Provisional Ngati Rangitihi Acknowledgements
and
Supporting Narratives
Anthony Olsen and Bruce Stirling
May 2016
These are a mix of issues that OTS is prepared to make acknowledgements on
combined with specific Ngati Rangitihi grievances, most of which are grievances of a
type that OTS has proved willing to acknowledge in the past. Other
acknowledgements are specific to Ngati Rangitihi (such as Hauani).
Some acknowledgements are just that – acknowledging an event or an impact –
whereas others are (or should be) acknowledgements of Treaty breach. We need to
maximise the breach acknowledgements as they are the only things for which the
Crown will apologise.
(a)
Warfare 1860s: loss of life(?), disruption and destruction caused by a war that
was not of iwi’s making, and refugees at Matata
(b)
Crown confiscation line 1866, extinguishment of native title, Compensation
Court process, failure to reserve Ngati Rangitihi lands, failure to protect
customary rights (for example, waterways and pa tuna)
(c)
Native land laws: general impact on lands and people, specific impacts such as
survey costs, 10-owner rule, individualisation, title fragmentation, and others
(some already noted below). Also the iwi’s political response (komiti, protest,
Kotahitanga, etc)
(d)
Land grants such as Matahina and Pokohu hit with significant survey liens, land
taken to pay for surveys
(e)
Crown purchase tactics: use of pre-title advances, leases, and pre-emption to
impose low price, lack of reserves, loss of wahi tapu/taonga: need general data
as well as referring to specific examples such as Ruawahia (willing
sellers/unwilling sellers 1890s), Kaingaroa 1, and others
(f)
Post-Eruption (1886) lack of response, forced to sell land to stave off starvation
(g)
Twentieth century land issues: land laws, ongoing land loss, landlessness, title
fragmentation, consolidation and development, incorporation, compulsory
alienation of ‘uneconomic’ interests, Europeanisation of title. Need general data
as well as specific examples (such as Hauani and Ruawahia noted below)
(h)
Hauani was originally a gift for landless Ngati Rangitihi, then transformed into a
lease of Crown land, then the iwi were forced to swap land (Pokohu) for it.
(i)
Ruawahia 2A incorporated into Maori Investments/Tarawera Forest Act 1967
1
(j)
Public Works takings (schools, scenic reserves, recreation reserves, roads, rail,
etc); need overview data as well as severe examples (such as loss of wahi
tapu or taonga, failure to compensate, or severing access to wahi tapu/taonga
[e.g., coastal rail line]). Also highlight any gifts of land by iwi to nation.
(k)
Rangitaiki Plains drainage Thornton Cut 1912/Matata Cut 1917/ Te Awaoteatua
river inlet silts up not enough water to keep it open, loss of pa tuna and other
customary resources
(l)
Pollution of the Tarawera River/Tasman pulp & paper enabling act 1954
(m)
Loss of customary fisheries
(n)
Geothermal resources; especially surface features lost to Crown purchase or
Public Works takings. Also in relation to Crown control of tourism
(o)
Under-development: social and economic impacts, housing, outward migration
from rohe, loss of Te Reo, education, smoking drinking, flu epidemic (1927)
told not to drink water, significant numbers of Ngati Rangitihi die
(p)
Contribution to war effort: from 1860s to World Wars 1 and 2 (if this is important
to Rangitihi)
These issues are organised roughly by chronology, and have been grouped together
under broad headings below.
The supporting narratives are very much in summary form and are not intended to be
comprehensive. There is a very large body of evidence behind the brief summaries
included here, which are provided not only to illuminate the Acknowledgements, but
also to indicate the sort of evidence that is needed to support the Historical Account,
Acknowledgements, and Apology in the Deed of Settlement.
2
New Zealand Wars
(a)
Warfare 1860s: loss of life(?), disruption and destruction caused by a war that
was not of iwi’s making, and refugees at Matata
(b)
Crown confiscation line 1866, extinguishment of native title, Compensation
Court process, failure to reserve Ngati Rangitihi lands, failure to protect
customary rights (for example, waterways and pa tuna)
The key issue here is NOT presenting Ngati Rangitihi as a raupatu claimant
(because that requires armed conflict against the Crown on your lands and the
use of confiscation as punishment for rebellion; neither of which applies here).
The key issue is that the confiscation line took in a large area of Ngati Rangitihi
lands but the Crown failed to adequately investigate Ngati Rangitihi interests in
that land before awarding it to other iwi for a variety of purposes, without regard
for Ngati Rangitihi, who received some awards from the confiscated land for
their military service but almost no recognition for their customary interests at
Matata and along the Tarawera river.
The first thing to clarify with OTS is the extent of Ngati Rangitihi’s customary
interests at Matata. That is not dealt with here, as we are looking at
Acknowledgements here, but it is an essential first step to addressing Ngati
Rangitihi’s grievances at Matata and along the Tarawera river.
In July 1863, war broke out between the Crown and Māori in the Waikato; as part of
this conflict hostilities occurred in the Bay of Plenty during the first half of 1864.
During 1863 many tribes from Mataatua to Te Tai Rawhiti pledged their support to
the Maori King. In February 1864 a large party of 700 or 800 tried to pass through Te
Arawa territory on their way to Waikato. An aukati line had been put in place by Ngati
Rangitihi at Whakarewa rock a short distance to the west of present day Matata.
