An Overview History of the Taranaki confiscation claim 1920s-1980s: from the' Sim corinnission to the sUbmission of Taranaki claims to the waitangi Tribunal. cathy Marr . t A report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal wai 143 15 April 1993 '" .('1' .... ... ';"" ';+' .... , ... Introduction .:; '.:')' ;L This report was commissioned by the Wai tangi Tribunal in a direction dated 14 June 1992. The report addresses the specific issues raised in that direction. These were: a summary of the Sim commission; its terms of reference, recommendations and outcomes an analysis of the effect of the Sim commission in terms of settlement of the Taranaki confiscated, land claims a definition of exactly what the settlement was for - for example if it was for the wrong done only a brief history to the present of ways in which the confiscated land claims of Taranaki iwi have been maintained since the Sim commission and the establishment of the Trust Board, including the 1978 settlement concerning Taranaki maunga a brief history of the establishment of the Taranaki Maori Trust Board and a description of the legislation and regulations it operates under an analysis of the way in which the legislation and regulations the Trust Board operates under' have and continue to promote and/or hinder the implementation of both the spirit and terms of the settlement arrived at with 'the Crown The research for this report has been based mainly on official do'cuments and is intended to provide an initial basis for claimant and Crown comment. A draft of this report was submitted to the Research Manager of the waitangi Tribunal Division in December 1992. At that time research for the history of the 1970s and 1980s was incomplete because of difficulties in locating the relevant files still held by departments. Since that' time relevant files of the old Maori Affairs department have been located and researched at Te Puni Kokori. Thanks are due to Fleur Taiapa of that office for her assistance with this. A number of unsuccessful requests over some months have also been made for access to Treasury files. At the time of writing the most recent request under the Official Information Act had still received no response. Nevertheless it has been possible to complete a broad outline of the Taranaki muru raupatu claim during that time using documents available. In the early part of the report substantial use has been made of qocuments, copies of which are in the waitangi Tribunal Raupatu Document Bank. References to this are abbreviated to RBD. A further document bank is attached to this report containing copies of documents not in the Raupatu Document Bank. The attached document bank is separately indexed. , / I. 1/ ,/ / / Contents Chapter 1 Background to the sim commission of inquiry 1926-28 1 Chapter 2 Summary of the sim commission - terms of reference, findings and recommendations 12 Chapter 3 The 1930 agreement - the first stage of the implementation of the Taranaki awards 1928-30 33 Chapter 4 The interim agreement 1930-44 and the Taranaki Maori Claims Settlement Act 1944 49 Chapter 5 A brief history of the maintenance of confiscation claims of Taranaki iwi subsequent to the sim commission and the establishment of the Trust. Board, including the Taranaki maunga negotiations 65 Chapter 6 A brief history of the establishment of the I " / Taranaki Maori Trust Board and t~e legislation and regulations it operates under 94 Chapter 7 The impact of the legislation and regulations governing the Taranaki Maori Trust Board on the spirit and terms of the settlement with the Crown 108 Possible Issues 1 :{) Chapter 1 Background to the sim Commission of Inguiry 1926-28 A Commission of inquiry was formally established by government in October 1926 to inquire into and recommend on 'confiscated lands and other grievances'. 1 The three person inquiry became known as the Sim commission after its chairman, Justice Sir William Sim. The other members were Vernon Reed from the Bay of Islands, a member of the Legislative Council, and a Maori member, william Cooper, a Native Associate, of Gisborne. The commission's main duty was to investigate the confiscations made by the Crown following the New Zealand wars of the 1860s. The primary confiscation legislation was the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863 and its amendments. The confiscations were made in the districts of Taranaki, Waikato - Auckland, Tauranga, the eastern. Bay of Plenty and the East Coast. The 'other grievances' were a variety of other Maori claims that had been referred for fUrther investigation by parliamentary committee. These included lands lost after the Tar.awera eruption and various north Auckland claims. However it is apparent from the commission's report that the main focus of investigations was the confiscations and in particular those that took place in Taranaki and Waikato. 