Motiti A block (200 acres) is partitioned by the Native Land Court. An area of 50 acres (Motiti A1) is awarded to Paterson, representing the interests in the land he had managed to purchase. Other portions of Motiti A are leased or purchased by members of the Paterson family through the twentieth century. Some members of Patuwai/Ngāi Te Hapū also acquire interests in Motiti A through purchase or lease.

1904 Petition of Hori Rewa Rangitikei and others that Motiti Island may be constituted a separate district under the Maori Councils Act. The petition is recommended for the favourable consideration of the government. However, the island remains subject to the Te Arawa Council and a 1905 petition calls for the island to be placed under the Mataatua Council.

1904 Te Awhe meeting house at Maketu is opened in August. The whare is built with substantial input from Motiti Māori and reported to be placed at their disposal whenever required.

1905 Pupuaruhe (Lot 29, Parish of Rangitaiki) is partitioned by the Native Land Court. Further evidence is heard about the distinction between the people of Motiti and Whakatane. Owners living on the lands are allocated greater interests than those from Motiti.

1906 Fraudulent land sales involving the Motiti A block result in a five year prison sentence for the perpetrator.

1908 Motiti Native School officially opens with a roll of 38 children after twenty years of campaigning and earlier, unofficial, schooling efforts on the island.

1911 Three Pākehā recorded as living on Motiti and 64 Māori. Motiti Māori own 105 horses, 455 pigs, and have 376 acres in maize, 40 acres in potatoes and 37 acres in kumara.

144

1914 New District Plan Map numbered 9428 showing subdivision of Motiti A.

1919 Section 21 of the Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act vests the 166 acre portion of Motiti B in the 187 owners determined by the court in 1904 and cancels the trust under which the Public Trust was legally responsible for administering the land. The land had been occupied by the beneficial owners throughout and remains in Māori ownership today.

1925 A lawyer acting on behalf of Patuwai ki Motiti writes to the Native Trustee expressing the desire of his clients to purchase the 800 acres of Motiti owned by William Paterson. In return for a loan covering the purchase amount, Patuwai were prepared to offer all their lands on Motiti as security, pointing to their substantial maize cultivations on the island. The Native Trustee rejected the proposal.

1926 The lawyer acting for the Motiti people makes a further plea for assistance with the proposed purchase of the balance of the island not already owned by Māori. Native Minister (and Prime Minister) Gordon Coates states in reply that the government is unable to assist, except through its normal lending channels. No sale takes place.

1928 A petition asks for Motiti to be removed from the boundaries of the Arawa Maori Trust Board and instead be included in the Mataatua Maori Council District. The change is formally gazetted in 1931.

1928 Hinewai wharekai, named after the Waitaha ancestor who married Tutonu, grandson of Te Hapū, opens at Te Ruakopiha marae.

1934 Puna dining hall opens at Karioi marae.

145

1945 The Maori Social and Economic Advancement Act provides for the election of tribal executives and beneath them tribal committees within defined tribal districts. A Patuwai Tribal Committee area is proclaimed within the Ngatiawa Tribal District but does not include Motiti. Instead, a separate Motiti Tribal Committee is established, initially within the Ranginui Tribal District but later (in 1959) empowered to act as its own Tribal Executive.

1947 William Paterson offers his lands on Motiti for sale to the Crown. Although officials investigate the merits of buying, no sale takes place.

1955-57 The Maori Affairs Department investigates improved landing facilities for Motiti.

1956 Census population 93 (75 Māori, 18 non-Māori).

1958 The Motiti Tribal Committee makes a formal application for the waters surrounding the island, out to at least one mile from the shore, to be declared a fishing reserve under section 33 of the Maori Social and Economic Advancement Act 1945, providing for this to be fished and managed exclusively by Māori. Local officials from both the Marine and Maori Affairs Departments supported the application, highlighting the importance of the fisheries for Motiti Māori. Ideologically opposed to separate ‘privileges’ of this kind for Māori, the Marine Department had to this point successfully opposed any reserves under the 1945 Act. Although the Motiti Tribal Committee subsequently modified its proposal, suggesting that only half the island be reserved for Māori fishing, no reserve was established on Motiti.

1961 Census population 61 (42 Māori, 19 non-Māori).

1961 The National Film Unit releases Visit to Motiti, a ten-minute documentary about a group of children from Meadowbank School in Auckland who travel to the island to witness and experience its unique lifestyle and culture.