After initially breaching this line the Te Tai Rawhiti contingent were driven back by
Ngati Rangitihi with the assistance of the Te Arawa Flying column and Crown forces
on land and sea. On 28 April 1864 the King’s supporters made their final stand at Te
Kaokaoroa, near Te Awaoteatua, the historical mouth of the combined Rangitaiki and
Tarawera Rivers. There was significant loss of life amongst the Te Tai Rawhiti
contingent as they attempted to withdraw across the River mouth towards
Whakatane.
In July 1865 a Crown official, James Fulloon, and three crew members of the vessel
Kate were killed by some local Māori at Whakatāne. T. H. Smith, the Civil
Commissioner at Maketū, issued a warrant for the arrests of those alleged to have
taken part in the murders on board the Kate.
In August 1865, a Crown expedition of some 500 men, including Māori from
neighbouring iwi and hapū, was mounted under Major William Mair, Resident
Magistrate, to apprehend those named in the warrant. They pursued those named in
the warrant, laying siege to a number of pā in the eastern Bay of Plenty. Ngāti
Rangitihi hapū resided at some of these pā, but had played no role in the killing of
Fulloon and had instead earlier provided fought against the Crown’s foes.
Fighting broke out as the Crown expedition passed Pārawai Pā. Crown troops raided
livestock and pillaged crops and food supplies but failed to take the pā. The troops
moved onto Te Umuhika where they became involved in a skirmish with some
people from that pa. The occupants, which included Ngati Rangitihi, were accused of
3
harbouring “tangata hara” and some were killed as the Crown expedition moved
towards Te Kupenga.
On 2 September 1865, the Crown issued a proclamation of peace, declaring the war
at an end. The proclamation stated that those who had taken up arms against the
Crown since 1863 would not be prosecuted for past offences. Those responsible for
the killings of Fulloon and others accused of similar offences were among those
excluded from this amnesty. The proclamation also stated that if those responsible
for the killing of Fulloon were not given up then “the Governor will seize a part of the
lands of the Tribes who conceal these murderers.”
On 4 September 1865, the Governor issued a proclamation of martial law in the
Whakatāne and Ōpotiki areas to enable the capture of those accused of the murder
of Fulloon and others. Crown troops remained stationed outside some pā, for the
purpose of pursuing those thought to be involved in the murders.
Around October 1865, the occupants of Pārawai Pā evacuated and went to Te
Kupenga Pā, joining other Bay of Plenty iwi, including some of the individuals listed
in the arrest warrant. Crown troops attacked Te Kupenga. On 20 October 1865 all
those remaining at Te Kupenga surrendered to the Crown force.
By an Order in Council on 17 January 1866, the Crown confiscated approximately
448,000 acres of land in the eastern Bay of Plenty under the New Zealand
Settlements Act 1863. The description of the confiscation boundary was amended by
a subsequent Crown proclamation of 1 September 1866. The confiscated area,
which extended from Waitahanui eastwards to Opotiki and south to
Maungawhakamana and Putauaki, included some of the traditional lands of Ngāti
Rangitihi.
The Compensation Court was established under the provisions of the New Zealand
Settlements Act 1863 to hear claims for the return of confiscated land. Prior to the
sitting of the Compensation Court, Crown Agent John A Wilson was appointed as a
special commissioner in February 1866 to deal with the allocation of confiscated land
in the Bay of Plenty. Wilson, the Crown agent carried out his activities under the
provisions of the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863 and its amendments. The
Crown then enacted further legislation, including the Confiscated Lands Act 1867, in
order to validate Wilson’s arrangements.
Rather than have the lands contested in court, Wilson made out-of-court
arrangements for most of the 90,000 acres of confiscated land between the western
confiscation boundary and the Tarawera River which was divided into various awards
for a variety of iwi. Much of this area, which Ngāti Rangitihi and other iwi also claim,
was awarded to certain Te Arawa iwi and others as military awards or, in the case of
Ngati Tuwharetoa, as compensation for the confiscation of other lands east of the
river. In the process Ngāti Rangitihi lost lands in which they traditionally held interests
west of the Rangitaiki River from the inland Confiscation Line to the coast.
Ngati Rangitihi lodged claims with the Compensation Court for their customary
interests within the Confiscation block, from Matata and inland along the Rangitaiki
and Tarawera rivers. The Crown ‘misplaced’ all but one of their claims so they were
never heard. The one claim that was heard was upheld, but as most of the lands had
already been allocated by Wilson there was nothing left for Ngati Rangitihi, who
received (through Arama Karaka Mokonuiarangi) only a single 300 acre grant of
“extremely swampy” land to satisfy their “extensive claims” in “several places.” Two
4
pa tuna in the wetlands between the lower Tarawera and Rangitaiki rivers were also
awarded to Arama Karaka.
Ngāti Rangitihi were, like other iwi of Te Arawa, recognised by the Crown for their
military service through were granted ‘military awards’ in the confiscated block,
although others of Te Arawa received larger and more valuable awards than them
despite having no customary interests in the land. The Ngati Rangitihi awards were
Pukeroa block (Lot 30 Parish of Matata, 3,834 acres, and Lot 3 Parish of Matata (84
acres) near what was then called the Township of Richmond (Matata). In addition,
Niheta Kaipara and Arama Karaka Mokonuiarangi were awarded a total of nine
quarter-acre sections in Richmond (Matata).
