Lake Waikaremoana and District Scoping Report

Elizabeth Cox

Waitangi Tribunal December 2001

~i <64lJ- -:H-Acg NOli ~$S" ¥A~

RJ'N If #-A~

1

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 4

CHAPTER ONE ................................................................................................................................. 13

EARLY HISTORY OF THE W AIKAREMOANA DISTRICT .................................................... 13

1.1 TRADITIONAL HISTORY OF THE W AIKAREMOANA DISTRICT ................................................... 13 1.2 MAORI AND PAKEHA CONTACT AT W AIKAREMOANA .............................................................. 22

CHAPTER TWO ................................................................................................................................ ·26

LANDS AT·-W AlKAREMOANA ...................................................................................................... 26

2.1 THE ALIENATION OF THE SOUTHERN WAIKAREMOANA BLOCKS ........................................... 28 2.2 RESERVES FROM TIlE SOUTIlERN BLOCKS .•....•.•..•..................••..•••...............••...•.....•...•.•...•.•.... 32 2.3 THE WAIPAOA BLOCK .•..•...•..............•...•..........•..........•..............••.•••.........•.......•..........•.•..•......... 36 2.4 THE UREWERA NATIVE RESERVE AND THE UREWERA COMMISSIONS ................................... 39 2.5 ALIENATION OF THE WAIKAREMOANA BLOCK ......................................................................... 41 2.6 THE RESERVES FROM THE W AIKAREMOANA BLOCK ............................................................... 45

CHAPTER THREE ............................................................................................................................ 54

THE CROWN AT WAIKAREMOANA .•.•.•....•........•....•...•.••.......•....•..•.••..•..•...•••••............•....•....•.•......•.... 54 3.1 LITIGATION OVER THE LAKE-BED OF WAIKAREMOANA ........................................................... 54 3.2 THE CROWN ASSUMPTION OF RIGHTS AT WAIKAREMOANA ................................................... 58 3.3 HYDRO-ELECTRIC GENERATION AT TIlE LAKE .......................................................................... 62 3.4 RATES .•••. ~ .•.••..•..•.•..••....•..•.........••....•....•..........•...•....•.................•...••......•.....•.....••.....•....•....•...•....• 68

CHAPTER FOUR .............................................................................................................................. 70

RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................... 70

4.1 ADDITIONAL PROJECTS ..•..................•....•.....•...........•..•................••.•...••••..•.......•.........•.•.•..•........• 71 4.2 SUGGESTIONS ••••.•..•............•......................•....•..............•.......•.•..•................•..•....•................•....•.. 71

BIBLIOGRAPHy ............................................................................................................................... 75

2

Figures

Figure 1-Waikaremoana Location Map ........................................................................... 11 Figure 2 - Waikaremoana Topography .............................................................................. 12 Figure 3 - Formation of the Land Blocks ......................................................................... 27 Figure 4 - Southern Block Reserves .................................................................................. 35 Figure 5 - Reserves Created from the Waikaremoana Block ............................................ 48 Figure 6 - Waikaremoana Hydro-Electric Scheme ....................................................... ' .... 69

Tables

Table 1- Petitions with regard to the Waikaremoana Blocks .......................................... 49

Appendices

Appendix 1, Direction Commissioning Research, 4 April 2000 Appendix 2, Collated statements of claim for Waikaremoana district lands, waters and resources

AJHR LINZ NA NLC NZG RDB

Abbreviations

Appendix to the Journal of the House of Representatives Land Information New Zealand National Archives Native Land Court New Zealand Gazette Raupatu Document Bank, Waitangi Tribunal

3

Introduction

This scoping report deals with Lake Waikaremoana, Lake Waikareiti and the lands that

surround the two lakes.1 Lake Waikaremoana is a large and N"ery beautiful lake in the Urewera

district, and has long been sacred to the Maori people. It is situated around 65 kilometers north

of Wairoa, and is now enclosed within the Te Urewera National Park. The western part of the

lake is called Wairaumoana, which is separated from the rest of the lake by the treacherous

Straits of Manaia. To the south of the lake is the towering cliff Panekire. The oudet to

W~ikateJTIQjl,n::t k the W a,ik~1:etjl,hekeRiver,1~.k.e:W:lik:2:re#ijs .. ~strlall<:!1:1a:.k.et()~t.h:~ n2r~t.h: ~oL

Waikaremoana, which contains six bush-clad islands, and is much less accessible than

Waikaremoana. Although the two lakes look very close on a map, the smaller lake is significandy

higher than Waikaremoana - within the 4 kilometres between them, the land rises 1,500 feet,

making Waikareiti the highest lake in the North Island.

A number of claims made to the Waitangi Tribunal relate to the Waikaremoana district.2

Wai 36 is the claim of James Wharehuia Milroy, Tamaroa Nikora and the Tuhoe-Waikaremoana

Maori Trust Board on behalf of the Tuhoe people. 3 The amendment made to the claim in 2000,

which says it is a 'consolidated statement of Tuhoe claims', refers to several issues that are

relevant to this report. It complains that Tuhoe's interests in the four blocks to the south of

Waikaremoana were 'wrongly confiscated' by the Crown by awarding the tide to the land to

Ngati Kahungunu, forcing Tuhoe to cede its interests in the lands under threat of confiscation,

and for failing to ensure that the Native Land Court followed a fair and proper process (Wai 36;

1.4). The claim also mentions the Urewera District Native Reserve Act 1896, and the Urewera

Consolidation Scheme, both of which were used by the Crown to acquire Tuhoe land, including

land at Waikaremoana. The claim says that the Crown ignored Tuhoe's desire not to part with

the Waikaremoana block, and that the manner in which the consolidation scheme was run

caused considerable disadvantage to Tuhoe. It also complains about the actions of the Native

Land Court in relation to the Waipaoa block. In relation to Lake Waikaremoana, the claim states

that the Crown:

The Crown has failed to recognise Tuhoe tribal authority over Waikaremoana through the Native Land Court wrongly including Ngati Kahungunu as owners, through persistendy challenging Maori ownership of

1 See appendix 1, direction commissioning research, 4 April 2000, RW 04 record of inquiry, doc 3.13

2 Refer to appendix 2, copies of statements of claim for Waikaremoana district lands, waters and resources.

3 Wai 36 Statement of Claim, 31 March 1987 and amendment, Consolidated Statement ofTuhoe claims, 15 February 2000, Wai 36 record of inquiry, doc 1.1(a).

4

Waikaremoana and through exploiting the resources of Waikaremoana for hydro-electric generation purposes without ensuring a proper economic return to Tuhoe.4

The claim also complains of conservation practices and polices that have restricted Tuhoe use

and development of the limited remaining Tuhoe lands, and also complained that the Crown has

failed to recognise Tuhoe's rights in respect to rivers, waterways, fisheries and other flora and

fauna in the Tuhoe rohe.

V Winitana and the Panekiri Tribal Trust Board also have submitted a claim in relation to

Lake Waikaremoana, Wai 144. The claim states that the Panekiri Tribal Trust Board is the

trustee of all the remaining lands of Ngati Ruapani, Ngati Hinekura and Te Whanaupani of

Waikaremoana. The claim states that the lake and the surrounding lands were alienated without

the consenfofNgatiRuaparu, and a-sKsiliatilielana ana-takebeteturheawtllePafiekiri i'ribal

Trust Board.s

The general claim of Ngati Kahungunu, Wai 201, encompasses the Waikaremoana region

within the area it claims. It says that the traditional rohe of Kahungunu is the area from Cape

Palliser to Mahia Peninsula 'and inland to the southeastern shores of Lake Waikaremoana'. The

claims says that when Ngati Kahungunu were awarded the four southern Waikaremoana blocks

(Ruakituri, Taramarama, Tukurangi and Waiau), they were forced to give up the Kauhouroa

block Gust south of these blocks). It also says that the southern Waikaremoana blocks were not

allocated to the 'true Ngati Kahungunu owners' and were sold immediately 'despite Ngati

Kahungunu protests,.6 It is instructive to note that the claim stops at the shores of the lake, and

does not include the lake itself.

Wai 301 is a claim made by Tiopira Te Rauna Hape for the Taiwhenua 0 Te Wairoa and

for Te Runanga 0 Ngati Rakaipaaka. This claim covers the Patunamu state forest within its

ambit, and thus the Tukurangi block on which the forest is located.7

Wai 425 is a claim made by Wi Te Tau Huata on behalf of Ngai Tama Te Rangi for the

Tukurangi block on which the Patunamu state forest now grows. Wi Huata claims that Ngai

Tama Te Rangi neither sold nor gifted this land to anyone.8 A further claim for Ngai Tama Te

Rangi has been lodged by Charlie Cotter. Wai 506 is a claim for the Waiau and Tukurangi blocks

in which it is alleged that Ngai Tama Te Rangi were prejudiced by legislation such as the East

Coast Lands Act 1868 that enabled the Native Land Court to compulsorily investigate title to the

4 Ibid, para 6.0 5 Wai 144 Statement of Claim, 26 April 1990 and amendment 12 November 1992 6 Wai 102 Statement of Claim, 14 May 1991

7 Wai 301 Statement of Claim, 15 June 1992

8 Wai 425 Statement of Claim, 22 March 1994

5

lands south of Waikaremoana, and by the Te Hatepe agreement of 1867, in which the terms of

the Wattoa cession were setded.9

A claim that makes very similar accusations to Wai 36 regarding the hydro-electricity

scheme at Waikaremoana is Wai 621, from the Wairoa-Waikaremoana Maori Trust Board (a

Ngati Kahungunu body). In addition, it also complains about the (then) proposed sale of the

stations by the Crown, and asks that the Crown retain ownership of the stations, so that they

could be used for treaty setdements. This claim also complains of the failure of the Crown to

protect the interests of Ngati Kahungunu through a number of different acts, particularly in

relation to the purchase of the southern Waikaremoana blocks.lO

~Wai~-87 ;~anotherNgati K~hungunu dainrlodged~by~Teek~rt)i~un~71nd-clhers()ft

behalf of the Tareha Taraia Trust, also complains of the Crown's proposal to sell the

Waikaremoana power stations, and alleges that the interests of the owners of Waikaremoana

were not being offered proper protection during the process.ll (Since these two claims were

lodged in 1996 and 1997 respectively, the Crown has since transferred the ownership of these

stations from ECNZ to the new State Owned Enterprise, Genesis Power Limited. This means

that the stations have remained in public ownership, and at the time of writing, it seems that the

new Labour government does not intend to sell the stations).

Part of the Wai 761 claim from Peter Keepa complains of the Crown's act of 'wrongfully

recording the ownership and control of the lake', and of denying Tuhoe the full use and benefit

of the lake.12 Wai 795, from Hirini Paine on behalf of Tuhoe Potiki, relates to the waters of

Waikaremoana, Waikareiti, and Kiri 0 Pu Kai and states that they are both taonga of the Tuhoe

people. The claim also seeks to draw attention to the fact that the Crown 'took it upon

themselves to conduct negotiations concerning Waikaremoana and related issues with other iwi

who had lost any former interests, customary association, or had no legitimate interest

whatsoever'. It also mentions the alienation of a pa site near the lake at T e Onepoto, the

desecration of wahi tapu, environmental damage in and around the lake, loss of indigenous

species in the area and the degradation of the mauri of the Waikaremoana waters.13

Hinemoa Herewini and Trainor Tait have lodged a claim on behalf of the descendants of

Noa Tiwai, Wai 937. This claim alleges that they were prejudiced by: the military actions of the

Crown at Waikaremoana in the 1860s and 1870s; the Native Land Court investigations ofWaiau,

Taramarama, Ruakituri and Tukurangi blocks, the East Coast Land Tides Investigation Act 1866;

9 Wai 506 Statement of Claim, 11 April 1995 10 Wai 621 Statement of Claim, 12 September 1996 11 Wai 687 Statement of Claim, 16 May 1997 12 Wai 761 Statement of Claim, 12 September 1998 13 Wai 795 Statement of Claim, 5 May 1999 and amendment, 6 August 2001, Wai 795, 1.1(a)

6

the Urewera District Native Reserve Act 1896, the Urewera commission hearings of 1907 and

the Urewera Lands Act 1921/22; the National Parks Act 1952; the Maori Affairs Act 1953; and

the Lake Waikaremoana Act 1972. As a result of the imposition of this legislation, the claimants

allege dispossession of:

... their economic and sustaining resources, including the land, mahinga kai, birding, cultivation, gathering

and fishing resources.

As a result of Crown intervention the Claimants were dislocated from their traditional lands, wahi tapu,

and resources and as a consequence destabilised their traditional patters of resource use, economic

structures and societies.14

The Wai 937 claimants also allege widespread environmental impacts as a result of

. Crown actions. They n6fethit wihitapuhivebeendariiagea;aepleteaandpoTIutedbylarid

management practices, including deforestation of indigenous bush, exotic afforestation, pollution

and mismanagement of the lake waters, accelerated soil erosion and flooding. is

The most recent claim lodged with the Tribunal with respect to Waikaremoana is Wai

945, a claim made by Desmond Renata for Ngati Ruapani in respect of the Waiau,Tukurangi,

Taramarama, Ruakituri and Waikaretaheke valley lands. Wai 945 seeks compensation for the use

and alienation of Ruapani ancestral lands, forests and watelways by the Crown. It also seeks

compensation for the Crown's "scorched earth policy" at Waikaremoana during the New

Zealand wars and the return of surplus lands and utilities acquired by the Crown for the

Waikaremoana hydro-electric scheme. The claimants state that the Crown wrongfully recorded

the ownership of the Waiau, Taramarama, Tukurangi and Ruakituri blocks and vested them in

Ngati Kahungunu as "payment for their assistance to the Crown [.,.J which is inconsistent with

the Treaty ofWaitangi".16

The large number of claims citing the W aikaremoana region make it clear that the region

has been, and continues to be, a very contested district. For this reason, the Tribunal has found

it is necessary to commission independent research about the region. This scoping report has

been written to prepare for this research. Its first aim is to assess the existing research held by

the Tribunal relating to the district, and to identify any further sources that will be helpful for a

discussion about the district. It was then necessary to identify any issues that have not been

adequately dealt with in these sources, and which will require further research for the purposes

of inquiry into the claims. The third aim of this report is to make recommendations for the

management of future Tribunal-commissioned research in respect of Waikaremoana lands and

14 Wai 937 Statement of Claim, 2 July 2001, paras 5.2-5.3

is Ibid, para 6.1

16 Wai 945 Statement of Claim, 30 June 2001, para 10, p 3

7

waters. Finally, this report also aims to .gtve a general background to claimants and other

interested parties as to what issues further Tribunal-commissioned research about the region may

deal with, so that they may make comments and suggestions to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal commission highlighted a wide range of issues that would need discussion

and investigation in this report. These were:

(a) Assertions of customary interests at Lake Waikaremoana up to and including the

period of contact with Pakeha;

(b) Events that took place at Waikaremoana between contact and the period of the New

Zealand wars in the 1860s;

(c) ThecessionandsIDeofiarrdi:uthe'SouthofLakeWaikaremoaru.m·1 g.6~"7 5, and

their impact on interests and relationships in the Waikaremoana district;

(d) The effects of the Urewera District Native Reserve Act 1896;

(e) The impact of scenery preservation and the growth of the tourism trade on

government policy;

(f) The impact of the Urewera Lands Act 1921-2 on Waikaremoana lands and owners;

(g) The title investigation of the lake-beds ofWaikaremoana and Waikareiti;

(h) The Waikaremoana hydro-scheme and other public works;

(i) The effect of the Urewera National Park;

0) The statutes, by-laws and management plans that have had effect at Waikaremoana;

(k) The Crown management of lands and waters at Waikaremoana.

A number of reports have already been written about Lake Waikaremoana, and the history of the

Urewera district in general, as part of the research programme for the Tribunal's Urewera and

Wairoa district inquiries. Many of these reports have been written to advocate for one particular

claimant group or other. A number of reports have been commissioned on behalf of the

Panekiri Tribunal Trust Board claimants (Wai 144) by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust. These

are Vincent O'Malley's reports: 'The Crown & Ngati Ruapani: Confiscation & Land Purchase in

the Wairoa-Waikaremoana Area, 1865-1875'; and 'The Crown's Acquisition of the

Waikaremoana Block, 1921-25'; and a report about the alienation of the Waipaoa Block by

Emma Stevens 17. Stevens has also written a report about the history of the litigious battle for

ownership of the lake-beds of Waikaremoana and Waikareiti, although it is not yet been placed

17 Vincent O'Malley, 'The Crown & Ngati Ruapani: Confiscation & Land Purchase in the Wairoa-Waikaremoana Area, 1865-1875', October 1994, (Wai 144 record of documents, doc A3) and 'The Crown's Acquisition of the Waikaremoana Block, 1921-25', May 1996, (Wai 144 record of documents, doc A7). Emma Stevens, 'Report on the history of the Waipaoa Block, 1882-1913', May 1996, (Wai 144 record of documents, doc A8). An earlier report by O'Malley also deals with the East Coast

8

on the Tribunal record. IS As far as the author is aware, there are no reports commissioned by or

for Ngati Kahungunu claimants to the Tribunal specifically about the Waikaremoana region.

In addition, a large number of reports have been written about the Urewera district as a

whole. The most comprehensive history of the region is Te Urewera by Anita Miles, written for

the Waitangi Tribunal's Rangahaua Whanui series, which gives an overview history of the whole

region. 19 Another useful work about the Tuhoe history of the region is Te Urewera Nga Iwi Te

Whenua Te Ngahere: People, Land and Forests of Te Urewera, by Evelyn Stokes, J Wharehuia Milroy

and Hirini Melbourne. As well as dealing with the history of the region, it provides valuable

insights into the current situation of the people of Urewera in the 1980s.20 A thesis written in

---1994--about-theregi011-by -Robert-W:i:ri;-··'T-e-W-ai~auk~u--o-Nga-· Mat-au·-T-ipuna~;M-yths,--Realitiesi

and the Determination of Mana Whenua in the Waikaremoana District', has also provided many

useful insights into the history of the Waikaremoana district, again written from the point of

view of the Tuhoe people.21 Also useful are two reports by Leah Campbell into the history of

the National Park and the history of alienation and consolidation in the Urewera, both written

for an overview project of the district commissioned by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust.22 Joy

Hippolite's report about the Wairoa district for the Tribunal's Rangahaua Whanui series also

discusses the Waikaremoana region, particularly the southern Waikaremoana blocks.23 Judith

Binney has been commissioned by CFRT to produce two overview reports for the Urewera

district inquiry that will also examine matters relevant to the Waikaremoana claims. These reports

are in draft form and have not yet been released to the Waitangi Tribunal's public record.

In addition to reviewing the secondary sources, a search of primary sources, mainly files

in National Archives in Wellington, has been carried out for this scoping exercise. Although it

was important to briefly examine them in an attempt to unearth new issues, is was impossible to

exhaustively examine all of the files in the limited time available.

This report has been organised around a number of themes. Each chapter will discuss

the basic source material that is currendy available and make suggestions on ways in which the

research on that topic could be expanded. Throughout the discussion I have tried to go into

confiscation in wider context: Vincent O'Malley, 'East Coast Confiscation Legislation and its Implementation', February 1944 (Wai 144 record of documents, doc A2). 18 Emma Stevens, 'Report on the history of the title to the lake-bed of Lake Waikaremoana and Lake Waikareiti', CFRT research report, February 1996 (confidential). 19 Anita Miles, Te Urewera, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series, first release, March 1999 20 Evelyn Stokes, J Wharehuia Milroy and Hirini Melbourne, Te Urewera Ngai Iwi Te Whenua Te Ngahere: People, Land and Forests of Te Urewera, Hamilton, 1986 21 Robert Win, 'Te Wai-kaukau 0 Nga Matau Tipuna: Myths, Realities, and the Determination of Mana Whenua in the Waikaremoana District', MA thesis, University of Auckland, 1994 22 S K L Campbell, 'Urewera Overview Project Four: Te Urewera National Park 1952-75', June 1999, (Wai 36 record of documents, doc A13) and 'Land Alienation, Consolidation and Development in the Urewera 1912 - 1950', July 1997, (Wai 36 record of documents, doc A9) 23 Joy Hippolite, Wairoa, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series, first release, November 1996

9

more detail about 1ssues on which little research exists, to provide a basis for further

investigation.

The flrst chapter collates the sources that discuss the traditional history of the

Waikaremoana lands and lake. This chapter also lists the sources that discuss the history of the

lake from the time of contact with Europeans until the end of the New Zealand wars and the

raids on the lake during the Te Kooti campaigns.

The second chapter discusses the alienation of the lands that surround Lake

Waikaremoana and Lake Waikareiti. Quite a lot of work has already been done on this topic in a

number of different reports, and so this chapter concentrates largely on summarizing these

l:eports~a~dhlghlightingissue~th~rwi11need 1:o-be-exam:ined~ further.-T~e fate~f1:he-1:esetves

made from these blocks is also discussed in this chapter.

The third chapter begins with a discussion of the long history of litigation surrounding

the lake-bed of Waikaremoana. It follows the history of the litigation from the initial Crown

attempts to lay claim to the lake in the late nineteenth century through until the 1970s, when the

lease of the lake-bed was signed between the Maori owners of the lake and the government. This

then forms the context for discussion of the actions of the Crown with relation to the lake and

its surrounding lands, particularly the creation of the power generation scheme on the

Waikaremoana lake and rivers. The chapter also discusses the sources that provide information

about the Crown's management of the lake from the time of the signing of the lake-bed lease in

the 1970s until the present day.

The Mal chapter makes some recommendations as to how further Tribunal­

commissioned reports should be designed to best research the issues brought up in the claims,

and makes recommendations for further research that needs to be done.

It is hoped that claimants and other parties will discuss the issues raised in this report with

Tribunal staff, in order to ensure that the Tribunal-commissioned work on the district reflects

their issues and concerns. Likewise, the Tribunal would welcome comment on the maps

included in this report from claimants and other interested parties. These maps should be

regarded as provisional. Any Tribunal-commissioned report that follows this one will probably

include maps that show more detail than was necessary here.

10

Figure 1- Waikaremoana Location Map

o 10 20 30 40 50km '~"~"~"~,':~'ir'~~'====~' r=~'==~' b " , " 1'0 20 30miles

Bay of Plenty

Main roads

Crown forests

Hawke Bay

Eastern BoP confiscation - boundary 1866

C:::::::::1 Urewera National Park

~gg Topography (in metres)

North

11

11

10 20 30km t I ! ! ,

, - I

Hawke Bay

KEY:

_._ Lake's catchment

Walroa

TYPICAL CROSS·SECTION

12

Chapter One

Early history of the Waikaremoana district

The many pa, urupa and wahi tapu around the edge of Waikaremoana indicate a long history of

habitation in the Waikaremoana region. This chapter discusses the research that examines this

history and the customary ownership of the lake and the land surrounding it. Any gaps

identified in the existing research will then be followed up in more detail in the reports, and also,

of course, through information provided to the Tribunal by claimants.24 It also discusses the

- sourcesavmablethaLdiscussthe coutactwithPakeha", JheNewZealall(tWa:tsJllld1:h~~r~KQQti

raids.

1.1 Traditional history of the Waikaremoana district

The Waikaremoana region is a 'border area' - a nexus where the Urewera and Wairoa regions,

and its peoples, meet. It has been an area fiercely fought over for many years by a number of

different groups. Three main groups, Ngati Kahungunu, Tuhoe, and Ngati Ruapani, have made

claims to the Tribunal in relation to the Waikaremoana lake and lands. These groups have, at

various times, been in conflict over the Waikaremoana region, and each have a different view of

the customary ownership of the region. It is not the function of this report to try and unravel

these versions - that is too great a task for a scoping report - but instead to simply try and

outline the sources that provide some information about the issues involved, and to try and

outline some of the main threads of these arguments.

There are usually two main points at issue in discussions relating to Waikaremoana's

customary history. The first is the status of Ngati Ruapani. This group have long been tangata

whenua at the lake, but over the years, in both Maori and governmental records, they have

variously been classified as a sub-tribe of Tuhoe or a hapu of Ngati Kahungunu. The second,

obviously inter-related, issue is the boundary between these three groups. It is clear that the

customary ownership situation at Waikaremoana changed in important ways in the nineteenth

century; it is therefore not surprising that the issue was still being disputed when many of the

discussions quoted below took place, and indeed still is today.

There are a number of sources that shed light on the issue of customary ownership of

the lake itself. Elsdon Best wrote about the region in Tuhoe: Children oj the Mist, and in a work

24 The claimants to the Tribunal will be able to do this through traditional history reports, and by submissions and oral evidence to the Tribunal

13

dedicated to the lake itself, Waikare-moana: The Sea of the Rippling Waters.25 He writes that the

N gati Ruapani people who occupied the lake 'was an East Coast clan, and not connected with

Nga Potiki or Tuhoe,.26 He writes that Tuhoe began to invade the lake region in around 1660,

when a series of batdes occurred, resulting in a number of Ngati Ruapani chiefs being killed. He

says that peace was then maintained between the two groups until the 1820s, when, during their

wars with many of the tribes of the whole East Coast region, Tuhoe turned their attention to

Waikaremoana again. Ngati Ruapani were attacked on the northern shore of the lake, in around

1823, whereupon they fled to another fortified pa on the southern shores. After winning further

batdes, Tuhoe again made peace with Ngati Ruapani, and Tuhoe returned home. The following

yeay,however,~aninfamous~acre-occurred~t T dna='(J~ Tikitiki;~a-caveiJtl-thenorthern'8hOie

of the lake. Best says that at the time, two Tuhoe hapu were living at the lake - Ngai Te Riu (or

Ngati Hinekura) and the Urewera hapu. A force led, according to Best, by a Ngati Ruapani chief

Te Horehore, found the Tuhoe living there without defences and killed a great many people.27

According t9 Best, this event was the catalyst that lead to Tuhoe's decision to permanendy expel

Ngati Ruapani from the lake and take over possession of the district. In the resulting bloodshed,

Ngati Kahungunu apparendy came to the aid of their Ngati Ruapani relatives, and Best argues

that 'from this time onwards until all fighting ceased between Tuhoe and the lake and coast

tribes, Ngati-Rua-pani and Ngati-Kihu-ngunu acted together against the common foe of

Tuhoeland'.28

After further batdes in 1826, Best argues that only those Ngati Ruapani who were related

to Tuhoe were able to remain at the lake, and these groups 'subsequendy intermarried much with

the Tuhoe residents, so that their descendants are one and the same people'.29 Best then

described the redoubts that Tuhoe then set up around the lake, and said that the land was

divided among the hapu that had been involved in taking it, Ngai Te Riu, Ngati Rongo and

Tamakaimoana. Ngati Kahungunu continued to try to conquer the lake, but peace was finally

setded, Best says, sometime after 1826.

Robert Wiri's thesis is a useful discussion of these issues and provides very valuable

information about the Tuhoe and Ruapani oral history traditions concerning Waikaremoana, and

their on-going connection with the region. Essentially, his sequence of the occupation of

Waikaremoana is roughly the same as that of Best, although there are important differences. The

first stage of his sequence was the ascendancy of the ancestor Mahu-tapoa-nui. It was Mahu's

25 Elsdon Best, Tuboe: Cbildren ojtbe Mist, 1925, [reprint Wellington, 1996] especially pp. 498-518 and Waikare~moana: Tbe Sea ojtbe Rippling Waters, n.d. [reprint Wellington, 1975]. 26 Best, Tuboe, p. 498 27 Best, Tuboe, pp. 501-4 28 Best, Tuboe, p. 507

14

daughter who, having been changed into a taniwha, caused the creation of Waikaremoana

through her desperate struggles to get to the sea before the sun rose. There are many places and

events that recall Mahu's stay at the lake. The second period, Wiri argues, was the eclipse of

Mahu by the descendants of Ruapani. The third stage was 'the annexation of Waikaremoana by

Tuhoe'. Wiri takes issue with Best's analysis of the nineteenth century batdes that occurred at

the lake, and also with Best's identification and use of the term 'Ruapani'. Wiri argues that where

Best thought that it was Ngati Ruapani at war with Tuhoe, it was in fact Ngati Kahungunu hapu

against Tuhoe, and that, for example, the killing of Tuhoe chiefs in 1823 was actually done by

Ngati Kahungunu hapu, not Ngati Ruapani.30 He therefore argues that the ensuing batdes were

·-notllconquestofTuhoe·overNgatiRuapani,~· Best had iu:gued,..bm.the-conquest4.'I'uhoe.and .

Ngati Ruapani ki Waikaremoana over the Ngati Kahungunu of the upper-Wairoa region.31

It needs to be noted that Wiri's thesis has been written from a particular point of view.

It was written to assist Tuhoe claims to the lake and to completely reject all Ngati Kahungunu

claims to the lake. Wiri's argument rests on the assumption that Ruapani are a 'section of Tuhoe'.

He says, with echoes of Best, that 'the Tuhoe and Ngati Ruapani can be said to be one and the

same people through centuries of intermarriage between the two tribes'. He does not specify at

what date be believes this merging of the two groups was finally complete, although it seems that

he would place this in the late nineteenth century. He does say, however, that 'it is significant to

note that throughout their land claims the tangata whenua of Waikaremoana have always

acknowledged their ancestral claim under Ruapani,.32 Best, on the other hand, seems to say that

the Tuhoe invasion destroyed Ruapani's claim to the lake completely.

While Angela Ballara agrees that the peacemaking between Tuhoe and Ngati Ruapani

meant an intermingling of the two groups in the nineteenth century, she disputes Best's

statement that the two tribes 'may now be said to be almost one and the same people'. Likewise,

she disputes the governmental definitions of Ngati Ruapani as either a sub-tribe of Tuhoe, or of

Ngati Kahungunu, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. She says that they remain a

genealogically distinct people, and while perhaps overshadowed by their neighbors, they

'continued in the status and activities of a major social group'.33 She notes that this situation was

common for many of the non-Tuhoepotiki groups that surrounded Tuhoe during the nineteenth

century - that despite Tuhoe's expansion into their area, and the intermingling caused by

29 Best, Tuboe, pp. 509-510 30Wiri, p. 140-141 31 Wiri, p. 170 32 Wiri, P 161 33 Angela Ballara, 'The Origins of Ngati Kahungunu', PhD thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, 1991, p.130 and Iwi: Tbe Dynamics of Maori Tribal Organisation from c.1769 to c.1945, Wellington, 1998, p. 133 and p. 345, fn. 56

15

marriage 'there was no question of tribal unity; the various groups making up the greater Tuhoe

iwi continued to live, fight and make decisions separately,.34

Although Win is no doubt correct in saying that most Ngati Ruapani at Waikaremoana

now identify was Tuhoe, it is problematic to so rigidly project this modern identification back to

the events of earlier times. There were times when Ngati Ruapani were clearly at odds with

Tuhoe, and were working independently of them, as Ballara has argued. It seems doubtful that

Wiri has been careful to explore the possible differences between Ruapani and Tuhoe, in the

light of his determination to make a stark difference between Ngati Kahungunu and 'Tuhoe­

Ruapani'. An example of where we can see this is his discussion of this statement made by Hori

. ·Wharerangitt}i:heUreweraC~mmission's1nvestigatiOfr6f4eWaikaremoana-hlec.Jc...ffi. 1.s99~

E unu ana ahau i runga i te ahua 0 etahi wahi e mate ana ahau i te Kawanatanga ara ko Waipaoa Poraka [ ... ] Kua oti te hoatu i tenei whenua e Tuhoe ki to ringa. Ko te mate tuatahi tenei i mahia nei e koe, ki mure tena ko te whakawa. Ehara tenei i te takahi i te ture [ ... ] engari ka pa mai te whiu a te Kawanatanga ki toku tinana a muri ake nei

I am withdrawing [this block] because of the burdens created by the Government in respect to the Waipaoa Block [ ... ] Tuhoe have placed this land under your jurisdiction. That was the first grievance created by you. After that there is the survey and then after that an investigation of tide.35

O'Malley, writing for the Ngati Ruapani claimants, suggests that the speaker seems to be alluding

to a complaint that Tuhoe and the government had placed the Waikaremoana block into the

Urewera reserve without the consent of Ngati Ruapani. He says that Ruapani, who had

experienced the alienation of the Waipaoa block and the southern blocks, 'remained more wary

than other sections of Tuhoe without the same disastrous experiences of Government land

dealings'.36 Win, on the other hand, passes over this statement without comment, simply saying

that 'it is evident from these statements that Tuhoe/Ruapani questioned the authority of the

Commission and the Crown's motives in protecting their lands', a quite different view of

Wharerangi's statements.37

There do seem to be times when Ngati Ruapani seem to be asserting, if not a completely

separate right to the lake, at least that their mana to the lake should be recognised as separate

from that of Tuhoe's. O'Malley's discussion of the hui at the time of the consolidation in the

1920s seems to show this with great clarity.38 Ngati Ruapani's protests, independent of Tuhoe,

do not necessarily mean that they were a separate group, of course; many Tuhoe hapu protested

sales while still remaining Tuhoe. It does show, however, that that the nuance of the relationship

34 Ballara, 1wi, p. 294 35 Hori Wharerangi, Urewera Minute Book 3, p. 188-9, cited in Wid, p. 250. Translation by Wiri 36 O'Malley, 'The Crown's Acquisition of the Waikaremoana Block', p. 34 37 Wid, p. 251 38 O'Malley, 'The Crown's Acquisition of the Waikaremoana Block', chapter 8

16

between Ngati Ruapani and Tuhoe needs to be explored with care, and that a simple conflation

of the two groups can create a blindness to the differences between the actions and rights of the

two groups. This is an issue that will need to be explored further in the subsequent report.

Wiri's thesis has been used as the basis of many of the reports that have been written for

the Tribunal's inquiry of the lake, and some appear to have taken Wiri's work at face value, and

have also used the designation 'Tuhoe-Ruapani' without question. Emma Stevens, for example,

who has written two reports for the Panekiri Tribal Trust, which represents Ngati Ruapani

interests under Wai 144, simply refers to Tuhoe and Ruapani as 'Tuhoe/Ruapani', and rarely

distinguishes between the actions of one iwi and the actions of the other.

O'MalleyalS(}tlses~the~phr~se'Ttthoe-Ruapalli' 4:o-seme ~*rent4n-bi&±eports,but-i&-mot€

careful to distinguish the differences between the two groups wherever possible.39 It is

interesting to note that in a submission to the Waitangi Tribunal in 1996, counsel for the Tuhoe­

Waikaremoana Maori Trust Board says, with regard to O'Malley's report 'The Crown & Ngati

Ruapani: Confiscation & Land Purchase in the Wairoa-Waikaremoana Area', that 'Tuhoe

steadfastly maintains that the narrative of grievances outlined in reference in Mr. O'Malley's

report is a Tuhoe narrative,.40

Wiri uses his thesis to dispute the claims of the Ngati Kahungunu to the lake. He rejects

completely the arguments made by those Kahungunu giving evidence at the Native Land Court

sessions into the ownership of the lake-bed. None of the other reports on the record have

discussed the claims to the ownership of the lake or the surrounding lands by Ngati Kahungunu

in any detail. A Tribunal-commissioned report, if it is to examine the history of the lake and

region, will therefore have to examine the primary records in some detail.