146

1963 Crop failures cause most of the families on Motiti to move elsewhere in search of employment opportunities, although the population on the island remains fluid.

1965 Motiti School closes when the roll drops below the minimum nine. The land (part of the 166-acre portion of Motiti B Patuwai received via exchange with Douglas) is returned to its former owners in 1976.

1968 The Motiti Tribal Committee imposes a ban on all unauthorised entry onto lands still owned by Māori on Motiti, citing extensive damage and disruption resulting from trespassers visiting the island.

1973 The Department of Lands and Survey investigates declaring the waters around Motiti a reserve under the Marine Reserves Act 1971 but decides against proceeding.

1979 The Paterson family sell the last of their lands on Motiti. The new owners submit a proposed subdivision plan to the Minister of Works. Their application to be exempted from the requirement to set aside a foreshore reserve is rejected.

1983 The former Motiti School building is used as a place where the island’s children undertake Correspondence School lessons under a paid supervisor.

1984 Proposals to include Motiti within the boundaries of the Tauranga County Council meet with strong opposition from Motiti Māori.

1987 Bruce McFadgen and Tony Walton conduct field surveys of archaeological sites on Motiti, updating a 1971 record of sites by Ken Moore compiled without visiting the island.

1994 A five acre area known as Taumaihi Island is set aside by the Maori Land Court as Maori Reservation under Te Ture Whenua Act 1993 for the purpose of a place of historic interest for the common use and benefit of the Whānau o Tauwhao.

147

1997 The Environment Court gives final approval for the subdivision of the Wills family lands into five rural lots, plus the Taumaihi reserve.

1994-95 Ngāti Awa raupatu claims are heard by the Waitangi Tribunal but there are no hearings held on Motiti and little evidence received concerning the island.

2005 Ngāti Awa Claims Settlement Act lists Te Patuwai as one of the hapū encompassed by the settlement of Motiti.

5 October 2011 MV Rena wrecked on Astrolabe (Otaiti) reef, close to Motiti. The oil spill and wreckage have major harmful consequences for the local environment.

2013 27 Māori are recorded as living on Motiti, with 15 occupied and 48 unoccupied dwellings. However, the figures fail to capture a highly mobile and seasonally-shifting population.

2015-16 OTS ‘kinship review’ fails to find ‘conclusive’ evidence that distinct historic Treaty claims based on descent from Te Hapū remain unsettled.

148

Appendix Two: Index to Document Bank

Pages Documents 1-8 R24717285 MA-MT1 7 1886/ 198

Native Reserves From: John A Clark , Tauranga Date: 17 May 1886 Subject : Regarding section 79 Te Papa Parish: With application from D Lundon to Lease same [Former correspondence attached] - 6 August 1883 - J McNaughton offers to Lease Lot 79 Te Papa for 21 years 1883 – 1886 9-20 R23908775 MA-MLP1 72 e 1904/92

From: Registrar, Native Land Court, Auckland. Date: 11 November 1904. Subject: Copy of order ascertaining beneficial owners of Motiti B block 1904 20-21 R22411277 MA1 1455 1928/403

Received: 29th August 1928. From: Clerk, House of Representatives Subject: Order that Petition N.52/28 of the Matatua Maori Council District be referred to the Government for favourable consideration 1928 22-66 R22409877 MA1 1391 1926/295

Received: 17th August 1925. From: Hon. A.T. Ngata, MP Subject: Motiti Island. As to acquisition by the Patuwai Tribe from William Paterson 1925-1927 67-199 R22407125 MA1 1209 1919/385

Received: 29th July 1919. From: Public Trust Office, Wellington. Subject: Motiti B Block. As to enabling the beneficial owners to obtain a valid title. 1918-1923 200-210 R23908775 MA-MLP1 72 e 1904/92

From: Registrar, Native Land Court, Auckland. Date: 11 November 1904. Subject: Copy of order ascertaining beneficial owners of Motiti B block 1904 211-216 R24196559 MA-MLP1 1901/228

From: Tiaki Rawiri and others, Motiti. Date: 8 August 1901. Subject: Praying that Motiti be excluded from the operation of the Maori Lands Administration Act. 1901 217-222 R24196548 MA-MLP1 1901/179

149

From: Tupaea Akuhata and others, Rangiwaea, Tauranga. Date: 26 March 1901. Subject: Approving of Waiariki boundaries as published except as to the inclusion of Motiti Island. 1901 223-229 R23867770 MA-MLP1 5 f 1879/293