Pukeroa – Lot 30
From the late 1870s onwards Crown agents sought to purchase Lot 30 Pukeroa from
the grantees of the block. By 1889, it was the last of the military awards remaining in
Maori ownership. Pukeroa had been vested in five trustees on behalf of Ngati
Rangitihi, but the Crown ignored this trusteeship and treated the grantees as
absolute owners not as trustees for their people. On 8 August 1879, R. Gill (Native
Land Purchase Department Under-Secretary), responded stating that while the five
trustees of the block could execute a sale, if all the owners wanted to retain the block
they all needed to sign to that effect individually (even though the Native Land Court
had yet to identify the beneficial owners). This was in spite of a previous letter on the
6th of March 1879 from John Young the Crown Agent which stated that he had no
power to appoint successors to those of the trustees who had died.
Some of the trustees wrote to the Minister of Native Affairs objecting to the sale and
asking to be allowed to return the money advanced by the Government in return for
maintaining ownership. Huta Tangihia wrote:
Friend, the officers are advancing money upon that land unfairly they
are making advances to two or three, let no more money be advanced
5
until the tribe agree who is to receive it so that it may be paid to the
people entitled to it.1
In addition, on 30 April 1881, Tumakoha Te Whana (Te Whanapipi) requested
through the Ngati Rangitihi tribal solicitor that they wished to repay the governments
advance of £250 advanced to a few claimants for the purchase of Lot 30 (Pukeroa).
The Crown agents nevertheless completed the purchase in 1884, despite please
from Tanira Paerau “and the whole of Ngati Rangitihi” that those of the tribe at
Matata were virtually landless, having only about 80 acres to live on, which was
insufficient for the 200 of the tribe living there.
While Ngāti Rangitihi were granted some land through the compensation process,
they lost their customary rights of access to other traditional lands and resources.
Any land restored through the compensation process was returned to individuals
rather than to the hapū or iwi. The awards did not reflect the customary forms of
tenure and land became more susceptible to partition and alienation.
1
Huta Tangihia to Native Minister, 13 May 1879 (see also Huta Tangihia and two others to
Native Minister, 30 October 1878). MA-MLP 1 1884/116. Archives NZ.
6
Native Land Laws and Land Alienation in the Nineteenth Century
(c)
Native land laws: general impact on lands and people, specific impacts such as
survey costs, 10-owner rule, individualisation, title fragmentation, and others
(some already noted below). Also the iwi’s political response (komiti, protest,
Kotahitanga, etc)
(d)
Land grants such as Matahina and Pokohu hit with significant survey liens, land
taken to pay for surveys
(e)
Crown purchase tactics: Thermal Springs Districts Act 1881, use of pre-title
advances, leases, and pre-emption to impose low price, lack of reserves, loss
of wahi tapu/taonga: need general data as well as referring to specific
examples such as Ruawahia (willing sellers/unwilling sellers 1890s), Kaingaroa
1, and others
This set of issues is a broad one, but includes some matters on which the
Crown has a fairly fixed set of acknowledgements, such as the effect of the
Native land laws and the Native Land Court (‘NLC’) on land ownership and
tribal structures, and (depending on the evidence) survey costs and Crown and
private purchase tactics. Where detail is required is around the specific impacts
of the Native land laws and of Crown and private land purchasing.
Issues such as opposition to the NLC and involvement in pan-iwi movements
for reform of Native land laws will be traversed in the Historical Account but as
they will not lead to Acknowledgements of Treaty breach they are not included
here.
There is good specific evidence on survey liens (see below), the use of leases
as a lever to purchase (Kaingaroa 1 and Rerewhakaitu), lack of reserves, pretitle advances/tamana to other claimants (Pokohu), use of pre-emption to
exclude private competition and drive down prices, and excessive purchasing
leading to landlessness.
Ruawahia (below) is merely one example among many of Crown purchasing. It
involved opposition from Ngati Rangitihi, undermining collective opposition to
purchasing through targeting of individual owners, purchasing under preemption and the exclusion of private competition leading to low prices, the
taking of the lake bed of Lake Tarawera by the Crown without payment, and
purchasing despite evidence of landlessness.
Crown purchases: Ruawahia
Ruawahia block (22,990 acres) lies at the heart of Ngati Rangitihi’s inland rohe,
taking in the iwi’s maunga, Ruawahia, as well as the bulk of Tarawera lake and the
Ngati Rangitihi kainga and sites on its shores. The land was held back from the
Native Land Court until 1891, a decade after most of their lands were put through the
Court, usually by other iwi or in response to claims to their lands by other iwi.
Coming before the Court so late, Ruawhia block was inevitably defined by the
surveys of the land surrounding it, including Haehenga and Okataina to the north,
Pokohu and Rerewhakaitu to the east, and Rotomahana Parekarangi to the south.
On 3 November 1890 Henry Mitchell wired Mitchell at the Native Department with
respect to Ngati Rangitihi’s land at Ruawahia. Mitchell explained that the tribe had
7
submitted a claim to the Native Land Court at Whakatane for Ruawahia but, “like
other tribal claims in this district sketch plans only preferred”. Ngati Rangitihi asked
for their ownership of the block to be confirmed on the basis of this sketch survey.
Mitchell had surveyed the block, which “comprised Tarawera & Ruawahia mountains
and about half of Tarawera Lake.”
Land in the mountainous portion was described by him as “practically valueless”, but
the claimants believed that other portions were good quality. The request to accept
the sketch survey was submitted to the Surveyor General who was asked, “to send
down the plan for Governor’s signature if he thinks it is good enough”. Title to
Ruawahia was adjudicated on by the Whakatane Court in February 1891 on the
basis of the sketch plan, and 386 owners were admitted to the title.