There are a number of useful primary sources that deal with the customary ownership of

the lake and surrounding region. One of the earliest recorded statements about the different

interests in the lake region is found in the records of a meeting that took place to discuss the

ownership of the southern blocks in October 1875. 41 The meeting took place at Wairoa, after

Urewera chiefs arrived at the Native Land Court to dispute the Ngati Kahungunu ownership of

the land. The court session itself was postponed in favour of this meeting. Senior chiefs of both

Tuhoe and Ngati Kahungunu were present and the minutes provide interesting, detailed, and

often angry, discussions of the boundaries between Kahungunu and Tuhoe. In this exchange,

Tuhoe speakers said that a boundary existed between Tuhoe and Kahungunu to the south of the

lake; the line given usually touched the Mangapapa Stream, to the south of the lake, and then

39 O'Malley, 'The Crown & Ngati Ruapani' and 'The Crown's Acquisition of the Waikaremoana Block, 1921-25' op cit. 40 Submission of D J Ambler, counsel for Tuhoe-Waikaremoana Maori Trust Board and the Wairoa-Waikaremoana Maori Trust Board, to the Waitangi Tribuna~ 27 May 1996, (Wai 144 record of documents, doc A5), p.8

17

across to the Ruakituri Range to the east. In opposition, the boundary given by the Ngati

Kahungunu speakers was the Huiarau Range, to the north of the lake.

Discussion also ranged over the relationships between Ngati Ruapani, Ngati Kahungunu

and Tuhoe. At one point a Ngati Kahungunu speaker, Hapimana Tunupaura, addressed himself

direcdy to Ngati Ruapani, who he called 'remnants of Kahungunu and Ruapani'. He told them

that they were being 'effaced by the Urewera'. He said that Ngati Ruapani should come to him

for help: 'I will help you to the utmost of my power for you, those whose right to land entides

them to be so dealt with,.42 Unsurprisingly, there was also a great deal of discussion about the

recent wars, and their on-going meaning for the ownership of the region. The minutes of the

·-courtsessiorrtharfoHowettthishui>trealso>tveryuseful..g()uree;43 .

Also of great interest will be the records of the first and second Urewera Commission,

which determined the ownership of the Waikaremoana block, and the ownership of the Urewera

in general. The investigation of the Urewera Commission into the Waikaremoana block began in

1901. The argument made by Hurae Puketapu of Tuhoe at the first hearing was that:

the only take Tuhoe bring forward is conquest, and also the Ruapani hapus[;] that conquest was made by Tuhoe and those Ruapani hapus allied to them, not Ruapani proper. Tuhoe and N. Ruapani have arranged this to be one block without division, following the advice of our old men that Waikare should be put through in this shape not divided. All the names put in for the block to go on these two takes.44

During the appeals (often known as the Second Urewera Commission), a great deal of evidence

was also given in regard to the Ngati Kahungunu claims to the region. This evidence has not

been discussed from the point of view of Ngati Kahungunu in detail in any of the reports on the

Tribunal record. A number of arguments were made by Kahungunu witnesses: that Kahungunu

had lived on the land in the southern blocks until the introduction of Christianity; that Ruapani

had never lived on the land; and that Kahungunu rights came from Te Kapumatotoru, a

descendant of Makoro, who was one of the five off-spring of Hinemanuhiri. Wi Pere gave

evidence for Ngati Kahungunu saying that the Huiarau Range, to the north of Waikaremoana,

was the boundary between Tuhoe and Kahungunu and that therefore Lake Waikaremoana was

part of Ngati Kahungunu territory. In later investigations of the region, the Huiarau Range was

often later simply called 'the Wi Pere boundary,.45

41 The records of the meeting are reproduced in AfHR, 1876, G-1A. 42 AfHR, 1876, G-1A 43 Napier Native Land Court minute book 4 44 Urewera Minute Book 5, p. 332, reproduced in O'Malley 'The Crown's Acquisition of the Waikaremoana Block', document bank, volume 1, p. 207 45 See for example the evidence of Hukanui Watene, Wairoa Native Land Court minute book 27, pp.317-8

18

Another extremely useful source of information will of course be the records of the

litigation regarding the lake-bed of Waikaremoana.46 In the original hearing of the case, in the

1910s, Ngati Ruapani claimed their rights to the lake through permanent occupation, papatipu,

conquest and mana rangatira. Hurae Puketapu gave evidence that the boundary between Ngati

Ruapani and Ngati Kahungunu lay between Te Apiti and Pukehuruhuru (to the south of the

lake), and a boundary between Ngati Ruapani and Tuhoe ran from Te Apiti to the Huiarau

Range.47 Evidence given by Kahungunu in respect to the boundary accorded with the boundary

given by Wi Pere to the Urewera Commission. Evidence given by Hukanui Watene said that the

Huiarau range was the boundary between Tuhoe and Kahungunu, and that 'Ruapani were on the

·-Kahungunu-mde;Theybecame-conneeted--by-martiage;--R:uM-eret~daughter-ef--Ruapani

married Kahungunu. Tuhoe half-castes had rights on this side [i.e. Waikaremoana] of Huiarau

but the Tuhoe 'tututu' are confined to the other side of Huiarau,.48

Useful evidence was also given at the Appellate Court hearing into the lake-bed title

almost thirty years later. At one point, a witness for Ngati Ruapani said:

We do not deny that we ate telated to Ngati Kahungunu but we say most definitely that we ate not Ngati Kahungunu. We have been ftequendy connected with Kahungunu by mattiage but we have always treated outs elves as a sepatate tribe [ ... J We ate also telated to Tuhoe and we think that we ate mote telated to Tuhoe than Kahungunu [ ... J Tuhoe and Ruapani ate identical and have always been identical as fat as their land claims ate concetned. I mean that the land has always been claimed undet Tuhoe and Ruapani joindy.49

The evidence given during the original investigation into the Waipaoa blockin 1889 provides

much information about the customary ownership of Lake Waikateiti and the surrounding land

and the relationships between Tuhoe, Ngati Ruapani and Ngati Kahungunu in that area. See

Figure 3 of this report for a map of the block. It also provides an insight into the way in which

the people of the 1880s viewed the inter-relationships between these two groups. One of the

main spokesmen during the hearing was Hapimana Tunupaura, of Ngati K.ahungunu, who told

the court that he spoke for both Ngati Kahungunu and Ngati Ruapani. He said that he did not

believe that Tuhoe had any claim to Waikareiti, but that he had agreed to represent Ngati

Ruapani because he believed that they had a valid claim. He said that Ruapani lived at

Waikareiti, and that they had the same interests as Ngati Hika, a hapu of Kahungunu. He named

46 The records of the original case are in Wairoa Minute Books 25 and 29. The minutes of the 1944 Appellate Court minutes are in the Wellington Appellate Court Minute Book SA. 47 Wairoa Native Land Court minute book 25, p.63 48 Wairoa Native Land Court minute book 27, pp.317-S 49 Tairawhiti Appelate Minute Book 27, p.17

19

the islands in the lake, and said that they all belonged to Ruapani and Ngati Hika. He said that

there was a large Ruapani and Ngati Hika settlement and cultivations at the edge of the lake.50

The counter-claim from Tuhoe, presented by Wi Hautaruke, argued that Tuhoe had a

claim through three ancestors; Ruapani, Pukehore and Tuhoe. He said that Pukehore and his

descendants had remained in possession, that Tuhoe had cultivations there, and were buried

there. He said that the Kahungunu claim to the Huiarau Ranges was completely invalid.51

In addition to the evidence given by Hapimana Tunupaura, other Ngati Kahungunu

people gave evidence. One, Wiremu Nuhaka, presented a claim under the ancestor Hinganga,

and said that he was only concerned with the northeastern part of the block. The second,

-RopitiniTeRitu;daimedunbehalf-ofi:he-Ngati Kahungunttbaptr, K~htt.He-also-said-th*t-he

had no claim to the western side of the block, and that he had never been to Lake Waikareiti.52

Both Wiri and Stevens, who has written a report the alienation of the block for the Ngati

Ruapani claimants, argue that there was a customary boundary between Kahungunu and 'Tuhoe­

Ruapani'in the middle of the block.53

Apart from this one concession, Wiriseems to reject Ngati Kahungunu's claims to any

part of the region. He fails, for example, to acknowledge any rights Ngati Kahungunu had to the

southern Waikaremoana blocks, which stretch from Waikaremoana down towards Wairoa.

However, his statement that 'the fact that the loyal Ngati Kahungunu chiefs could not get into

the four [southern Waikaremoana] blocks through a proper investigation of title shows that they

had no rights to the four blocks' seems to ignore the pressures faced by Ngati Kahungunu at the

time, and context of the investigation of those blocks.54

Ballara's work on Ngati Kahungunu provides some information about the Kahungunu

occupation of southern Waikaremoana district. She writes that the Ruakituri (it is not clear if she

means the range or the river here) 'was an informal boundary between Ngati Kahungunu and

Ngati Ko(w)hatu, a people regarded belonging to Urewera people by some, and to Ngati

Kahungunu by others,.55 She lists a number of I<ahungunu pa within or very near the

Waikaremoana southern blocks, particularly in the Putere district, such as Pohuhaturoa, just east

of the Te Reinga falls. She writes that Ngati Ruapani people often looked to their I<ahungunu

kin for protection during the nineteenth century against Tuhoe. She gives the example of the

battles in the 1820s; when Ngati Ruapani, Ngati Kahungunu-ki-Wairoa and Ngati Pahauwera

50 Wairoa Native Land Court minute book 3B, pp. 79-139, passim, cited in Stevens, 'Report in the history of the Waipaoa Block', pp.16-20 51 Wairoa Native Land Court minute book 3B, p. 107, cited in Stevens, 'Report in the history of the Waipaoa Block', pp. 17-18 52 Wairoa Native Land Court minute book 3B p. 93 cited in Stevens, 'Report in the history of the Waipaoa Block', p. 17 53 Stevens, 'Report in the history of the Waipaoa Block', p. 1; Will, p. 230 54 Wir~ p. 213 55 Ballara, 'The Origins of Ngati Kahungunu', p. 178, citing Gisborne Native Land Court minute book 3, pp. 156, 163-4

20

were allies against the invasions of Ngati Raukawa, Pomare ofPewhiarangi, Ngati Awa and Ngati

Maru and other Tuhoe allies. Some of these battles took place at Waikaremoana, at the Pukehuia

pa.56

In his history of the people of Ngati Kahungunu, J H Mitchell emphasises the close

relationship between Ngati Kahungunu and Ngati Ruapani from the very earliest times. He

writes that Kahungunu himself married the first daughter of Ruapani, and that his son married

another of Ruapani's daughters. In addition, one of Kahungunu's daughters married Ruapani

himself, and his grand-daughter Hinemanuhiri married Ruapani's son. He says that the five off­

spring of Hinemanuhiri, in particular, remain important in the history of these lands. Mitchell

-writes -"the-Ngati.:.KaIrnngunu properdaimediheir-title-to the-Wmkare=moana lands and-the hke

under Ruapani,.57 Mitchell also gave evidence at the lake-bed IDvestigation in 1916, claiming the

lake under Te Kapumatotoru.

Gudgeon, in his history of the Maori of the East Coast, also discusses the five off-spring

of Hinemanuhiri, and argues that they had rights in the Waikaremoana district. He says that

Ngati Hinganga had rights to Lake Waikareiti, the right bank of the Ruakituri River and the

Papuni district. He also says that 'the descendants of Tamaterangi own both banks of the Wairoa

[river], from Opoiti to Te Kapu, and thence inland to Waikaremoana'. 58

Evidence given at the 1875 hui about the blocks, and the Native Land Court discussions

immediately afterwards, provides useful information about the ownership of· the southern

blocks. Hori Wharerangi, for example, told the court that Tukurangi was Ngati Ruapani's main

place of cultivation, and that the 'Urewera' tribe had lived on the land until the New Zealand

Wars. Another witness said that 200 Tuhoe and Ngati Ruapani had lived on a pa within the

Tukurangi block before the wars. Conversely, Tamihana Huata, presenting evidence for Ngati

Kahungunu, said that Tuhoe had never lived on the block, and that they had never lived any

further south than the lake itself.59 The Native Land Court hearings into the reserves in the

southern blocks held in 1906 will provide useful evidence about the ownership of the blocks.60

Protests before and after the cession and sale of the southern blocks seems to indicate that

there were significant differences between the upper-Wairoa and lower-Wairoa Kahungunu

hapu. Groups of upper-Wairoa Ngati I<:ahungunu petitioned the government about the

southern blocks, disputing the deeds that other Ngati I<:ahungunu had signed. For example, a

petition from these groups, made in 1890, from Hapimana Tunupaura, Tamihana Huata and

56 Balhra, 'The Origins of Ngati Kahungunu', p. 181 57 J H Mitchell, Takitimll: a History of the Ngati Kahllngllnll People, 1944, [reprint n.p., 1972], pp.25-6 58 W E Gudgeon, 'The Maori Tribes of the East Coast', JOllrnal of the PolYnesian SocieD', 1897, volume 6, p. 183 59 Napier Native Land Court minute book 4 pp. 74-86, cited in O'Malley, 'The Crown and Ngati Ruaparu', pp. 127-30 60 Wairoa Native Land Court Minute Book 14 and Book 15, passim

21

others, concettung land within the Tukutangi block lent to the govemment for a soldiers'

banack during the war, says that:

We are not aware that we ever relinquished our claim to that piece of land after the war in consequence of any conquest, nor have we ever sold or leased it or received any money for it [ ... ] We have seen the Native Affairs Committee Report on our [earlier] petition, which says that it was acquired through confiscation and other subsequent transactions. We say that there has never been any arrangement between us and the Government for confiscation of this land.61

In 1924, Hemi Huata and 126 others of Ngati Hinemanuhiti petitioned the govemment in regard

to the Taramarama block and a block on the Waitoa River saying that 'the causes which brought

about the confiscation of these lands should be enquired into as we fail to understand why such

sweeping confiscations should have be~~ inst:ib;1:~d,.6Lrhis p~t:it:i~n;n~:C~th~rsm~d~-;rtthesame

time were investigated by the 1927 Commission on Confiscated Native Lands.63 These petitions,

and the investigation of the Sim Commission, will need to be discussed in mote detail in the

report that follows this one, as they seem to show a distinctive claim for ownership of lands

ftom these upper-Waitoa hapu that was separate ftom that of the Waitoa Kahungunu.

1.2 Maori and Pakeha Contact at Waikaremoana

William Williams visited Waikaremoana in November 1840. He stayed at the lake, probably at

Te Onepoto, and found some people in the district who aheady ptofessed Christianity. He then

travelled actoss the lake and over the Huiarau Range to Ruatahuna. He visited the region two

other times returning in 1845 and then in 1850.64 William Colenso visited Waikaremoana for the

first time in December 1841, and then returned in 1843. Colenso found a number of villages

around the lake. He describes one at Te Onepoto, near the outlet of the lake, where the house

were 'large and warm, and curiously constructed to keep out the severity of the winter's cold,

each being constructed over a large pit or trench the full size of the house. This is a house that

on the outside appears to be only 3 ft or 4ft high is, when you descend into it, from 5ft to 7 ft

tall,.65 On his second journey he travelled from Waitoa to Waikaremoana; he described several

villages on the way up the Waikaretaheke River, and a potato plantation about 3 miles ftom the

lake. He again found people at Te Onepoto, although he said they were ftom Waitaumoana.

61 Petition to Hon E Mitchelson from Hapirnana Tunupaura, Tamihana Huata and others, 28 March 1890. (Contemporary translation; the original is also in the file). MA 11915/2346 'Reserves from the Taramarama Block', National Archives (NA). 62 Hemi Huata and 126 others, Petition 147/1924. See MA 85/4 and CL 179/19 'Maori petitions', NA. A copy of the petition is in the Raupatu Document Bank (RDB), volume 51, pp. 19,803-4 63 See CL 179/22 Kauhouroa Petitions, MA 85/4 and CL 179/19 'Maori petitions', NA (plus other sources in relation to the Sim Commission). This report deals with 1924 petitions no.s 71, 72, 147, 167,267,212 and 362. M Frances Porter, (ed.), The T llranga J ollmals 1840-1850. Letters and JOllmals of William and Jane Williams, Wellington, 1974 65 W Colenso, 'Notes and Reminiscences of Early Crossings of the Romantically-situated Lake Waikaremoana, County of Hawke's Bay', Transactions and Proceedings of the New Zealand Institllte, volume 27,1894, p.367

22

When he travelled to that side of the lake he also found people at Mokau.66 The Catholic priest

Baty also visited the region at Christmas 1841, and his visit actually coincided with that of

Colenso (although Colenso does not mention this in his account).67

Other early descriptions of the Waikaremoana region are contained within the diary of

Lieutenant-Colonel St John, who was part of the military invasion of the district in the 1870s and

in Price's 'Through the Uriwera Country', about the trip he took to the region with Locke in

1874.68 Another early account of the region is that of Elsdon Best, who lived in the region in the

1890s to 1900s.

Anita Miles has collected together the available sources on the early census d,ata on the

regioii:69 In: 1871, Gilbert Mairf6illia~6peopieiiv.IDgattheiake=hesaiQthattheywere~Ngati

Ruapani and Ngati Matewai. A report by Ferris in 1874, who was stationed at the lake, said that

he found 34 people of the Ngaiterapaaroa hapu, 32 of the Ngatihinekura hapu, 22 of the

Ngatihika hapu and 38 of the Urewera hapu living there. He classified all these people as being

of the Urewera tribe.70 In 1881, Captain Preece found 279 people living there, again all classified

as of the Urewera tribe, from the Ngati Hinekura, Ngatira, Manunui and Ngatihika hapu.71

1.3 The New Zealand Wars at Waikaremoana

Anita Miles has described the impact of the Tuhoe introduction to the Pai Marire movement in

her report about the Urewera district.72 It seems that the Urewera region was specifically

targeted in Te Ua's attempt to find converts to the religion, and Miles says that 'the readiness

with which many Tuhoe embraced Pai Marire suggests that it provided some expression of, and

focus for, their discontent with Government military advances and confiscations,.73 It was the

government campaign against Pai Marire, assisted by 'loyal' Maori, in the Wairoa region, that

brought the New Zealand Wars to Waikaremoana.

Ngati Kahungunu, Ngati Porou and government forces had been involved in fighting

against the Pai Marire in Wairoa in late 1865. The Pai Marire moved from Wairoa to the

southern edge of the Lake Waikaremoana, and several hundred Pai Marire, mainly

Rongowhaakata, Tuhoe and Ruapani, collected there. The 'loyal' Maori followed them to the

66 Colsenso, pp. 378~381 67 J Hickson, Catholic Missionary Work in Hawke's Bqy, New Zealand, Auckland, 1924 68 Both cited in Miles, pp. 83-4 69 Miles, pp. 85-94 70 AJHR, 1874, G-7, p.8 71 AJHR, 1881, G-3, p.s 72 Miles, pp. 97-102 73 Miles, p. 102

23

lake, lead by Ngati Kahungunu chiefs Ihaka Whaanga and Kopu Parapara, and Ngati Porou chief

Ropata Wahawaha. Cowan claims that when the loyal forces got near the lake, the Ngati Porou

leader indicated that Ngati Kahungunu should take a lead in the ensuing battle, 'as it was their

district'.74 After a battle to the south of the lake, the Pai Marire fled to the north of the lake.

Cowan argues that 'this decisive battle ended the Pai-marue rebellion in the Wairoa district'. 75

Three years later, the arrival of Te Kooti at the lake brought war back to the region.76

After his escape from the Chatham Islands in 1868 and a number of skirmishes with the

government forces in Poverty Bay, Te Kooti moved to the ancient pa of Puketapu, near the

Ruakituri River, north east of Waikaremoana. Although other North Island iwi refused to give

. TeKuuti-mllJpurt-or-shelter;Tuhoemet-and· decided-thaHheywould--allow 'f-eK-ooti to stay in

the upper-Wairoa and that he could hold 'the confiscated and ceded land there,.77 According to

Binney, the land that Tuhoe meant in this statement was the southern Waikaremoana and upper­

Wairoa lands that had been alienated under the East Coast Land Titles Investigation Act in 1866.

(This Act and it consequences will be discussed below). This decision meant the beginning of a

very important stage in the history of the Waikaremoana region, and the Tuhoe people.78

From June 1870, a number of incursions by government forces and Maori allies into the

Waikaremoana region attempted to recapture Te Kooti. In 1870, Ngati Kahungunu forces

occupied Matuahu pa on the northern shores of the lake, destroying large amounts of food and

gardens, and from there running raids up into the Urewera. A doctor who accompanied the

forces described the scene:

While the [peace] negotiations were going on, the Government force explored all the arms and inlets of the lake by boat and canoe, and the various overland tracks were noted for future use if necessary. Immense quantities of potatoes - one estimate was a sufficient amount to sustain a thousand men for fifteen months or more - were destroyed by the native parties. More than a hundred cultivations were destroyed by process of breaking down the fences and turning up the potatoes to the frost. The whares in all the villages were looted and burned; indeed the whole lake-shore was devastatedJ9

Te Kooti returned to the region and the lake itself a number of times during the years

evading capture until 1872 when he finally entered a safe haven in the Waikato. These events

have been described in Judith Binney's biography of Te Kooti and Miles' discussion of the

period, also based on Binney. 80 The invasions had an on-going impact on Waikaremoana, not

74 For an account of these events, see James Cowan, The New Zealand Wars and the Pioneering Period, Wellington, 1922, [reprinted 1983], volume 2, pp. 129-135 75 Cowan, volume 2, p. 135 76 The best source for information about Te Kooti is Judith Binney's substantial biography, Redemption Songs: A Ufo ofTe Kooti Arikirangi Te T IIrt1ki, Auckland, 1995 77 Binney, Redemption Songs, p. 102-3 and 134 78 Binney, Redemption Songs, piSS 79 Dr Scott, eyewitness account reproduced in Cowan, volume 2, p. 408 80 Binney, Redemption Songs, pp. 227-262

24

only the devastation of the economy of the region, but also the subsequent confiscation of land

in the region, which will be described in the next chapter.

Sources that deal with the New Zealand Wars in relation to events at Waikaremoana are:

> Judith Binney, Redemption Songs

> The large number of letters between Donald McLean and correspondents such as Hamlin,

Locke and others (see especially MS-Papers-0032 and MS-Copy-Micro-0535, ATL)

> AJHR, 1870, A-8B

> AJHR, 1876, G-1A

> AGG-HB records at National A:rchives

> The Army Department files for the appropriate years at National Archives

> Diary ofJ C St George, MSS Copy Micro 514, ATL

> Joy Hippolite, Wairoa, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series

> Anita Miles, Te Urewera, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series

> Vincent O'Malley, 'The Crown & Ngati Ruapani: Confiscation & Land Purchase in the

Wairoa-Waikaremoana Area, 1865-1875'

> James Cowan, The New Zealand Wars and the Pioneering Period, 2 volumes

25

Chapter Two

Lands at Waikaremoana

This chapter will discuss the current research that deals with the lands that radiate around

Lake Waikaremoana and Lake Waikareiti. The land was eventually broken up, mainly along

geographical not iwi boundaries, into six large blocks. This chapter will discuss the alienation of

these six blocks, which was achieved in a number of different ways and over a number of

decades. It also discusses the reserves that were made from these blocks, and, as far as possible,

wnathas ha.ppened toiliemsmce.

Five rivers and streams roughly mark the boundaries of the four blocks to the south of

the lake. Moving from west to east along the southern shores of the lake, they are: the Waiau

block, situated between the Waiau River and Waihl Stream; the Tukurangi block, between the

Waihl Stream and Waikaretaheke River (the river that runs from the Waikaremoana outlet); the

Taramarama block, between the Waikaretaheke and Mangaruhe rivers; and finally, the

Ruakituri block, between the Mangaruhe River and Ruakituri River. These blocks were first

formed and then taken under the operations of the Wattoa confiscation, which began in 1866

and was completed in 1875. Together they make up around 150,000 acres of land. Almost 30

small reserves were made from these blocks. Some were allocated to Ngati Kahungunu and

some to Tuhoe and Ngati Ruapani.

The other two blocks, those to the north of the lake, remained in Maori hands for a few

more decades after the alienation of the southern blocks. The first of these two blocks is the

Waipaoa block, located to the east of Lake Waikaremoana, and which encloses Lake Waikareiti.

The alienation of this block took place in a piecemeal fashion, the first instance occurring in

1889. No reserves were made from this block. The last of the six blocks to be discussed in this

report is the Waikaremoana block, which stretches from the northern shores of Lake

Waikaremoana to the Huiarau Range. This block was alienated through the Urewera

consolidation scheme in the 1920s. A number of reserves dotted around the northern shores of

the lake were made from this block.

Readers should refer to Figure 3 of this report to see the various stages at which the

blocks at Waikaremoana were formed.

26

STAGE 1 - 1867

STAGE 2 - 1889

Urewera Native Reserve 1896

STAGE 3 - 1925

~ ~, Lake

Waikareiti

10 20 30km

20mlles

North

11

27

2.1 The Alienation of the Southern Waikaremoana Blocks

The four southern Waikaremoana blocks, Waiau, Tukurangi, Taramarama and Ruakituri, were

taken under the auspices of the confiscation that followed the East Coast Wars. The alienation

of these blocks has been dealt with in Vincent O'Malley's report 'The Crown & Ngati Ruapani:

Confiscation and Land Purchase in the Wairoa-Waikaremoana Area, 1865-1875'. This report

was written for the Panekiri Tribal Trust Board, and was commissioned by the Crown Forestry

Rental Trust.81 The report has been written from the perspective of the Ngati Ruapani people.

It is interesting to note that, during an exchange of letters to the Tribunal in 1996 from

thePanekirLTrust, .tepreBentingNgati Ruapani,aud Tuhoe-:Waikat_emQ<J.llaMaQri TWl'tBQm:d,

that counsel for the Tuhoe-Waikaremoana Trust Board wrote that 'Tuhoe steadfasdy maintains

that the narrative of grievances oudined in Mr. O'Malley's report is a Tuhoe narrative,.82 It is

unclear whether this position is still maintained by Tuhoe.

Two reports written for the Waitangi Tribunal's Rangahaua Whanui project also discuss

this confiscation. Joy Hippolite's Wairoa report discusses these blocks as part of the Wattoa

region, rather than as part of the Urewera, which is a useful change of perspective.83 It is

important to remember that these southern blocks reach a long way down into the Wairoa

region, and as we shall see, played an important part in the history of that region, as well as that

of the Urewera. Anita Miles' report about the Urewera district largely bases her discussion of the

confiscation on the O'Malley and Hippolite reports, although she provides a much more detailed

context for the sales. S~e uses the cession of this land as a case study in her history of the

district as it was Tuhoe's first interaction with the Native Land Court. She argues it had an

important impact on Tuhoe politics and on the way Tuhoe perceived the court.84

Following the wars on the East Coast, the government was determined to confiscate land

in the Wairoa area. It wanted to avoid the problems that had developed with the New Zealand

Setdements Act 1863, which had been used to confiscate land in other areas of the country, and

so passed an act in 1866 specifically for the region - the East Coast Land Tide Investigation Act

1866. This Act and its 1867 amendment said that all the land from Lottin Point to

Waikaremoana could be compulsorily investigated by the Native Land Court. Within that

district, all land that was deemed by the Native Land Court to be owned by 'rebels' would be

forfeited, while those who had been 'loyal' would be allocated Crown grants for their land.

81 O'Malley, 'The C~own & Ngati Ruapani', op cit. 82 David Ambler, Counsel for the Tuhoe-Waikaremoana Maori Trust Board and the Wairoa-Waikaremoana Maori Trust Board, to the Waitangi Tribunal, 27 May 1996, (Wai 144 record of documents, doc AS), p.8 83 Hippolite, pp. 37-47 84 Miles, p. 204

28

However, the government quickly decided that this Act was also cosdy and flawed. As

O'Malley points out, the requirement of the Act that the Crown had to prove to the Court that

the owners of the land had been in rebellion was a very difficult task, 'especially when faced with

Maori unwilling to provide information as to who the land's owners might be'. It also assumed,

of course incorrecdy, that it was possible to simply separate out the interests of those who had

been 'loyal' from those who had not. In the face of these problems, the government held a

meeting of Maori at Te Hatepe in April 1867 to discuss cession of the southern Waikaremoana

and upper-Wairoa lands with Ngati Kahungunu. After this discussion, 153 Ngati Kahungunu

chiefs signed a deed with the Crown in respect of the lands to the south of Waikaremoana that

nadbeen includedwithinthe~mbitoftheE-ast£~stLand'fftle!f1vestigatiefl A€t.Th~GtDwn

agreed in this deed to 'withdraw all the claims of Her Majesty' to this land, with the exception of

the Kauhouroa block (situated to the south of the four blocks this report is concerned with).

The chiefs were also to receive £800. O'Malley argues in his report that the agreement 'was

hardly entered into voluntarily, even by the "loyalists", most of whom appear to have considered

the Government's demands quite unreasonable,.85 Hippolite makes the same argument in her

rep ort. 86 Tuhoe and Ruapani (now firmly classed as rebels since the war) were not involved in

the Te Hatepe discussions, and no effort was made to get their agreement to this cession.

A year and a half later, the Native Land Court confirmed the 'agreement', although as

O'Malley states, this does not appear to have been done in accordance with the stipulations. of

the law, as certificates of tide were never issued to the 'loyal' chiefs, and certificates confiscating

the 'rebel's' interests were also never issued.87

The government later came under pressure to complete the T e Hatepe agreements by

transferring the interests of the rebels to the loyalists. Samuel Locke travelled to Waikaremoana

to inspect the land and decide on suitable boundaries. As O'Malley notes, most of the land

encompassed by Locke's new blocks did not actually lie within the East Coast confiscation

district. A new agreement was signed by the chiefs and Locke in 1872. Vincent O'Malley

suggests (based on Wiri) that of the 18 'loyal claimants' who signed this new deed, all but one

were Ngati Kahungunu.88 The identifications of these people, and those who were eventually

placed on the lists of owners for these blocks, will need to be discussed further in the report that

follows this one. Miles notes a number of people on the lists that may be Tuhoe, although it is

difficult to be certain.89

85 O'Malley, 'The Crown & Ngati Ruapani', p. 84 86 Hippolite, p.37 87 O'Malley, 'The Crown & Ngati Ruapani', pp. 102 and 170 88 O'Malley, 'The Crown & Ngati Ruapani', p. 108 89 Miles, p. 209

29

Two pieces of land were kept by the government when the land was returned in 1872:

the 50-acre site of an Armed Constabulary redoubt (which had been built in 1869) at the edge of

the lake near the outlet, and also a 50-acre block, reserved for another Armed Constabulary site

and a road. It seems that both of these blocks of land are still owned by the Crown.90

Tuhoe and Ruapani protested these actions, and eventually sought a Native Land Court

investigation of the title in 1874. Government agents negotiated to buy the land from Ngati

Kahungunu chiefs before the case had even been heard - apparently unconcerned that the Court

may not award the land to them.91 A large hui was held in October 1875 to discuss the four

blocks, attended by Ngati Kahungunu, Ngati Ruapani and Tuhoe. The evidence given to this

-meeti:ng is very interesting, lIrrd deais withi:he-buundariesof, -andtherdationshipsbetween,

Ngati Kahungunu and Ngati Ruapani and Tuhoe. It was discussed briefly in the first chapter of

this report. 92

The investigation into the ownership of the blocks in the Native Land Court was heard

for a few days in November 1875. Suddenly, however, Tuhoe and Ruapani chiefs withdrew their

claims to the four blocks and signed a deed giving up their ownership of the land. About sixty

people signed the deed; they were identified in the deed as being Tuhoe, Ngati Ruapani and

'people related to the Urewera tribe'.93 In compensation for their ownership of the blocks, the

deed said that Tuhoe and Ruapani were to receive £1250, and 2,500 acres of reserves. O'Malley

has suggested that Tuhoe and Ngati Ruapani felt the pressure of the agreement already

negotiated by Locke with Ngati Kahungunu, and that they had been given the impression that if

they did not sign the deed giving up their land, their land would be confiscated anyway if the

Court found that they had been in rebellion.94 The Native Land Court judge subsequently

awarded the blocks to the Ngati Kahungunu chiefs who had already signed the deed, and who

immediately sold the land, as agreed, to the Crown.

Although evidence was given, no actual adjudication of the customary ownership of the

land at Waikaremoana had ever taken place during this whole period, and, as Miles notes, the sale

of the land only served to exacerbate the dispute between Ngati Kahungunu, Tuhoe and Ngati

Ruapani about land and rights in the area.95 The government did not see it that way however.

Ormond wrote to the McLean saying that the sale of the blocks had in fact 'settled a long-

90 AJHR, 1872, C-4, p.31. For a file about the subsequent leasing of the Onepoto Block, see LS 1 Box 630 49224 [Onepoto Reserve], 1885-1918, NA 91 The Crown also bought out the interest of the Pakeha settlers who had been given leases on the land. See Miles, pp. 210-11 92 A copy of the official report about the meeting is contained inAJHR 1876, G-1A. See Miles, pp. 211-216 for a discussion of this hui 93 Auckland Deed 841, cited in O'Malley, 'The Crown & NgatiRuapani', p.135 94 O'Malley, 'The Crown & Ngati Ruapani', pp. 171-2 95 Miles, p. 209

30

standing feud between the Ngatikahungunu and Urewera tribes,.96 McLean went on to report

the sale disingenuously, if not dishonestly, to the government in 1876 in this way:

The Urewera, a tribe but a few years ago at deadly feud with us, and whom even after friendly relations were established perniciously refused to sell an inch of their lands, were considerable owners in these blocks. With some hesitation they submitted to allow these claims to be adjudicated upon by the Native Land Court; their claims were heard, and they were well satisfied with the result; and yielding to the persuasion of the co­claimants of other tribes, joined in the sale, and received their share of the money. Ample reserves have been set apart for the Natives[.]97

O'Malley has discussed the issue of the confiscation of the southern blocks in admirable detail,

and he has made many important arguments (many of which this report does not have space to

cover)which will be very useful to the Tribunal's inquiry into the region. However, there are a

number of questions that still need to be explored further. As O'Malley'S report is a Ngati

Ruapani narrative, he has not discussed the motivations for the way in which Ngati Kahungunu

acted in these proceedings in great detail. What needs particularly careful discussion is the

relationship between the lower-Wairoa Ngati Kahungunu who sold the blocks and the upper­

Wairoa Ngati Kahungunu hapu, such as. Ngati Hinemanuhiri, who were actually living on the

land. It is not clear whether upper-: Wairoa hapu received any of the purchase money or reserves,

or whether they were even consulted about the sale. It is certain that many Ngati Kahungunu

hapu from the upper-Wairoa fought the cession afterwards. Their petitions are listed in the table

at the end of this chapter. Although O'Malley briefly deals with some of these petitions, they

need to be discussed in more detail before a better understanding of the region is produced.98

Useful sources about the Waikaremoana southern blocks and their reserves, the petitions

relating to them and the various investigations into the sale, in addition to the reports listed

above, are:

~ MA 1 1915/2346 'Reserves in the Taramarama Block' (National Archives), has a great deal

of information about all of the southern blocks, and particularly the petitions of the 1910s;

~ Information about the 1927 Commission on Confiscated Native Lands, and the petitions

that were investigated by it is contained in MA 85/2 and MA 85/4 and CL 179/22

'Kauhouroa Petitions', all at National Archives.99 Two substantial files which contain more

information about the Kauhouroa block are MA 1/5/13/90 parts 1 and 2;100

~ The McLean papers in Alexander Turnbull Library (particularly MS-Papers-0032 and MS­

Copy-Micro-0535) contain a large number of letters that will be useful for a discussion of the

96 Ormond to Native Minister, 9 December 1875,AJHR, 1875, G-5, p. 11 97 Donald McLean, 'Statement Relative to Land Purchases, North Island',AJHR, 1876, G-10, p. 3 98 O'Malley, 'The Crown & Ngati Ruapani', pp. 145-167 99 See RDB volumes 49 and 59 100 See RDB volume 67

31

context of the 'sales' of the blocks and so on. IOI Other official material for this period is held

in the AGG-HB files, NA, plus various MA-MLP (Maori Land Purchase Department) files;

~ Although the history of the Kauhouroa block is unquestionably wrapped up in the history of

four southern Waikaremoana blocks, it should not be discussed in detail in the report that is

to follow this one, except where it sheds light on the Waikaremoana blocks. However, there

are a large number of petitions and files about the block that will be useful for a discussion

about the customary history of the region. CL 179/22 'Kauhouroa Petitions', and MA

1/5/13/90 parts 1 and 2 contain useful information about this block.102

As noted above, when McLean reported the sale of the southern blocks, he claimed that 'Ample

reserves have been set apart for the Natives,.I03 Vincent O'Malley's report deals with some

aspects of these reserves, although mainly concentrating on the Tuhoe-Ruapani reserves.