From: Henry Mitchell, Rotorua. Date: 12 August 1879. Subject: Forwarding proposal of Patuwai tribe to sell their suburban award land at Te Awa o Te Atua being allotment no.9 Parish of Matata 24 acres. 1879 230-238 R22411735 MA1 1531 1930/301

Received: 31 July 1930. From: Umuhuri Kerwkeha [sic], Motiti. Subject: Application for a flag for Tamatea-ki-te-huatahi Whare for the Patuwai Tribe. 1930 239-244 R22155544 ABJZ W4644 869 Box 60 21/3/814 part 1

Reservations – Motiti B1 and Part Motiti B12 – Maori Reservation 1976 245-251 R22406568 MA1 1176 1917/476

Received: 16 November 1917. From: President, Waiariki District, Maori Land Board, Rotorua. Subject: Motiti North C No.2. Land subject to part XVI/1909. Lease to Mabel K. Paterson. Board recommends consent of Minister under section 298 of Native Land Act 1909. 1917 252-260 R22406224 MA1 1182 1916/4189

Received: 1 December 1916. From: Waiariki District Maori Land Board, Rotorua. Subject: Motiti A No.3A (Land subject to part XVI/1909). Board recommends consent of Native Minister under section 298. 1916-1917 261-267 R22407883 MA1 1266 1921/248

Received: 14 July 1921. From: Registrar, Waiariki Maori Land Board, Rotorua. Subject: Motiti A No.3B No.2. Land subject to part XVI/1909. Sale to Akuhata Heta and others. For consent under section 298/1909. 1921 268-275 R15055131 AAMK W3730 Box 59 35/95/2/3

Maori Councils and Committees. Motiti Tribal Committee. Receipts, Payments and Subsidies. 1949-1961 276-283 R22406032 MA 1 1154 1918/1818

Received: 27 May 1916. From: Waiariki District Maori Land Board, Rotorua.

150

Subject: Motiti A No.2A. Land subject to part 298/1909. Sale Tawhiti Akuhata and Others to William Henry Paterson of Motiti Island. Board recommends consent of Minister under section 298/1909. 1916 284-292 R22411528 MA1 1482 1928/189.

Received: 22 April 1929. From: Registrar, Waiariki Maori Land Board, Rotorua. Subject: Motiti North C No.7A. Land subject to part XVI/1909. Sale to Ben Aukaha and Rurangi Aukaha for consent under section 298/1909. 1929 293-297 R22404089 MA1 1065 1912/44

Received: 3 January 1912. From: Ngawaka te Waru and others, Rangiwaea, Tauranga. Subject: Motiti 1B. Re succession to Iraia te Waru. State that land was not sold by Iraia as stated by Court when dismissing case and again urge their claims. 1911-1912. 298-304 R23908526 MA-MLP1 66 ai 1903/55

From: H.W. Brabant, Auckland. Date: 27 June 1903. Subject: Regarding Motiti A missing list of owners. 1903 305-324 R17302466 ABKK W4357 889 Box 467 63/373

Marine Works – Civil Division Motiti and Mayor Islands Wharves 1956-1984 325-331 R22407914 MA1 1267 1921/272

Received: 22 July 1921. From: Registrar, Waiariki Maori Land Board, Rotorua. Subject: Motiti A No.2B. Land subject to part XVI/1909. Sale to M.K. Paterson. For consent under section 298/1909. 1921 332-361 R17300061 ABKK W4357 889 Box 286 50/121

Land Miscellaneous – Waterworks, Native Department, Motiti Island, Tauranga. 1920-1957. 362-365 R22407125 MA1 1209 1919/385.

Received: 29 July 1919. From: Public Trust Office, Wellington. Subject: Motiti B Block. As to enabling the beneficial owners to obtain a valid title. 1918-1923 366-373 R24619363 J1 715 ao 1904/946

From: Stipendiary Magistrate, Tauranga. Date: 12 July 1904. Subject: Application of Hori T. Rangitikei for a flag for Patuwai tribe, Motiti Island. 1904

151

374-403 R24622036 J1 752 aw 1906/870

From: M.G. McGregor, Barrister and Solicitor, Auckland. Date: 27 June 1906. Subject: That Government undertake a prosecution of Tupaea Akuhata for fraudulent Impersonation regarding sale of interests of certain natives in Motiti A. 1906 404-479 R19982963 M1 891 12/781

Motiti Island – Maori launches 1933-1951 480-492 R19526196 MA1 Box 360 19/1/190

Petition 30/1935 – Pene Ngamanu – Motiti B4 Block 1935 493-499 R19525922 MA1 Box 316 18/2/10

Flag for Hape Kereheha on behalf of Motiti Island Maori.