2 The sim commission inquiry was not established in isolation. It was one of a number of major inquiries and negotiations of tne 1920s. The 'Jones' Commission of inquiry of 1920-21 for example, investigated a number of claims, in particular the major long standing Ngai Tahu grievance. In 1922 settlement had also been reached over Te Arawa lakes after years of court action and 1 Notice of establishment of commission dated 18 October 1926, in New Zealand Gazette no 73 of 28 October 1926 pp 3021-3. Copy also in ROB v 48 PP"18524-8 and in document bank attached pp 472-475. 2 Sim commission report in ROB v 48 pp 18524-18563 2 negotiations. A similar lake - agreement was -·made wit:h Ngati Tuwharetoa in 1926. The approach to claim inquiry and settlement was of course still limited by the prevailing attitudes of the time. The Treaty of waitangi for example was not accepted by government as a basis for claim. The work of the sim commission therefore needs to be seen within the context of its time. The cluster of major claim inquiries and negotiations of the 1920s seem to have resulted from a combination of the pressure Maori were able to place on government at the time, increased goodwill by Pakeha to enable claims to be reconsidered and a growing pragmatic concern by some Pakeha, including politicians, that fair settlements had to be made for the good of -future race relations in New Zealand. Pressure on governments from Maori appears to have been a major factor. The major claims investigated in the 1920s were not new ~ . and the government recognised that Maori claimants had been pressing consistently for settlement for many years, from the time many of the grievances took place. The methods used by claimants in attempting to obtain proper inquiry and redress varied according to what 'seemed most appropriate and the opportunities available at the time. They had included action at a local level, petitions to parliament and the British Crown, representations through Maori members of parliament and pressure on local and national authorities through individuals, iwi and a variety of Maori organisations. In spite of active discouragement by successive governments, claimants had also consistently invoked the Treaty of Waitangi in challenging Crown actions associated with claims. In the case of Taranaki for example, Smith, counsel for claimants, briefly described the long history of actions on the 3 claim in his opening submission to the Sim commission • smith referred to the history of petitioning the British monarch and 3 Smith, opening sUbmission to sim commission in RDB v 48 pp 18565-18706. 3 the Imperial government as well as the New. Zealand Parliament. He traced efforts to gain redress in a direct line from original attempts to have the Wai tara purchase properly investigated, through the leadership of Te Whiti and acts of passive resistance, to the pressure resulting in the Sim commission. He told the commission that Te Whiti had prophesied that peaceful resistance would bring about the establishment of an inquiry by the government and that for many of the claimants the sim commission was that inquiry. Smith reminded the commission of the continuance of the tradition of resistance in the relUctance of many men in the confiscation districts to enlist for the first world war. Attempts to have a proper inquiry into the confiscations had previously failed. There had never been a full and proper investigation of the confiscations and requests for an inquiry had been refused· because it had generally been assumed that the confiscations had been warranted and the compensation courts had dealt with any genuine claims at the time. smith ~fj) reminded the commission that the earlier Fox-Bell inquiry in Taranaki in 1880 had in fact been limited to seeing that compensation awards were implemented. It had not been an inquiry into the confiscations themselves and for this reason the Maori member appointed at the time had resigned. In addition to the history covered by smith, there is evidence of the consistency of Taranaki claims through the existence of formal petitions. Petitions had to be presented in an acceptable form and through accepted processes to be formally accepted as petitions to parliament. These formal petitions, although costly for petitioners, were regularly present~d to parliament concerning the Taranaki claims. surviving petitions included in the Raupatu Document Bank show an average of one every two years for Taranaki from the 1870s to the first World War, when serious consideration was first given to the possibility of a confiscation commission. 4 4 Raupatu Document Bank vols 1-6 4 I) The Maori members of parliament were also given strong mandates by their electorates to press for the resolution of claims from the time the Maori seats were established. In some cases support for a candidate depended on a strong commitment to having claims resolved.