Hippolite also deals with reserves in her report about the Wairoa district.104 However, the

creation and fate of these reserves are one of the issues that most needs further research before

the Tribunal's investigation of the region. The reserves are shown in Figure 4 of this report.

The reserves that were allocated to Ngati Kahungunu were given to those who had

signed the deeds. Therefore, if (as mentioned above) those Ngati Kahungunu who signed the

deeds were not actually the hapu that lived on the land, this created a further grievance, as the

local hapu did not receive reserves to live on.lOS A schedule of the Ngati Kahungunu reserves,

written by Locke and dated in August 1877, lists the reserves as:

- In the Tukurangi block: Te Kahotea (2,000 acres), Te Kiwi (600 acres), Tarapatiki (200

acres), Makahea (500 acres) and Tukurangi (500 acres)

- In the Taramarama block: Ohiwa (700 acres), Otamariki (100 acres), Mangapapa (200

acres), Koariari (100 acres), Wharepapa (100 acres) and Pukewhinau (300 acres)

- In the Ruakituri block: Whataroa (1,000 acres), Rimuroa (400 acres), Makareao (200

acres), Okare (180 acres), Ngaipu (20 acres), Waikatea (100 acres), Eripeti (100 acres),

Tapatangata (20 acres), Tarake (300 acres), Matakuhia (400 acres), Paraumu (100 acres)

and Oriwha (100 acres).106

101 See the bibliography of O'Malley, 'The Crown and Ngati Ruapani', pp. 175-6 for a list of the most useful flies 102 See RDB volume 67 103 Donald McLean, 'Statement Relative to Land Purchases, North Island',AJHR, 1876, G-10, p. 3 104 Hippolite, pp. 44-47 105 O'Malley refers to a petition from a Ngati Kahungunu group that complains that the reserves were allocated only to the vendors of the blocks, 'The Crown & Ngati Ruapani', p. 146. See also Table 1 at the end of this chapter 106 MA 1/1915/2346, NA, cited in Hippolite, Table 3.1, p. 46

32

It is not clear how the location of the reserves was decided. One of these reserves, Makahea,

was immediately purchased by the government for £10, as it was discovered that the site was a

block that the government had previously agreed to sell to a settler.107 According to the Crown

Law Office report, 'Lake Waikaremoana: History of Surrounding Lands', the rest were granted to

Maori under section 5 of the Volunteers and Others Lands Act 1877.108 The Resident Magistrate

in Napier wrote in 1887 that there were problems with the surveying of some of the reserves,

and that 'the reserves of 300 acres at Whakamarino was accidentally omitted from the schedule·

when the land was purchased' .109

.- . From~the-late1-88&,yar1ffilSpetiti0ft8Weresen1:rothegt>vemtneflt-in--relatiofr-re--fue.

Ngati Kahungunu southern block reserves. Some complained that the reserves had only been

allocated to the sellers of the block rather than those actually living in the region, and that they

had not been allocated along hapu lines. As a result, proceedings were taken to the Native Land

Court in 1906. Lists were put in to the court, and orders were made for the reserves. The

minutes of these sittings provide much information about the occupation of the reserves, and

will be vital to a study of these reserves and the southern blocks themselves.llo A report dating

from the 1920s lists the then current ownership of the Ngati Kahungunu reserves. It seems from

this list that some of the reserves were still in Maori hands, whereas others had been sold to

private interests. It also says that a few others had been alienated to the Crown and the Wairoa

City Council. 111 The present-day Maori holdings of the reserves also needs to be clarified.

Petitions about these reserves are listed in the table at the end of this chapter.

In addition to the Ngati Kahungunu reserves, the agreement with Tuhoe and Ruapani

stated that 2,500 acres would be reserved for them. After many delays, and several attempts to

have the Native Land Court decide on the owners of the reserves, an agreement was reached

that the allocated acreage would be split into four different reserves. Accordingly, one reserve,

Heiotahoka, of 1,000 acres, was established within the Taramarama block; Whareama and Te

Kopani, of 300 and 800 acres respectively, were made within the Tukurangi block; and

Ngaputahi, of 300 acres, was made within the Waiau block. The reserves were declared to be

native reserves in 1885, for the. 'Use and support of Uriwera and Ngatiruapani Tribes of

Aboriginal natives'. 112 Only one of these reserves, Whareama, had any frontage to the lake. One

107 Hamlin to Native Department, 6 December 1876, MA 1/1915/2346, NA. Cited in Hippolite, p. 44 108 CL 200/2, NA. Copy included in O'Malley, 'The Crown's Acquisition of the Waikaremoana Block', document bank, volume 3 109 Preece, Resident Magistrate, to under-secretary of the Native Department, 29 March 1889, MA11915/2346, NA 110 Wairoa Native Land Court Minute Book 14 and Book 15, passim 111 CL 179/22 Kauhouroa Petitions, NA. Copied into RDB, volume 51, p. 2000 112 See NZG, June 12 1884, p. 942; NZG, 19 February 1885, p. 246 and 30 April 1885, p. 508

33

of these reserves, Heiotahoka, enclosed on three sides one of the Ngati Kahungunu reserves.ll3

A interesting report of Lord Onslow's visit to the region in 1891 records that Numia Kereru

asked that the Whareama reserve, a place where food was grown and crayfish collected, be

returned to Tuhoe, which seems to indicate that the reserve still had not been marked out on the

ground at that stage.ll4

These four reserves, Te Kopani, Heiotahoka, Ngaputahi and Whareama, were all added

to the Urewera Consolation Scheme in the 1920s. Through the workings of this scheme (which

will be discussed in more detail below), two of these blocks, Ngaputahi and Whareama, were

alienated to the Crown in 1925.

The two remaining Tuhoe-Ruapani reserves, both of which remain in Maori hands today,

have been discussed in the Stokes, Milroy and Melbourne report.115 Their report makes it clear

how exceptionally important the Te Kopani block is for the local people today. It contains two

papakainga, Waimako and Kuha Tarewa, which are now the focus of the Maori community in

the Waikaremoana area. The report says that the reserve has become increasingly important as

the kainga around the lake itself have become depopulated, and both of the communities on the

reserves have their own marae and other facilities. Part of the other remaining reserve,

Heiotahoka, was taken for the Waikaremoana power scheme (discussed in the next chapter), and

the rest is pastoral farm land.116

Please note that in addition to these southern block reserves, a number of reserves were

made around the northern edge of the lake when the Waikaremoana block was sold several

decades later. These reserves have a quite independent history and are discussed in a separate

section below.

The issue of the reserves, both those allocated to Ngati Kahungunu and those allocated

to the Tuhoe and Ngati Ruapani, raises a .number of important issues that will need to be

discussed in more detail in a subsequent report. As they were allocated to those who sold the

blocks, they were not necessarily given to the people who were actually living on the land itself.

As the map attached to this report, Figure 4, reflects, the reserves were very small in relation to

the large size of the blocks. It is not clear whether the government took measures to ensure that

the reserves were adequate, and that cultivations, kainga, wahi tapu and urupa were included in

them. Furthermore, as noted above, although some of the land remains in Maori hands today,

the fate of most of the others remains unclear, and will need to be explored further.

113 CL 200/2, NA, p.9. Copy included in O'Malley, 'The Crown's Acquisition of the Waikaremoana Block', document bank, volurne3 114 Auckland Star, 23 March 1891 115 In 'The Crown & Ngati Ruapani', O'Malley calls them 'Ngati Ruapani reserves', p. 145 116 Stokes, Milroy and Melbourne, pp.216-219

34

~

6 A~:::;·

Wa i a u

Waiau River

KEY: 11 Paraumu

M:~:~:~::~:~~:m Res e ryes 12 Pukewhinau 13 Rimuroa

1 Heiotahoka 14 Tarapatiki 2 Kahotea 15 Terara 3 Mangapapa 16 Te Kiwi 4 Matakuhia 17 Te Kopani 5 Ngaipu 18 Te Koareare 6 Ngaputahi 19 Tukurangi 7 Okare 20 Waikatea 8 Ohiwa 21 Whareama 9 Orewha 22 Whareopapa

U-l I I 10 Otamariki 23 Whataroa VI

4. 1'.:-", ~~~.

~k <> ...

Ruakituri

11 /!jJ

7 ~ .. 41 20 ~

North

!1

Tar a mar a m a 'V8 ~ [:a 9

Note: Some reserves cannot be established with accuracy.

4>­V' 22

o 10 20km . '~~-.-.-'--'--'------'~'

12miles

I(... '3. u ~

~ t!

.~ ,l

Frasertown

<i~0\ \0'1>

0'1>"'~'I>

2.3 The Waipaoa Block

The Waipaoa block lies to the northeast of Lake Waikaremoana, and is bounded to the west by ~

the Waikaremoana block, and to the south by two of the southern Waikaremoana blocks

discussed above, Taramarama and Ruakituri. The Ruakituri River and the Matakuhia Range form

its eastern border. The block completely encloses LakeWaikareiti. The main secondary source

of information about this block is a report by Emma Stevens written in 1996. This report,

although covering some of the Ngati Kahungunu claims of ownership to the block, mainly

discusses aspects of the Ngati Ruapani ownership and loss of the block. 117

Emma Stevens argues in her report that Ngati Ruapani owned the northwestern part of

the block, and that Wairoa Ngati Kahungunu hapu owned the southeastern portion, towards the

Ruakituri River and the Matakuhia Range, and that the two areas were artificially merged into

one when the block was created.11s The evidence given in the Native Land Court sittings in 1889

seems to support this contention.

The alienation of the block was achieved in a number of stages, which have been

recounted in Emma Stevens' report. The first stage of the Crown's involvement in the land that

was to become the Waipaoa block was the Native Land Court investigation in 1889. Wiremu

Huhaka, Pehimana Riaka and Te Ohuka Maaka of Ngati Hineika, a hapu of Ngati Kahungunu,

lodged the original request asking for the block to be investigated in November 1882.119 This

followed an application for the survey of the block, made a month earlier by Ngati Kahungunu.

They negotiated a price for the survey with the Chief Surveyor in Napier. The agreement stated

that a piece of the block that bordered the Ruakituri River was to be taken for the price of the

survey. This part of the block became known as the Matakuhia block. The original Ngati

Kahungunu application for an investigation into the Waipaoa block was withdrawn two years

after it was made, but in 1888, Ngati Kahungunu leaders made another three applications along

the same lines. Neither Ngati Ruapani nor Tuhoe gave their support to the applications.

The following year the Native Land Court opened in Wairoa to hear the Waipaoa case.120

The judgment found that the government claim for payment of the survey was a valid one, but

found that, although only Kahungunu had asked for the survey, Ngati Ruapani should also have

to bear the cost of it. Accordingly, the Court simply awarded two parts of the Waipaoa blocks to

117 Stevens, 'Report on the history of the Waipaoa Block' 118 Stevens, 'Report on the history of the Waipaoa Block', p.l 119 7 November 1882, 'Native Land Court Application for Investigation ofTicle', LS 20/89, volume 1, Gisbome District Office of the Department of Lands and Survey Information, discussed by Stevens, 'Report on the history of the Waipaoa Block', pp. 6-15 120 Stevens, 'Report on the history of the Waipaoa Block', pp.16ff

36

the Crown instead of one - one portion from the Kahungunu side of the block and the other

portion from the Ruapani side. Therefore, at the stroke of a pen, and without Ngati Ruapani

having ever agreed to the survey, let alone how much it would cost, the Court took 2,911 acres

of Ngati Ruapani land.121 Included inside the land that was taken from Ngati Ruapani was part

of Lake Waikareiti.

A rehearing of the block occurred in 1894, after it had been discovered that the original

judgment had made no clear statement as to where the boundaries of blocks No.3 to 10 should

have been, making a survey of the subdivisions impossible. The Crown suggested that to save on

the expense of a survey, it would simply buy blocks 3 to 10. It claimed that all of the owners of

the land· wanted ·tosell. Despite an agreement inP4rliatn€ntmadein~1Z99-that..:no-more further

negotiations for the purchase of land would be commenced, a deed was signed in 1898-99

conveying blocks No.3 to 10 to the Crown for £4,936.10.0.122 This was an area of 32,901 acres,

out of the total block size of 39,302 acres. According to Stevens, 350 owners of both Ngati

Kahungunu and Ngati Ruapani, signed this deed.123 Stevens has not provided information as to

who received the money that was paid by the Crown.

At this point, 1899, the Urewera Commission came to the Waikaremoana region to

investigate the ownership of the Waikaremoana block, which will be discussed below. The Ngati

Ruapani people said to the Commissioners that they did not want the Waikaremoana block

investigated, because of their experiences with the Waipaoa block. Hori Wharerangi said:

Mate katoa tnatau ko aku iwi i te tnahi a te Kawanatanga i Waipaoa poraka, ata ko te rU!i. I tunga i te rawakore 0 tenei iwi, tnate katoa i tena tnahi

My people and I have suffered heavily as a result of the Governtnent's survey of the Waipaoa block. Because of OU! poverty tny people have experienced great difficulties ever since that survey.124

The third stage in the alienation of the block began in 1903, when Judge Matt oversaw a

rehearing into the ownership of the block. He found that the original survey of block No.s 3 to

10 had never been given effect to, and so reapportioned the land without reference to the

divisions that had been proposed earlier.125 He divided the land into ten blocks again, with

blocks 1 and 2 remaining in Crown hands. Block No.5 was awarded to those that did not want

to sell the land. The revised block No.3 and revised block No.4, which adjoined blocks No.1

and No.2 respectively, became Crown land by proclamation in 1903, in accordance with section

250 of the Land Act 1892, which stated that land could be declared to be Crown lands when the

121 Waitoa Native Land Court minute book 3B, p. 163 122 Stevens, 'Report on the history of the Waipaoa Block', pp. 35-8 123 Stevens, 'Report on the history of the Waipaoa Block', p.37 124 Hon Wharerangi, Urewera Minute Book 3, p. 89, cited in Wiri, p. 233. Translation by Wiri

37

Governor was satisfied that the land was 'free from Maori claims'. It is important to note that

block No.4 contained the remainder of Lake Waikareiti that had already not been taken by the

Crown for survey liens.

Waipaoa block No.5 (the only part ofWaipaoa still left in Maori ownership) passed into

the hands of the Tairawhiti Maori Land Board in December 1906 through the workings of the

Maori Lands Settlement Act of 1905. The Act stated that any 'surplus Maori land' in the East

Coast district could be compulsorily placed under the Board so that the land could be leased out

to settlers.126 It seems that settler leases were never taken up on the land, and eventually, in 1911,

the No.5 block was subdivided into three sections. Waipaoa No. 5B, which at 16,785 acres was

by far the largest subdivision, was to be sold to the Crown, while two Ngati Kahungunu who did

not wish to sell retained No. SA .and 5C. Both Ngati Ruapani and Kahungunu disputed the

valuation of block No. 5B. It took the government over two years to pay the money for this

block, even though the owners had been described by the President of the Land Board as being

'in very straightened circumstances', and in great need of the purchase money.127 According to

Emma Stevens, the two small blocks, block No.5A and No.5C, of 2,624 and 81 acres

respectively, are all that remains in Maori hands today out of the original Waipaoa block of

39,302 acres in size (or 7 per cent of the original block).

Although the Emma Stevens report provides a great deal of information about the

alienation of the blocks, there are some matters that still need to be more fully explored. For

example, information is needed as to where the money for the purchase of the subdivisions

went. It would also be useful, if possible, to check her statement that those owners who signed

the deed were both Ruapani and Kahungunu. Furthermore, as noted above, the report focuses

on the implications of the sale for Ngati Ruapani, rather than Ngati Kahungunu, who have to at

least part of the block. The implications of the sale for Tuhoe, who made at least one claim,

separate to that of Ngati Ruapani, to parts of the block should also be investigated. Win claims

that Tuhoe had valid claims to the lake and the western side of the land which were ignored by

the court. These issues should be explored further.

The issue of the way in which the ownership of Lake Waikareiti itself changed hands

should also be investigated. It would seem that the Crown assumed ownership of the lake when

it had purchased the two pieces of the block that enclosed it. However both of these parts of

125 Stevens, 'Report on the history of the Waipaoa Block', p.38 126 The background to the alienation of this block are examined in more detail in Stevens, 'Report on the history of the Waipaoa Block', Chapter 5; Alan Ward,An Unsettled History: Treaty Claims in New Zealand Todqy, Wellington, 1999, pp. 154-6 127 President, Tairawhiti District Maori Land Board, to Under Secretary of the Native Department, undated [1911], telegram, MP-MLP 1910/129, NA, cited in Emma Stevens, 'Report on the history of the Waipaoa Block', pp. 52-3

38

the block were taken circumstances that appear to be very prejudicial to those who owned the

land, particularly Ngati Ruapani.

2.4 The U rewera Native Reserve and the U rewera Commissions

The Urewera Native Reserve and the Urewera Commissions has been discussed in a number of

different sources. The most useful overview of the topic is contained in chapters 6 and 7 of

Anita Miles' Te Urewera report. Judith Binney's forthcoming overview report about the district

also discusses the history of the reserve.128

In addition, there are two main reports that deal specifically with the impact of the Act and

the Urewera Commission on the Waikaremoana district, and the subsequent alienation of

Waikaremoana block. These are Vincent O'Malley's report, 'The Crown's Acquisition of the

Waikaremoana block, 1921-25', and Robert Wiri's thesis.129 O'Malley's report was written for the

Panekiri Tribal Trust Board. O'Malley does not deal with the issue of the customary ownership

of the block in any detail, except to say that Ngati Ruapani were 'the major owners in

Waikaremoana,.130 He does not cover the Kahungunu claims to the block in any detail in this

report.

Following a visit to the Urewera by Prime Minister Seddon, and the visit of a Tuhoe

delegation to Wellington, the government passed legislation called the Urewera District Native

Reserve Act in 1896. The reserve that was established by the Act covered around 656,000 acres,

and included the land from the Bay of Plenty confiscation line down to the northern shores of

Lake Waikaremoana. The reserve included the land that was to become the Waikaremoana

block, but specifically stated that it did not include the lake itself. The land was declared a native

reserve, and the self-governance of the people of the Urewera was confirmed (at least on paper).

The Native Land Court was specifically excluded from investigating the ownership of lands

within the boundary. Instead an Urewera Commission, mainly made up of Tuhoe, but with

some Pakeha members and a Pakeha chairman, was established in order to investigate the

ownership of the land in the region. The reserve was divided into blocks, each block was to be

administered by a local committee, and there was to be a General Committee to administer the

whole of the district, and to approve alienations to the Crown.

The Urewera Commissioners began their investigations of the land ownership of the

reserve in 1899. It quickly became clear that the task was going to be exceptionally difficult. The

128 Judith Binney, 'Urewera Overview Project: A History of the Ureweta from European Contact until 1878', forthcoming 129 O'Malley, 'The Crown's Acquisition of the Waikaremoana Block' and Wiri, op cit. 130 O'Malley, 'The Crown's Acquisition of the Waikaremoana Block', p. 5

39

Tuhoe representatives on the Commission often had interests in the blocks they were

investigating, which meant that they had to stand down from the investigation. As a result, the

Pakeha appointees often ended up making the decisions about the blocks, instead of the Tuhoe

members as the Act had intended. It also became clear that it was not possible to simply divide

the land into discrete blocks owned by one hapu group, as such boundaries did not really exist;

land ownership in the Urewera was of a much more complex nature than that envisaged by the

legislation.

The Commission began their investigation of the Waikaremoana block in 1901. Two

years previously, the Commission had been told by the people of Waikaremoana that they did

not want the title to theWaikaremoana biock-to-be-investigated;due rotheir-experience8'witlr

the alienation of part of the Waipaoa block, and probably also the southern Waikaremoana

blocks. Hori Wharerangi told the Commission:

E unu ana ahau i tunga i te ahua 0 etahi wahi e mate ana ahau i te Kawanatanga ara ko Waipaoa Poraka [ ... ] Kua oti te hoatu i tenei whenua e Tuhoe ki to ringa. Ko te mate tuatahi tenei i mama nei e koe, ki mure tena ko te whakawa. Ehara tenei i te takahi i te ture [ ... ] engari ka pa mai te whiu ate Kawanatanga ki toku tinana a muri ake nei.

I am withdrawing [this block] because of the burdens created by the Government in respect to the Waipaoa Block [ ... ] Tuhoe have placed this land under your jurisdiction. That was the first grievance created by you. After that there is the survey and then after that an investigation of title. I do not mean any disrespect to the law, but I fear that after all this, the Government's retribution may scourge my physical well-being. l3l

He also said that he was intending to defy this investigation because 'after the

investigation of title the Government will dig out the land interests. I am defying this because of

my fear of becoming landless' ('Engari a moo i te whakawa me te Kawanatanga e ruke ki runga

ki te whenua. E takahi ana ahau i tunga i te tupato mo aku rawakore' /32 The Chairman told him

that if they were to withdraw from the proceedings, they stood a chance of having their land

given to others.

Regardless of these attempts to have the land withdrawn from the investigation, in 1901

the inquiry into the Waikaremoana block began at Te Whaiti. O'Malley has suggested that the

relative ease with which the investigation of the Waikaremoana block progressed through the

initial investigation was probably because most sections of Tuhoe had come to an agreement

with Ngati Ruapani that the groups would jointly claim title, based on Tuhoe conquest of Ngati

Ruapani proper, assisted by other sections of Ruapani.133

131 Hori Wharerangi, Urewera Minute Book 3, p. 188-9, cited in Wiri, p. 250. Translation by Wiri \32 Hori Wharerangi, Urewera Minute Book 3, p. 89, cited in Wiri, p. 250. Translation by Wiri 133· O'Malley, 'The Crown's Acquisition of the Waikaremoana Block', p. 164

40

The results of the Urewera Commission were published in 1903.134 For the

Waikaremoana block, 729 owners were named, none of whom, according to Wiri, were of Ngati

Kahungunu descent.135 Ten appeals were subsequently lodged with regard to the block, including

two from Ngati Kahungunu, although they had not been involved in the earlier hearings of the

Commission. These appeals complained that Ngati Kahungunu had not been included in the list

of owners of the Waikaremoana block, and stated that the traditional boundary between Tuhoe

and Ngati Kahungunu was the Huiarau Range. They also complained that Tuhoe had been

given some of the reserves made from the southern Waikaremoana blocks, even though the sale

of the land 'had been made by themselves alone' .136

Theftppealpt-0C-ess,~gefierally eililed-the·See-etld-Thewe-±a~-G{)mmissien,4>~.atl~.ID ··1906.···

This Commission had no Tuhoe members. Further evidence about the Waikaremoana block

was given in December 1906 and in Whakatane in February 1907.137 Ngati Kahungunu (including

Wi Pere) gave evidence that the boundary between Ngati Kahungunu and Tuhoe was the

Huiarau Range, to the north of Waikaremoana (and that therefore the lake was part of Ngati

Kahungunu's territory). The decision of the Commission agreed that this was the boundary

between Tuhoe and Ngati Kahungunu, and said that Ngati Ruapani were in fact a 'powerful

hapu of Ngati Kahungunu', and that therefore Ngati Kahungunu people had rights to the

Waikaremoana block. The Commission added 117 Kahungunu people to the ownership list of

the Waikaremoana block, bringing the total number of owners to 906.138 Robert Wiri and

O'Malley have both argued that the Commissioners failed to understand the arguments that had

been made by Tuhoe and Ruapani (indeed, the Commissioners themselves said as much), and

that the decision of the Commission was fundamentally flawed.139 In the report that follows this

one, these views will have to be examined in more detail.

2.5 Alienation of the Waikaremoana Block

The only land left in Maori hands in the Waikaremoana district at the time of the First World

War were a few sub-divisions of the Waipaoa block, and the Waikaremoana block itself. Despite

this, the government wanted to acquire the Waikaremoana block so that they could protect the

134 AJHR, 1903, G-6 135 AJHR, 1903, G-6, pp. 147-152; Wiri, p. 252 136 AJHR, 1907, G-4, p.12. See Win, pp. 253-4; O'Malley, 'The Crown's Acquisition of the Waikaremoana Block', pp. 41-2 137 Barclay Minute Book 1 and 2, Maori Land Court, Rotorua and G Mair, Diary of the Proceedings of the Urewera Commission, MS-Copy-Micro-0495, ATL 138 AJHR, 1907, G-4, p.13 139 O'Malley, 'The Crown's Acquisition of the Waikaremoana Block', p. 45-7; Win, pp. 256-66

41

forests around the lake - pardy for 'scenery preservation' and pardy to protect the watershed of

the lake for the purposes of the generation of hydro-electricity.

Concerted efforts to purchase land in the Urewera were begun by the Crown in around

1910, and soon after the Crown began to buy land without the consent of the Tuhoe General

Committee. The Crown met with limited success, often able to purchase some shares for a

block and not others, meaning that the lands still owned by Tuhoe were scattered around the

area of the Urewera reserve. The Urewera consolidation scheme was suggested within the

context of government attempts, lead by Apirana Ngata, to make the remaining Maori estates,

now often held in uneconomically small blocks by multiple owners, more economically viable.

-Despitethealtruisticsoundofthis~eme,-Miles has argued that the government's intentions

were to use the Urewera consolidation to acquire more Maori land. She says that 'where Tuhoe

concerns were accommodated, it was done so grudgingly, or after the owners' threats and

protest'.l40 For more information on the background and working of the scheme as a whole,

readers should refer to the Miles' overview report and to Campbell's 'Land Alienation,

Consolidation and Development in the Urewera,.141

The government originally intended to leave the Waikaremoana block out of the Urewera

consolidation scheme, and to simply acquire the block through the Scenery Preservation Act

1903.142 However, Tuhoe protested the decision to leave the block out of the scheme. It seems

that some owners wanted to exchange their interests in the block for land further north in the

Urewera district. Ngati Ruapani's historian O'Malley suggests that:

It may be that Tuhoe to the north ofWaikaremoana who had sold most of their interests in their own lands but had been awarded shares in the Waikaremoana Block based on ancestry and conquest, rather than occupation, were anxious that this be included in the consolidation scheme so that they might exchange out of it for lands in their own districts.143

Ngati Kahungunu had also indicated their desire to sell their interests in the block. O'Malley

writes that Ngati Ruapani were the only group reluctant to part with their interests, but that 'in

the face of Tuhoe willingness to exchange for lands to the north, and Ngati Kahungunu desire to

sell their interests in the block, Ngati Ruapani were hardly in a position to hold out, especially

since the Crown could always use the Scenery Preservation Act against them'.l44

140 Miles, p. 418 141 Miles, pp. 417-476; SKL Campbell, 'Land Alienation, Consolidation and Development in the Urewera 1912 - 1950', July 1997, (Wai 36 record of documents, doc A9). Another useful source is Stokes, Milroy and Melbourne, pp. 60-80, which includes a series of four maps showing the changing pattern of land ownership caused by the consolidation scheme between 1919 and 1925. 142 See O'Malley, 'The Crown's Acquisition of the Waikaremoana Block', chapter 7 143 O'Malley, 'The Crown's Acquisition of the Waikaremoana Block', pp. 87-8 144 O'Malley, 'The Crown's Acquisition of the Waikaremoana Block', p. 92

42

The Commissioners appointed by the government to oversee the consolidation held a

hui with local Maori about the scheme at Waikaremoana in February 1922. At this meeting,

Ngati Ruapani stated that they wished to have no part in the consolidation. They stated that

while they had previously agreed to leave Waikaremoana, they had now been told that they

would only received 15 shillings per acre, instead of 20 shillings, as had been previously agreed.

They had also learnt that a Pakeha settler, who was selling land to the south of the lake to the

Crown at the time, was being offered an much larger amount of money per acre for his land

than they were being offered for theirs. Therefore 'the original arrangements had been departed

from & they no longer felt bounded by the former proceedings at Ruatoki and Wairoa,.145

Despite their objections, the meeting continued. (As O'Malley states, by thi~p0.iflt the-whole

scheme, including the transfer of the Waikaremoana block, was already a fait accompli, as the

government had just passed the Urewera Lands Act 1922, which specifically mentioned the

Waikaremoana block, and said that Commissioners could award any portion of the block to the

Crown that it saw fit. l46) At the meeting, the Commissioners said that they intended to make a

number of reserves out of the Waikaremoana block, and asked Ngati Ruapani to show them

what land they wanted reserved. Again, Ngati Ruapani said that they wanted no part in the

scheme, so the Commissioners 'stated that they would proceed & define [the] boundaries of [the]

Reserves themselves on Saturday'. They did so, and worked out the approximate boundaries for

twelve reserves.147

A few days later Tuhoe also expressed concern about the consolidation proposals, and

said that they insisted that 'Waikaremoana interests were to remain there and were not to be

brought northwards' (in other words, rejecting the idea of swapping their shares of the

Waikaremoana block for shares in land further north). Despite this, and also despite a promise

to cease purchasing in the Urewera, the government continued to buy the interests of the owners

of the Waikaremoana block.148

Finally, however, an agreement was reached between the government and Ngati Ruapani

about the scheme. Vincent O'Malley has suggested that the intervention of Apirana Ngata, who

held a meeting with the local people at a place called Windy Point at Waikaremoana, convinced

the group to finally agree to the scheme. Although there was no official record of the

discussions that took place between Ngata and the local people, the agreement apparently stated

that Ruapani would accept 15 shillings an acre for their interests, provided that they received

their reserves around the lake for no payment, that they would not have to pay for the surveys of

145 Urewera Minute Book 1, p. 25. Cited in O'Malley, 'The Crown's Acquisition of the Waikaremoana Block', p. 106 146 O'Malley, 'The Crown's Acquisition of the Waikaremoana Block', p. 107-109 147 Urewera Native Land Court minute book 1, p.26, cited in Stokes, Milroy and Melbourne, p. 80

43

these reserves, and that they would not have to pay rates for them.149 (The issue of the reserves

from the Waikaremoana block is discussed further below).

The final decision of the Commissioners in relation to the Waikaremoana block was that

those who wished to exchange their interest in the Waikaremoana block for land in the north

were to be paid 6 shillings acre for their interest; those who did not want to exchange their

interests received 15 shillings an acre, plus 600 acres in reserves. Although some cash was paid,

the balance was paid in debentures, to be administered by the Native Trustee. Vincent

O'Malley's report catalogues the great hardship caused by the Waikaremoana debenture scheme,

especially as, when the depression hit, the government refused to pay the money owing to the

people,and alse the~ther-greatclifficulties-fa€ed--ay the local people, now almost cempletely

landless. 150

Two of the Waikaremoana southern blocks reserves that had been allocated many years

earlier to Tuhoe and Ngati Ruapani, Ngaputahi and Whareama, were also alienated by the Crown

as part of the scheme. Wiri claims that these two blocks had been purchased earlier and says that

'the Crown had no legal right to purchase the Whareama and Ngaputahi reserves without the

consent of the Tuhoe General Committee and there appear to be some cover up in the

Consolidation Report in regards to this issue'. Conversely, O'Malley says that they were bought

as part of the consolidation scheme itself, for £1 an acre. 151 This issue will need to be checked

further, particularly who sold them and what authority they had to do so. It seems extraordinary

that the people who· actually lived at the lake would willingly part with the reserves, particularly

Whareama, as it bordered the lake, and was apparently a place where food was grown, and

crayfish collected.ls2

The consolidation scheme had an important and lasting impact on the whole of the

Urewera district and its people. Eighty years on from the first alienation of the land surrounding

Waikaremoana, all of the blocks, with the exception of some very small reserves, had now been

alienated from Maori ownership. Some people had nowhere to live at all. One woman, Te Au

Tahakawa, told the Consolidation Commissioners in 1925 that 'she had no land to live upon the

only shares she had have been sold to the Crown'. The Commissioners told her that 'they could

not provide land for her, she had an old age pension and her people should look after her,.153 A

major relocation of Tuhoe people occurred when all those who had exchanged their

148 O'Malley, 'The Crown's Acquisition of the Waikaremoana Block', p. 111-115 149 M Whakamoe and others to Native Minister, n.d. [c.1925-6], MA 1/29/4/7A, NA, cited in O'Malley, 'The Crown's Acquisition of the Waikaremoana Block', p.116 150 O'Malley, 'The Crown's Acquisition of the Waikaremoana Block', chapter 9 151 Wiri p.282; O'Malley p. 174. See NZG, 8 January 1925, p.5 152 Auckland Star, 23 March 1891 153 Urewera Minute Book 2A, p. 230, cited in Stokes, Milroy and Melbourne, p.85

44

Waikaremoana interests for land further north left to live in Ruatahuna. O'Malley's chapter

about the region following the consolidation describes the plight faced by the Ngati Ruapani

people in the decades following the alienation of their last significant piece of land.154

2.6 The Reserves from the Waikaremoana Block

As stated above, as part of the consolidation scheme, the Cotntnissioners decided to make a

number of reserves out of the Waikaremoana block for local Maori.155 They decided the position

of these reserves at a time when Ngati Ruapani were still refusing to have anything to do with

the scheme, so it is not clear how the Cotntnissioners decided where the reserves should be. The

records of the Cotntnission record decisions such as: 'Marau Reserve: 5 to 10 acres was

considered ample for this spot'; 'Takanga Reserve H: an area of 15 acres to take in old urupas

considered sufficient'; 'Hopuruahine East and West Reserve F and G: The grassed area and old

clearing were reserved to Natives with exception of about 12 acres on East bank of stream

required to landing reserves (Crown) the Natives to hold west bank of steam as far as some

poplars, site of old kainga and the East bank stream north of landing reserve' .156 This landing

reserve was presumably for the boats that picked up tourist traffic arriving from the north to

take them across to the government's tourist hotel.