On 6 August 1897, Gill recommended a Crown purchase of Ruawahia. He believed
that the block, which “covers several miles of frontage to the Tarawera lake and
Tarawera river” was worth more than adjoining land at Rotomahana Parekarangi,
which the Crown had already purchased. Gill believed that the purchase could be
completed “within a reasonable time” at the rate of three shillings per acre, a rate that
he stated was “a very low one”. Gill asked for Sheridan’s instructions before he
visited Matata, where most of the owners lived. Sheridan asked Gill why he was not
including the 6,000 acres encompassed by Lake Tarawera in his purchase
calculations, as ownership of the lake was included in the title. Gill confirmed that title
to the lake was included in the Native Land Court order but he did not believe it was
necessary to purchase it: “Believing that all the Lakes in the Colony (at least this one)
belong to the Crown.”
Sheridan referred the question to Judge A MacKay, noting that there was at least
one other case in which Maori owned lakes (being the Wairarapa Lakes). The Judge
confirmed that “the Crown has no inherent right to all the Lakes in the Colony”. The
Tarawera Lake being included in the Order of the Court places it in precisely the
same position as the Wairarapa Lake, or any other body of fresh water situated
within the boundaries of any block of Native Land, not yet alienated to the Crown. he
Surveyor General provided Sheridan with his own opinion on Maori ownership of
lakes:
I do not exactly see that the Maoris have any right to lakes if they have
sold the land fronting up to that line. My idea is that lakes are highways
like the sea, and belong to the public at any rate by its use. This was
tried on in the case of Rotorua, but I objected, and the titles only issued
to the margin. It is rather a delicate point.
On 14 October 1897, the Minister of Lands approved of Sheridan’s recommendation
that Ruawahia be purchased for ₤2,190. This payment indicates the area of the lake
bed within the Ruawahia title had not been included in the purchase price. Sheridan
forwarded this to Gill, instructing him: “There is no occasion to raise the question of
the ownership of the Lake. Let the deed include it in the purchase.”
On 13 December 1897, Raureti P Mokonuiarangi wrote to Gilbert Mair objecting to
the proposed purchase, advising that those agreeing to it did not come from “Ngati
Rangitihi proper but half castes & people living at a distance.” He informed Mair that
Ngati Rangitihi had also written to Gill asking him “not to buy this block” because “this
is the only land left us from the time of our forefathers till the present day.” Mair
informed Gill of Mokonuiarangi’s message, stating that he had told Mokonuiarangi
that “he had better see you”. There is no response from Gill on the file.
8
On 4 April 1898 a further protest against the purchase was submitted by Takawheta
Kaipara Mokonuiarangi: “I, that is all my people object to negotiations for purchase
made by Mr Gill Government Land Purchase Officer in connection with the Ruawahia
Block, for I and my people do not desire to sell it.” Mokonuiarangi informed the Native
Minister that Ngati Rangitihi wished to retain Ruawahia “for the maintenance of our
descendants for all time.” He also objected to Gill’s method of purchase, stating that
the government should have contacted him in the first place before opening
negotiations with individual owners. Mokonuiarangi also objected to Gill’s application
“to have individual interests in the Rotomahana Parekarangi Block defined” (referring
to the process of defining each individual’s relative interest or share in the title). He
stated that this was “a matter for me and the people to take action about.”
With respect to the application to the Native Land Court for a definition of relative
interests in Rotomahana Parekarangi, Gill claimed that his application was supported
by “many of the owners.” The owners had prepared the lists “themselves and they
will conduct the case through the enquiry.”
As for the purchase, Gill contended: “The only objection I know of raised against the
purchase of this land was that Ngati Rangitihi had several old burial places on the
Tarawera and Ruawahia range.” He stated that he had discussed the reservation of
these wahi tapu with the owners in January and that: “Many of the principal owners
are satisfied with this and later on will assist me in the purchase.” Defending the
purchase of the block, Gill stated that the block had not been cultivated since the
eruption of Tarawera and “at the present time there are not 5 Natives residing on the
Block.” That was not to say that the land had not been occupied in the past, or that it
was no longer important to Ngati Rangitihi as a wahi tapu (as a result of the
Tarawera eruption).
Presumably, this response was satisfactory to the Under Secretary of the Native
Land Purchase Department. However, it failed to address the fundamental concerns
raised by Ngati Rangitihi, whose continued opposition to Crown negotiations was
reiterated in a petition from Te Hiko Mokonuiarangi and 146 others on 27 July 1898.
The petitioners noted that Gill had succeeded in acquiring individual interests from
some 50-60 owners (out of a total of 380).
Mokonuiarangi and others described the sellers as either half-castes not living as
Maori or as Maori who lived with other hapu rather than with Ngati Rangitihi:
They are not permanent members of the Ngati Rangitihi … whereas the
majority of the persons owning the land are holding on to it and have no
wish whatever to sell that block. Therefore, we your petitioners earnestly
appeal to you to have some regard for us and put a stop to the purchase
by the Crown. This is the remaining portion the balance of the land
belonging to your petitioners.
Ngati Rangitihi also wrote to the Maori MPs Wi Pere and Henare Tomoana, asking
them to support their application to the Native Minister. As Ngakuku and others
explained to the MHR for Eastern Maori, Wi Pere:
this is a great hardship, this is the balance of our lands, being the
mountain that all the Arawa make greetings to, (venerate), it is land held
from the time of the ancestors, Ngati Rangitihi are buried there.