1932-1934 500-581 R19526165 MA1 Box 354 19/1/128

Maori Trading launches etc – Standard of seaworthiness – Mayor and Motiti Islands – Land Facilities. 1933-1968 582-657 R11838808 AAMK W3074 869 Box 703 e 19/5/42

Miscellaneous – Motiti Island Water Supply 1920-1942 658-681 R7221458 ABEP W4262 7749 Box 180 7/12 part 1

Buildings and Sites – South Auckland District – Motiti Island 1961-1984 682-696 R24683244 J1 983 1920/1135

From: Hon. Sir W. Herries, Wellington. Date: 17 September 1920. Subject: For appointment of W.H. Paterson of Motiti Island as JP. 1920 697-702 R24672516 J1 1038 1923/1402

From: Commissioner of Pensions, Wellington. Date: 23 October 1923 Subject: Representations by Registrar of Pensions, Tauranga, for appointment as Justice of the Peace of Major G. Moore (Salvation Army who regularly visits Motiti and Matakana Islands). 1923 703-823 R24599924

152

J1 669 h 1901/1299

From: Clerk, Native Affairs Committee, House of Representatives. Date: 19 October 1901 Subject: For report on petition of Paora Arona and others for re-hearing of Pekapekatahi Lot 32, Parish of Rangitaiki. 1885-1902 824-853 R11840359 AAMK W3074 869 Box 1129 c 43/1 part 3

Fishing – Fishing Rights – General 1953-1959 854-859 R11840360 AAMK W3074 869 Box 1130 a 43/1 part 4

Fishing – Fishing Rights – General 1959-1963 860-873 R22108866 AAFZ W1711 7910 Box 7 2/12/116

Sea Fisheries – Trawling – Bay of Plenty 1950-1963 874-884 R17693802 Le 1 887 1928/19

Native Affairs, Petitions, Reports and Papers 1928 885-915 R17886153 Le 1 194 1882/6

Committees – Native Affairs 1882 916-943 R20411330 MA-MC3 2

Minutes of General Conference of Maori Councils 1903-1911 944- R24652496 1075 BACS A622 25436 Box 193 a T296/301

Motiti No.4 – Applications 1915-1941 1076- R24652495 1211 BACS A622 25436 Box 192 c T296/301

Motiti No.3 – Applications 1909-1930 1212- R24652494 1420 BACS A622 254436 Box 192 b T296/301

Motiti No.2 – Applications 1900-1918 1421- R24652600 1588 BACS A622 25436 Box 305 b T1024

153

Motiti Island – Correspondence 1921-1947 1589- R2587628 1635 AATE A947 5113 Box 191 b 60/47/2

Town and Country Planning – Offshore Islands Motiti 1979-1980 1636- R2587629 1638 AATE A947 5113 Box 191 c 60/47/2/1

Town and Country Planning – Offshore Islands Motiti Nuku Island 1984-1987 1639- R2587630 1642 AATE A947 5113 Box 192 a 60/47/2/2

Town and Country Planning – Offshore Islands Motiti Hoete and Ranapia 1984-1986 1643- R24652493 1759 BACS A622 25436 Box 192 a T296/301

Motiti No.1 – Applications 1867-1902 1760- R24652497 1825 BACS A622 25436 Box 193 b T296/301

Motiti No.5 – Applications 1906-1957 1826- R24652491 1984 BACS A622 25436 Box 300 b T296

Motiti – Correspondence 1885-1915 1985- R17281108 1993 AATE A1002 5113 Box 921 j 42/4

Tourist Resorts – Mayor and Motiti Islands 1945-1963 1994- R22764366 1997 BAJZ A1660 23663 Box 1000 a 1GK BK52

Crown Grants 1GK – Folio 1-251, Cook, Thames, Tauranga Counties

1865-1873 1998- R22763411 2006 BAJZ A1660 23641 Box 30 a R16 2

Deeds Register Book R16, Auckland – Folio 480-958 1885-1886 2007- R22764162 2015 BAJZ A1660 23656 Box 781 a K1