Following the agreement with Apirana Ngata in 1923 mentioned above, a number of

meetings followed, with Ngati Ruapani requesting that the reserves be enlarged, or changed to

include areas of particular importance such as cultivations and urupa.1S7 The minute book of one

of the Cotntnissioners records one request in this way:

I have dead buried north of the road at Mara a te Atua, chiefs killed by Government forces, we ask for extra areas as we could live within them, cattle etc [ ... J the area claims included pigeon trees, we won't fell the trees. My child is [buried] in the Reserve,158

Despite such arguments, the Cotntnissioners rejected the request for larger reserves, and

the 14 reserves that were eventually allocated were more or less those that had previously been

decided by the Cotntnissioners without Ngati Ruapani input. One of NgatiRuapani's requests

were granted however; they asked that a reserve made for specifically for Sir James Carroll:

154 O'Malley, 'The Crown's Acquisition of the Waikaremoana Block', Chapter 9 155 The discussion in this section is largely based on O'Malley, 'The Crown's Acquisition of the Waikaremoana Block', chapter 8, and Stokes, Milroy and Melbourne, pp. 80-87 156 Urewera Minute Book 1, pp. 28-29 157 Urewera Minute Book 2A and Knight's Minute Book, Rotorua MLC, cited in Stokes, Milroy and Melbourne, pp. 84-5 158 Knight's Minute Book, Rotorua MLC, cited in Stokes, Milroy and Melbourne, p.85

45

He has no interests in Puna or Patehaka but out of recognition of Sir James' services to our race generally and Ruapani in particular it is our unanimous desire that a reserve should be set apart for him. We would contribute if necessary an area of 10 acres. We also want the reserve to be called Timi Taihoa.159

This reserve was eventually located at Te Tohu Bay, at the mouth of the Waitotara Stream.

Details of the 14 reserves are included in a table in Stokes, Milroy and Melbourne. They

are also shown in Figure 5 of this report. 160 The existing research about the reserves in O'Malley

and Stokes, Milroy and Melbourne is not clear on how the reserves were allocated, or who

decided which groups they were allocated to. The Commissioners' minute books specifically

refer to Ngati Ruapani when discussing their negotiations about the reserves, and it seems that

they were mainly allocated to them.161 This is something that will need to be examined further in

the report that follows this one.

Use rights of these reserves, the only land left in Maori hands on the shores of the lake,

have been significantly impinged upon by the Crown. The restrictions imposed by the scenery

and game preservation laws, and then the restrictions of the National Park, have meant that the

owners of the remaining reserves around the lake were greatly restricted in what they can do on,

and with, their land. They have been unable to build on the reserves, or to establish a business

on them. Stokes, Milroy and Melbourne say that 'what can be described as victimisation ~f local

people by some government officers led to evictions from kainga in the Reserves' .162

The owners of the reserves were also not allowed to hunt on their land, and, it seemed,

faced intimidation from the rangers in the area about the issue. After one such incident, local

Maori complained to the Minister of Internal Affairs about the actions of rangers, who had

stopped owners from taking guns and dogs onto the reserves. In his reply, the Minister

confirmed that as the whole area was a game sanctuary, it was an offence to take either rifles or

dogs into the area. He added that Maori could get permits to hunt for two months of the year -

but they had to compete for them in a ballot.163 The owners were also not allowed take logs off

the land without permission - the Native under-secretary told Wiremu Matamua in 1945 that 'as

the felling of trees is an alienation', he would have to ask the Native Land Court to seek

permission from the Native Department.164

159 Urewera Minute Book 1, p. 290 160 Stokes, Milroy and Melbourne, p.84 161 See O'Malley, 'The Crown's Acquisition of the Waikaremoana Block' for a discussion of the negotiations 162 Stokes, Milroy and Melbourne, p. 86. See also Carr to Wakelin, Commissioner of Crown Lands, 15/8/1955, LS 4/4 Urewera National Park general volume 6, DoC, Gisborne, cited in Campbell, 'Urewera Overview Project Four: Te Urewera National Park 1952-75', p'. 150 163 Wiremu Matarnua to Minister of Internal Affairs, 25 May 1950; W A Bodkin, Minister of Internal Affairs to Wiremu Matamua, 8 August 1950, F Acc W3129 IA Box 351 52/3 Lake Waikaremoana volume 1, NA 164 Stokes, Milroy and Melbourne, p. 86; Native under-secretary to W Matarnua, 16 July 1945, MA 1 29/4/7, NA, cited in O'Malley, 'The Crown's Acquisition of the Waikaremoana Block', p.147

46

Furthermore, the owners faced pressure from the Crown and the National Park Board

during the 1950s and 1960s to sell the reserves, so that the land could be added to the National

Park. The idea resurfaced during the negotiations surrounding the lease of the lake-bed in the

late 1960s, but the owners resisted the approaches, and they were not included in the lease

agreement negotiated with the Crown in 1971. 165

In 1985, all of the Waikaremoana reserves (with the exception ofTimi Taihoa, which had

been reserved for James Carroll) were vested by the Maori Land Court in the Tuhoe­

Waikaremoana Maori Trust Board under section 439 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953.166

Some of the useful sources on the Waikaremoanablockandthereserves around the lake, in

addition to the reports by O'Malley, Wiri and Stokes, Milroy and Melbourne, are:

~ MA 1/29/4/7

~ MA 1/29/4/7A

~ MA 1/29/4/7/2

~ MA87

Parts 1 - Part 5 Consolidation ofUrewera purchase, NA

Urewera Land Scheme - Balneavis File 1920-45, NA

Part 1- Part 2, Waikaremoana Debentures, NA

[Waikaremoana Debentures], NA

~ The minute books of the 1920s Consolidation Commissioners, Rotorua Maori Land Court

165 For information in this paragraph see Campbell, 'Urewera Overview Project Four: Te Urewera National Park 1952-75', pp. 127-134 166 Stokes, Milroy and Melbourne, p.87