Wi Pere recommended Ngati Rangitihi’s application to the Minister of Lands. Noting
that the land was of inferior quality, he advised him to “leave it for their use.”
9
On 17 August 1898, Sheridan sought Percy Smith’s opinion on continuing with
negotiations. The Surveyor-General replied that “Ruawahia block is not much use
from the settlement point of view, but it has other attractions on it. It would injure the
public much however if it remained native land some years longer.” Ngati Rangitihi’s
objections to the purchase were in vain. On 29 August 1898, Sheridan wrote to Gill:
It is difficult to understand what influences are at work in this matter. You
had better note all the signatures to this protest and advise me from time
to time as they offer their shares.
Gill asked Sheridan to confirm that, “I may go on as usual and purchase from those
who come to me and want to sell”. He noted that 44 of the signatories were not even
owners in Ruawahia. He also stated:
Ngati Rangitihi besides having this Block 20,600 acres, own
Rerewhakaitu 4,900 acres, Onuku (Rotomahana Parekarangi No 5B)
8,000 acres. They have also large interests in Pakau Te Pukatu –
Pokohu, & Matahina blocks as well as lands around Matata where most
of Ngati Rangitihi reside and cultivate.
In fact, they had negligible lands in Matahina and at Matata, and were about to lose
Pokohu (which had been rendered unfit for occupation by the Tarawera eruption) in
order to secure Crown land at Hauani. Onuku was scarcely sufficient to support the
entire iwi, and in any case it was not owned by all of Ngati Rangitihi but by particular
individuals of particular hapu so it was not available to support the many landless
Ngati Rangitihi.
On 5 October 1898, Sheridan instructed Gill to “purchase any shares offering until
Court sits to define interests of the Crown.” A month later, Gill reported having
purchased the individual interests of three of the signatories to the petition. On 10
April 1899, Raureti P Mokonuiarangi and 17 others wrote to the Ministers of Native
Affairs and Lands, Seddon and McKenzie, “on behalf of Ngatirangitihi who have not
sold.” They repeated their request for the cessation of the Crown’s purchase of
Ruawahia. Ngati Rangitihi noted that the block was “under the provisions of the
Thermal Springs Act, 1881” (banning private parties from any alienation of the land
or its resources) and that some owners had sold their interests to the Crown. They
asked that the remaining land should:
be assured to us, because our thoughts are permanently attached to the
places where our ancestors and parents who have passed away from us
lie (buried) it is the mountain of parting for all the Hapus of the Arawa.
We cannot stop a person from selling land seeing that the way is open
for the Government to acquire land, therefore we ask the Government to
have some regard for us and that you two put a stop to this, so that
those who desire to sell may not be able to do so.
In support of their request, Mokonuiarangi and others referred to recent government
decision to stop purchasing in the East Coast district (a cessation that became
nation-wide in 1899 due to the extent of Maori landlessness). Ngati Rangitihi’s
submission was supported by several “members of the select Committee for the East
Coast, appointed to advise you with regard to the government purchases in the East
Coast District.”
10
On 25 May 1899, Gill once more defended his purchasing activities and he attributed
objections to the purchase to concerns that wahi tapu would not be protected from
the purchase. He stressed that there had been no cultivations or families in
residence since the eruption. Gill reported that 80 of the 386 owners had sold to the
Crown to date, included 9 signatories to the July 1898 petition. Gill also noted that,
only four days before submitting the petition, Raureti had sold his son’s interests in
Ruawahia (Raureti was trustee of the interest under the alias Raureti Te Okatu).
This latter point was taken as the most pertinent by Sheridan, who wrote to Raureti
on the Native Minister’s behalf, stating: “The Minister will be glad to hear how you
reconcile this request with your own quite recent action of selling your son’s interest
in the land in question”. Sheridan also informed Mokonuiarangi that: “Ancestral burial
grounds in lands purchased from Natives are invariably reserved by the Govt”.
According to the 1900 Land Purchase return, prior to 31 March 1899, Gill had
acquired interests equating to 2,738 acres. He secured interests equating to a further
10,472 acres in the year to 31 March 1900. By the time the Crown applied to the
NLC in December 1901 to partition out the interests it had acquired, a total of 349
owners had signed the purchase deed. As a result the Crown was awarded
Ruawahia 1 (18,349 acres) and the remaining 92 owners were awarded Ruawahia 2
(4,649 acres).
The Crown had paid £1,751 at the rate of three shillings per acre, which entitled it to
an award of only 11,673 acres; the balance of its award comprised the approximately
6,700 acres of the bed of Lake Tarawera within the Ruawahia title for which it had
paid nothing. Given this, it should not have been awarded the lake bed.
Five urupa and wahi tapu around the shores of Lake Tarawera were excluded from
the Crown’s award: Kanaehapa, Ngahareta, Puha, Ruakopu, and Tapahoro (all two
acres each).
Survey Costs
In 1907, the Crown took 920 acres of the Ngati Rangitihi award in Matahina
(Matahina D, of 1,000 acres) for survey costs (including accumulated interest),
leaving only 80 acres for the Ngati Rangitihi owners. The remaining land was of no
economic utility and lay unused until it became part of the Tarawera Forest deal in
the 1960s (a joint venture in exotic forestry, involving the Crown, Tasman Pulp and
Paper, and thousands of owners of Maori land, which is a 20th century land issue;
see below).