Deeds Register Book, Cook County 1866-1877

154

2016- R22764163 2019 BAJZ A1660 23656 Box 782 a K2

Deeds Register Book K2, Cook County 1877-1881 2020- R23265553 2118 BBFZ A1115 4946 Box 128 e 4/25/1/9 part 1

Motiti Maori Committee 1953-1985 2119- R22764366 2122 BAJZ A1660 23663 Box 1000 a 1GK BK52

Crown Grants 1GK – Folio 1-251, Cook, Thames, Tauranga Counties

1865-1873 2123- R22764163 2126 BAJZ A1660 23656 Box 782 a K2

Deeds Register Book K2, Cook County 1877-1881 2127- R22764162 2132 BAJZ A1660 23656 Box 781 a K1

Deeds Register Book, Cook County 1866-1877 2133- R22763411 2140 BAJZ A1660 23641 Box 30 a R16 2

Deeds Register Book R16, Auckland – Folio 480-958 1885-1886 2141- R22259847 2152 BAOB A1239 1542 Box 1412 c 3/2895 part 2

Motiti Island 1972-1988 2153- R22259846 2284 BAOB A1239 1542 Box 1412 b 3/2895 part 1

Motiti Island 1972-1981 2285- R23265324 2288 BBFZ A1115 4945 Box 73 a 18/11/5/0 part 1

Patuwai Maori Committee 1955-1982 2289- R23265325 2302 BBFZ A1115 4945 Box 73 b 18/11/5/0 part 2

Patuwai Maori Committee 1983-1989 2303- R23265326 2315 BBFZ A1115 4950 Box 73 c 18/11/5/0 part 1

155

Patuwai Maori Committee – Whakatane 1983-1989 2316- R328081 2320 BBFZ A1207 5015 Box 1 c 88/5/127 part 1

Maketu (Motiti Island) Development Scheme Units – Pene Aukaha 1935-1943 2321- R328082 2323 BBFZ A1207 5015 Box 1 d 88/5/132 part 1

Maketu (Motiti Island) Development Scheme Units – Remaka Hoete 1934-1944 2324- R328087 2328 BBFZ A1207 5015 Box 5 a 11 part 1

Motiti Island Development Scheme – Main 1931-1940 2329- R328088 2331 BBFZ A1207 5015 Box 5 b 11/1 part 1

Motiti Island Development Scheme – General 1932-1936 2332- R21574546 2333 ACFL A1628 8170 Box 7 di 69/461

Inwards letters. 2 July 1869. H.T. Clarke, Tauranga. Asks for procurement of a full size Red Ensign to present to the Patuwai. 1869 2334- R21474257 2347 BAPP A1365 5113 Box 1379 b 39218/0 part 1

Schools – Legalisation – Motiti Primary School 1956-1976 2348- R20393279 2363 BAAA A440 1001 Box 968 a 44/6

Maori Schools – General Correspondence and Inspection Reports – Motiti Island 1948-1965 2364- R6196256 2396 YCAU A738 1601 Box 613 e 1/84

Administration – Motiti Island Educational Facilities 1976 2397- R22970906 2414 BCDQ A739 1050 Box 532 b 7/12 part 7

Buildings and Sites – Primary Schools – South Auckland – Motiti Island 1964-1976 2415- R1947181 2428 BACS 11192 Box 133 m 1902/265

Rotorua Alienation Files – Motiti A 1903 2429- R201780

156

2432 BACS 11192 Box 133 u 1171

Rotorua Alienation Files – Motiti A3A 1916-1917 2433- R201837 2439 BACS 11192 Box 137 b 2708

Rotorua Alienation Files – Motiti A2B 1920 2440- R201828 2445 BACS 11192 Box 137 a 2476

Rotorua Alienation Files – Motiti A3B2 1920 2446- R20659323 2448 BACS A517 4958 Box 1536 a 17/2081

Land alienation – Motiti A3B1C 1972 2449- R20659324 2452 BACS A517 4958 Box 1536 b 17/2082

Land alienation – Motiti A3B1A 1972 2453- R23979831 2459 BCDQ A739 1050 Box 1552 a 26/1/91 part 3

Miscellaneous – General – School Histories – Maori 1971-1980 2460- Maketu Minute Book 1 2541 2542- Tauranga Minute Book 3 2624 2625- Judge O’Brien Minute Book 28 2699 2700- Whakatane Minute Book 8 2753 2754- Whakatane Minute Book 9 2803 2804- Von Sturmer Minute Book 11 2919 2920- Whakatane Minute Book 5A 3155

157