47

+:>. 00

?>

o

North

!l KEY: l

!::::::::::::tM Reserves L

Te Korokoro o Whaitiri

HODuruahine East

Lake Waikaremoana

5 10km

o 3' 6~iles

Lake Waikareiti

Mangapuwerawera Stream

~~~ ~ ;:~~ ~ ~.n· = ~.~9?. ., ;.,; s.~ tt> ~ ~~ til ~~Ci) o~(D

c;§I ~ ~g' ~ g:~ ~ ~~

('t) <:Il

(j

~ ~ I:l-

~ o

= ;-('t)

~ .... gr ~

= o ~ ~

ec 0-(':l

~

Table 1- Petitions with regard to the Waikaremoana Blocks

From Date Number Block Topic167 Source and further information

Horiana Ropiha 1878 Waiau Applied for £4,000 and reserves, in return for his Horiana Ropiha [to government],

interest in the Waiau block MA 1/1915/2346, NA168

Rakiroa 1880 Taramarama Asking for his share of the purchase money Rakiroa to Captain Porter, 5 July

1880, MA 1/1915/2346, NA169

Petera Tehonotapu Southern block Petera Tehonotapu and others to 1881 Regarding the allocation of the reserves

and others reserves Government17O

Rihipeti te Hiaro,

Kieta Whakaipo, Taramarama and Asking for money for their parts of these two blocks

1883 (the petitioners give the boundary markers for their MA 1/1915/2346, NA and Te Hapimana Ruakituri blocks

Tunupaura part of the blocks)

'that certain lands called Taramarama and Ruakituri Hereaka Tiripa Taramarama and

1884 396/1884 blocks were bought by the Government and that they AJHR 1885, I-2, p.7 Turei and 2 others Ruakituri blocks

have not yet received any money for such'

Wiremu Nuhaka and 56 others to Wiremu Nuhaka That the Government purchased Ruakituri before it

1885 Ruakituri block Native Minister, 25 February 1885, and 56 others had been surveyed or passed through the Land Court

MA 1/1915/2346, NAl7l L ...

167 Where the topic remarks are in quote marks, this is from the AJHR reportage of the petition. It should be noted that the AJHR is simply a sutnmary by officials, rather than a direct quote from the petition. Others remarks not in quote marks are my summaries. 168 Cited in O'Malley, The Crown & Ngati Ruapani', p. 145 169 Cited in O'Malley, The Crown & Ngati Ruapani', p. 145 170 Cited in O'Malley, The Crown & Ngati Ruapani', p. 146 171 Cited in O'Malley, The Crown & Ngati Ruapani', p. 146

49

Tamihana Huata Ohuka (in the 'Petitioners lent a piece of land for the use of the AJHR 1882, 1-3, p.l and MA 1887 232/1887

and 2 others Taramarama block) forces during the war. They ask that it be returned' 1/1915/2346, NA

'Petitioners states that a piece of land belonging to

Waata Taiaroa 1887 279/1887 Ahipukaku (in the him called Ahipukaku was included in the sale of the

AJHR 1888, 1-3, p.36 Taramarama block) Taramarama block without his name appearing on

the deed'

Hapimana Regarding a piece of land taken for the armed forces

Tunupaura, Ohuka (in the 1890 during the NZ Wars from the Taramarama block MA 1/1915/2346, NA

Tamihana Huata Taramarama block) called Ohuka

and others

Hapimana Regarding a piece of land taken for the armed forces

Tunupaura, Raekaahu (in the 1890 during the NZ Wars from the Tukurangi block called MA 1/1915/2346, NA

Tamihana Huata Tukurangi block) Raekaahu

and others

Hapimana 'Petitioners pray that certain lands in the Waipaoa

Block be returned to them' [they ask for a particular AJHR 1894, 1-3, pA Tunupaura and 52 1894 174/1894 Waipaoa block

others place that was a site of permanent occupation and and MA 1/1913/3983, NA

urupa]

Regarding reserves in Ruakituri block - asks that the

Tamihana Huata ownership be adjusted so that they are allocated to 1897 Ruakituri block MA 1/1915/2346, NA

and 51 others hapu groups. Also complains that people have been

omitted from the reserves I

50

Ahenata Putere and n.d Ruakituri and Asking that the occupation of the reserves in these

24 others [1900?] Taramarama blocks blocks be adjusted, or assessed by the Native Land MA 1/1915/2346, NA

Court

n.d. Regarding the Wharepapa Reserve in the Taramarama

Poutahi Hapimana Taramarama block block. Asks that the land be exchanged for land near MA 1/1915/2346, NA [1906?]

Whataroa Block or Ohiwa

Te Waata Taunoa Waikaremoana 1908 200/1908 'Have been excluded from ownership' AHJR, 1908,1-3, p.6

and 6 others block

Patu Te Rito and 11 'Pray for relief in connection with the method of 1909 79/1909 Te Kiwi Reserve AJHR 1909, 1-3, p.9

others sharing land'

'Pray that the land be granted to them as a PetaHema 1909 516/1909 Tukurangi Reserve AJHR 1909, 1-3, p.16

papakainga'

Hurae Puketapu 'Praying for an inquiry with regard to the boundary of 1912 185/1912 Lake Waikaremoana AJHR 1913, 1-3, p.l0

and 84 others the Waikaremoana Lake'

Rawaho Winitana Southern block 'Praying for investigation of title to lands known as

1913 142/1913 Te Hei 0 Tahoka, Te Kopam, Whareama and AJHR 1913, 1-3, p.23 and 11 others reserves

Ngaputahi'

Eria Raukura and Urewera Native 'Praying for an adjustment of [the] boundary in [the]

1913 67/1913 Urewera Native Reserve between the lands of the AJHR 1913, 1-3, p.l0 159 others Reserve

Tuhoe Tribe and Ngatikahungunu Tribe'

'Praying fot considetation re the proposed Marangai Hurae Waikaremoana

1914 415/1914 acquirement of land on the shores of Waikaremoana AJHR 1914, 1-3, p.l1172

and 20 others block Lake for scenery-preservation purposes'.

-- ---- ---

172 See O'Malley, 'The Crown's Acquisition of the Wa1karemoana Block', p. 67

51

Hirimu Mouro 1915 Lake Waikaremoana

Rangi

Rawaho Winitana 1915 1915/9 Urewera Reserve

and 54 others

Haenga Paretipua 1919 326/1919 Waikaremoana

and 51 others

Matamua 1920 63/1920 Lake Waikaremoana

Whakamoe

Paratene Ngata and 1920 262/1920 Waipaoa block

another

Hemi P Huata and Taramarama and 1924 147/1924

126 others Opoutiti blocks

Te Paea Ahipene 1924 71/1924 Kauhouroa block

and 33 others

173 See O'Malley, 'The Crown's Acquisition of the Waikaremoana Block', p. 67 174 See RDB Volumes 49, 51 and 52

As1cing that money isn't paid to anyone for the

purchase of Lake Waikaremoana until the ownership MA 1/1915/3275

of the lake has been settled by the court

In relation to the Urewera Reserve and asking that

purchasing of land in the reserve should not be LE 1/1915/9, NA173

continued and that the restrictions of the reserve

should be continued

'Praying that the Waikaremoana block be included in AJHR, 1920,1-3, p.9

the "washing up bill" ,

'Praying that access to Lake Waikaremoana over the AJHR, 1920,1-3, p.24 and

lands of the petitioners be prevented' MA 1/1920/290, NA

'Praying for a rehearing as to the tide of the W:upaoa AJHR, 1924,1-3, p.15

lA block'

AJHR 1924, 1-3, p.33. See also MA

'Praying for an inquiry re confiscation of lands know 85/4, NA; MA 85/2, NA; Folder 4,

Sim Commissions Papers, DOSLI, as the Taramarama and Opoutiti Blocks'

Hamilton; CL 179/22, NA and

reportAJHR 1928, G_7174

'Praying for inquiry into alleged wrongful confiscation

of the Kauhouroa Block'. (Other petitions about the AJHR 1924, 1-3, p.6 and 32, plus

confiscation of the Kauhouroa block were 72/1924, sources listed direcdy above.

167/1924267/1924,212/1924,362/1924)

52

Natau 1himaera and 1938 20/1938 Lake Waikaremoana 'Praying for relief' AJHR, 1938,1-3, p.12

103 others

'Praying for relief' [-wrongfully excluded from tide to AJHR 1947, 1-3, p.19 and report in

Paora Waina 1947 107/1947 Lake Waikaremoana AJHR, 1948, G-6E. See also LE Lake Waikaremoana]

1948/307, NA

Matetu Kihirini and 'Praying for inclusion in and redefinition of interests 1948 58/1948 Lake Waikaremoana AJHR, 1948,1-3, p.17

8 others in Lake Waikaremoana'

Turi Carroll and 8 'Praying that the Maori Land Court be empowered to

1948 78/1948 Lake Waikaremoana include the Ngati Kapuamatotoru hapu in Lake AJHR, 1948,1-3, p.17 others

Waikaremoana'

Manu Terekia and 'Praying for relief regarding their claim ill 1949 35/1949 Waikaremoana lands AJHR, 1949, 1-3, p.6

others of Gisbome Waikaremoana lands'

Patehepa Tamatea 'Praying that their mother's interests ill Lake

and others of 1951 6/1951 Lake Waikaremoana AJHR, 1951,1-3, p.4

Gisbome Waikaremoana be inquired into by the MLC'

Tui Tawera and 18 'Praying for an acknowledgment of the Crown's

1958 24/1958 Waikaremoana liability for certain payment in relation to the AJHR, 1959,1-3, p.4 others

purchase of the block' !

--- .

S3

Chapter Three

The Crown at Waikaremoana

This chapter discusses a whole raft of other actions taken by the Crown in the Waikaremoana

district. It opens with a brief discussion about the long history of the litigation over the lake-bed of

Waikaremoana. This forms an important context for the other issues discussed in this chapter, which

cover things such as the Crown's promotion of the lake as a tourist destination and the use of the

lake for hydro-electric power generation.

3.1 Litigation over the lake-bed of Waikaremoana

The Crown has long assumed it owned all the lakes in New Zealand, although, as Ben White has

argued, there was never any systematic attempt to establish that ownership in legislation.175 Usually,

the Crown assumed that it owned a lake until it was specifically challenged by Maori. Along with this

assumption of ownership was the assumption that the Crown could use the lakes in any way it saw

fit. This was certainly the case at Waikaremoana, where from the late nineteenth century the Crown

began to assert its control over the lake. In defiance of this belief, in 1913 Rawaho Winitana, Mei

Erueti and Matamua Whakamoe petitioned the Native Land Court for an investigation of the

ownership of the Waikaremoana lake-bed. In June of the next year, a counterclaim to the lake from

Hukanui Watene and Rutene Tuhi of Ngati Kahungunu ki Waitoa was lodged with the Native Land

Court.

Three reports contain information about the litigation over the lake-bed of Waikaremoana.

The first is Emma Stevens' report 'Report on the history of the title to the lake-bed of Lake

Waikaremoana and Lake Waikareiti', written in 1996. This report is the property of the Panekiri

Tribal Trust Board and has not been released to the Waitangi Tribunal. The second is a report written

for the Waitangi Tribunal's Rangahaua Whanui series by Ben White about the history of the Crown's

actions with regard to lakes in New Zealand. In this report, White used a s~ries of case studies,

including that of Waikaremoana, to examine the way in the Crown attempted to assert its rights over

the lakes of New Zealand. The third is the work of Robert Wiri, who discussed the litigation

surrounding the lake in his discussion of the history of the region.

The first hearing into the Maori claims to the lake was heard by the Native Land Court in

1915.176 Despite requests for the hearing to be held at the lake, the case was heard in Frasertown,

175 Ben White, Inland Wate17lJ'D's: Lakes, Waitangi Tribunal Rangabaua Whanui Series, ftrst release, March 1996, p. viii 176 See Wairoa Native Land Court minute book 25, passim.

54

near Wairoa. There were seven applications claiming ownership of the lake from Tuhoe and Ngati

Ruapani (represented by Rawaho Winitana) and eleven from Ngati Kahungunu (represented by J H

Mitchell, Haenga Paretipua and Tuehu Pomare). Much of the evidence given at this hearing was

about the boundaries between Tuhoe, Ruapani and Kahungunu, and the interests of each of the

groups in the lake.

The second hearing, in 1916, concentrated on hearing Ngati Kahungunu evidence about the

lake. When the court resumed in 1917, the presiding judge had changed to Judge Gilfedder. After

hearing more evidence about the boundary between the groups, the Judge made an interim decision

in which he stated that:

By intermarriages the various hapu are now very much mixed. It appears that if there be a stronger claim to the Lake by one party over the other - the Tuhoe's and Ruapani's is the stronger and it is apparent that fot the last generation the Ngati Kahungunus have been frequently seeking to get a footing in the lands of the others.

Both suggested boundary lines cannot be tight, but both may be wrong and there is no convincing evidence to warrant this court in deciding that either of the alleged dividing lines is correct.

The Court therefore considers that each of the three contending parties has some ancestral right to this region and that the extent of area must depend on occupation. Lists of names and evidence will be received and heard and an interlocutory judgment will be given - to be made final if it is ascertained that the Lake belongs to the Maori and not the Crown.177

He made it fairly clear that he favoured the claims of Tuhoe and Ngati Ruapani over those of Ngati

Kahungunu. He said that 'when sifted', it seemed that the Ngati Kahungunu occupation of the

region 'was a temporary "sojourn" during the Hauhau disturbances,.178 Lists were then submitted to

the court, and further evidence taken in relation to the lists. A fourth hearing occurred in 1918, at

which time a decision allocating shares to the lake was awarded. Despite the comments of Gilfedder

quoted above, shares were awarded to Ngati Kahungunu as well as to Tuhoe and Ruapani. Twenty­

two lists were setded as the final lists, eight with Tuhoe and Ruapani owners, and 14 with Ngati

Kahungunu owners (although in reality there were more actual Tuhoe and Ruapani owners that Ngati

Kahungunu ones).

Three weeks after the case had been adjourned, the Crown lodged an appeal, arguing that as

the 'said lake in not Native customary land but is Crown land free from Native title', the Native Land

Court had no jurisdiction to hear the case.179 Up until this point, the Crown had given no evidence to

the Court about the case or the court's jurisdiction. A number of appeals were also lodged by Tuhoe

and Ngati Ruapani against the inclusion of Ngati Kahungunu owners in the lists.

Because of a number of delays, largely due to the Crown's failure to proceed with the case,

the objections to the decision were not heard for another 26 years. In the intervening years, the

177 Wairoa Native Land Court minute book No.29, p.78 178 Wairoa Native Land Court minute book No.29, p.78 179 MA 8/3/484, Gisbome MLC, cited in Wiri P 320

55

Crown continued to act as if it was the owner of the lake, including making permanent and radical

changes to the lake for the purposes of power generation.

The Crown's appeal was finally heard in 1944 in the Native Appellate Court, before six

judges. The evidence given to the Appellate Court is long and detailed. 180 The Crown made

arguments as to why the Native Land Court had no jurisdiction to hear the original case. This

evidence, plus the papers produced by the Crown Law Office for the case, has been discussed in

detail by White. After hearing the evidence, the Appellate Court issued a judgment to the effect that:

The Crown was aware of the application to the [Native Land] Court [at the time of the original hearings] but for some reason [ ... ] its representatives refrained from attending the Court or offering any evidence of title in the Crown. Under these citcumstances, the Court had before it the uncontradicted evidence of the Natives' witnesses. Having examined the claims and the uncontradicted evidence adduced at the hearing, and after giving full consideration to the submissions of the Solicitor-General in this matter, we are of the opinion that sufficient material was presented to the Court to justify its conclusion that at the time of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, Lake Waikatemoana was land held by Natives under theit customs and usages and, therefore, that the Court acted within its jurisdictions in making the order,181

The original decision of the Land Court stood, therefore, and the lake-bed was confirmed as

belonging to Maori. The government continued to refuse to accept the decision, and filed a

statement of claim with the Supreme Court, although the case was never heard. The freehold title

was not finally awarded to the owners of the lake until the late 1950s.

Various suggestions for compensation (particularly as the lake had been used to create

revenue for the government), rental payments and outright purchase of the lake were mooted by the

government over the years. After many negotiations with different governments, the owners finally

proposed in 1969 that they lease the lake to the Crown on a 50-year lease with a perpetual right of

renewal. This offer was finally accepted, and in 1971 the Lake Waikatemoana Act was passed, and a

lease agreement signed. The terms and administration of the lease will be discussed below.

Several secondary sources almost suggest that there were two clearly distinguished groups,

always and naturally at odds with each other during this litigation: 'Tuhoe-Ruapani' versus Ngati

Kahungunu. However, this simplification means that important issues at play in this case, such as the

evidence given during the hearing by Ngati Kahungunu as to the close relationship between them and

Ngati Ruapani, are glossed over. It also allows the reader to overlook the possible differences

between Tuhoe's and Ngati Ruapani's claim to the lake, by presenting their claims as if they were one

and the same. However, those presenting the claim made it cleat that their claim to the lake was not

based oA conquest by Tuhoe of the lake, but the constant occupation of Ruapani. When one person

said that claims to the lake were made pardy through 'conquest by Tuhoe under Rewi and others over

180 Native Appellate Court Minute Book 8A. Reproduced in RDB, volume 59 181 Native Appellate Court minutes, 4 April 1944, MA 5/13/78/1, NA. Reproduced in RDB, volume 59, pp. 22,377

56

Ngati Ruapani', Hurae Puketapu, the main person giving evidence for the two groups, interjected and

said that 'all the claims of Tuhoe are under Ruapani'.

In 1971 an agreement was finally reached concerning the lake-bed of Lake Waikaremoana,

after many years of negotiation.182 A committee representing the lake's owners agreed to lease the

lake, the islands in the lake (with the exception of Patekaha Island) and the foreshore of the lake to

the Crown, on a 50-year perpetual lease. 183 The reserves scattered around the northern part of the

lake were not included in the lease agreement. The Crown's obligations under the lease (which

remains in force today) are to administer the leased land in accordance with the National Parks Act

1952 (and later, the 1980 Act), to pay rent to the owners, and to review the rent every ten years. The

Crown is also required to allow right of access to the reserves on the shores of the lake at all times, to

allow access from the reserves to the lake itself, and from the reserves to the road if required.

Under the Lake Waikaremoana Act 1971, the name of the Tuhoe Maori Trust Board was

changed to the Tuhoe-Waikaremoana Maori Trust Board, and likewise the Wairoa Maori Trust Board

(a Ngati Kahungunu body) was changed to the Wairoa-Waikaremoana Maori Trust Board. The Act

required that two lists of the owners of the lake-bed be placed in public places in the region. One of

the lists was a Ngati Kahungunu list and one a Tuhoe list, based on the old ownership lists as

established by the Native Land Court in 1918. The Act allowed for people to move their names from

one list to the other, depending on which was the more appropriate for them. Once this process had

been completed, fresh lists were made up, and the owners became beneficiaries of the appropriate

Trust Board. The proportion of the lake to be owned by each of the Trust Boards was then based on

the proportion of the total number of owners that their lists contained (so, if Ngati Kahungunu

people made up 20 per cent of the total list, the Kahungunu trust board would receive 20 per cent

ownership of the lake). The land was then vested in the two Trust Boards. The rent was then to be

paid to the each of the Trust Boards, in proportion to the proportion of the lake it owns.184

According to Gallen, Tuhoe receives approximately two-thirds of the total rental185 In 1971 the

rental figure per annum was set at $143,000; in 1997, the figure was $123,805.186

. An issue surrounding the lease itself has been raised by Ngati Ruapani in a submission made

to the Waitangi Tribunal in 1996. The submission said that the lease agreement, in requiring the lake

rental to the paid to the Tuhoe and Ngati Kahungunu Trust Boards, has excluded Ngati Ruapani, and

182 A copy of the lease is contained in Appendix 2 of the report of the Joint Ministerial Inquiry into Lake Waikaremoana, August 1998. For information about the negotiations see the information provided by Justice Gallen to the Joint Ministerial Inquiry into Lake Waikaremoana, attached as Appendix 3 of the report. 183 Patekaha Island was one of the 13 reserves made during the sale of the Waikaremoana Block. It had contained a Ngati Ruapani pa, and is an urupa. See Figure 5 of this report. The foreshore includes the land that was exposed when the lake was lowered during the work on the power stations in the 1940s and 50s. 184 Lake Waikaremoana Act, 1971 185 Rodney Gallen and Allan North, A Souvenir Booklet ofWaikaremoana, Wairau-Moana, Waikareiti, n.p., 1977, p. 40 186 Report of the Joint Ministerial Inquiry into Lake Waikaremoana, August 1998, p.s

57

is 'no more nor less than a measure of the consistent oppression of Ngati Ruapani people, and

expropriation of their assets, down the years since the 1850s,.187 A joint response to this submission

was received from the Tuhoe-Waikaremoana Maori Trust Board and the Wairoa-Waikaremoana

Maori Trust Board, which argued that all the owners of the lake are represented by these two

boards.188 This issue will need to be explored in more detail in the report that follows this one.

In addition to the reports discussed above, primary sources on the topic of the lake-bed litigation are

readily available. The most useful files (held at National Archives, Wellington) are:

~ CL 200 Purported Investigation into the Title of Lake Waikaremoana, 1954 (various files)

~ CL 179 CLO Papers re RC on Confiscated Lands

~ MA W2459 5/13/78 Part 1 Lake Waikaremoana 1915-1948189

~ MA W2459 5/13/78 Part 2 Lake Waikaremoana 1948-1953

~ MA W2459 5/13/78 Part 3 Lake Waikaremoana 1954-1961

~ MA W2459 5/13/78 Part 4 Lake Waikaremoana 1962-1971

The document bank for Vincent O'Malley's report 'The Crown's Acquisition of the Waikaremoana

Block' contains copies of documents from some of these files. Also useful will be the files held at the

Gisborne Maori Land Court in relation to the block (listed in the bibliography). The Native Land

Court minutes of the cases will be of course be vital to the discussion of this topic.

3.2 The Crown Assumption of Rights at Waikaremoana

A point that will need to be investigated by a Tribunal-commissioned report is the way in which the

Crown acted on its assumption that it owned the lake. Before, during and even after the decisions of

the Court confirming that Waikaremoana lake-bed remained Maori land, the Crown used and altered

the lake without consultation with Maori.

Examples of this are plentiful. From the late nineteenth century, the government began to

promote the lake and its environs as a tourist destination. To this end, it established a tourist hotel

known as Lake House, and placed a number of different boats and launches on the lake for the use

of tourists, and aided the stocking of the lake with rainbow and brown trout. The Department of

Tourism and Health Resorts published a number of pamphlets and books to promote the lake to

lB7 Submission of counsel for Wai 144, Carrie Wainwright, to the Waitangi Tribunal, 27 May 1996 (Wai 144 record of documents, doc A4), p.3 and p. 7 lBB Submissions of counsel for the Tuhoe-Waikaremoana Maori Trust Board and the Wairoa-Waikaremoana Maori Trust Board, D J Ambler, to the Waitangi Tribuna~ 27 May 1996, (Wai 144 record of documents, doc AS), p. 4 lB9 Copy in RDB, volume 59

58

tourists, such as New Zealand Tours: Lake Waikaremoana The Sea of Rippling Waters', which was

published several times in the 1920s. An advertisement for the Lake House in this book offers a

launch and good boats on Waikaremoana, and boats in Waikareiti, excellent trout fishing, fishing rods

for hire and fishing licenses for sale.190

As early as 1903, the superintendent of the Tourist Department wrote to the Surveyor­

General asking that his department ensure that none of the people living in the region run horses,

catde or sheep in the bush around Waikaremoana as the government 'is spending large sums of

money in developing Waikaremoana as a Tourist Resort and destruction of the bush in the vicinity

would undoubtedly depreciate its value in that respect,.191

As well as the protection of the forest, the game ill the regtDn alsD came under legal

protection from an early stage. The area surrounding the lake was made into a sanctuary in 1898

under the Animals Protection Act 1880, and no native or imported game was allowed to be taken

from the region, which extended from the Huiarau Ranges in the north to below the lake in the

south.192 The area covered by this reserve included the land that was to become the Waikaremoana

block, even though it was still in Maori hands at the times, and enclosed the lake. Rangers were

appointed to Waikaremoana under the both Animal Protection Act and the Fisheries Act to police

the sanctuary in 1903.193 As mentioned above, this Act was used to stop Maori from hunting on their

own land in the region, a restriction that the rangers actively enforced.

Lake Waikaremoana was stocked with introduced fish from at least 1896, when 100,000

rainbow and 16,000 brown trout fry were released at Onepoto. Since then almost annual liberations

of fry occurred until 1950. Rainbow trout were also introduced in Lake Waikareiti in 1918. Records

of the liberations of the trout are held in the records of the Wellington Acclimatisation Society. A

small site was set aside by the government for a fish hatchery downstream from Waikaremoana.194

The impact of the 'scenery preservation' movement and the growth of the tourism trade, has

had an important impact upon the government policy and actions at Waikaremoana. O'Malley has

demonstrated the way in which the desire to protect the watershed of the lake created the context for

the government's push to acquire the Waikaremoana block.195 As discussed above, the laws and

bylaws placed over the area when it was identified as an area that needed to be protected have gready

restricted the ability of the owners of the reserves to use them in any meaningful manner.

190 Department of Tourist and Health Resorts, New Zealand Tours: Lake Waikaremoana The Sea of Rippling Waters', Wellington, 1927 191 LS 1 Box 630 49224 [Onepoto Reserve] 1885-1918, NA 192 See NZG 23 June 1898, p. 1016. In 1911, an exception was made for red deer; see NZG, 13 April 1911, p 1280 193 NZG, 12 August 1903, p. 1818 194 LS 1/6/485, Hatchery site, Sec 5, Block III, Waiau SD, NA 195 O'Malley, 'The Crown's Acquisition of the Waikaremoana Block', p. 61-77

59

The operung of the National Park in 1954, and the usual restrictions placed on people's

activities inside a national park, have also had an important impact on all the people of the

Waikaremoana region. Rodney Gallen writes that:

The relationships between local people and the Urewera National Park Board were initially not happy. Local people had been accustomed for generations to take produce from the bush in the area and in particular at certain times of the year, people of rank took the pikopiko fern in small quantities for food. This was stopped by the Park authorities and the manner of stopping was such that it created a degree of resentment that lasted for many years.

Eventually however, the relationship with the local people and the then Park Board, was substantially improved. Local people were represented on the Board, in particular by the late John Rangihau, who was from Waikaremoana and a number of other local members of the Board were well known to and acceptable to local people. l96

Under the terms of the lease of the lake-bed, the leased area is not technically part of the

National Park itself; it is simply surrounded by the Te Urewera National Park, and the leased area

'has the status of National Park,.197 From 1975 until 1987, the Department of Lands and Survey had

responsibility for the area; in 1987 the Department of Conservation took over its management. The

lake is now managed by the Department as part of their management of the whole of Te Urewera

National Park. The management of the lake and the surrounding land are governed by a number of

different Acts and Department of Conservation planning documents:

~ The Conservation Act 1987;

~ The National Parks Act 1980 (and prior to this, the National Parks Act 1952);

~ The Urewera National Park Bylaws, 1981 (made under section 56 of the National Parks Act

1980). These bylaws covers both the National Park and the leased area. These bylaws cover

the use of the park by visitors and controls camping, the use of fire, pollution of the area etc.

~ The DOC General Policy for National Parks (current version drawn up in 1983);

~ The DOC East Coast Conservation Management Strategy. The Te Urewera National Park is

within the East Coast/Hawkes Bay Conservancy, which has its head office in Gisborne. The

currendy applicable strategy was released in 1999. It is a requirement of the Conservation Act

that the management strategy be developed through consultation with the community,

including iwi and hapu groups;

~ DOC's Te Urewera National Park Management Plan. These are written every ten years. The

plan currendy in use is the 1989-99 management plan; the new plan is currendy being drafted.

The plan has two objectives: firsdy, to ensure the preservation of the native plant and animal

196 Affidavit of Rodney Gallen, 9 April 1997, p. 2, Appendix 3 of the report of the Joint Ministerial Inquiry into Lake Waikaremoana, August 1998 197 Department of Conservation Submission to the Lake Waikaremoana Inquiry, 18 May 1998. Copy held at Te Puni Kokori Head Office, Wellington

60

communities, to protect the water and forest, and to protect the historical and archaeological

values as much as possible; and secondly, to allow managed public entry into the park.198

The Department of Conservation is required to consult with the tangata whenua about the

management of National Park and the leased area. For day to day issues, it does this through the

Waikaremoana Maori Committee and the Ruatahuna Tribal Committee, who send representatives to

the Departmental meetings. For issues such as construction on leased land, it needs to consult the

two Trust Boards as well. The Department maintains that its 'commitment to meaningful

consultation in every aspect of its management of the area ensures that the local people participate in

the decision-making process, both in terms of daily managementandpoliey,)99.

Sources on these topics are plentiful. The issues surrounding 'scenery preservation' have

been discussed in Leah Campbell's report about the creation of the Urewera National Park and in

Vincent O'Malley's report about the acquisition of the Waikaremoana block.200 In addition, the

report about the Urewera region by Stokes, Milroy and Melbourne provides useful insights about the

implications of these policies for the people of the region.201 Leah Campbell's report on the National

Park discusses the establishment of the park and its context. Her report, however, only covers the

period up unti11975, and so does not deal in any detail with the post-lease situation.202

A useful source for a discussion about the way in which the lake and the surrounding land is

managed is the Department of Conservation's ten-year management plans for the National Park,

which give an interesting snap-shot of the condition of the lake, and what issues concerned those

managing the National Park the time. The management plan for the years 1989 to 1999, for example,

discusses the impact of the lowered lake levels caused by the Waikaremoana power scheme: it

mentions that 'wave-cut terraces and extensive areas of the shallow littoral (near shore) zone of the

stream deltas are exposed as a result of these lowered lake levels'.203 In respect to the use of native

plants for traditional use by the tangata whenua, it says that the taking of these plants is only

permitted with the prior approval of the park management. The report recommends that the islands

in Waikareiti, which are classed as possessing 'exceptional' habitat quality, be given special status,

meaning that no visits except for scientific or management purposes would be allowed,and no

collection of traditional food sources would be allowed.204 It is interesting to note the range of

198 Department of Conservation, Te Urewera National Park Management Plan, 1989 - 1999, Rotorua, 1989 199 Department of Conservation, 'Submission to the Lake Waikaremoana Inquiry', 18 May 1998, p. 14. Copy held at Te Pum Kokiri Head Office, Wellington 200 Campbell, 'Urewera Overview Project Four: Te Urewera National Park 1952-75'; O'Malley, 'The Crown's Acquisition of the Waikaremoana Block, 1921-25', pp. 61-77 201 Stokes, Milroy and Melbourne, section 3.4 202 Campbell, 'Urewera Overview Project Four: Te Urewera National Park' 203 Department of Conservation, Te Urewera National Park Management Plan, 1989 - 1999, Rotorua, 1989, p.14 204 Department of Conservation, Te Urewera National Park Management Plan, 1989 - 1999, pp. 58-59

61

submissions that were given in response to the draft of this report. Issues discussed in the 93

submissions included the need for DOC to recognize the cultural importance of the park and the

traditional rights of the tangata whenua, the maintenance of natural levels for Lake Waikaremoana,

boating policy on the lake, the use of horses and the control of wild animals in the park.205

There are a large number of scientific studies about various aspects of the ecology of the lake

and the park. Many of these have been commissioned by the Department of Conservation, or

ECNZ, as part of their assessment of the impact of the power stations on the lake.

Another important source of information about this topic is the evidence presented to the

1998 Joint Ministerial Inquiry into the management of Lake Waikaremoana, and the report that was

produced~sa result of the inquiry. The inquiry came about~fterprotestsat the lake by some local

people concerning the Department of Conservation's management of the lake and surrounding area.

Concerns raised by the local people during the inquiry included: the use of 1080 poison in the

national park; the pollution of the lake; the erosion of the lake shore; concerns that the government

was permitting logging in the area; and that the tangata whenua were being denied their customary

rights to collect traditional foods. There were around 80 verbal and written submissions made to the

inquiry, some from tramping clubs and other interested groups, and many from Maori groups and

individuals, including Nga Tamariki 0 Te Kohu, who had been involved in the protests at the lake,

and the Tuhoe-Waikaremoana Maori Trust Board, who argued that the inquiry was not necessary.

The submissions made to the inquiry are held at the Head Office ofTe Puni Kokiri in Wellington.

A number of files also provide information about these topics:

» A number of Tourist Department files, which are listed in the bibliography of this report;

» The files of the Scenery Preservation Commission are held at LS 70, National Archives,

Wellington;

» Also useful are a number of Forestry Department files, which discuss the reservation of the area

and other matters. F W3129 IA Box 351 52/3 Lake Waikaremoana Parts 1 and 2 is particularly

useful, and contains a number of useful maps;

» LS 1 Box 630 4924 contains some information about the reservation of bush;

» A large number of files about the National Park are held at the Gisborne DOC offices and at

Auckland National Archives. These have been listed in the bibliography to Leah Campbell's

report, and copies of many of the documents are contained in the document bank for her report.

3.3 Hydro-electric generation at the lake

205 Department of Conservation, Te Urewera National Park Management Phn, 1989 - 1999, p. iv

62

Throughout the twentieth century, the Crown pursued two different agendas at Waikaremoana. One

of these, as discussed above, was the desire to conserve the area and protect it from the damage that

had already been done to almost all of the rest of the North Island, so that the area could be used for

tourism. In the early twentieth century, however, a new driving factor emerged: the desire to develop

the hydro-electrical potential of the lake. Due to the damage that the scheme did to the local

environment, these two aims were often directly at odds with each other. Neither was pursued with

the consent or consultation of the Maori owners of the lake.

Three claims to the Tribunal specifically mention the power schemes. Wai 36 and Wai 621,

two very similar claims from Milroy, Nikora and the Tuhoe-Waikaremoana Maori Trust Board (for

Tuhoeiwi) and R Paku and the Wairoa-Waikaremoana Trust Board respectively, state that the Crown

created the hydroelectric works at Waikaremoana with neither the permission nor the approval of the

owners of the lake, and that the Crown has never paid any compensation to the owners for the use of

the lake for the schemes. They also complain of the blocking of the outlet of the lake. The claims

also allege that the Crown continues to trespass on Maori . land for the purposes of the scheme.

Further, the claims complain of the delay in the hearing of the Crown's appeal of the lake-bed

decision until 1944, which meant that 'the owners could not be represented to make claims against

the hydro-electric development work which by that time was virtually finished'. These two claims also

mention the then intended privatization of the Electricorp, and mention that they are concerned that

this process may impinge on the ability of the claimants to obtain redress.206 Wai 687 also complains

that the proposed sale process of the stations 'offers no guarantees of protection of [the] interests of

[the] indigenous owners of Waikaremoana and it therefore prejudicial to the Treaty of Waitangi

claims process of the Kahungunu-Rongomaiwahine iwi,.207 Further developments in relation to this

sale process that occurred since these claims were submitted are discussed below.

From around 1907, local bodies and groups such as the Napier Chamber of Commerce

campaigned for a power generation scheme at Waikaremoana.208 The government finally agreed to

develop the area in 1926, and work started on the Tuai station the same year. This station was

situated downstream from Waikaremoana on the Waikaretaheke River (the outlet river of the lake).

The river was diverted so that the water would flow into bike Kaitawa, and then downstream into

the power station. Generation at this station began in 1929.

Attention then turned to the capacity of the lake itself. In the 1920s and 1930s, a number of

different suggestions were made for ways in which to harness the natural power of the lake.

Waikaremoana was originally formed by a massive land slip which created a huge natural dam. The

206 Wai 333 Statement of Claim, 17 January 1992; Wai 621 Statement of Claim, 12 September 1996 207 Wai 687 Statement of Claim, 16 May 1997

63

tlvers that had previously run down the valley eventually filled up the area behind the slip, and

became Lake Waikaremoana. For water to empty out of the lake, the water had to either go over the

top of the dam, which it only did when the lake was high, or seep its way through the dam in a series

of under-water cracks, which then emerged out of the land below as spriilgs and waterfalls. In 1935-

6, tunneling into the natural dam began, with the intention of building a tunnel below most of the

underwater cracks, so that the lake level could be lowered, the cracks filled, and the lake level raised

again. However, the Minister of Works considered that the work was too dangerous, and the work

was stopped.

Instead, work was begun on the Piripaua station, further south of the lake, in 1939.209 A new

man-made lake, Lake Whakamarino, wa~ formed next to the Tuai station, and then the water diverted

from there through tunnels down to the Piripaua station, instead of travelling down the

Waikaretaheke riverbed. Much of the riverbed was now dry. The new station itself was built in the

Waikaretaheke river bed. This station began generating electricity in 1943.

Work on the third Waikaremoana power station, Kaitawa, was begun in 1943. This station is

near the outlet of the lake, and part of the plant for the station is on the lake-bed itself. Tunneling

through the natural dam was restarted and the outlets of the lake were plugged with grout so that the

water wouldn't be 'wasted' by flowing out of the cracks. This work was very time-consuming and

difficult. Generation from Kaitawa began in 1948, although work on sealing the leaks in the outlet