In 1917, a survey lien of £23 7s. 6d. was imposed on the Ngati Rangitihi title,
Rotomahana Parekarangi 5B6 (at Te Ariki), a block of only 47 acres that was barely
worth the value of the lien (note that the compensation awarded in 1909 for the other
53 acres of what had been a 100-acre block was only £26 15s.; see Public Works
takings issue in the 20th century land issues below).
These are just two of many examples.
Landlessness
Ngati Rangitihi landlessness at Matata was noted as early as the 1880s, and more
widespread landlessness amongst the iwi was reported in the 1890s. At this time, a
Crown official urged the government to set aside some of the vast amount of idle
Crown land in the district for Ngati Rangitihi as they were a “wandering landless”
11
people. This early and severe landlessness is worse than for any other Te Arawa iwi
and worse than most other iwi (other than Ngai Tahu and Waikato).
12
Tarawera Eruption
(f)
Post-Eruption (1886) lack of response, forced to sell land to stave off starvation
(note that Te Pumautanga did not get an acknowledgement on this issue so
OTS will resist doing so for Rangitihi)
NB, this was noted in the Te Pumautanga Historical Account, did their
settlement does not include an acknowledgement on this issue. This may be
because they did not want to push the issue too hard or it may because OTS
opposed any acknowledgement. In either case, we will need to do better and
get an acknowledgement.
In June 1886 Mt Tarawera erupted, killing 147 Maori and 6 Pakeha. Most of the
casualties were suffered when the Ngati Rangitihi settlements around Lake Tarawera
were buried, and extensive tracts of land and forest were also affected by the ashfall. The eruption destroyed the Pink and White Terraces, a tourist attraction that
provided considerable income for Ngati Rangitihi.
Relief donations flowed in from Maori and Pakeha communities throughout the
country. In addition, the Crown set aside approximately £1,200 for aid to Maori and
£2,000 for Pakeha, and assisted with the transportation of relief supplies for Maori. It
later decided that any further “money or other assistance to [Maori] should be made
by Govt. in the form of payment for their land or labour”. Pakeha survivors were not
expected to labour or sell lands to ‘earn’ the far more generous aid supplied to them.
No Government compensation was paid for Ngati Rangitihi property losses.
In August 1886, Ngati Makino told the government:
This is an application from us Ngati Makino, praying that the
Government would consider our distress in consequence of the dreadful
disaster that has taken place within the boundaries of the Te Arawa
tribe. Tuhourangi, Ngati Taoi, and Ngati Rangitihi, have all suffered
terribly from this disaster. The Tuhourangi refugees are at Ohinemutu,
and those of Ngati Rangitihi are at Te Awa-a-te-Atua, and a multitude of
people go to present their contribution of gifts to Ngati Rangitihi and
there are about a hundred in number or less, and not a day passed for
the last two months without the arrival of another multitude, and
multitudes of people from the northern portion of the East Coast are
doing the same to Tuhourangi...
Consider such a disaster as this depriving men of life, and consider also
that after the people go to weep with the living for the dead, thus
bringing distress upon the Ngati Makino and the Ngati Pikiao tribe, that
is to say, causing them to run short of food.2
In February 1887, Gilbert Mair referred to the plight of Ngati Rangitihi, about 300 of
whom were living at Matata and cultivating a tiny plot of eight acres, part of a ‘military
award’ granted to another iwi in the 1860s (the rest of the award was leased to a
Pakeha). Mair suggested to the government that it acquire and make available a
larger area for the Ngati Rangitihi survivors of the eruption. By April 1888 the eight
acres of cultivation land was exhausted and the crops had failed. Mair pointed out
2
MA 21/24. Archives NZ.
13
there was more than 100,000 acres of Crown land “near lying idle” in the vicinity and
some should be made available to Ngati Rangitihi.3
The Crown proposed to provide Crown lands and various other practical assistance
for Ngati Rangitihi. Officials advised that as the Rotomahana area was not
immediately suitable for Maori occupation the Crown could “take advantage” of the
opportunity to acquire those lands, which contained valuable geothermal springs.
This arrangement was never finalised due to a seven-year delay in obtaining title to
the large and contested block at a series of costly Native Land Court hearings. The
Crown later purchased parts of the Rotomahana Parekarangi, Pokohu, and other
blocks from Ngati Rangitihi in the 1890s.
NB, the Hauani land is dealt with separately under another heading, as it was less a
response to the aftermath of the eruption and was instead used by the Crown to
acquire Pokohu land at no cost.
The buried Ngati Rangitihi kainga at Tarawera became deeply tapu places, and were
in effect urupa. In July 1886 the tribe petitioned the Government, asking that the tract
of country between Mount Edgecumbe and Lake Tarawera be made tapu, in other
words closed to settlement and access.4 While the response to this petition is
unknown, Ngati Rangitihi themselves continued to treat the land as deeply tapu.5
In 1919 Alfred Warbrick, whose mother was Ngati Rangitihi, requested that the site of
the Moura kainga, buried in 1886 and since then a tomb for 39 Ngati Rangitihi
people, be permanently reserved. It was then Crown land.6 The Native Minister
agreed.7 The land was reserved in 1920: its legal description was Section 5, Block
XII, Tarawera Survey District.8 Control of the land was vested in a Board comprising
five Ngati Rangitihi individuals (Raureti P. Mokonuiarangi, Ngatai Te Tuhi, Arawhiti
Mehaka, Hohepa Poia, and A. Warbrick – also known as Patiti Paerau). All the
trustees except Warbrick resided at Matata.9
3
Mair Papers. MS-Papers-0092-08. Alexander Turnbull Library.
Bay of Plenty Times 26 June 1886, p.2.
5 Whanganui Herald, 28 August 1901.
6 A. Warbrick to Native Under Secretary, 19 June 1919. MA 1 1229 1920/45. ANZ.
7 Native Minister minute. MA 1 1229 1920/45. ANZ.
8 New Zealand Gazette, 5 May 1920, p.1728.
9 MA 1 1229 1920/45. ANZ.
4
14
Twentieth Century Land Alienation and Land Issues
(g)
Twentieth century land issues: land laws, ongoing land loss, worsening
landlessness, title fragmentation, imposition of Crown pre-emption for
sustained periods, consolidation and development, incorporation, loss of land
for unpaid rates, compulsory alienation of ‘uneconomic’ interests,
Europeanisation of title. Need general data as well as specific examples (such
as Hauani and Ruawahia noted below)
(h)
Hauani originally a gift then forced to swap land (Pokohu) 1910
(i)
Ruawahia 2A incorporated into Maori Investments/Tarawera Forest Act 1967
(j)
Public Works takings (schools, scenic reserves, recreation reserves, roads, rail,
etc); need overview data as well as severe examples (such as loss of wahi
tapu or taonga, failure to compensate, or severing access to wahi tapu/taonga
[e.g., coastal rail line]). Also highlight any gifts of land by iwi (such as native
school sites).
Most of these issues have yet to be researched in relation to Ngati Rangitihi, but
some specific examples of some of the issues are noted here.
Hauane
The transfer of more than 2,000 acres of Crown land at Pikowai to a number of
landless Ngati Rangitihi in the 1910s is a specific issue requiring fresh research. At
this stage, the most significant aspects of the transfer are:



that it was originally intended as a gift to landless Ngati Rangitihi in the early
1900s;
that the Crown reneged on this arrangement and sought to charge Ngati
Rangitihi rent for the land, which they would thus have only on leasehold; and,
the Crown then induced the Ngati Rangitihi owners of Pokohu to give up their
extensive interests in Pokohu in exchange for the smaller area at Hauani.
Hauane is also one of the few examples of Ngati Rangitihi receiving land
development assistance from the government, under the Native land development
schemes of the 1930s to the 1980s. While these schemes have never been found to
constitute a Treaty breach, they can raise issues of importance to those involved in
the schemes.
Allotment 5 Township of Matata
According to Wai 1116 (Ngati Tionga claim), this land was compulsorily acquired for
unpaid rates under the Rating Act 1925. The loss of lands for rates is an issue
requiring fresh research, but this land will be a significant case study of the issue.
Ruawahia 2A
This was one of the last pieces of this important and tapu land remaining to Ngati
Rangitihi in the 20th century. It 1967 it was compulsorily acquired from its owners as
part of the Tarawera forest scheme implemented under the Tarawera Forests Act
1967. The Waitangi Tribunal has inquired into this forest scheme and identified the
ways in which it breached the Treaty, as well as the ways in which it benefited those
Maori owners whose land was acquired for the forest scheme. (Note that the specific
claim of David Potter relating to the compulsory acquisition of some Pokohu lands for
the forest scheme was not found to be a breach of the Treaty).
15
Public Works Takings
Takings for the railway line and for scenic purposes will be a focus but have yet to be
researched.
One notable Public Works taking is the 1908 taking of more than half of Rotomahana
Parekarangi 5B6 (Te Ariki); the 100 acre block was reduced by 53 ½ acres in a
single taking for “internal communications” purposes, although there is no evidence
as to what those purposes were or if the land was ever used for the purpose taken.
The compensation for this land was just £26 15s., which is slightly more than the
survey lien imposed on the 47 acres of the title that remained to Ngati Rangitihi.
At the same time 19 ½ acres of Rotomahana Parekarangi 5B5 was taken from Ngati
Rangitihi owners for the same purpose (and 37 acres of 6Q2B, which seems to be a
predominantly Tuhourangi title).
The land taken in 1908 was returned to Maori ownership as part of the Te
Pumautanga settlement, but this has led to Ngati Rangitihi having to share the land
taken from them with Te Pumautanga.
16
Te Taio: Environmental Issues
(k)
Rangitaiki Plains drainage Thornton Cut 1912/Matata Cut 1917/ Te Awaoteatua
river inlet silts up not enough water to keep it open, loss of pa tuna and other
customary resources
(l)
Pollution of the Tarawera River/Tasman pulp & paper enabling act 1954
(m)
Loss of customary fisheries
(n)
Geothermal resources; especially surface features lost to Crown purchase or
Public Works takings. Also in relation to Crown control of resources important
to tourism after the Tarawera eruption.
Environmental issues are not often accepted as Treaty breaches by the Crown.
The Tarawera River should be a notable exception, but regardless of whether
breaches are accepted or not, there are important environmental matters to be
raised by Ngati Rangitihi. Set out below are some general points about
environmental change and its effects on Ngati Rangitihi.
The loss of Ngati Rangitihi traditional lands through confiscation, Crown purchases
and other alienations under the Native land laws has impacted on the access of the
iwi to resources such as the coast and the various wetlands in the Rangitaiki/
Tarawera valley that traditionally provided food, medicine, and shelter. They also lost
control over some of their urupā and significant sites. This has had an ongoing
impact on the spiritual and physical relationship of the iwi with the land
From the early 1890s onwards, attempts were made by settlers, with the sanction of
the Government, to drain the wetlands of the lower Rangitaiki to make the land more
suitable for farming. The Government took over the local land drainage scheme in
1910 and in 1914 a channel was cut to provide the Rangitaiki River with a direct
route to the sea. In 1917 a similar channel was cut directly to the sea for the
Tarawera River at Otaramuturangi.