continued until 1955.210 For a representation of the scheme, see Figure 6 of this report.

A number of important issues for Maori emerge from the Waikaremoana power scheme

project. Firstly, the government did not own the lake at the time that any of the work on the stations

was carried out. Even worse, the work was done during the hiatus period between the Crown's

appeal of the Native Land Court decision and the eventual hearing of that appeal. As discussed

above, the delays in hearing the appeal case were largely caused by the Crown. Given that the Crown

was refusing to acknowledge the lake was owned by Maori, it is seems unlikely that the Crown

consulted Maori about the scheme. This issue will have to be explored in the report that will follow

this one.

Secondly, massive environmental change took place in the Waikaremoana area through the

work on the schemes. Part of the Waikaretaheke river bed, which used to be filled by the springs

from the fissures in the dam, and sometimes by the overflow of the lake, is now dry. The Mangaone

River has also been diverted to add water to the scheme. The creation of a new lake, Whakamarino,

208 The discussion of the history of the stations in the following paragraphs is from John E. Martin (ed.), People, Politics and Power Stations: Electric Power Generation in New Zealand 1880-1990, Wellington, 1991 and G G Natusch, Power from Waikaremoana, Gisborne, 1992 209 See NZG, 28 April 1938, p.1021 210 Martin, p. 103

64

also altered the whole landscape of that area.211 Lake Waikaremoana itself was also changed by the

work. Before the work on the oudet, the level of the lake varied normally by around two metres, but

once the work was completed, the lake level lowered considerably, at times by as much as 10

metres.212 The Supervisor of National Parks reported in 1959 that:

Much of Lake Waikatemoana's beauty, fish, launch and boating ateas have been lost to hydto-electricity. The uncoveting of the fotest stumps as a tesult of the loweting of the level of the watet has sevetely testricted movement and the submetged stumps ate a constant menace neat most of the shoteline.213

The lowering of the lake also caused considerable erosion at the lake edge.214

The work also had an important impact on the many wahi tapu around the lake. For

example, work at the Haumapuhia Falls to the south of the lake, caused a landslide which covered the

form of the taniwha that had created the lake, which previously had been clearly visible.215 In the

1970s, Maori expressed great concern with the proposal to do further work on plugging the leaks in

the lake oudet. Stokes, Milroy and Melbourne say that when a diver working on the scheme in the

lake died mysteriously, this 'only reinforced the existing local belief that the lake oudet should not be

interfered with further. After all, there had already been a significant omen, tohu, in the landslide

which covered Haumapuhia during the power scheme construction,.216 Gallen says that during the

process of blocking the oudets to the lake, local people learned that the Ministry of Works intended

to blow up Nga Hoe a Kupe, 'one of the most significant groups of rocks adjacent to the shore'. He

says that local protests were ignored until the matter was taken to the Minister of Works, who finally

prevented the proposal from proceeding.217

It has also been suggested that the blocking of the lake ouclet may have affected the lake's

ecology. A 1970s study of the fish in the lake suggested that hardy fish and eel species may have

been able to make the journey upstream and through the oudet of the lake, despite the natural dam,

but that the power generation scheme had since blocked off their access to the lake. This study found

that the eels still in the lake in the 1970s would only be old survivors of the population that lived in

the lake before the scheme started. 218

Furthermore, the power scheme has had an impact on the tiny amount of land left to Maori

in the region. As noted above, the first work on the schemes took place at the lower stations, at

some distance from the lake itself. The blocks· where these were situated had of course been

211 Natusch, p. 38 212 Natusch, pp. 48-9 213 Supervisor of National Parks to Director General of Lands, 9 April 1959, F1 32/0/4 Acc W3129, NA, cited in Leah Campbell, p.59 214 Natusch, pp. 48-9 215 Stokes, Milroy and Melbourne, p. 216 216 Stokes, Milroy and Melbourne, p. 216 217 Affidavit of Rodney Gallen, 9 April 1997, p. 2, Appendix 3 of the report of the Joint Ministerial Inquiry into Lake Waikaremoana, August 1998 218 R. M. McDowall, quoted in Gallen and North, pp. 60-61

65

alienated for many years However, there were a number of Maori reserves still remaining from the

purchase of these blocks, and they were affected by the work on the stations.

Part of the Heiotahoka reserve was taken for the Piripaua works.219 A Mrs Nelson (who also

signed herself Mokai Hine), who was living on the reserve at the time wrote to the Maori Land Board

in 1938 to complain that the workers on the scheme:

are putting huts up, as well as a road lying right in the middle of my paddocks. Also a pipeline in my bush, where I get my wood from. What I mind mosdy is the road they are putting through my orchard and potato crop paddock. I was born on the place including my children [ ... J I also want you to see if they would put fences up on both sides of the road as they are putting their road through the middle of our paddocks.22o

A long correspondence followed as further problems emerged. Mrs Nelson complained that

the scheme's workers were cutting down green trees, and asked that they be made to pay for them

and she asked that the people living in huts on the block should be made to pay rent.221 The

disappearance of the water in the riverbed, which had gone dry because of the generation work

meant, like the new road, that her stock was no longer fenced in.222

A case was taken to the Native Land Court in 1942 in respect of the use of this reserve for

the public works. The owners won compensation for 'land taken, injurious affection and temporary

occupation' of their land by the Public Works Department. As the Department was still occupying

the land, they were also ordered to pay rent until the equipment and buildings were removed from

the land. This was finally done in 1952; in lieu of the rent owing, the Public Works Department gave

the owners of the block a water reticulation unit that had previously been used for the public works

ill 223 V age.

The Te Kopani reserve, which has become more and more important since the depopulation

of the kainga around Waikaremoana, and contains the two important communities of Waimako and

Kuha, was also affected by the works. Some land was taken from the reserve through the Public

Works Act 1928, and the reserve was also affected by change to the flow of the Waikaretaheke River,

the diversion of the Mangaone River, pipelines running through the reserve, and the change to the

environment that all of these changes wrought.224

Rodney Gallen wrote in his history of the lake that the Electricity Department agreed to

provide free electricity to the two kainga, Kuha and Waimako.225. At this point I have found no

219 See NZG, 19 June 1941, p. 1861 220 Mrs Nelson (Mokai Hine) to Native Land Board, Gisbome, 8 July 1938, PW 92/12/32/6, Waikaremoana Lower Development Piripaua Land and Legislation, Napier LINZ 221 Mokai Hine to Native Land Board, Gisbome, 27 January 1939, PW 92/12/32/6, Waikaremoana Lower Development Piripaua Land and Legislation, Napier LINZ 222 O'Malley and Jones, Wairoa, to Land Purchase Office, Public Works Department, 11 June 1943, PW 92/12/32/6, Waikaremoana Lower Development Piripaua Land and Legislation, Napier LINZ 223 PW 92/12/32/6, Waikaremoana Lower Development Piripaua Land and Legislation, Napier LINZ 224 Stokes, Milroy and Melbourne, pp. 216-219 plus figures no. 45 and no. 46. See also NZG, 19 June 1941, p. 1861 225 Gallen and North, p. 40

66

evidence as to whether free power was ever actually provided, and if it was, how long it continued.

This will be something that will have to be explored in the report that follows this one.

It is worthy of note that there were also Ngati Kahungunu reserves alongside the

Waikaretaheke River, as well as these two Tuhoe and Ngati Ruapani reserves (see Figure 4 of this

report). It is not clear whether the stations had any impact on these reserves.

Another result of the power scheme and the lowering of the lake was that a substantial area

of land that had previously been underwater became dry land. As Rodney Gallen writes, the

unauthorized use of this land was of great concern to both the owners of the lake-bed and the

National Park Board, who were powerless to do anything about it. Apparently, a number of Pakeha

squatters built huts and camps on the land. It was l10tuntil the lease agfeemehtwas finalised that the

Park Board was able to do anything about the people living in these places.226

Finally, an application to the Waitangi Tribunal in 1996 from Ngati Ruapani, plus a number

of claims on the issue, reflects on-going concern about the ownership of the power stations. In June

1995, the government announced a package in relation to the growth of competition in the electricity

generation market. Part of the proposal was to sell some of the smaller power stations around the

country, including the three stations at Waikaremoana. Ngati Ruapani applied to the Tribunal for an

urgent hearing on the issue, arguing that the government should not sell the stations, but should

instead 'enter negotiations with Ngati Ruapani to return the land and the assets to Ngati Ruapani as

part of its Treaty settlement'.227 The urgency application was turned down by the Tribunal.

On 1 April 1999, the Crown transferred the ownership of these three stations from ECNZ to

the new State Owned Enterprise, Genesis Power Limited, with the intention of selling the stations in

the future. However, they were not sold before the change of government, and it seems that the new

Labour government does not intend to sell the stations. At present the three stations continue to be

managed by Genesis. The consultation that occurred surrounding these changes and proposed

changes to the ownership of the scheme should also be discussed in any report about the stations.

Files on the hydro-electric schemes on the lake are held in a number of locations. The first is

at National Archives, Wellington (mainly the Electricity Department AADO 569 files). These files

are largely of a technical and engineering nature. In addition, various papers about the scheme were

collected together in the 1940s for the Appellate Court hearings regarding the ownership of the lake­

bed, and are held in the CL 200 sequence at National Archives.

A large group of files that are still held by the ECNZ Residual Unit, Wellington. This unit is

all that remains of Electricity Corporation of New Zealand, now that the Corporation has been split

226 Campbell, 'Urewera Overview Project Four: Te Urewera National Park', pp.130-2 227 Submission on Application for an Urgent Fixture, counsel for Wai 144, Carrie Wainwright, to the Waitangi Tribunal, 27 May 1996, (Wai 144 record of documents, doc A4)

67

up into a nutnber of different parts. The files are currendy in the process of being transferred to

National Archives. Unfortunately, this means that they have not been available for the writing of this

report, although ECNZ has supplied a list of the files that are to be transferred.228

Some files are held by LINZ offices around the country, and ate accessible though LINZ in

Wellington. One of the most useful is PW 92/12/32/6 'Waikatemoana Lower Development

Piripaua Land and Legislation', which deals with the issue of the Heiotahoka Reserve, discussed

above. There are also a nutnber of useful secondary sources that deal with the development of the

hydro-electric scheme on the lake, particularly John E. Martin's People, Politics and Power Stations: Electric

Power Generation in New Zealand 1880-1990 and G G Natusch's, Power from Waikaremoana.229 While they

give a good background to the history of the schemes,issues of consultation with local Maori and the

impact of the schemes on them has not discussed in these sources.

A considerable nutnber of recent reports have been commissioned by ECNZ about the

impact (and possible future impacts) of the power scheme on the ecosystem of the lake itself, which

will be useful to this study, although they are rather specialised and technical. These reports mainly

focus on the impact of the lowering of the lake level. They cover a range of issues such as the

possible erosion of the lake edges and cliffs, the change of the microcosmic organisms and so on.

3.4 Rates

Rate demands on the Waikaremoana reserves has been a ongoing issue for the owners of the

reserves. The local council has billed the owners of the reserves for rates, even though, as Stokes,

Milroy and Melbourne put it, these rate demands were in respect of land 'that does not and can not

generate any income, has no services supplied by the county, and which owners can not use,.230 It

should also' be noted, as discussed above, that during the Urewera consolidation scheme, the

agreement between Ngata and the Maori owners of the reserves made in the 1920s (discussed above)

said that they would not have to pay rates on the land. Because they were unable to use their land,

the owners of the land refused to pay the bill. Stokes, Milroy and Melbourne said that the debt was

$14,000 in 1972 and over $40,000 in 1985. In 1986, the rates were waived by the Wairoa County

Council.231 This is an issue that will need to be investigated further in the report that will follow this

one.

228 Since I have not seen the fues, it is impossible to estimate how long it will take to read this set of files for the main report, although my contact at ECNZ says that they may not be of much use to a project such as this one as they are largely of an operational nature. 229 Martin, (ed.), People, Politics and Power Stations; Electric Power Generation in New Zealand 1880-1990; G G Natusch, Power from Waikaremoana, Gisbome, op cit. 230 Stokes, Milroy and Melbourne, pp. 86-7 231 Stokes, Milroy and Melbourne, pp. 86-7

68

Fi ure 6 - Waikaremoana H dro-Electric Scheme Graphical Representation Only elizlwaikarel6power - sht6of6 noel harris: sep2000

North

Dam, Mangaone diversion

Source: Martin 1991

Norlh

11

KEY:

- - Penstocks

======= Tunnels

===,~,,== Siphon

=== Pipeline

o Surge chamber

Location map

69

Chapter Four

Recommendations

Throughout this report, a number of issues have been highlighted that will need to be discussed in

more detail in the Tribunal-commissioned report(s) that follow this one. However, it is probably

useful to restate a number of the issues that need will the most intensive additional research and/or

discussion in order to facilitate the Tribunal's investigation of the claims dealing with the region.

The first topic that particularly needs to be explored is the historical basis of the claims that

Ngati Kahungunu have made to the region. As discussed throughout this report, the traditional

history of Ngati Ruapani and Tuhoe in the region have been discussed in a number of reports, but

Ngati I<ahungunu's history has not. This lack carries through to create difficulties in properly writing

about the alienation of the land and the lake, and it is not possible to assess with actions of the

Crown correctly without it. It would seem that an exploration of the relationship between the upper­

Wairoa and other Kahungunu groups would be useful.

Secondly, the fate of the southern block reserves needs to be examined in more detail. As

discussed above, the Ngati I<ahungunu reserves have not been discussed in any of the reports on the

record except a brief discussion in Joy Hippolite's report about the Wairoa region. The history of the

alienation of the two Tuhoe reserves during the Urewera consolidation scheme also needs to be

explored further. The power station scheme also had an important impact on many of the reserves,

which needs to be explored. An earlier chapter has suggested some files and other sources that may

shed more light on these issues. Thirdly, the impact of the Crown's conservation of the area needs to

be explored, particularly with regard to the owners of the reserves.

A further issue that needs some further research is the creation and impact of the power

stations on the lake and the Waikaretaheke River will also need to be examined more carefully. The

stations' implications for the local Maori people and the remaining reserves have not been explored

in any report on the Tribunal record. The text of this report has listed some of the files that will be

very useful to the writing of this topic. Also useful would be an exploration of the role that the lake

took in the economy of the local people, both before and after contact with Pakeha. Finally, living

conditions at the lake after the alienation of the bulk of the land should also be explored further.

One of Vincent O'Malley's reports has begun to investigate this topic.232

232 O'Malley, 'The Crown's Acquisition of the Waikaremoana Block', chapter 9

70

4.1 Additional projects

In order for the report that is to follow this one to be effectively written, a number of side projects

will need to be completed:

1. A project should be commissioned to discuss the traditional history of the Ngati Kahungunu

people in the region. It would need to contain a detailed examination of the issue of customary

ownership of the lake and the surrounding lands. It is not necessary for the whole history of the

alienation of the lands to be written again from a Ngati Kahungunu point of view, but a

discussi()n that deals with the cust()mary issues fr()m the point of view ofKah1.lngufi1.l is vital.

2. The claimants may wish to undertake an oral history project. This could feed into the reports

commissioned by the Tribunal, if the claimants wished, and would also be valuable for claimant

submissions to the Tribunal. This project could explore:

~ Customary ownership of the lake and the customary lands

~ The traditional use of the lake

~ The implications of the power stations on the local environment, on the remaining Maori

land, and on the local population

~ The management of the lake and the surrounding area by the Crown and· the interaction

between the tangata whenua and the Crown agents. How do the rules of the National Park

impact on their use of the lake and of the flora and fauna of the surrounding area?

~ The depopulation of the region at various stages, and its implications

3. The translation of the Urewera Commission minute books (or the checking of the currently

available translations) and other records in Te Reo should be a priority.

4.2 Suggestions

There are a number of different options for the writing of a Tribunal-commissioned report about the

Waikaremoana district and lake. The first option is each of the groups that have an interest in the

region could develop a series of reports that would complement the series of CFRT-commissioned

reports that have been already written for Ngati Ruapani. However, this would lead to a great deal of

unnecessary duplication. Instead, an historian writing from an independent stand-point could write a

history of the region that takes in to account, and assesses, all of the claims that have been made to

the region. This, then, is the second option. One report could be commissioned which deals with all

71

the issues that are important in the region. It would need to be commissioned by the Tribunal on

behalf of all the claimants in the region. The commission could be quite similar to the commission

for this report, and cover a similar set of topics. The format for the report could be:

~ Introduction ~ Chapter One - Customary interests at the lake ~ Chapter Two - History from contact to NZ wars and Te Kooti campaigns ~ Chapter Three - Lands at Waikaremoana and their alienation ~ Chapter Fout - Litigation re the title to the lake-bed ~ Chapter Five - The actions and policy of the Crown at the lake ~ Chapter Six - Hydro-electric generation on the lake ~ Chapter Seven - Modern management of the lake by the Crown ~ Chapter Eight - Conclusion

However, the number and complexity of the issu~s that would need to be discussed are so large that

it is probably not possible for one person to write about them all in one report within the limited

time available. A report of this size and complexity would probably take at least a year and a half to

write. Instead, I have suggested that the topics be split into two, and two reports be written by two

different authors. Each of the authors would have to be careful to not duplicate the work of the

other. I have suggested below a way in which the topics could be divided up, and a suggested

timeframe for the research and writing of the reports.

Report One - Waikaremoana Land

The first chapter of this report could deal with the customary history of the region. This issue needs

to be discussed in the same report as the alienation of the land, as the two topics are so closely

related. This could then go on to discuss nineteenth century history of the region, contact between

Maori and Pakeha in the region and the New Zealand wars.

Subsequent chapters could deal with the alienation of the land blocks. Much of the basic

information for the writing of this report is already contained within the O'Malley and Stevens

reports. However, as I have explained throughout this report, there are some issues that have not

been highlighted in these reports, and will have to be discussed in more detail by a historian working

from an independent standpoint. These chapters should also deal with the reserves made from the

blocks and their fate. This report should not deal in much detail with the implications of the national

park on the owners of the reserves, which can be dealt with in the second report. Likewise, it should

not deal in much detail with the implications of the power stations on the reserves, except where it

meant temporary or permanent alienation of the land, as this can be dealt with in the second report.

72

Finally, the report should discuss the litigation surrounding the ownership of the

Waikaremoana lake-bed, and also the ownership of Lake Waikareiti.

This report will be a very large piece of work, and would take around 7-8 months to

complete. The basic form of the report could be:

Introduction 1 week

- Including discussion of the claims and the claimants

Chapter One - Traditional history and rohe

- The occupation of the district 3-4 weeks to research

- The changing situation in the nineteenth century 2 weeks to write

- The role that the lake took in the local economy

Chapter Two - The southern blocks

- The NZ wars and their implications for the district 2-3 weeks to research

- The formation and alienation of the southern blocks 2 weeks to write

- The reserves from the southern blocks and their fate

Chapter Three - The Waipaoa block 2-3 weeks to research

- The alienation of the block 2 weeks to write

- The alienation of Lake Waikareiti

Chapter Four - The Waikaremoana Block

- Urewera Native Reserve 2-3 weeks to research

- Consolidation Scheme 2 weeks to write

- Alienation of the block

- Waikaremoana block reserves

Chapter Five - The litigation surrounding the 2 weeks to research

ownership of the lake-bed 2 weeks to write

Conclusion 2 week

Q.A. time, time to make requested corrections, 3 weeks

mapping

Total 27-31 weeks

Report Two - The Conservation and Exploitation of the Waikaremoana district

This report will cover the impact of Crown actions at the lake and its environs. This will cover the

implications of 'scenery preservation' and the development of tourism on the Crown's policies on the

region, and its impact on the local people. It would also discuss the impact of the national park

73

policy (not only the owners of the reserves, but all local Maori groups). The interplay between

scenery preservation and the alienation of the Waikaremoana block would also be discussed here.

The Crown's management of the lake, and consultation with local iwi about its management,

could also be covered in this report, as could the 1998 Ministerial Inquiry and its outcomes.

Finally, the hydro-electric generation scheme should be covered in this report, including the

stations' impact on the environment and the reserves. The issues surrounding the suggested sale of

the stations in recent years could also be discussed here.

This report could take up to 6 months to write. A basic outline of the report could be:

Introduction

- Including discussion of the claims and the claimants 1 week

in relation to the topic of the report

Chapter One - Early manifestations of

conservation in the area and its impacts (c.1900s-

1954) 3 weeks to research

- including the game reserves· etc 2 weeks to write

- scenery preservation and its impact on the region

- promotion of tourism etc

Chapter Two - The National Park and its impact

on the region

- Impact on the owners of the reserves and the other 3 weeks to research

people of Waikaremoana 2 weeks to write

- The management of the lake and surrounding region

and consultation with local iwi etc

Chapter Three - The power scheme and its 3 weeks to research

impact on the area 2 weeks to write

Chapter Four - Other issues 2 weeks to research

- Rates 2 weeks to write

- Public works, roading etc

Conclusion 1 week

Q.A. time, time to make requested corrections, 3 weeks

mapping etc

Total 24 weeks

74

Bibliography

PRIMARY SOURCES

Unpublished Alexander Turnbull Library McLean papers (especially MS-Papers-0032 and MS-Copy-Micro-0535)

National Archives, Wellington Crown Law Office CL 200 Purported Investigation into the Title of Lake Waikaremoana, 1954 CL 179 CLO Papers re RC on Confiscated Lands CL 179/19 Maori petitions - Bay of Plenty; Hawke's Bay, Taranaki CL 179/22 Kauhomoa petitions 71/1924 and 362/1924 CL 179/13 Notes on Wattoa hearings CL 179/19 Maori Petitions

Electricity Department AADO 569 Box 532c 59/7 Land required AADO 569 Box 534a 59/7 Compensation claim AADO 569 Box 553b 59/14/3 Electric line - Tuai Village AADO 569 Box 590c 59/135 Camping sites

Forestry Department F 1/8/2/5 volume 2 Urewera Country 1921-9 F 1/8/2/5 volume 3 Urewera Country 1923-37 F 1/8/2/5 volume 4 Urewera Country 1939-48 F 1/8/2/5 volume 5 Urewera Country 1948-52 F 1/32/0/4 National Parks Authority minutes volumes 1-20 Acc W3129 8/2/5/1 Ureweras: Maori Land Interests in the Urewera General Part 1 1963-1972 Acc W3129 IA Box 351 52/3 Lake Waikaremoana Part 1 Acc W3129 IA Box 351 52/3 Lake Waikaremoana Part 2 Acc W3129 IA Box 351 52/13 Urewera Country Parts 1 and 2 Acc W3129 IA Box 351 52/13/1 Urewera- Waikaremoana - Reports by R Fraser

Justice Department J 1894/287 Waipaoa No.1

Legislative Department LE 1/1915/9 LE 1/1948/307 Paora Waina re Lake Waikaremoana LE 1/1971/1 Lake Waikaremoana Bill

Lands and Survey Department LS 1 Box 630 49224 [Onepoto Reserve] 1885-1918 LS 1/6/1/366 sec 3 blk xxiv Waiau S.D. LS 1/6/1/388 Stock Reserve sec 5 blk V Taramarama SD LS 1/6/1/479 Stock Reserve Waikaremoana-Ruatahuna Road LS 1/6/485 Hatchery site, Sec 5, Block III, Waiau SD LS 1/16/1597 Mangarewarewa Road, Waikaremoana

75

LS 122/60 LS 1/1340

Burial ground, Whareama block 1913 35030/4 E Best et al re Waikaremoana Handbook

LS 70/3 LS 70/4 LS 70/18 LS 70/20 LS 70/21 LS 70/22

Minute Books, Scenery Preservation Commission, 1907-18 Minute Books, Scenery Preservation Commission, 1919-1938 Index to reserves, [Scenery Preservation Commission] Misc. maps and papers, 1904-5, [Scenery Preservation Commission] Misc. maps and papers, 1904-5, [Scenery Preservation Commission] Misc. maps and papers, 1904-5, [Scenery Preservation Commission]

Maori Affairs Department MA 1/1906/1137 Waipaoa No.5 MA 1/1913/3983 MA 1/1915/3275 MA 1/1915/2346 MA 1/1919/696 MA 1/1920/290

MA 1/1921/160 MA 1/1921/229

MA 1/26/19/1 MA 1/29/4/7 MA 1/29/4/7 MA 1/29/4/7 MA 1/29/4/7 MA 1/29/4/7 MA 1/29/4/7A MA 1/29/4/7/2 MA 1/29/4/7/2 MA 1/29/4/7/2 MA 1/30/3/53 MA 1/19/1/135

MA 13/91 MA 13/92 MA 19/13 MA 31/3 MA 85/2 MA 85/4 MA87

Lake Waikaremoana - petition of Hirimu Mouru Rangi Reserves in Taramarama Block: Old Native Land Purchase file

Native Department report on petition of Matamua Whakamoe re Waikaremoana Waikaremoana - Mr. F Mawe Conference of judges ofNLC, Wellington 1921

Wairoa Maori Trust Board Regulations Part 1 Consolidation ofUrewera purchase 1921-24 Part 2 Consolidation ofUrewera purchase 1924-28 Part 3 Consolidation of Urewera purchase 1929-35 Part 4 Consolidation of Urewera purchase 1936-48 Part 5 Consolidation ofUrewera purchase 1948-71 Urewera Land Scheme - Balneavis File 1920-45 Part 1, Waikaremoana Debentures, 1936-56 Part 2, Waikaremoana Debentures, 1958-59 Part 3, Waikaremoana Debentures Waikaremoana Housing Survey 1937-48 Bushfelling - Urewera County Parts 1-7

Urewera special file Urewera (Sheppard-Galvin report) Tairawhiti District Maori Land Board file (1905-1916) Consolidation of Native Land Minutes of evidence [Sim Commission] Copies of petition presented to parliament [Sim Commission] Native Affairs Commission, 1934

MA W2459 MA W2459 MA W2459 MA W2459

1/5/13/78 Part 1 Lake Waikaremoana 1915-1948 Appeal notes and Court minutes 1/5/13/78 Part 2 Lake Waikaremoana 1948-1953 1/5/13/78 Part 3 Lake Waikaremoana 1954-1961 1/5/13/78 Part 4 Lake Waikaremoana 1962-1971

MA/MLP 1910/28/1 MA/MLP 1910/28/1 part 2 MA/MLP 1910/28/9 Box 84 Waikaremoana Block MA/MLP 1910/28/6 Ierenui Ohaua Block

76

MA-MLP 1910/129 Waipaoa Block No.5

Marine Department M 1/25/2808 Bed of Lake Waikaremoana M 1/7/148 Freshwater Fisheries - Lake Waikaremoana M 14/4/217 launch 1916

Tourist Department TO 1/1902/23 Waikaremoana TO 1/1903/67 Waikaremoana Accommodation TO 1/1906/28 Waikaremoana Lake House TO 1/1908/211 Waikaremoana Lake House TO 1/1908/245 Waikaremoana Lake House TO 1/1908/278 Waikaremoana Oil Launch 1908-16 TO 1/1908/424 Ruatahuna to Waikaremoana Road TO 1/1908/51 Waikaremoana cemetery reserve 1908-10 TO 1/1909/104 Waikaremoana tender for leasing 1909-10

Public Works Department W 1/36/65 part 1 [Hangaroa to Waikaremoana Road] W 1/36/65 part 2 [Hangaroa to Waikaremoana Road] W 1/36/156 Part 1 Frasertown-Waikaremoana [Road] 1902-15 W 1/36/156 Part 1 Frasertown-Waikaremoana [Road] 1900-21 W 1/36/156 Part 1 Frasertown-Waikaremoana [Road] 1922-26 W 1/36/314 Waikaremoana Road Waiau River Foot Bridge W 1/36/385 Wairoa-Waikaremoana Road Bridges Mangaone, Scamperdowne, Fantail W 1/24/571 Parts 2-7 Waikaremoana Accommodation House, 1922-41

National Archives, Auckland BAFK 1466 and BAHT 1466 - various Te Urewera National Park files

Maori Land Court, Gisborne MA 1/141 Tukurangi Block File MA 7/6/78 vol.51955 MA 8/2/491 Waikaremoana Lake MA 8/2/601 Waikaremoana Debenture MA 8/2/601A Waikaremoana Reserves MA 8/3/484 Lake Waikaremoana block file

MA929 MA 750 MA41 MA 1179 MA 1002/1874

Ruakituri Block Taramarama Block Tukurangi Block WaiauBlock Waipaoa Block

Land Infonnation New Zealand, Gisborne Office 20/89 Waipaoa Block, Part One - Part Four233

6900/0089 Waipaoa Block234

233 Accessed through LINZ, Wellington 234 Accessed through LINZ, Wellington

77

Land Infonnation New Zealand, Napier Office PW 92/12/32/6 Waikaremoana Lower Development Piripaua Land and Legislation235

Department of Conservation, Gisborne LS 4/4 Urewera National Park vol 4-12

Te Puni Kokiri, Head Office, Wellington 'Lake Waikaremoana: background paper prepared by Te Puni Komi', 8 May 1998 'Lake Waikaremoana Inquiry: schedule of submissions', [1998] Submissions given to the Joint Ministerial Inquiry regarding Lake Waikaremoana, 1998

Published Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives New Zealand Gazette New Zealand Parliamentary Debates

SECONDARY SOURCES

Unpublished Research Reports for the Waitangi Tribunal Binney, Judith, 'Urewera Overview Project: A History of the Urewera from European Contact until 1878', forthcoming

Campbell, S K L, 'Land Alienation, Consolidation and Development in the Urewera 1912 - 1950', July 1997, (Wai 36 record of documents, doc A9)

Campbell, S K L, 'Urewera Overview Project Four: Te Urewera National Park 1952-75', CFRT research report, June 1999, (Wai 36 record of documents, doc A13)

Milroy, Te Wharehuia and Hirini Melbourne, 'Te Roi 0 Te Whenua', (Wai 36 record of documents, docA4) .

O'Malley, Vincent, 'East Coast Confiscation Legislation and its Implementation', February 1944, (Wai 144 record of documents, doc A2)

O'Malley, Vincent, 'The Crown & Ngati Ruapani: Confiscation & Land Purchase in the Wairoa­Waikaremoana Area, 1865-1875', October 1994, (Wai 144 record of documents, doc A3)

O'Malley, Vincent, 'The Crown's Acquisition of the Waikaremoana Block, 1921-25', May 1996, (Wai 144 record of documents, doc A 7 plus document bank)

Stevens, Emma, 'Report on the history of the tide to the lake-bed of Lake Waikaremoana and Lake Waikareiti', CFRT research report, February 1996

Stevens, Emma, 'Report on the history of the Waipaoa Block, 1882-1913', May 1996, (Wai 144 record of documents, doc A8)

235 Accessed through LINZ, Wellington

78

Theses Ballara, Angela, 'The Origins of Ngati Kahungunu', PhD thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, 1991

Huata, Codry Tawa, 'Ngaati Kahungunu: Te Wairoa, Heretaunga', MA thesis, Auckland, 1983

Robert Wiri, 'Te Wai-kaukau 0 Nga Matau Tipuna': Myths, Realities, and the Determination of Mana Whenua in the Waikaremoana District', MA thesis, University of Auckland, 1994

Submissions to the Waitangi Tribunal Submission of Carrie Wainwright, counsel for Wai 144 claimants, 27 May 1996, (Wai 144 record of documents, doc A 4)

Submission of D J Ambler, counsel for Tuhoe-Waikaremoana Maori Trust Board and the Wairoa­Waikaremoana Maori Trust Board, 27 May 1996, (Wai 144 record of documents, doc AS)

Submission of Briar Gordon, Crown counsel, 27 May 1996, (Wai 144 record of documents, doc A6)

Published Pamphlets Electricity Corporation of New Zealand, Waikaremoana: A Guide to the Waikaremoana Power Scheme, Wellington, n.d. [1992?]

'Lake Waikaremoana, New Zealand: An Ideal Resting Place. Fine Forest and Lovely Lakes. Beautiful Islands and Waterfalls. Good Fishing Rivers', 1903 [Reprinted from the Wairoa Guardian, 24 April 1903]

State Hydro-electric Department of New Zealand, 'Waikaremoana Power Scheme', Wellington 1953

Articles Colenso, W, 'Notes and Reminiscences of Early Crossings of the Romantically-situated Lake Waikaremoana, County of Hawke's Bay, of its Neighbouring Country and its Peculiar Botany; performed in the years 1841-43', Transactions and Proceedings of the New Zealand Institute, Vol 27, 1894, pp.359-882

Downes, T W, 'The History of Ngati Kahungunu', Journal of the PolYnesian Society, Vol. 23-25, 1914-16

Gudgeon, WE, 'The Maori Tribes of the East Coast of New Zealand', Journal of the PolYnesian Society, Vols. 3-6, 1894-1897

Parsonson, Ann, 'The Challenge to Mana Maori', in Geoffrey Rice (ed.), The Oxford History of New Zealand, Auckland, 1992, pp.167-198

Ward, Alan, 'Pere, Wiremu', The Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, Volume 2, Wellington, 1993, pp.380-382

Books Ballara, Angela, Iwi: The Dynamics of Maori Tribal Organisation from c.1769 to c.1945, Wellington, 1998

Best, Elsdon, Tuhoe: Children of the Mist, 1925, [reprint Wellington, 1996]

79

Best, Elsdon, Waikare-moana: The Sea of the Rippling Waters, n.d. [reprint Wellington, 1975]

Binney, Judith, Redemption Songs: A Lift ofTe Kooti Arikirangi Te T uruki, Auckland, 1995

Brookfield, F M, Waitangi and Indigenous Rights: Revolution, Law and Legitimation, Auckland, 1999

Cowan, James, The New Zealand Wars and the Pioneering Period, 2 volumes, Wellington, 1922, [reprint 1983]

Department of Lands and Survey, Land of the Mist: The Story ofUrewera National Park, Gisborne, 1983

Department of Tourist and Health Resorts, New Zealand Tours: Lake Waikaremoana The Sea of Rippling Waters: Wellington, 1927

Farrell, Bryan H, Power In New Zealand: A Geograjf?y of Energy Resources, Wellington, Reed, 1962

Gallen, Rodney and Allan North, A Souvenir Booklet of Waikaremoana, Wairau-Moana, Waikareiti, n.p., 1977

Hickson,J, Catholic Missionary Work in Hawke's Bqy, New Zealand, Auckland, 1924

Kearn, R F, Wazkaremoana: the Forests, Rivers and Lakes ofUrewera National Park, 1958

Lambert, Thomas, 'East Coast Local Bodies' Waikaremoana Souvenir to Mark the Official Opening of Lake Waikaremoana Hydro-Electric Station', 1929

Lambert, Thomas, Story of Old Wairoa and the East Coast District, North Island, 1925, [reprint Dunedin, 1952]

Mackay, Joseph, Historic Poverry Bqy and the East Coast, Gisborne, self-published, 1949

Martin, John E, (ed.), People, Politics and Power Stations: Electric Power Generation in New Zealand 1880-1990, Wellington, 1991

Mitchell,J H, Takitimu: a History of the Ngati Kahungunu People, 1944, [reprint n.p., 1972]

Natusch, G G, Power from Waikaremoana, Gisborne, 1992

Ngata, Apirana (ed.), Nga Moteatea: The Songs, Wellington, 1974, two volumes

Porter, Frances, (ed.), The Turanga Journals 1840-1850. Letters and Journals of William and Jane Williams, Wellington, 1974

Shaw, W B, K Thompson and G A Steward, Bibliograjf?y ofTe Urewera National Park, Wellington, 1991

Stokes, Evelyn, J Wharehuia Milroy and Hirini Melbourne, Te Urewera Nga Iwi Te Whenua Te Ngahere: People, Land and Forests ofTe Urewera, Hamilton, 1986

Ward, Alan, An Unsettled History: TreaD' Claims in New Zealand Todqy, Wellington, 1999

Official Reports

80

Department of Conservation, Te Urewera National Park Management Plan, 1989 - 1999, Rotorua, 1989

Department of Conservation, Conservation Management Strategy; East Coast ConservanQ', 1998-2000, 2 volumes, n.d.

Department of Lands and Survey, 'Planning Team Report on Lake Waikaremoana Facilities Area', 1972

'Joint Ministerial Inquiry Lake Waikaremoana, Report to Minister of Maori Affairs and Minister of Conversation', 1998

Urewera National Park Board and Tourist Hotel Corporation, 'Environmental Impact report: Development of Accommodation and Facilities at Home Bay, Lake Waikaremoana', 1975

Waitangi Tribunal Reports Waitangi Tribunal, The Whanganui River Report, Wellington, 1999

Waitangi Tribunal, Te Ika Whenua Rivers Report, Wellington 1998

Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui reports Hippolite,Joy, Wairoa, WaitangiTribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series, first release, November 1996

Miles, Anita, Te Urewera, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series, first release, March 1999

White, Ben, Inland Waterwqys: Lakes, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series, first release, March 1996 '

Loveridge, Donald M, Maori Land Councils and Maori Land Boards: A Historical Overview, 1900 to 1952, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series, first release, December 1996

81

Appendix 1: Direction Commissioning Research, 4 Apri12000, RW04 doc 3.13

,

t

DUPLlCATE

WAITANGI TRIBUNAL

CONCERNING

AND CONCERNING

DIRECTION COMMISSIONING RESEARCH

RW04 1*-,3' 13

the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975

the Urewera District inquiry

1 Pursuant to clause SA(1) of the second schedule of the Treaty ofWaitangi Act 1975, the Tribunal commissions Elizabeth Cox of Wellington, to complete on behalf of the Waitangi Tribuna1, a scoping report for this inquiry covering the following matters:

,-

a. an appraisal of the research that the Tribunal holds on record in respect of the Lake Waikaremoana district, and the identification of any outstanding issues of relevance to Waikaremoana requiring further research for the purposes of this inquiry. This would include assessing research in respect of:

b.

c.

d.

e. f.

g.

h.

1.

J.

(i) --'--assertions of customary interests at Lake Waikaremoana up to and including the period of contact with Pakeha;

(ii) an historical overview of events that took place at Waikaremoana between contact and the period of the New Zealand wars of the 1860s;

(iii) an assessment of the impact of cession and sales of land to _ the south of Lake Waikaremoana, 1866-1875, on interests and relationships in the Waikaremoana district;

the effects of the Urewera District Native Reserve Act 1896 upon the ownership of lands at Waikaremoana; the impact of scenery preservation and the growth of the tourism trade upon Government policy at Waikaremoana; the impact of the Urewera Lands Act 1921-2 upon Waikaremoana lands and owners; the title investigation of the lakebeds ofWaikaremoana and Waikareiti; the Waikaremoana hydro-electric scheme and other public works at Waikaremoana; the effects of the establishment of the Urewera National Park, in 1954, upon Waikaremoana lands and waters; identification of relevant statutes, by-laws and management plans that have had effect at Waikaremoana; issues with regard to the Crown management of lands and waters at Waikaremoana; recommendations for the management of future Tribunal-commissioned research in respect of Waikaremoana lands and waters.

I q q q 11 nn() / It:>

2. This commission commences on 3 April 2000 and finishes on 30 June 2000, at which time one copy of the report will be filed in unbound form and on disk, together with

. indexed copies of any transcripts or other supporting documents. .

3. The Registrar is to send copies of this direction to:

Elizabeth Cox, Waitangi Tribunal Anita Miles and Wayne Taitoko, Waitangi Tribunal Tama Nikora and Wharehuia Milroy, Wai 36 consolidated claim Aubrey Temara, Tuhoe Waikaremoana Maori Trust Board David Ambler, counsel for Wai 36 Vernon Winitana, Wai 144 Wi Te Tau Huata, Wai 425 Charles Cotter, Ruakituri Valley No 1 claim, Wai 481 Charles Cotter, Ngai Tama Te Rangi, Wai 506 RT Manuel, Wairoa-Waikaremoana Trust Board, Wai 621 Kahungunu-Rongomaiwahine (Te Okoro Joe Runga) claim, Wai 687 Peter Keepa, Urewera Lands and Waters claim, Wai 761 Hirini Paine, Tumatawhero-Waikaremoanaclaim, Wai 795 Solicitor General, Crown Law Office Director, Office of Treaty Settlements Secretary, Crown Forestry Rental Trust Chief Executive, Te Puni Kokiri

Dated at Wellington, this i A day of April, 2000.

J\J~-----=--, Deputy Chairperson, W AITANGI TRIBUNAL

..

Appendix 2: Collated statements of claim for Waikaremoana district lands, waterways and resources.

Wai36 Wai144 Wai201 Wai301 Wai425 Wai481 Wai506 Wai621 Wai687 Wai761 Wai795 Wai937 Wai945

Tuhoe consolidated claim Ruapani Lands and waters claim Wairoa ki Wairarapa claim Te Iwi 0 Rakaipaaka Lands and Resources (Nuhaka) claim Patunamu ki Tukurangi claim Ruakituri Valley no 1 claim Tukurangi and Waiau (Patunamu State Forest) claim Kahungunu ki Wairoa claim Kahungunu-Rongomaiwahine (Te Okoro Joe Runga) claim U rewera Lands and Waters (Keepa) claim Lake Waikaremoana, Tumatawhero claim Noa Tiwai Lakes, Lands and Resources claim Ngati Ruapani Ancestral Lands,Forests and Waterways (Renata) claim

IN THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL OFFICIAL WAI 36, WAI 40, W AI 333, WAI 386, WAI 560

IN THE MATIER of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975

AND

IN THE MATIER of claims by JAMES WHAREHUIA MILROY and TAMAROA RAYMOND NIKORA on behalf of the TUHOE-WAlKAREMOANA MAORI TRUST BOARD and the TUHOETRIBE

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF TUHOE CLAIMS

DATED THE 15th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2000

PRESENTED FOR FILING BY: EAST BREWSTER, Solicitors for the Tuhoe-Waikaremoana Maori Trust Board and the Tuhoe Tribe 1256 Arawa Street, Rotorua Tel: (07) 347-9076 Fax (07) 347-8701

Solicitor dealing with proceeding: D J Ambler da \doc\ tuhoesca.doc:t

~ 3b it~, \ ~ \,...)ca.: '"'\-0 c(;f 1..,' 4-

\.....k..' 333~.l, '+

~\,3~(,* 2.5

\.-Ja: 560 -#- ~ , 5

W c. .. .' .or:tG #- 1... 2...c4

W~ ..... '":fqf tt i. '3

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF TUHOE CLAIMS

Dated this 15th day of February 2000

A. TE PAPA - THE PREAMBLE

1.0 Nga Mihi a nga Kaitono

1.1 Kia ora huihui tatau Ngai Tuhoe ki te wakainga. E marama ana te riri, te puha, me nga patu mahara 0 tatau, mo nga mahi kino a te karauna i o tatau matua,- takanoa mai ki a tatau. Ko te tumanako, kia u mai tatau i runga i te whakaarokotahi, ki tenei kauhanganui, ki te whakaea i 0

tatau mate, ki te tiaki i atatau taonga tuku iho, a, ki te whai ao mo tatau me a tatau tamariki a muri ake nei. No reira, kia oratatau katoa.

1.2 To those of the Crown to whom these presents shall come. Greetings. The Waitangi Tribunal is a necessary and important institution as a means to provide a patient and fair hearing of our grievances against the Crown with a view to the promotion of a peaceful and just resolution. There are those who suggest more courageous actions. No solution however can ever be found without the foundation of a clear mutual understanding and a will of the Treaty partners to try to resolve the same.

2.0 Te Rohe 0 Tuhoe

2.1 The rohe of Tuhoe is all that land the boundaries of which are described as:

From Puke-nui-o-raho to Waiputatawa, to Te Awa-a-te-atua, to TeAka­tarere, to Paihau, to Werowero, to Taumata-o-Hakopurakau, to Te Puaha 0 Waipahihi, across Waiotahi harbour, to Te Tuamotu Pa, to Te Karihi Potae, to Te Kohai, to Otamaputa-anga, to Wainui-tohora, to Te Ana-kai-araara, to Ohiwa, to Tamuhua, to Wharewhare, to Te Ipu-o-te­mauri, to Ihukatia, to Te Parinui, to Pukenui, to Otao, to Te Horo, to Paparinga Tohora, to Marae-totara, to Puke-ahuahu, to Te Mata-o-te­Raupo, to Rakaututu, to Taumata-patiti, to Te Tapapatanga-o-te­Auripo, to Ohineteraraku, to Tahuna-roa, to O-Whakatane, to Huepu Pa, to Upoko-taua, to Te Wai-o-hou, to Kiwinui, to Otarere, to Te Mangaroa, to Whiti-otu, to Te Tiringa, to Whaka-iri-hau, to Waiariki, to Te Pohonga, to Te Awa-a-Taikehu, to Okahumata, to Tapapa, to Te

3.0

3.1

2

Puaha 0 Waipapa, to Otipa, to Whakangutu-toroa, to Tuku-toromiro, to Te Hokowhitu, to Te Whakamatau, to Okahu, to Aniwaniwa, to Te Houhi, to Te Taupaki, to Te Rautahuri, to Ngahuinga, to Te Arawhata, to Pohotea, Makihoi, to Te Ahiangatane, to Ngatapa, to Te Haraungamoa, to Kahotea, to Tukurangi, to Te Koareare, to Te Ahi-o­te-Atua, to Anewa, to Ruakituri, to Puketoromiro, to Mokonuiarangi,to Maungatapere, to Oterangi-pu, to Kaharoa and back to Puke-nui-o­raho. Nga Hapu 0 Tuhoe

The hapu of Tuhoe are :

At Ruatoki - Ngatirongo, Te Mahurehure, Ngati Koura, Te Urewera, Hamua, Ngati Tawhaki, Te Whanau-

AtWaiohau­At Ruatahuna -

At Maungapohatu -AtWaimana-

AtWaikare-

pani. Patuheuheu. Te Urewera, Kakahutapiki, Ngai Te Riu, Ngati Manunui, Ngati Tawhaki, Ngati Te Paenga, Ngati Kuri. Tamakaimoana. Ngati Raka, Ngati Rere, Te Whakatane, Ngai . Turanga, Tamaruarangi, Ngai Tatua, Ngai Tama. Te Whanau-pani and Ngati Hinekura.

4.0 The Claimants - Nga Kaitono

4.1 We, James Wharehuia Milroy, Tamaroa Raymond Nikora and the Tuhoe-Waikaremoana Maori Trust Board, being Maori and members of the Tuhoe Tribe, for ourselves, members of the Tuhoe tribe and all hapu of Tuhoe, claim that Tuhoe has been and remain prejudicially affected and grievously harmed by the Acts, Regulations, orders, policies, practices, acts and omissions, of the Crown which were enacted, promulgated, formulated, undertaken, done or omitted by the Crown in breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi as is more particularly set out in Part B below.

3

B. THE CLAIMS

1.0 RAUPATU

1.1 Confiscation of Tuhoe lands in The Bay of Plenty

Between 1863 and 1866 the Crown enacted laws allowing the confiscation of tribal lands for acts of rebellion. In 1865 the Crown launched an unjustified military campaign in the Tuhoe rohe killing Tuhoe people, and aided- and abetted Tuhoe's traditional enemies to commit atrocities against Tuhoe. On 17 January 1866 the Crown wrongly confiscated 124,000 acres ofTuhoe land.

1.1.1 On 3 December 1863 the Crown enacted the Suppression of Rebellion Act 1863 and the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863:

- to punish whole tribes and every member of every tribe found by the Governor General to have been in "rebellion"; and

- to dispossess whole tribes of their lands and to provide those lands for the settlement of Pakeha.

1.1.2 On 2 March 1865 the Reverend Carl Volkner was killed at Opotiki and on 27 July 1865 James Fulloon (also known as Herni Te Mautaranui) who was of Tuhoe was killed at Whakatane. Tuhoe was not responsible for the deaths of Reverend Carl Volkner and James Falloon. The Crown wrongly used these deaths as the reason for confiscation of Tuhoe and other land in the Bay of Plenty.

1.1.3 On 2 September 1865 the Crown issued a Proclamation of Peace whereby the Crown pardoned all Maori who had been in arms against the Crown excepting those responsible for the deaths of Reverend Carl VOlkner and James Fulloon and others. The Crown failed to give proper notice of the Proclamation of Peace to Tuhoe.

1.1.4 On 4 September 1865 the Crown proclaimed Martial Law in the Opotiki and Whakatane districts extending within the rohe of Tuhoe and sent a military force to apprehend the killers of Reverend Carl Volkner and James Fulloon. The Crown failed to give proper notice of the Proclamation of Martial Law to Tuhoe.

1.1.5 Following the Proclamation of Martial Law on 4 September 1865 the Crown despatched its Military Forces purportedly to apprehend the killers of Reverend Carl Volkner and James Fulloon, but failed to ensure that the conduct of the Military

4

Forces remained within proper perimeters. The actions of the military forces far exceeded their objectives.

1.1.6 On 20 October 1865 the Crown's Military Forces wrongly invaded the Tuhoe rohe killing Tuhoe people. Major McDonnell attacked Te Koingo, in the Waimana Valley while its people were sleeping, killing eight members of Tuhoe, while the remainder including Te Whiu escaped.

1.1.7 In October 1865 all of the alleged killers of Reverend Carl Volkner and James Fulloon, with the exception of Kereopa, surrendered at either Te Teko or Opotiki. Despite this; the Crown's Military Forces attacked Tuhoe again at Te Kuini in the Waimana Valley in November 1865.

1.1.8 In December 1865 the convicted murderers of Reverend Carl Volkner and James Fulloon were either executed or imprisoned. Despite this punishment and despite the Crown's undertaking that once the murderers were brought to trial all others would be forgiven, the Crown proceeded to penalise tribal communities including Tuhoe by confiscating land.

1.1.9 On 17 January 1866 the Crown, by proclamation under the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863, wrongly confiscated 448,000 acres in the Bay of Plenty inclusive of 124,000 acres of Tuhoe land even though:

Tuhoe had not been involved in the killing of Reverend Carl Volkner or James Fulloon.

Tuhoe had not been in rebellion.

Pursuant to the 1865 Proclamation of Peace Tuhoe had been forgiven for any previous bearing of arms.

The Crown failed to ascertain to which tribe the land belonged before proclaiming the confiscation.

The Crown deliberately confiscated the best of Tuhoe's tribal lands at Ohiwa, Ruatoki, Waimana and Opouriao.

1.1.10 In March 1866 the Crown's Military Forces invaded the Tuhoe rohe again, attacking Tuhoe at Kairakau in the Waimana Valley.

1.1.11 Between 1866 and 1870 the Crown's Military Forces pursued a /I scorched earth" policy of military campaigns in the Tuhoe rohe causing Tuhoe to abandon their traditional kainga north of the confiscation line, dispossessing Tuhoe of their traditional fisheries at Ohiwa, and forcing Tuhoe to retreat to the interior of Te Urewera. The Crown's Military Forces razed kainga,

, , 5

destroyed crops leaving Tuhoe homeless, destitute and without food causing the deaths of many Tuhoe.

1.1.12 The Crown's Military Forces murdered Tuhoe people, including Tipene, Tamaikoha's uncle at Whakarae on 24 April 1870, when Taimaikoha and his people had gathered to confirm the peace made with Major Kemp.

1.1.13 The Crown engaged Tuhoe's traditional enemies in its Military Forces and encouraged and assisted those traditional enemies to commit atrocities against Tuhoe people.

1.1.14 In December 1866 the Crown through its agent J.A. Wilson and Ngati Pukeko and Ngati Awa wrongly entered into an agreement at Rauporoa whereby the Crown was authorised to confiscate all land on the eastern side of the Whakatane river, which land belonged to Tuhoe. Tuhoe were not present at the meeting and were not consulted about the proposal.

1.1.15 In September 1871 Te Whiu Maraki of Tuhoe captured Kereopa at Te Roau and handed him to the Crown's Military Forces. Kereopa was tried and hanged in Napier on 5 January 1872. The Crown failed to acknowledge the capture of Kereopa by Tuhoe, failed to pay any of the reward offered for the capture of Kereopa to Te Whiu Maraki and failed to withdraw its confiscation of Tuhoe lands.

1.2 Compensation Court

The Crown established the Compensation Court under the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863 and operated the Compensation Court in a manner which was unjust and urifair to Tuhoe and failed to ensure that all Tuhoe land was excluded from the confiscation.

1.2.1 The Crown appointed commissioners to the Bay of Plenty Compensation Court who lacked competence in jurisprudence and who lacked impartiality in that Lieutenant Colonel Lyon and Major Gilbert Mair had been involved in the military campaigns in the Bay of Plenty.

1.2.2 The Compensation Court failed to implement the procedures concerning confiscation according to the guiding principles set out by Governor Grey in 1866:

The need for justice and moderation.

The need to ensure the lands of innocent people were not appropriated.

The need to guard Maori from any severity.

, , 6

1.2.3 The Compensation Court failed to exercise its duties in an impartial, fair and judicious manner, and in particular:

The Compensation Court failed to define tribal boundaries before proceeding with its deliberations.

The Compensation Court called witnesses and heard evidence on behalf of "loyal Maori" such as Ngati Awa who were enemies of Tuhoe.

The Compensation Court branded Tuhoe as "rebels" and unjustifiably disregarded Tuhoe evidence.

Tuhoe were unable to properly represent their interests in the Compensation Court as Tuhoe were the subject of the Crown's Military Forces' continuing military campaign within the Tuhoe rohe.

1.2.4 The Compensation Court failed to ascertain and return to Tuhoe all of its lands within the confiscation boundaries and allocated Tuhoe lands to other tribes and persons.

1.3 Redress for Confiscation

From 1866 until the present day the Crown has failed to grant any compensation or redress whatsoever to Tuhoe for the confiscation of Tuhoe lands, despite having granted compensation and redress for confiscation to other tribal interests.

1.3.1 Tuhoe lodged various petitions and made various representations to the Crown to seek redress for confiscation of Tuhoe land however the Crown failed to grant any fair hearing of Tuhoe grievances and failed to grant redress for confiscation of Tuhoe land:

In 1874 Tuhoe made representations to the Crown through Mr Locke and through a meeting with Mr Brabant, the Resident Magistrate at Opotiki.

In the 1870s Te Makarini, Te Wakaunua and Tutakangahau wrote various letters to the Crown. .

In 1878 Te Wakaunua presented a petition to the Crown on behalf of Tuhoe.

In 1903 Wi Te Purewa presented a petition to the Crown on behalf of Tuhoe.

In 1920 Te Kapo 0 Te Rangi Keehi and 237 other Tuhoe presented a petition to the Crown on behalf of Tuhoe.

\ \

1.3.2

7

In 1927 the Crown established the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Confiscated Native Lands (the Siro Commission) however the Crown failed to provide adequate and just terms of reference for the Siro Commission to enable the Tuhoe grievances to be considered and Tuhoe did not get a fair and just hearing into the grievances arising out of the confiscation of Tuhoe land.

1.3.3 The Crown purported to grant reserves to Tuhoe from within the confiscated lands however the reserves were never completed or were in fact granted to other tribes:

Pursuant to the Whakatane Grants Validation Act 1878' the Crown granted Te Puketi Reserve (Lot 70 Parish of Waimana) consisting of approximately 128 acres to Ngati Pukeko which rightfully belonged to Tuhoe.

In 1872 the Crown purported to allot a reserve of 40 acres (initially known as Lot 17B Parish of Waimana but later known as Lot 237 Parish of Waimana) to Tuhoe. The reserve was in fact granted to members of Ngati Pukeko.

In 1873 the Crown purported to grant a SOO-acre reserve to Tuhoe however that was never completed.

In 1873 the Crown purported to grant Te Putere Reserve consisting of 275 acres (Lot 37 Parish of Rangitaiki) to Tuhoe. The reserve was never completed and in 1917 was resumed by the Crown as unallotted Crown land.

1.3.4 The Crown has since 1866 failed to acknowledge the confiscation of Tuhoe land and has failed to return any confiscated land to Tuhoe.

1.3.5 The Crown has failed to grant any redress or compensation to Tuhoe for the confiscation of Tuhoe land despite having granted redress and compensation to other tribes affected by confiscation such as Tainui, Taranaki, Ngai Tahu, Tauranga, Whakatohea and Ngati Awa tribal interests.

1.4 Confiscation of Tuhoe Southern lands in the Ruakituri, Taramarama, Tukurangi and Waiau Blocks

Between 1866 and 1875 the Crown wrongly confiscated Tuhoe's interests in Ruakituri, Taramarama, Tukurangi and Waiau Blocks totalling 157,000 acres by illegally awarding title to Ngati Kahungunu, wrongly regarding Tuhoe as being in rebellion, enacting legislation providing for the confiscation of land and subsequently forcing Tuhoe to cede its interests in the said lands under threat of confiscation by the Crown. The Crown furthermore failed to ensure that a fair and proper process was followed in the Native Land Court in 1875.

, , 8

1.4.1 Between 1866 and 1875 the Crown failed to recognise the Tuhoe rohe and failed to respect Tuhoe's express opposition to the sale and leasing of land within the Tuhoe rohe.

1.4.2 The Crown wrongly alleged that Tuhoe were in "rebellion" by reason of the actions of the Crown's Military Forces (comprising Ngati Porou and Ngati Kahungunu loyalists) which engaged in a military campaign on the East Coast which culminated in the invasion of the Tuhoe rohe in 1865.

1.4.3 In 1866 the Crown enacted the East Coast Land Titles Investigation Act 1866 (subsequently amended by the East Coast Land Titles Investigation Amendment Act 1867 and replaced by the East Coast Act 1868) whereby the Crown empowered the Native Land Court to confiscate land belonging ·to Maori in "rebellion" .

1.4.4 In April 1867 the Crown and Ngati Kahungunu entered into the Wairoa Deed of Cession whereby Ngati Kahungunu "ceded" the Kauhouroa Block to the Crown and whereby the Crown wrongly purported to grant to Ngati Kahungunu title to the Ruakituri, Taramarama, Tukurangi and Waiau Blocks in breach of Tuhoe's interests in the said blocks as a consequence of which:

The Crown confiscated Tuhoe's interests in the said blocks.

In 1868 the Native Land Court purported to confirm the Wairoa Deed of Cession.

Ngati Kahungunu purported to deal with the said blocks of land by leasing it out.

1.4.5 In 1872 the Crown through its agent, Samuel Locke, entered into a Deed purporting to grant title to the Ruakituri, Taramarama, Tukurangi and Waiau Blocks thereby wrongly excluding Tuhoe interests:

- The Crown purported to grant title without having properly investigated title.

The Deed failed to recognise Tuhoe interests in the said blocks.

The Crown favoured Ngati Kahungunu as "loyalists" over Tuhoe who were regarded as "rebels".

1.4.6 On 12 November 1875 the Crown wrongly acquired Tuhoe's interests in Ruakituri, Taramarama, Tukurangi and Waiau Blocks:

· , 9

The Crown promoted Ngati Kahungunu's claim to title to the land by agreeing to purchase the land from Ngati Kahungunu prior to any determination of title to the land.

The Crown failed to accede to Tuhoe's express opposition to the sale of land within its rohe.

The Crown falsely advised Tuhoe that the land had already been confiscated, that Tuhoe's position was due only to the clemency of the Crown and that if Tuhoe did not sell the land it would otherwise be confiscated.

1.4.7 The Native Land Court failed in its duty to ensure a fair and just process in determining title to the said land and was complicit in allowing the Crown to buy off opposition to the sale of the land:

The Court hearings were conducted in Wairoa being many days walk from Tuhoe kainga which gave rise to additional costs and burdens for Tuhoe.

The Court failed to ensure proper representation for Tuhoe who were appearing in the Court for the first time.

The Court determined title to the land without any survey plan.

The Court adjourned the case to allow the Crown the opportunity to buy off any opposition by Tuhoe to Ngati Kahungunu's claim before determining title.

The Court failed to properly investigate and determine the Tuhoe and Ngati Kahungunu tribal boundary which continued to prejudice Tuhoe in later land title determinations including the Urewera Reserves, Waipaoa, Waikaremoana Block and Lake Waikaremoana.

1.4.8 The Crown acquired 15,000 acres more land by survey than was agreed to by deed and has failed to pay Tuhoe for this additional land.

1.4.9 The Crown acquired the Tukurangi, Ruakituri, Taramarama and Waiau Blocks at less than fair value and failed to leave Tuhoe in possession of sufficient land for their own use.

2.0 TE ROHE POTAE 0 TUHOE - UREWERA DISTRICT NATIVE RESERVE ACT 1896

Between 1872 and 1896 the Crown failed to act on Tuhoe demands for full . recognition of Tuhoe tino rangatiratanga within its rohe. Tuhoe opposed surveys, roads, sales and leases. In 1896 the Crown enacted the Urewera

10

District Native Reserve Act which, despite its stated purpose, still failed to give full recognition to Tuhoe tino rangatiratanga within its rohe. The Crown deliberately acted in direct breach of the provisions and protections contained in the Act in order to aggressively acquire individual interests in Tuhoe lands and in order to undermine Tuhoe tino rangatiratanga. Between 1910 and 1921 the Crown acquired 345,076 acres ofTuhoe land in breach of the Treaty.

2.1 In 1871 Donald Mclean on behalf of the Crown gave an undertaking to Tuhoe that Tuhoe could govern their own affairs within the Tuhoe rohe.

2.2 Between 1872 and 1896 Tuhoe made various requests to the CroWn to actively protect Tuhoe tino rangatiratanga over its rohe through a sovereign and autonomos protectorate:

"Kia kotahi te waka - kaua te ruri, kaua te rori, kaua te hoko, kaua te riihi. There be one administration - no surveys, no roads, no sales, no leases".

2.3 Despite these requests the Crown continued to pursue surveys, roads, sales and leasing of land within the Tuhoe rohe in breach of undertakings given by Donald McLean on behalf of the Crown.

2.4 As a result of the Crown's inaction and delay in fully recognising Tuhoe tino rangatiratanga within its rohe many Tuhoe blocks of land were processed through the Native Land Court resulting in loss of Tuhoe land, these blocks of land being the Waiau, Tukurangi, Taramarama, Ruakituri, Waipaoa, Tahora, Waimana, Tuararangaia, Waiohau, Matahina, Whirinaki and Heruiwi Blocks.

2.5 In 1896 the Crown enacted the Urewera District Native Reserve Act 1896 which failed to give full recognition to Tuhoe tino rangatiratanga within its rohe:

The Act failed to fully recognise and provide for hapu ownership of land by instead providing for individual interests in hapu land.

The Act failed to apply to Tuhoe land which had already been alienated either by reason of confiscation or the operations of the Native Land Court.

The Act failed to create an effective Tuhoe administrative body based on hapu structures. Rather, the Act deferred the establishment of Te Komiti Nui until after hapu blocks were defined and individual interests determined, which undermined Tuhoe tribal authority.

The Act promoted competition for blocks by hapu and by individuals and caused internecine strife which undermined . Tuhoe tribal authority and unity.

11

The Act provided for the sale of land which had not been the wish of Tuhoe.

The Crown failed to promulgate regulations governing the operation of Te Komiti Nui until 8 September 1910 by which time Te Komiti Nui's authority had been undennined by Crown actions.

The Crown failed to ensure that Te Komiti Nui was properly established and had sufficient time and means to carry out its functions.

2.6 In 1900 the Crown enacted the Urewera Native Reserve Amendment Act 1900 whereby under Section 4 the Crown effectively disqualified Tuhoe persons from being members of the Urewera Commission or from being able to make de<;isions, and provided for non-Tuhoe to be appointed to the Commission. As a result of including non-Tuhoe Maori on the second Urewera Commission the Urewera Commission wrongly granted interests in the Waikaremoana Block to members of Ngati Kahungunu.

2.7 Between 1910 and 1921 the Crown acquired 53% of Tuhoe land, being 345,076 acres 1 rood 8 perches of a total area of 650,000 acres within the Urewera District, by breaching the provisions of the Urewera District Native Reserve Act 1896 and by otherwise engaging in sharp practices:

The Crown acted in direct and deliberate breach of Section 21 of the Urewera District Native Reserve Act 1896 by not dealing with the Komiti Nui when acquiring interests in Tuhoe land and by dealing directly with individual shareholders of Tuhoe land. The Crown retrospectively validated these breaches by enacting Section 4 of the Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1916 and by enacting the Urewera Lands Act 1921.

The Crown engaged in an aggressive practice of acquiring individual interests in Tuhoe land by exploiting Tuhoe poverty by offering individual shareholders immediate payment for land interests.

The Crown failed to afford individual shareholders the opportunity to take advice from the Komiti Nui and from the hapu before selling interests in land.

In 1919 the Crown published in the Gazette lists of Tuhoe "non­sellers" and amounts payable to those non-sellers, thereby stigmatising them as frustrating Crown intentions and pressuring them to sell their land interests.

The Crown deliberately failed to disclose the Crown purchases to the Komiti Nui whereby the Komiti Nui had no idea of the extent

12

of the Crown purchases until the commencement of the Crown's Urewera Consolidation Scheme in 1921.

2.8 Pursuant to Section 7 of the Urewera District Native Reserve Act 1896 the Crown was obliged to meet the costs of any sketch plans and pursuant to Section 25 of the Act the Crown was obliged to meet its own costs incurred as a result of the Act. Contrary to these provisions Tuhoe were later coerced to meet these costs in 1921 when the Crown wrongly used these provisions to justify Tuhoe contributing land to the value of £20,000 for roading for the Urewera Consolidation Scheme.

2.9 In 1915, when the Komiti Nui was still not functioning as ~was contemplated by the Act, Tuhoe requested that the Komiti Nui be reinstated. The Crown took no steps to ensure that this took place.

2.10 The Crown acquired Tuhoe interests at less than fair value:

The land use report commissioned by the Crown and provided by Andrew Wilson and others in 1910 and 1915 gave a very limited appreciation of the land and failed to value the timber on the land.

The Crown failed to obtain independent and fair valuations of the land and in particular failed to value the timber situated upon the land.

2.11 Between June 1910 and 31 March 1912 the Crown, in breach of the Urewera District Native Reserve Act 1896, wrongly acquired land in the Waimana basin, being the Maungapohatu, Tauranga, Otara and Paraoanui North Blocks comprising a total area of 40,795 acres.

The Waimana Lands

2.12 In May 1910 the Honourable AT Ngata, a member of the Stout - Ngata Commission, interfered with the membership of the preliminary Komiti Nui in order to facilitate sales. The Crown purchased the Waimana lands even though the Komiti Nui was not at law in existence and even though the Komiti Nui did not pass the purchase at its meeting. The Crown subsequently failed to retrospectively obtain consent to the purchase.

2.13 The Crown fpiled to obtain a proper and independent valuation of the Waimana lands and acquired those lands at less than fair value.

2.14 The Crown failed to confirm that it had paid all individual shareholders in the Waimana lands.

2.15 The Crown later acknowledged "doubt as to the legality of the course pursued in the purchases by the Crown" of the Waimana lands but did nothing to uphold and comply with the law.

13

The Waikaremoana, Manuoha and Paharakeke Blocks

2.16 The Crown failed to appoint any Tuhoe as commissioners on the second Urewera Commission which heard 173 appeals inclusive of the Waikaremoana, Maungapohatu and Tauranga Block appeals. The Crown appointed Captain Gilbert Mair and Paratene Ngata, a relative of Ropata Wahawaha, as commissioners which was highly prejudicial to Tuhoe interests.

2.17 The Crown failed to prevent political interference with the second Urewera Commission whereby Mr Wi Pere MP orchestrated claims by Ngati Kahungunu to be made to Tuhoe lands.

2.18 The second Urewera Commission wrongly included Ngati Kahungunu in the list of owners of the Waikaremoana Block on the basis of a claim of manorial rights of Te Kapua Matotoru and wrongly granted an interest to Sir James Carroll, who was a relative of the Commissioner Harold Carr.

2.19 The second Urewera Commission failed to carefully investigate and consider Tuhoe evidence in making its award in respect of the Manuoha and Paharakeke Blocks whereby claims were wrongly awarded to members of Ngati Kahungunu.

3.0 UREWERA CONSOLIDATION SCHEME 1921-1927

3.1 Operation of Consolidation Scheme

The Crown hastily established the Urewera Consolidation Scheme, having wrongly acquired interests in Tuhoe land, in order to convert the Crown's shareholding into fee simple interests. The Crown's policies and practices adopted by the Urewera Consolidation Scheme were to the substantial disadvantage ofTuhoe and resulted in the loss of many more thousands of acres ofTuhoe land. The outcomes promised by the Scheme were not achieved.

3.1.1 The Crown deliberately failed to inform the Komiti Nui of the extent of Crown purchases prior to 1921 and deliberately delayed the implementation of a Consolidation Scheme in order to enable the Crown to acquire as many interests in Tuhoe land before converting those interests into separate fee simple interests.

3.1.2 The Crown failed to adequately consult with Tuhoe about the Urewera Consolidation Scheme, the discussions having taken place over one month in August 1921, and deliberately avoided consultation through the Komiti Nui, thereby denying Tuhoe the opportunity to properly consider the Urewera Consolidation Scheme and to raise proper objections or propose alternatives. On 17 and 22 February 1922 Tuhoe made valid objections to the Scheme but to no avail.

14

3.1.3 The Crown failed to properly consider alternatives to the Urewera Consolidation Scheme which may have been to the advantage of Tuhoe, such as the leasing of land by owners to occupiers which would have avoided the need for expensive survey of titles.

3.1.4 The Crown wrongly appointed R J Knight, an officer of the Department of Lands & Survey and purchase officer, as an Urewera Commissioner to advance the Crown's interests in breach of the principle that the Urewera Commissioner should not act in a conflict of interest.

3.1.5 The Urewera Consolidation Scheme promulgated pursuant to the Urewera Lands Act 1921-22 was disproportionately disadvantageous to Tuhoe:

The Crown used the Scheme as a vehicle to acquire further Tuhoe interests in land.

The Scheme resulted in the creation of uneconomic blocks of land based on family interests when they should have remained as hapu blocks.

The Scheme gave rise to unnecessary survey costs due to the . Crown requiring survey of uneconomic blocks based on

family interests which led to the loss of further land to the Crown.

The Scheme destroyed Tuhoe owners' association with their ancestral lands and their tangata whenua status by dogmatically requiring the consolidation of all interests.

The Act nullified the Komiti Nui and destroyed the principle of Tuhoe tribal authority within its rohe.

The Act validated all prior acts of the Crown in contravention of previous legislation.

The Scheme was of primary benefit to the Crown as it converted the Crown's interests as a shareholder in Tuhoe land to fee simple interests.

Tuhoe were required to obtain and pay for surveys of Tuhoe land interests, yet the Crown relied on those same surveys to determine its own land interests at no cost to the Crown; Tuhoe subsidised the Crown's acquisition of fee simple interests.

3.1.6 The Crown wrongfully and without compensation acqUired 69,591 acres of Tuhoe land being:

15

38,712 acres for alleged roading costs for roads which were never constructed.

28,949 acres for alleged survey costs which surveys were not required.

1,930 acres for public roads.

3.1.7 The Crown failed to ever provide any accounts or reconciliation of the Urewera Consolidation Scheme.

3.2 Valuations

The valuation practices adopted by the Crown in the Urewera Consolidation Scheme disadvantaged Tuhoe by failing to properly value all lands within the Scheme and by failing to attribute a cost to the Crown of converting its interests as a shareholder in Tuhoe land to separate fee simple interests.

3.2.1 The Crown failed to explain to Tuhoe in clear terms the valuation basis adopted in the Urewera Consolidation Scheme, referring instead to it being ''based on data supplied by the Native Department" .

3.2.2 The Crown failed to obtain independent and competent current valuations of all land in the Scheme whereby the Crown failed to ensure that there was a common and equitable basis for the location, relocation or exchange of interests in land in the Scheme.

3.2.3 The valuations adopted by the Crown resulted in Tuhoe being double charged for survey and roading costs:

The valuations adopted by the Crown involved the valuing of the land and the deducting of costs of survey, roading and development to arrive at a net value.

Pursuant to Section 5(1) of the Urewera Lands Act 1921 Tuhoe was also charged a contribution of land to the value of £20,000 for costs of roading when such costs had already been deducted from the value of Tuhoe land interests.

3.2.4 The Crown wrongly acquired Tuhoe land at less than fair valuation and in particular failed to value timber standing on land and adopted valuations provided by Commissioner Knight which were not independent and fair.

3.3 Roading

The Crown failed to accept an obligation to provide arterial roads within the Urewera District, as within any part of the Dominion, and forced Tuhoe to contribute a substantial area of land for the cost of that roading. The Crown failed to construct the roading, failed to return the land to Tuhoe, and failed to

16

compensate Tuhoe for the injurious affection caused by the non construction of arterial roads.

3.3.1 The Crown refused to construct arterial roading within the Urewera District at its cost.

3.3.2 The Crown wrongly charged Tuhoe twice for roads as part of the Scheme:

Firstly, Tuhoe was charged for the costs of road by reason of the valuation model applied to the land (see paragraph 3.2.3).

-Secondly, the Crown, through Section 5(1) of the Urewera Lands Act 1921, wrongly forced Tuhoe to contribute land to the value of £20,000 for roading purposes.

3.3.3 The Crown failed to address the objections of Tuhoe, including those of Wharepouri Te Arno in 1922 and Pomare in 1923, to the roading and survey costs imposed by the Crown on Tuhoe.

3.3.4 The Crown failed to construct the roading promised to Tuhoe which had been a pre-requisite of the Urewera Consolidation Scheme.

3.3.5 The Crown failed to properly compensate Tuhoe for its failure to construct the roading:

In 1958 the Crown paid Tuhoe £100,000 compensation which did not amount to fair compensation for the 38,712 acres of land taken in 1925.

The Crown refused to return to Tuhoe the 38,712 acres of land by way of compensation~.

The Crown failed to acknowledge that it double charged Tuhoe for roading costs by reason of the valuation model adopted in the Urewera Consolidation Scheme.

3.3.6 As a result of the failure of the Crown to construct the arterial roads as part of the Scheme, Tuhoe lands were injuriously affected as they were left with no legal and practical access.

3.3.7 Tuhoe wrongly incurred rates on lands in respect of which legal and practical access had never been created.

3.3.8 The Crown, through the Urewera Commissioners, neglected to ensure that prior to approval of survey plans, legal access was provided to all new titles of Tuhoe land. The Crown owes a duty to remedy the landlocked nature of Tuhoe land by providing for legal access at the cost of the Crown.

17

3.4 Surveys

The Crown required unnecessary surveys to be completed, imposing huge costs on Tuhoe and eventually leading in later years to surveyed blocks being amalgamated. The Crown on the other hand did not pay for survey costs which helped to define the Crown's own land holdings.

3.4.1 The Crown wrongly charged Tuhoe survey costs as part of the Scheme when by reason of the valuations adopted by the Crown for the purpose of the Scheme the cost of survey had already been deducted. The Crown thereby wrongly acquired 28,949 acres of Tuhoe land purportedly as compensation for survey costs.

3.4.2 The Crown dehoerately advantaged itself by requiring Tuhoe to pay for the cost of surveying Tuhoe lands and subsequently benefiting from the survey of the Tuhoe lands which defined the Crown lands.

3.4.3 The Crown, through the Urewera comnussloners, failed to ensure that as part of the survey of Tuhoe lands legal access was provided for all Tuhoe lands.

3.4.4 The surveys carried out at the insistence of the Crown were an unnecessary burden. Tuhoe was subsequently required to amalgamate land for the purpose of development and use.

3.5 Rivers

The Crown ignored the effect of the Urewera District Native Reserve Act 1896 whereby Tuhoe retained ownership of its rivers within the Reserve. As a result of the Urewera Consolidation Scheme the Crown purported to acquire Tuhoe's rivers and lands in breach of the Treaty.

3.5.1 Pursuant to the Urewera District Native Reserve Act 1896 the Reserve was deemed to include all land and rivers within its boundary whereby Tuhoe title to its rivers was confirmed.

3.5.2 The Crown, by operation of the Urewera Consolidation Scheme, unilaterally purported to assert Crown ownership of rivers and to set aside rivers and reserves in breach of Tuhoe's rights to their rivers.

3.6 Loss of Specific Urewera Lands

As a consequence of the operation of the Urewera Consolidation Scheme the Crown wrongly acquired various blocks ofTuhoe land.

Waikaremoana Block

3.6.1 The Crown ignored Tuhoe's desire not to part with the Waikaremoana Block.

18

3.6.2 The Crown deliberately avoided an open purchase of the Waikaremoana Block from the owners by securing title through the operation of the Urewera Consolidation Scheme.

3.6.3 The Crown included the Waikaremoana Block in the Urewera Consolidation Scheme even though the Crown had no interests in the block.

3.6.4 The Crown failed to obtain a fair valuation of the block and failed to ensure an equitable transfer of Tuhoe interests in the block.

3.6.5 The Crown failed to secure sufficient land for the Tuhoe shareholders for settlement and made payment to Tuhoe shareholders by way of debentures which was to the advantage of the Crown and the disadvantage of the Tuhoe shareholders.

3.6.6 The Crown failed to meet its obligations under the debentures in that it did not pay the full 5% interest required, did not pay penalties for delayed payment and did not repay the capital at due date giving rise to penalties to the Tuhoe shareholders.

3.6.7 The Crown failed to set aside waahi tapu sites as reserves out of the 607 acres reserved for Tuhoe.

Whareama and Ngaputahi

3.6.8 The Crown wrongly acquired the Whareama Block of 300 acres and the Ngaputahi Block of 290 acres.

Manuoha and Paharakeke

3.6.9 The Crown excluded the Manuoha and Paharakeke Blocks from the Consolidation Scheme against the interests of Tuhoe.

Te Whaiti

3.6.10 The Crown wrongly acquired the Te Whaiti Blocks from Tuhoe adopting a valuation which ignored the substantial value of timber on the land.

Te Apitihana

3.6.11 The Urewera Commissioners allocated a block of land known as Te Apitihana (lithe opposition") to those owners who refused to participate in the Consolidation Scheme.

3.6.12 The Crown through the Urewera Commissioners still charged the owners of Te Apitihana Block roading and survey costs and took land in lieu of those costs.

19

3.7 Waahi Tapu and Reserves

The Crown foiled to ensure that as a part of the Urewera Consolidation Scheme all Tuhoe Waahi Tapu were identified and reserved to Tuhoe.

Maungapohatu

3.7.1 Between 1921 and 1924 Tuhoe requested that the Urewera Commissioners set aside Tuhoe's sacred mountain, Maungapohatu, as a reserve for Tuhoe.

3.7.2 In 1976 the Crown finally established the Maungapohatu burial reserve, however the Crown failed to ensure that all sacred sites on Maungapohatu were returned and failed to include the eastern face of Te Aka Puahou and the caves therein or Tu Te Maungaroa.

3.7.3 The Crown has failed to provide legal access to Maungapohatu for the trustees and their invitees.