The area was famous for the plentiful supply of eels and fish and the breeding of
eels, especially in the warmest thermal waters. Transport was by waka and the
surrounding wetlands were plentiful in kai. The physical characteristics of the
wetlands that were of significant customary value to Ngati Rangitihi were significantly
altered by the drainage and river diversion scheme, and this affected Ngāti Rangitihi
wāhi tapu and traditional gathering areas for food and other resources.
In the 1950s, the Kawerau township and pulp and paper mill were established above
the settlement of Pukeroa, Parawai, and Te Awaoteatua, kainga of Ngāti Rangitihi.
These developments resulted in the pollution and degradation of the Tarawera River,
which was a valuable food and water resource for Ngāti Rangitihi. The Tasman Pulp
and Paper Company Enabling Act 1954 authorised the discharge of waste from the
mill into the Tarawera River in accordance with Pollution Advisory Council guidelines.
Contemporaneously with the passing of the Geothermal Energy Act 1953, the Crown
established for itself, without the consent of Ngāti Rangitihi, the sole right to the
geothermal energy resource in relation to the Kawerau geothermal field, this has
resulted in Ngāti Rangitihi losing access to geothermal resources in the area that it
previously enjoyed.
17
Social and Economic Impacts
(o)
Under-development: social and economic impacts, housing, outward migration
from rohe, loss of Te Reo, education, smoking drinking, flu epidemic (1927)
told not to drink water, significant numbers of Ngati Rangitihi die
(p)
Contribution to war effort: from 1860s to World Wars 1 and 2 (if this is important
to Rangitihi)
Specific information about the flu epidemic needs to be obtained from Ngati
Rangitihi and, if possible, matched to any official records.
Other information about poor health, poor housing, and poor social and
economic outcomes will emerge from pending research into sources such as
Native School files, other government records, and more recent census data.
Examples of such information are given below.
Before the confiscation of Ngati Rangitihi lands around Matata and the Tarawera
river in 1866, they were actively engaged in the cultivation of large kumara gardens,
potatoes, wheat, and flax for sale to and barter with local European traders, and the
export of goods to markets in their own ships. They were also involved in customary
trade with other iwi.
In the wake of the loss of large areas of land to confiscation and Crown land
purchasing during the 19th century, Ngati Rangitihi became a landless and
impoverished people. As a result, they had no reserves to fall back on during serious
climatic events such as droughts or floods, or in the aftermath of the Tarawera
eruption. Many joined other Te Arawa in migrating on a seasonal basis to the
gumfields of Te Tai Tokerau and Hauraki, where harsh and unhealthy conditions and
poor incomes aggravated their plight.
For instance, in 1889 a typhoid epidemic broke out at Matata, and during the early
1890s typhoid, measles, and “infantile paralysis” (polio) were prevalent at Matata,
where most Ngati Rangitihi then lived. This led to prolonged closures of the local
Native school due to the illness and absence of many pupils, and the number of
deaths had such a severe impact on the school roll it was threatened with closure.
In 1896 a local Matata Pakeha JP named H. G. Walmsley reported that Maori were
“nearly starving.” It was "”very painful,” he remarked, “to see Maoris dying round you,
who, in the first case, have some very trifling illness and only want a little attention
and some proper food.” He asked if road work might be available as a means of
alleviating the situation. More inquiries were made by the Native Affairs Department
and ultimately 20 Maori – 10 from Matata and 10 from Te Teko – were employed.
In 1897 Walmsley again informed the Native Department that local Maori were dying
because the “native diet” – consisting largely of potatoes and kumeras – was not
suitable for those suffering from typhoid and other illnesses. He wrote:
I believe there are more Maoris dying from starvation than from
sickness, their friends simply put before them the ordinary Maori food,
and if they don't like it they can leave it alone... it is terrible to see the
unfortunate people dying off as they have been during the last six years.
18
A sum of £10 was placed at Walmsley's disposal, but further outbreaks were beyond
his capacity to deal with. Consequently a doctor was sent to investigate the situation.
He observed a prevalence of what he described as “Maori fever” (typhoid), and
blamed poor diet and “neglect of all hygienic precautions.” There were also,
the usual difficulties in treating natives on account of their objection to be
guided as to the use of medicines... intensified in this case by the
opposition of the priests who have great influence... and who seem
jealous of any interference outside their church...
The doctor left some medicines, however, and provided the JP with rudimentary
instructions about treatment. Further outbreaks occurred soon after, which Walmsley
blamed on “unsanitary home life, diet, and neglect of all hygienic precautions.”
Similar outbreaks occurred right up until the turn of the century. In 1899 Walmsley
attributed these to the “usual causes – “carelessness, neglect and want of proper
nursing.” But this time he was prepared to assign some blame to factors outside
Maori control: “Owing to the Native land Court,” he added, “unusual numbers of
natives are here and the crowded state of the whares and bad sanitary arrangements
cause more sickness than ordinarily.”
In 1897, Ngati Rangitihi petitioned the government for relief as they had no food due
to a drought, and urged the government to have compassion for them. The
government considered their plight was “greatly exaggerated” and provided no relief.
19