Huiarau Urupa

3.7.4 In May 1925 Tuhoe requested that the Crown set aside 200 acres within the Huiarau range which contained urupa.

3.7.5 The Crown failed to create the Huiarau Urupa Reserve with the result that the whereabouts of the urupa is not now known.

Waikokopu

3.7.6 The Crown used the Urewera Consolidation Scheme to acquire the Waikokopu Block containing an important hot water spring and geothermal resource, which the Crown did not require for "settlement or climatic purposes" in accordance with the Urewera Consolidation Scheme.

3.7.7 In 1923 the Crown was asked to reserve Waikokopu but failed to do so.

3.8 Other Lands

3.8.1 The Crown acquired the following lands without separate payment which it no longer requires and which it has failed to return:

Stock Paddock comprising 99.1.00 acres (Survey Plan ML13702S).

Section I, Urewera II SD, School Reserve comprising 17.2.24 acres (Survey Plan ML 136625).

Section I, Waimana XIV SD Stock Reserve compnsmg approximately 45.3.08 acres (Survey Plan ML 134645).

. ~.

20

CL Accommodation Paddock comprising 11.2.17 acres.

4.0 THE RUATOKI-WAlOHAU CONSOLIDATION SCHEME

Despite the express opposition by Tuhoe the Crown pursued an aggressive policy of purchasing individual interests in the Ruatoki and Waiohau Blocks and then established the Ruatoki-Waiohau Consolidation Scheme. Tuhoe understood that once the Crown interests were separated as a result of the Scheme those Crown lands would be offered back to Tuhoe, however this IJever took place. As a result of the Scheme Tuhoe lost further land to the Crown.

4.1 The Crown failed to recognise Tuhoe tino rangatiratanga and failed to recognise that Tuhoe's last remaining arable lands comprised the land at Ruatoki .

4.2 As early as 1915 Tuhoe advised the Crown that the Ruatokilands were not available for Crown settlement as they were under Tuhoe occupation.

4.3 The Crown ignored the Tuhoe wish and circumvented Tuhoe opposition to sales by purchasing individual shareholdings with the intention of eventually consolidating the Crown interests.

4.4 Tuhoe only ever agreed to the Ruatoki-Waiohau Consolidation Scheme on the understanding that once Crown interests were isolated those lands would be offered back to Tuhoe. The Crown never offered back those lands to Tuhoe.

4.5 As a result of the Scheme existing surveys carried out at substantial expense to Tuhoe were rendered obsolete and new surveys were completed, which were not necessary for the use and occupation of Tuhoe lands by Tuhoe and which gave rise to further cost for Tuhoe.

4.6 The Crown failed to ensure that all new survey titles had legal access.

4.7 The Crown failed to close roads which were no longer required and vest the lands in adjoining Tuhoe land owners.

4.8 The Crown wrongly acquired land adjoining the Whakatane River at Te Rewarewa on the basis of accretion.

4.9 As a result of the Scheme the Crown today retains ownership of several blocks of Tuhoe land:

Ruatoki A9 Block 0.1.00 acres

Ruatoki A21 Block 5.2.07 acres

Ruatoki C48 Block 1118.1.16 acres

21

- Ruatoki C61 Block 973.1.00 acres

- Waiohau B9 Block 2073.1.32 acres

5.0 NATIVE LAND COURT AND CROWN PURCHASES

5.1 Operations afthe Native Land Court

The Crown deliberately introduced a system of land tenure and -land management which was entirely at odds with Maori custom and which, through policy and practice, was designed to deny Maori authority and to give rise to alienation of Maori land through individualisation of interests and imposition of substantial costs.

5.1.1 The Native Land Acts were specifically designed to defeat chiefly authority and traditional hapu and iwi based systems of land tenure, land management and social cohesion.

5.1.2 The Native Land Acts imposed the individualisation of formerly communally held interests for the specific purpose of circumventing tribal opposition to land sales.

5.1.3 The Native Land Acts removed protections such as the Crown pre-emption in order to achieve a speedy alienation of interests in Maori land.

5.1.4 The Crown deliberately failed to enact legislation which would provide for tribal and hapu ownership and control of tribal and hapuland.

5.1.5 The Crown, through the Native Land Acts and other legislation, imposed a cumbersome and costly process for determination of Maori title which was to the substantial prejudice of Tuhoe:

The Crown required a high standard of surveys when such surveys were not necessary.

The Crown imposed survey costs on Tuhoe despite the Treaty guarantee of "full exclusive and undisturbed possession" of Tuhoe lands.

The Native Land Court conducted investigations of title of land in which Tuhoe had interests at venues distant from the land and from Tuhoe principal kainga, giving rise to substantial costs of travel, accommodation and time away from mahinga kai.

22

The Native Land Acts imposed a complex adversarial process for determination of title without providing Tuhoe with the assistance of counsel.

Tuhoe regularly received notice of hearings of investigations into land in which Tuhoe had interests after the hearings had taken place.

5.1.6 The Crown adopted an inconsistent and unfair approach to valuation of Tuhoe land when imposing survey costs and when purchasing Tuhoe land.

5.1.7 The Native Land Court displayed a continuing unfavourable bias in respect of Tuhoe (by reason in part of wrongly being branded lirebels'') when conducting hearings where "loyalist" tribes such as Ngati Awa, Ngati Pukeko and Ngati Kahungunu were claiming the same land resulting in Tuhoe land being wrongly awarded to loyalist tribes.

5.2 Waiohau Block

5.2.1 Between 24 and 30 July 1878 the Native Land Court at Opotiki investigated the title to the Waiohau Block comprising 15,564 acres and wrongly awarded 1,100 acres to Ngati Pukeko on the basis of a lease of land which did not amount to a customary interest in the land.

5.2.2 The Native Land Court refused to grant a rehearing despite repeated requests by Tuhoe.

5.3 Waiohau No.1 B Block - Te Houhi

5.3.1 On 11 September 1886 the Native Land Court at Rotorua investigated title to Waiohau IB which comprised the Tuhoe Village of Te Houhi occupied by the Tuhoe hapu Patuheuheu and Ngati Rongo.

5.3.2 The Native Land Court failed to give Tuhoe notice of the hearing and as a consequence Tuhoe did not attend the hearing.

5.3.3 The Native Land Court wrongly awarded title in Waiohau IB to two persons absolutely, who promptly sold the land on which Te Houhi was situated.

5.3.4 The Native Land Court failed to grant a rehearing of the investigation or to otherwise invalidate the award made on 11 September 1886 despite strenuous demands by Tuhoe.

5.3.5 The Crown wrongly evicted Tuhoe from Te Houhi and Waiohau IB leaving behind their village, urupa and mahinga kai.

23

5.3.6 Despite the injustice of the loss of Waiohau 1B having been recognised by the Supreme Court in the case Beale v Tihema Te Hau and Others and the Attorney General (21 July 1904), and despite protest at the significant grievance, the Crown failed to take steps to return Waiohau 1B to Tuhoe, and in particular failed to purchase the land for return to Tuhoe.

5.3.7 The Crown failed to fully compensate Tuhoe for the loss of Waiohau 1B, for the loss of the village, urupa, church, school and mahinga kai and for the substantial costs incurred by Tuhoe in endeavouring to recover Waiohau lB.

5.4 Tahora Block

5.4.3 In 1889 the Native Land Court at Gisborne investigated title to the Tahora Block in which the principal Tuhoe kainga of Te Papuni was situated and wrongly awarded title to Ngati Kahungunu.

5.5 Waipaoa Block

5.5.3 Between 8 March and 7 May 1889 the Native Land Court at Wairoa investigated title to the Waipaoa Block and awarded title to Ngati Kahungunu despite Tuhoe having clear customary interests in the Waipaoa Block. Tuhoe was severely prejudiced by:

The failure to ensure that Tuhoe was notified of the hearing, which would have allowed for full representation of Tuhoe at the hearing.

The location of the hearing at Wairoa.

The acceptance of Ngati Kahungunu evidence even though that evidence related to interests around Wairoa and did not extend to interests within the Waipaoa Block.

5.6 Tuararangaia

5.6.1 In 1891 the Native Land Court at Opotiki awarded title to the Tuararangaia Block which land had until the expeditions of the Crown's Military Forces in 1865 been the exclusive territory of Tuhoe. The Native Land Court only awarded Tuhoe 3,500 acres and wrongly awarded title to Ngati Awa and Ngati Pukeko.

Tuararangaia No.1 Block (3,500 acres)

5.6.2 In 1891 the Native Land Court at Opotiki awarded title to Tuararangaia No.1 Block to Tuhoe but wrongly imposed survey costs and furthermore wrongly took an additional 748 acres of .

24

land over and above the land required to pay for the survey costs.

5.6.3 The Crown failed to properly value the land and took no account of the timber on the land.

5.6.4 The Crown inflated the survey costs by imposing on Tuhoe the cost of surveying out the Crown's own interests, thereby artificially increasing the area of land taken by the Crown.

Tuararangaia Part 1B Block (1,619 acres)

5.6.5 On 20 November 1914 a meeting of the assembled owners of Tuararangaia Part 1B Block, where only 25 owners and 16 proxieswerepresenLout oLa totaLo£ 7190wnersJ. re$olvedto$ell 1,619 acres of the land to the Crown, and for the Waiariki Maori Land Board to pay the whole of the proceeds of sale to the War Fund.

5.6.6 The Waiariki Maori Land Board wrongly confirmed the sale of this land.

Tuararangaia Part 1B Block (1,000 acres)

5.6.7 On 27 August 1912 the owners of Tuararangaia Part 1B resolved to cede 1,000 acres of the Block to the Crown to enable the establishment of a college for children of Tuhoe, Ngati Awa and Te Arawa in the area of Ohiwa. The Waiariki Maori Land Board confirmed the resolution and the land was transferred to the Crown on 20 December 1917.

5.6.8 The Crown never established a college for the children of Tuhoe, Ngati Awa and Te Arawa in the area of Ohiwa.

5.6.9 On 1 November 1972 the land was re-vested in the original owners however the Crown failed to account to the owners for the income generated from the land for the 55 years it was held by the Crown.

5.7 Matahina

5.7.1 In 1884 the Native Land Court investigated title to the Matahina Block and wrongly awarded only 2000 acres to Tuhoe which land became known as Matahina C and C No.1.

5.7.2 The Native Land Court failed to inquire into and recognise that Tuhoe was entitled to an award of land from at least the Waikowhewhe Stream to the southern boundary of the block in accordance with the Tataupounamu at Ohui.

25

Matahina C and C No.1

5.7.3 In 1907 the Native Land Court wrongly ordered that 1,334 acres of the 2,000 acres comprising Matahina C and C3 be taken for survey costs:

The survey of the land was not requested by Tuhoe and was unnecessary and expensive.

Tuhoe were not aware of the potential cost of the survey, whereby they would lose two-thirds of the land awarded by the Native Land Court.

The surveyor, Mitchell, was in a conflict of interest having beeninvolvedinasyndicateJQP11X~hClS~(1 su1.Jstantial area of the Matahina Block at the time.

The Crown failed to properly value the land, applying a value of 3s per acre, whereas surrounding land was contemporaneously valued at 5s9d per acre and I1s9d per acre.

5.7.4 The Crown wrongly declared the balance of Matahina C & C No.1 lands to be "not required for occupation by the Maori owners and to be available for sale or leasing".

5.7.5 The Crown failed to properly address the grievance over the land taken for survey costs by returning the 1,334 acres acquired by the Crown despite· the Crown knowing that the Tuhoe hapu Patuheuheu had been grievously treated in relation to Te Houhi and despite continuing representations by Tuhoe.

5.8 Kuhawaea

5.8.1 In 1882 the Native Land Court investigated title to the Kuhawaea Block and wrongly awarded title to only Ngati Manawa and Ngatl Apa contrary to Tuhoe's customary interests in the land.

5.8.2 - In 1882 Tuhoe sought a rehearing of the investigation into Kuhawaea on the basis that Tuhoe had not been given notice of the hearing however the application was dismissed in contravention of the law.

5.8.3 In 1897 Wi Patene Tarahanga of Tuhoe petitioned the Crown in relation to the award and the failure to grant a rehearing. The Crown acknowledged that the application for a rehearing had been wrongly dismissed but failed to properly address Tuhoe's grievances.

. t

26

6.0 WAlKAREMOANA

The Crown has foiled to recognise Tuhoe tribal authority over Waikaremoana through the Native Land Court wrongly including Ngati Kahungunu as owners, through persistently challenging Maori ownership of Waikaremoana and through exploiting the resources of Waikaremoana for hydro electric generation purposes without ensuring a proper economic return to Tuhoe.

6.1 In 1918 the Native Land Court at Wairoa investigated title to Waikaremoana, awarding title to Tuhoe and Ngati Kahungunu owners. The Native Land Court wrongly included Ngati Kahungunu on the lJcl~i~()f~eg~<:i1J:l<:l1:l.()ri~ri!;ht~\\Tllicll. did not . extend to. customa!]T interests inWaikaremoana and on theuoasis of the earlier erroneous Native Land Court awards in respect of the Waipaoa, Waiau, Ruakituri, Taramarama and Tukurangi Blocks.

6.2 Between 1918 and 1946 the Crown wrongly challenged Maori ownership of Waikaremoana oy lodging appeals to the Native Appellate Court in 1918 and failing to pursue those appeals until 1946.

6.3 The Crown continued to challenge Maori ownership of Waikaremoana between 1946 and 1967 by persistently endeavouring to purchase Waikaremoana.

6.4 The Crown enacted legislation including the Water Power Act 1903 and subsequent Public Works Acts which denied Tuhoe the right to derive income from Waikaremoana by hydro electricity generation, and which Acts gave the Crown extensive powers to use Waikaremoana for hydro electricity generation to the economic detriment of Tuhoe.

6.5 In 1944 and following the Crown erected structures associated with the Kaitawa Power Station on Waikaremoana:

The Crown erected hydro electricity outlets, siphons and tunnels and other structures without obtaining the permission of the Maori owners.

The Crown failed to pay compensation to the Maori owners for the erection of the structures.

The Crown failed to pay the Maori owners a fair economic return for access to Waikaremoana for the purpose of generation of hydro electricity.

6.6 In the 1970s the Crown carried out the blocking of natural underwater outlets on Waikaremoana without obtaining the permission of the Maori owners and in breach of the Public Works Act.

, .. 27

6.7 In 1988 the Crown purported to transfer its hydro electricity assets situated on Waikaremoana to ECNZ without obtaining the permission of the Maori owners.

6.8 The Crown has failed to compensate the Maori owners for use of Waikaremoana for hydro electricity generation purposes for the period from 1946 to 1998, despite Waikaremoana being one of the few economic resources owned by Tuhoe.

7.0 CONSERVATION AND TE UREWERA NATIONAL PARK

In 1896 Tuhoe's lands 'Within the Urewera District Native Reserve comprise 656,000 acres. By 1926 the Crown had acquired 484,000 acres. The land which Tuhoe had steadfastly defended for centuries had been lost to the Crown in the space of only 30 years by civilised trickery. In 1962 the Crown established the Urewera National Park by which the Crown stands possessed of Tuhoe ancestral land and cultural property, however Tuhoe has not been accorded a rightful place of partnership with the Crown in the management of Te Urewera National Park. The Crown has restricted Tuhoe use and development of the limited remaining Tuhoe lands through conservation legislation and practices. The Crown has failed to acknowledge Tuhoe rights in respect of indigenous flora and fauna within the Tuhoe rohe.

7.1 In 1962 the Crown established Te Urewera National Park but failed to consult with Tuhoe and failed to accord Tuhoe a rightful role in the management of Te Urewera National Park.

7.2 The Crown enacted legislation such as the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1959 and amendments which severely limited the use and development of the remaining Tuhoe land by restricting the harvesting of timber on Tuhoe land.

7.3 The Crown has failed to ensure the protection of Tuhoe waahi tapu within the Te Urewera National Park.

7.4 The Crown has failed to protect indigenous flora and fauna within the National Park and has introduced alien flora and fauna into the National Park.

The Crown liberated possums in the National Park which has caused great damage to the indigenous forests within the National Park and on Tuhoe land.

The Crown has enacted legislation to protect the habitat of trout but has failed to enact legislation to protect the habitat of tuna and other indigenous fish which are of great importance to Tuhoe.

28

Te Maungapohatu Road

7.5 In the 1960s the National Park Board approved the construction of a road from the Taupeupe Saddle to Maungapohatu which was to be constructed to County road standards and to become a public road.

7.6 The Maungapohatu Incorporation developed its lands on the assurance of access via the Maungapohatu Road.

7.7 Subsequently the National Park Board failed to ensure the completion of the road to County road standards and the Department of Conservation now refuses to complete the road.

7.8 The Crown's failure to complete the Maungapohatu Road is an act of bad faith and is a further impediment to the use and development of Tuhoe lands.

Flora and Fauna

7.9 Tuhoe were at all times and still are the guardians of indigenous flora and fauna within the Tuhoe rohe which were variously used as foods, medicines, textiles and other purposes.

7.10 Tuhoe claim all intellectual property and property rights to all indigenous flora and fauna within the Tuhoe rohe.

7.11 Tuhoe claim all intellectual property and property rights to the food, medicines, textiles and other purposes which were developed by Tuhoe from indigenous flora and fauna within the Tuhoe rohe.

8.0 RIVERS, WATERWAYS AND FISHERIES

Tuhoe has retained and exercised its tino. rangatiratanga over the rivers, waterways and fisheries within the Tuhoe rohe. The Crown has consistently failed to recognise and provide for Tuhoe's rights in respect of the said rivers, waterways and fisheries.

8.1 Tuhoe maintain tino rangatiratanga over all rivers, waterways and fisheries situated within the Tuhoe rohe.

8.2 The Crown has failed to recognise and protect Tuhoe's rights in respect of the rivers, waterways and fisheries within the Tuhoe rohe which has prejudiced ),uhoe.

The Crown enacted legislation such as the Water and Soil Conservation Act 1967, Public Works Acts and the Resource Management Act 1991 which failed to recognise and protect . Tuhoe's rights.

.. ." t'

29

The Crown enacted legislation such as Coal Mines legislation and applied the ad medium filum aquae rule to dispossess Tuhoe of its rivers, waterways and fisheries.

- The Crown has failed to provide for Tuhoe's rightful role in the management of rivers, waterways and fisheries within the Tuhoe rohe.

8.0 NGA KOHURU - OPPRESSION AND MURDERS

The Crown's Military Forces invaded the Tuhoe rohe in 1865 and adopted a scorched earth policy razing homes and villages, destroying crop and killing innocent Tuhoe people. The Crown encouraged and permitted the commission of atrocities against Tuhoe people by Tuhoe's traditional enemies. The Crown continued to victimise Tuhoe in the 20th Century, violating the Maungapohatu community, killing two people and persecuting Tuhoe through expensive trials.

9.1 Between 1865 and 1875 the Crown Military Forces and loyalist Maori engaged by the Crown's Military Forces killed numerous Tuhoe people and commenced a scorched earth policy of razing homes and villages and destroying crops within the Tuhoe rohe as a result of which Tuhoe suffered significant hardship, trauma and degradation.

9.2 On Sunday 2 April 1916 the Police wrongly shot dead Toko Rua and Te Maipi Te Whiu and arrested 31 men and removed numerous women and children under armed guard from Maungapohatu. Toko Rua and Te Maipi Te Whiu were quickly buried by the Police without coffins and without a tangi:

"Ko te toto i maringi ki Maungapohatu, kaore ano i ea." lithe blood that was spilt in Maungapohatu has not yet been resolved."

9.3 The Crown prosecuted Rua Kenana for sedition in a trial that lasted 47 days in Auckland and prosecuted other Tuhoe people for perjury all of which imposed significant costs and upheaval on Tuhoe.

'. ..... , • t .:

30

C. RELIEF

1.0 THE CLAIMANTS SEEK ALL OR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING RELIEF:

1.1 Findings that the Crown breached the Treaty and the principles of the Treaty outlined above.

1.2 An apology from the Crown for the said breaches of the Treaty outlined above.

1.3 A recommendation that the Crown compensate the claimants for the prejudice suffered as a result of the acts, omissions, legislation and practices of the Crown outlined above.

104 A recommendation for the return of such land, forests, fisheries and other such properties owned by the Crown.

1.5 A recommendation pursuant to Sections 8(RA) - 8(HI) of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 and Section 36 of the Crown Forest Assets Act 1989 for the return to the claimants of all Crown forestry land situated within the Tuhoe rohe.

1.6 A recommendation that the Crown pay the full costs of the claimants for the preparation and presentation of this claim and the costs of negotiating and recovering any compensation from the Crown.

1.7 Any other relief the Tribunal may deem fit.

TillS DOCUMENT is filed by David John Ambler, Solicitor for the abovenamed Claimants of the firm of East Brewster.

The address for service of the abovenamed Claimants is at the offices of East Brewster, 1256 Arawa Street, Rotorua.

Documents for service on the abovenamed Claimants may be left at that address for service or may be -

(a) Posted to the solicitor at PO Box 1742, Rotorua; or

(b) Left for the solicitor at a document exchange for direction to DXJP30017

w: \da \doc \ tuhoesca.doc:t

'r A{t~ . APPcral''- t·. C;C-C0rd eC

o{'-Ihl,s IC.II

t\ pp.-r--d ()oC. ~.. (Yt:.:> e c{ (u

-- I.F-la I f:i:-t~ cIVIL.<

Waitangi Tribur181 Divi.sion i . __ .. -.-.. __ .---... -............ , I

26 APR 1990 I ! I 1------·------.-·-.--.. -.. --.... ·1

Dept. of Juslice JI Claim \.).)c<;;, I

I No; /4-+ RECEIVED (

WEL.L.INGTON L-. ______ . __ . ____ • ____ _

2 6 APR 1990

T .L t.! F'!.J,u· .' ,

remaining lands of Ngati Ruapani ki Waikaremoana I\i(.J ~:':'t t: i j ... ! :1. n E~ k LtV" .:;;\

to be prejudicially affected, or liksly to b2

: t'

i····( .. 7:~;JL.tJ. (;,:\ti c:)n~:::· t.' Cli··"cf(::.l; .. ·· '.1 ~::'!i"'c)c:l ~':·:i.i iTI.::;·~t.i C:in IJ I-Ic)t:.i Ct·:::- t.! C:;j'" c:J"t:.i··,::·:·;:;·· .. ,:::.,'!'

:i r··I·:;;tl·· .. l...lfn(·':~ ... nt ni .. ::i.d;:·::~; ': .1. ·::; .. ·:·:~!...i.t·:~c; ',! C) 1"" (.~:j.i \/l:::~ c:::~-t': . .;::In''y·· L.i. ini':':~ >:.:)r1 C.it""' ~·:·.l··;·· '::::.:_i'·

6th day of ~ebr~ry lS~O; or u. n Ci E':: r' L::. r"j \/ t:i 1'''' U :1. ("j i.:~ r; i .. :: t·:,.:' c..::- .:::t C t. CJ -f t: j"f ("':.: (3 (:.':-:' r If::! r' .::.:, .i. •. (:} ,j. !:::. 1. \:.~ i... i \..- 1, ' '~of

~\1 i::'? ~\: :z C:~~ "::i :;, {:;:.! i Ci :;:t roo: ~j C) .. ;.. ( ;"'1 ;,:::: ;::: r'o CJ \/ inc :i. {:':\ 1 i ... , f::::.: q .L ';:;; : ·:::~·C :i. \ ..... :, C.: (J Ll n c: :i. 1

February 1840; or .• ," ...... ·1

;" ... ·.··.1 .. :-. .. ... : .... ' .. :1 '._ V',fj I 'J '._} 1 i '::. i .... :: ~/ .i. "'j:'

pr···CjpCj':::..:t:;~:;c:j tCi 1::)1'::':-,; ,;::.;.:jl .. ..:~ ... ; t..{::};:.1 t:)\/ C:)i~- C:Ji"i t){ .. ::·.:i··'j;E:tl-f· C:.·;: t',l it-:.:· c .. V'C)t.-\::"j~; l...;~.

a.r'r',.. i:':\C'L C:iC:rH:':': ClI···· CiHHilj,-;.:','; .. :f ... :c:I .. ::~t. i-,;\/"i'Y t.:LHif-::: Clii CH'" i:·:t+tr:::tj .. ·· t,,·,p::::, c..:i.:.i'·· t . .:,"/ i.:Y;'

I:::·f:.-::'ti::/r"t.l(::·~t .. ·~./ :I.E;l.!.() C) I'" 1.:;j"'·(Ji:·iC)~:·:.!.,:,:cl t.eJ I::/E~ dCJn(~:! C) I: t . .Ji'i"i:·ni ·!,:.tE~ld.~ 1:.:;\/ L:j" :-'!i .. ".':'1;:';'.' 'j'

''1'' h c:':'t t: t:. j". (.:.:: + C):I. ). CJ ~,\I :i. n \:;.1 ], ,;':'l. i" i cI ~;::. ( !::~ l~:·:·:1 t::-:1 ~::\ t. 'l. .:::\ c:: h £.~: d i'li .:·:;'l P ) ~.\: f::: I'" (~.;! ,::\:1.:1. f:,; ~ ,::\ 'j

since 1840 without our consent as a peo01e t h i:':'~ t t. h E2 ~;~ F:! :J. ,:;\ l"'1 d ~::; ~'\J ~::.::i i .... ~.:.: . .: t'::\ n ;::.i c c\ n t :i. 1'''1 1...\ E: t:. C:.l h ~:' .. : ,1 ''1'' ~':'i, C) r": \:..J .::':~ ; 1 c:"

Soclal and cultral significance

j J • ,:', _-' • ,_,;

,.j i,:! ("

, .. t .::

·t: h \:~\ t i/'] h f:;.ll'" f:':,' ;. t: j. ~::~ n () t -f: ::::~ .:'::~. ~~;.L b 1 {.:.? (J ,.... ,':3. P P j .... C) P ,.' i .. :'.\ l: c-.:,' "1.:: C) (~ t~ t U.I ... · r 'j .:;,: Lt. :~.: 1 1 1. ,.::t j " t::i

c. Ci n', p L~.' 1'''1 ~::~ ,::t t. :i. !.::.! i -; :i. ~,:~ !:;j. C:; U (;J " i t:

\ \ \.

b F:: + Ci ,..- (-:.:~ ~:i. n ":./ l' If!..:·,: E:i. r" in::::, ·:::l n ci j:: LJ!' t hi!:; 'i::. h {.::t '1" j'" L.r. ~:; t.-, .t:. c::: E;': i'" d ;::., ~.:;~ E·.~: :: .. , ('. : ,;;\!., t:: 1 i t..lr·1 :I. t. "

I~

I

j"" EI ';~; f::~! i:j. f'" c:: ;-'1 ':.::.: j.... J. :::) ':

C) r"i t:. j. ~ i ~:;; .,C .. : '. _~ .:. :,'

en (-:-::i fli b (:::~ 1"" 'i~ C) d C) t: !'''i 1 !;;;. ; .. ·\1 C) r k :::~ j"j (] L.t J c:i t. h :i. E P C) ~:::. i L .i. L..1 {"i ;..l L:-' t.J r . d (.! t. :,:.:-:,~:.i "

". i .l ...... :.\ ....

·ri·"lt·:·:~ ;vj.;·:?;c:;;···:~ l.. .. :;;·\i"lci C~C:L{I"'··~:. ":::. c::Lti·· .. I .... E·~ntl Y' .;:;\·:~~:~;:i. :::it.i. nq u.~::; .'!. n ';:::,CJi'iI'.::-:: t L-.·.:';;:~i,:·:, .. :i.:····C.i·i

I;\~ C) I'" k i::·l.l r' (:~, {':;\ ~ .. ; >/ ,: 'rh F:-"; 'r 1"" i i.:; L(n ~::;.1 ~;

for legal Aid assistance.

Electricity Department of New Zealand, D<'::'F' i:H- t.iiH'.!l"' t. 0+ Cun ~:::.\.:i'·· v <::1 L :i. Cll''',

i.. .. (;3. f'l c:i C::C)t· .. fJ .:!':ti·i d (Jr'" )j~:·!P -;:·:i.i .... 'l.:: in(::}i'~ t cl·f L..{·:!\n c:i '::> .. '::-\1") ,::] F) Ltf'" \/(~~!Y'

L· .. J t::\ :i. , .... CI .~:{ L~ ~ .. .: Lt r 1 t: \/ C.: (J tJ i 'j Co J. ),

Ms K Foute - Mir~mirc Rd, Tuai 1)j'" (:~::)l;~.'!' .. L;J", <::tt I"·l··.,l _ ... ·T<:;\PLt:i. ~:::;t.~:tt·,i c)n I,! ~:~II r-III :~:;:::::: ·rLt~:-\:i. ,,'

TSnants and prospective owners at Tuai Village. j=' (. C) r.! f.~Il"" ·t. \;' C) t."; r i (~~.: r" ':':.. -:.:' . 'II. ~ 1 .. :'; \: .. C U. P :i. e.~ t·" ':::; e.i. t. [) n I:{·:~I p c.J t, tJ ~:::; Lt i..,; .: .. ;.; \/ i·::::.], L.I j"'j

,L

"r r' Lt '.;; t (.':.;:, :':.~-:'I '.:::. :::':.:: c.l In :.::! rn; J 1:::::;-" ::::. ::'j "{' t h (.:.::1 LJ.j .~·:'t i k .-.::\ j"" f:·:: L) ,':f. n .:::'i. t,·.! c) j"" k .i. i '": (:.:J I i I i:':X' r""i ·.::i C; :;. L:. i.:.:

1 , ••..• i ; ' ... .' i! i ~:';:;' "./

"!·h:i. ':::.. c:I .. ·.tj. ii"i:; -t;:iiHLI 1ci:::) ,;:':.i"it.i i i' .. :c::I ... ·(-'!:!~::\~::;t::·:·:·:.~~ t.l·li!.·:·! L:J ... ;j, Hi .:::~(i: ... j ;'''\.: .. ::j.:';} -:;;~Cl~'::''::;:. 'r'

pi'--(·~'1·v·.i. C:CL.l'::::· c. i. .~·:\:i. j;'; :i. n';:;':);'"' int~::i··4·.: :1. c)n 1 t::Jdt.~j(-:'~:ld Ii"j, tl'''j ·i.:'.i'<i(·::·,; 1\ji.-: .. ~;..'.,j Zl:":~~::i.l.;;·;\rici ;' ;: . .l., .. :

'1 ';.;:·C:·":, .1. ,l._J': It

.).

~ :; :t-

A, XVI" :.AIII '. -: <., _.,-"" ( /\. . .. , /'-,,-, .. ' .~'.

. - \ ""' -~/\../"'-..~ /" -I .-\ "" 1/} (\.1 i ... ../ l..:y:::::- '/ _, ...... _-;--.-,... / '/' ..... ~_'-_ '--. '\--'" r "...... .. , .... , r "'_,1" / " '::I / Pr:JNfW,RA' ~ t / ~'-/., , ___ ,.,... .

\. ("" 'I" '-f. . .,,' '~'-\ ,/ II '" "/'?'- " ,., '" '"' '" " "I. , . I.: . II '. III,' ') . Vi. / ( ;"'ei'.>' ?::.'ili.·.~[R~:' 5 I 'i' ,,", """ ""-' , IV /' ," '\.' ... " ...... , .. "'".,,.. I u",w", UTI""; '''''1 fr-'-'-'--:--'-' ; "')"'./, ._~/"'''_ .... :~.,: ___ ,,_. '_'~"':. 'l _,'_' .. -., - - - -... -- t------c---c--- .... J \:~I :. .. '"" ",,/ .;...',.' : .... ;: 'c.,/ ..... ;.

-...... /' IV"\ 1 II " VI - - ~1-";\\- VI .,( VII ... VIII ./ _ Y ;, VI IV F' 11 III 1 . VII VIII __ I ' ___ . " / _' '

'" . .. \ ! I. "'fA" c:- 1 'w ''''

XlV ,'.

'IV

, 'f'-"- --<,

VI VII ·1 ,. .... 1 ,on,"", .1_. . I. .... ... I ...... ~ /..-: '. I -'" 1 j !-'7':,,::,:, • ,:>'1 .. ,.' '\

1 - ,~. '. .':::- '~lr v ,,', " ~', IX , . "', ',," . f i' .... , '" '/ 'VI VII' ',VI J / """", • i' '.. ) .,_.

VIII"- V .' _ ... / .... _ .,' _ '_'" _ . ", ,_, I_

I

':. '''':-::., /1 , , '. _, "--_) __ .__ ') ,I ... i '~ >. . . "AT,"UNA . - . / .,~".,,, I'" . ... ,.. ,," . _ ". " ,... . ,. . ' '"!"'''" i5 L,,,:c.!/·7/' '. , '"1: .c;::' /. ..•. )-.J <,'::"<~ , r._ "/~. I·. . .1 .... " 0, .. '" 1 >" I '" -1 1 :. 1 ". " 'C":I '" ! IX , , i ,~ , ";;,, ""iNi: 'j;, . __ "._~'_ ':'" :~: xv ::;;;.... 1 . 17. ~. XI' "_: ;'

• " -' XII 1-- IX : X v J ' '( \~ '''' I", "", '/ .XIII... / '7::, • _~ 1 (. ._ ._. I" ., c" .....,.. , .. _~, ,., .. '. . _ '... .A, . _ . ~ . . ..' .. -c.- -: : / I ,i.I·......,; I" ," ,c,: ". '. _c __ '-_"'.~:I_ _:....., 1 .. / . f ..... .. .. ·L .... ' .. L ..... ~ .. , .. · ......... r .... -='·~C> "'1---~, '-;i:. '-."._.---.-/-, .~ "~J''':= : ';.r-- :!1,=-: ;

I ...... ,· '.. 1_.,' <,:e;:.":.;: # i . ,""-j:' ~."\" ";::. I' 1... .. rt" i" ;:y;:....,.tiz.:;~,:;""'t /:. " .• I $'. _/ \ -r ',.,,-~'''' 4': XV, . "" '''", .~ '. UI l'" N,. 1 .• \J-' .. ,II '- \ .. ~, ,c..,'~'f I _'"'' I! ; 1 . .. . , XI' yO xv, 1 'i- II • ,",,, 1--" I _, I .--',' '_;, _. __ ,__ , _. I :"XIII ( XIV XV - XI1--:, ~1fI ~: I /' --!/ . ~, .:.... ..;;:,,"'.;:..... .f'... ,_. .,. r' "',i __ . :C.

Y ~.. ,_ \ " " ~ d .. ,

I' , , . ' '', - =-J; .. -!.j," - . ~. :1 " , ~". _,~ ,." . ._ '-,.-'-...{.a r-"-" ," i ;/', C - .. -----------~-c" ---:'.::. - -:"":-:- - ~-~ ----~ ,;..- t: .. ---- ~1'---- . "-:':;:"-1" .,-i". ;--~ \'-:-} .-~" {f4 ~',~il"i:'. :',_ f:?': ~ _. :;£ I. \~ / V '1' '" II !III V XVII -, ·,·1. ~,VII- "'~'; __ .. , '..... ' ... ' v ... - '",,_, .. ' '-'L r ... \ l .... 1 A. ". i,,, r'--. . v --I VI. --, ~~' ~-": .• ~15r ' :_,' VI /'. VI! -,.oJ. ,,_. VII! >- ..I" v .. _ ~ '/.:':;~.¥i_: ... :;'-' _ " - III I A ' ·w_ -- 1IA -...... - .1:,., I, .... _- _ l'- I I '''''---'''''1 H i. - ... " .. "..... , .... ", '" "'. r-..J- ;.. -----7----.../ _'-, .. _ .. \ ___ ,.,1", . , .:...' P".u 1\, • 1 ,- -., • " ". ~ ~"_". ., •. < __ I <".' '. .. .>'--t-.. _--, ... i .' J .......... ..... ~ ...... , .. --, .. --." j--"'--'--" : , ... \~ ,,' ....... " . '\ . ''''ANGA'OA.., ,k!-' _.... e"" __ , '. ,::

' ,,' . ~. --, ";: - ·1 -- ~ ,/ ~ . ~- '. IX ... · i . '.' '''';-'~<-,--~X ., __,> L. , ",., . 4' - ,'" ~ I' [ •. " ~ '4 '"' 1.~X .. ' .• "'" .c>, .. , IX~ r _ .... C"., ..... , .. ' I/'v "..... 't "" 'VID·." ,~,~ "J ... if ",:" " _, // '-XI _ '. ,+- "I .. '

" "".<1 " ·,1 - , .' -, 'if) 1 . , , ,'.. , . 1 .. ""_,

VI

IX "~"'.: "n .. ,,_/_'/ i . /;.~~ -~-~ ~~~~-2:if~:~:~:~,? _: . L ,:-~~:~~7:::-f~:-:'::-:~'\:~';:~' ;:::,,: TUWATA

WATA '/ Al<E "'A .. A'!''''''.... ';" .... - t YIV... \ -xv- t -, " ~"">< ". "'_.= . __ , '" , __ ,_ .' / XIII''''' .. _, '- " / I' '/._, =JII • .::;:. -j -'1/ , .~ .. XIV'\. '- .• ,. _. --'XVI __ ,_ ''''' __ .-.'

/

1 " x, I -- ~ . "-... ' _\ "" •• ' .. .." ~II.o. """''''''/ ". ~_. I '_._ '._ , ..•. __ .' ~ I IX '~- i'~ ~ ... '~ "'" ~ \?~~, ;,,,)--.- :. :"-.. i:;.,... ~' .. :":'.".- .. ,_ ~.'''''' 1'-:. r-"'O:;":'.1:.'-x, / / .- \" w: w • I L·' 0,. '.' -m~ \ XVII, ". ~.~,,~ "~ ____ ~~, """"'~---v"''''''~ .... __ ' , . ..,..~ ' ... ' .; " " ~', \ ~ /' '-""' .. '. " ~, "". :".

- '1. 1 XXVI I J -'- . -f .-:., :,-- ~'--'--'f'):" -~'r-: ~'" ~ ....... .,. I 1-.-',' ",,~ , . I _ .... _ , I" ;_111 '. , -., .. ~ ""~ {"'I" '.:.:. -- --- I-=;' -. '--- ,=\' r -"-_-', --11.;'- , _'"'' :.. . __ !I .','_ .

./.. 1 ,,~. \' ~""h9"", .<>,' . "',,. -;:' '" ',,;. ",,, .. :,: I ~ ~', ~ ., ',,'. . . .' ':?J'.'" III'" . I W ,,, '","~_ ... , • ,,~>. '7 XVI/XIII I XXV ", / -\ [I: ...... ~';71~,.'~t.. q' - ;,.-.'" ~i - ~"'.;' -: :--. , r,.' XIIA ~--/ ',-, -_._ ;,-:;.;;_., :~ ........... / ,.1' ~,;-:- 1-,. _ .~, ----0

XIII XIV I /') .,-z-, ..... ".,,=.. "',..r, ... --~U\.-,' :VI, '_', __ I ,-'-'>£' ... -(.'.,_. I

... XXVI" -. ~ , .... -. ~ .~, ' ~, ,.c. . .... '_'. .. . _,.,~. _ . _' 3·· /,' -''': \ ( : IX : '" "' ... '~. r--:-I.:..""'~ '''::'' .. ::-l-<"?-_,_-{-,..:.."'. __ / -- v "[·--:~:-c~_ ----; '------- ---.------\---f -"'C_'!::f "" ! _ ,.:'._ ':""_" - . " ~ -:;;-<' --, ,- .. ~-,~ ~ ",' -"""". ,', ... , XIIIA ' - .'- ,-, " '_____ VII · --- - -- ," ."'- I\:, ,,---:.:..,,:. -', - / ~':':>... I _ ,'- -- I vulA'- "=' ,. ".:" ... - " '. ~ .... ..::::. ... . f~/'. 'j_. ..... ------- . .. ., "', -. ~ , ,.,," - ' ..... ,IA .• . . ' ''''''" '''''. , '-"- • ., '-.. .-•• .:~. -- ,.:,. v ~ / <'~.,'" ,,~ --" c:··' '. ,,"",;'" .. , ,.. 'J. , " .... _

. WAtAU Zl·\..~"":-(i-· :', ,:-,- ~,- i~'''''_'' {,."'_V'·-;::.!....(-::1VI y /\ ~;"-VIIIJ\ ... :._ VIA _.'. VII VII!,. _.-.I, V '_, /~I _" '" . . . ""..', . """=" "'" , , " .' ~, .,' - . --. , ./ -'

It

V VI: • ---, VI I VIj'-,'lr--__ ~:;-;; '.... "" '_" _,;-' Jill., , _, '.~ .. ~~: VA .. _. .'.. .' ~' " .. ~ '" ' .. --..... , - , . "-- "" . '" - ... ' .. .. , -, ,. ". 1'- • , .• ,'---- jVt1, oj I

J -~ ..... ,,' .. u.- /'.: - v. ~ XI. 1-- .;:.. . .';.:; . TAA.A'~~~~~_~ __ ';. ;": .(~~~.<::'\ • __ ~~ "'_:'>',;:0._ ___ _.. .. , __ ...... \ / . ,'_ ". ,. '. -,0.-, _"_, __ ., "' .. , , '. _.... . .. "_ _ ~ ..... _', . Villi XII' ,-------.:_Yii'A-l.~~ -, '" ,;., ~'''- ~--/ P '" "'-'~/.'-, ' ,::' .... ~ _.:.. ~,~ __ .-.. :. ..' .. I ,_.. _''''/ I ~_, c,. _,_ . .',' .:' . .. ..... " --... ,,- / .. 1 ... "i-.' 'i" " r-" .. -~ .. _ .. ·.,';. , ,1. .. / :: -:. ,,:- :.., ". -~" ':_ :':1 ,,-,! .',_, ' __ "f ,_ ." .: __ \_(: x': XJ.

· .,. ",-' : 'XIII '.:1'"..,~ -,_"'l-- .' ') v IX" 1 :.< .. " .. " . XI '---- .. XII. \_:. IX ; _ x' 'OPO/TI' XI XII / X ,." ;. ., .. , '" "" - --.Y . .. . '.. I' DRn " ' •. Xi. '-"';.<'J ~)) c_ , "XL 'J ... , v; ... " ,"' ... , . ..:x ', .. , ,'. .'. :.7 '''(- -, ~ . :--7 _ _'. l' NiJHA~)\ N · .. i" .... ." -- -,! "'"' i '''''. I':., - "'~.x -',,' .. ' .:. ,} ":/" " ....... , ... :. ,. ...... , .... _ .. , _ :'" 2.:'. . .,. . ."_.- i' .... "; ... ,, . , ~"" .. " )X'W, ". "< • , - ,,'" ",' " .. L, •. ,". ,:"V.. .. .... ,.: .... ". ,. .. 1 .• ' ,,', 'M~"'" ~ .. . ,,; '''., '.' .. , ,., ~ '''~., " .... , . <,,_ " ...• ., ., '. " ..

,) (~. "".S '''·-xv,;;.~'\. " .'. y.. . '. .~, .,'" " ,,', _.:; w"'" 'III • ",. " .:c," ..... , XVI 0 '''', ,,' IX

XIII XIV

.. . I . -.. .; ,A",,-_ xx -. , ,,".' '. , " . - . . '. 'I' "'r-TJr- J XIII '.' oj' . I. .' ". ... .XV!' .. :,,>, r~~\·i-'D.;;" ;<:"; ~_'" ":1:< ",>:~ ~V. ;:\ .. c xv" '- .;j)'~: ,C j: "~ :c- /~.-.. k~' i /'" \ '-/~ ')'-! " .. - i·, X'IX "." ,-,,;..A_-~- ______ , >. ' "-J , .. '_'_1 ~-'_..A/"" . _ '('_. __ --_'. '~'-';:r. ::--,----L.-----, .'- • ,,- , . f ", ...., . , .... ,. r ".< .. , ,'... '. . , ... __ . ' . (---.. --/.- / XXII :... j xXI-':;~L [xlr I . : ;"::: X'XIII...:..." XVII''.:, x~_ XVIII: . :-- . 'X"XI "j ./. ;" XVii _ ,: .. ~ll.." XIX"

Y,: :'."""""('XX''' "-/::: _~ ~vn r-t; .Jr':'XYI!t'.-- .- x~;---

.... xx ~', r ~ -- --! ) -- 1 ..... ", - XIX \. _ '1"_. ' 1" ... '.. ,.:... _____ -,. • ___ :---., r.-.", \ ,_ .. -,,"'l ___ -". '. ,",,","-'. . : ~, -+ .. ~ .~- _.. ,-';7 I .-, /I T'" II'" '" .. " __

-/' '-~ 11\ •. , ,

<, . , , r-. VIII / I_I'-~J IX -

(' : .... / ,) / ",-' I ~

\_ ...... , ; , , , 'H':'IT~.\ "'_.'

'.

i ., .. ,,.:. .... .", .' '; ', .. ; ,j~:r L:J..i" '.'< . ",,_ ... ,'; "". -C'"' ,_ . , • -, ' .•. -t-- . -. II " ".' . III {_

:':~1~;:,:::;~ L'-~-f':'\i~ .:" •. it";;.. .m ..--i," " . VII • , VI .

-::>. P. l-

r:"'- -­<.

"/ I I I I I

-. IX

"'l~ ", .. -- ,', i ',/ ~l.. /-,~/\ .... -<.... f"'. . II, ". /" " ) I ...... \ _. -........_ .. _~. ~

\ . l / \, .Y-. ~ --:"-_, / . .... f""~ '-_ --' . .... / f' , ... \/.: '-A" XV x'v ( XIII XIV I' '< ~'"\*\.." : <.,... / . ..i

"·'i'i·:."" '~. I . \.: II' III, . \ '/ ", III ,IV / .' /. II " 5 ~ ~ ,"" .. 'IV"") , _ ( ... _._._._ . u.,w... uno.. PAR( •• •• ":./ .... • •• ' • ; ':"~ _", ...-.. -.------.-.--+------:---.-:--.-~ r1 ----;---., \ / ...... '; ',\.

........ I.' '-...,. 't_v I ,. : . '" .. /; "'v' .. "".,; __ ..... ., '). k . II ,. '. III . IV \ ! II \ VI .-". _./} ., \:~_ ,.J": ... / ';::"~ ( '1 \ ' I' VII VIII c·: I V ". VI VII. VIII I V .

. 1" " I -. " VI I "':.. I KOAANG~ ': . _.' ~G.vAPA _t~.-- I .' . . ~'. J I '1 '. ....; . . " . . 1 . .. .: Wf)!KO I . ,. '. .' .". .:, " ..... ,., I' \ .-s. . .. ,.__. _. :;~'_ (' .. ,.; , . VI VII VIII· .- I V " VI VII..·· VIII I V VI, X XI X!! II IX U .' "'.- _/ '. 4. . .'. \, I

--. /' ,,.,,,, ,'. ; X XI '-. ~XlI . .). IX ",.- X.:. ATAHUNA -- ~ ., I ... I '. ' 'J'_"

AHIKERERU I "AU .• ! - ~:../ KORANGA WEST' ._" I • .' '_. "~_<)'" • '. . . _":'. .. .-'

r . _~ i.' ',~-"/7'1 . . I, i +>,J .. ' /,~-... (" ,~~/\ "-'0-

lit IV ...... . -~.:~) .:.~

.......

:'X "7~ Xl XII

I ,

11-- ''X . X XI ·'.~C {i/. XII jl IX : X [' XIV' " XV!,': • ., ...... ' '.: fl .1-"'---7.F

XIV;-:.'i ., XVI I ,.J

XII' .,.... ,\' _'.. '«~/.

·r· 1 , , , " l' (\.;'" '('" ,. . .. ~: XIII .- ''-'-... ---'-, , ...-'" . f''.. _:. XIV . "': r '. -., ' / ! . : '<-.,. J . I '. . : ,.. . I . .', .., ( (" .... • -, '/,':' ., ... - XVI . -- ,.~ , XV .,,- I I '" t :,=,.. _"'::' ---~:: \: - .....,...../ . '" - ._/ ... :" -."'.... : .. - I (, " ._ .! - f . ----, .. -,-,.-- '.-'-'----' -/-.- .. ---.--.--.-----------,.,..---~-- <:.~ -. .:.. /" --'~. ...., . _ ~--:I n.' A'

o .- .,~'" - , / ' I rr -- , • .J ----•• --.-~. __ • ___ ._..:.. ,. 'I. __ , __ .. _ i ~., 1 }' XIii . ,~'/ x/v ,. -.' .'" , /.";' , '. -- ,. C I . ~ .-. ~ [ 1 ' I,:; .. ," ... _. _____ . ....,. ... __ .'

. .... --': --., .. ,: /.~o": r-- ! ... ~'~ :-:.' -' .. - . \.. p': '--:., ~~ ,''':''=: i1 -- .:.'- '2,:Yi::.-- _ /. ),. " /. " .'xV1":'-.r",-x;,; .- XIV ;/~'a>xv i XVI,' XIII, : X'Vf+ 'F,'I=-' ~.~ I'I-"L".-;·IV./ I ,Vr ' i .:::..,\=:.("I~,,;.1:~i..; .. I~.:-I:~ ".;-'~~,: /~_ .; .... ,

. , )- "', 'I' . -.... ,........ ~ ... ., , /' - - , i :.. ~:=;.. .... I.. ': \.....-; .. ...;- .:. . t I .:' -. II

XV

j "'~' l­I? .... \ ; L; \~j -,:' ----u,:: --~" --:. ~7'-":~~ ~~ r::--.L ~f'''' ~';~:';""i,, ,':j ,';"'>~.2j:::"~:,,<;,:~.>!.)~~<;;~~:;;-::;~~~>.,:.+~ I·

til IV, ~.411 fill '/ IV /.-- -f.-!v : V, \""----'.Vllr"'r ~ _",- "'-'<-;.;:- •• ,X1r,""'_' ' __ '"~'~'.:..'. o "/ 1-..!_,. .....,. ,. '" ... l _~ '_.' _ _ '. ~_ ' .. ~ ._' •

I .- UR!W'" ••• no ..... i ,... .~VII .w~ __ ' lliAHtl··-';;;'~VII -:.. i>.::··",;-"---·,,~ .. -,' VI,/._ VII {," .,vI.'V ",. V _._ ,/.c'\:.~i~ .. ;~~ : ~": I, : . "-. ---..::-. "-;;'-'..1" ~. \_____ _: : . { ~. _!:.!. __ ':'., _'.. .:- '.- .: __ ! I /. ',--- .... -..... -. .. ... ----.-.. ----~ L· ,I, -- ~ ".""- .::. . 7 ----, _'-, -- \~:.. ':, I __ I, _-;. ___ ' _

/, .. • <";' :' <J' ____ r---.;;..------'. ~ " t{:-I. '. • - '" , -'- .::., .~;' ••• ' " :_ ! .'.., plfidlAl-! ' 4

0

-- : - I -";.- 1 -- ..:.. ,/. '", -*------.-." I .. ... t, . '-HANGAIlOA... JJ-/' "'::'.l-- -. _____ ~~.:--.' ._" : " "["'.... ....'" ,', ."" '." -- ,"(¥. "', ' . - .... ,,-,/ '.. :>... ,. -~ -.... " ,. VII VIII j./ V "lil ..... ' .. 'VI II~': VIII ~ I fx' : <:. .2/r~. "_!..~ XIIA " IX ": .. X· ... , .',2.., '_~_7~ __ ,,_? .. --,.... 'r _ . .~:;: ~:_ /'1 " ", , .. ,/ ·,1 -!.. : ::.,- !.. :.-) .. xr 71 .'. .: I) ". .:_ .... ,,( ~'XII. "1... IX .. : •• :'- _X ._.: ... ' ,,, .... """'I ""/" I - .", - 1-----··' - -- / .. .... ,-iH' -. ____ ..1 _'. ~ ,'.; XI r . i" . I .. _

/ I ~:.------ /; .• ~~~~.~- ~ .:.. -!!:--\-... ~.;:..-;::~~ ....... , . ... ~.;':-·I ;'" !,,_~ .. -- ... ~;}~~j',O:_.\-~~-.... ,:::_j "..,.<.:T-.--l_._._' /' I '&1(£ w ... .,rr"' .. E.t.f(IANA /./ -- ''''''~. 1 ..:.,:;;<\ ! ~,'." .-L; .. ' ... '- .. -.... .' .,,_ _ ~ , ._ '_

." I IX XI ,.: ".:::=-- -, XIII = ~!V.::;:. \ ..:- J :.:-"~.:-,v"""'.-' . " _. :.'_:'., 7 -- '- _. 1.-:::. r-' __ . . ... XI /' XII xcv XII. / XIX xu , "'-.. , XV f XVIII -' \ .~~ XIV'" \_---. .,.. :'., ,;. 0"-<"1 _:~ XIV .' / I ..' i .. '~, . ·~x\.. -::.: '. ./::.~---., /- .:.:~ XIII::. . ", ..... lW./, _1 ... ....:-.XVI .:_ ~II; .:,~ .... _. :.-. ;

. /'., I \:. _ .~~·rxv ,,' I - ,/":. - 'f2:", -- ~~ .,:;--:;~7( XV-:',I i--- I 'XIX' -.\~''''--:''' ,..:: :--:: .. ':"': .;- -::::::.;'. )-;~_ ;":'_ •. /."~. :.>.i.: '

- I ,. ... ~" ...L....::.:.......~' ......-.~ ...J " .... ,. __ • ", ./

. • XXVI, ,.'... '., '-" ,L. • •. _, ... ,Y'}<'_~........ '- \ . T.._ -.-----"'.-=--1 "'--"'~'- __ --:-.!.-~_..,..:._~~_ . I', ..... -;- ",~i., f'-. '.' '':~ -"- -, d)-.:.!.. .'{- " ,- (~.-'" ••. ", ,~. I ..;,.:;' ..... j, ... Y:oI , .., - "'f-:. J .lG .. "''-'''''' ~, __ ' . .:. . _'. =', , __ ,.. . ' ,_,. ,".

XIV xvr I XIII / XXV "/~II ~-~~2;~";~~IY .I _-:.f: "'( ~-II, ~:;·::'I'"'·..!J%::,.:r~:;.\ 0_ [-, ";_ 'r"':-;.!,~:i:~ ;.:'" III"" 'IVI I.. ,"'- :.-~-JI ): '. :'/11

7- I . 'XXVII' '"' -, , -:'.r -~ .. J ,t.".- ., , "' 'rl. XII' •. ,'.' "-"-.-- . \ .... ' __ " .'

• / .. .. I _ .... I '-J ',:::. - - '~ ... _,....rl " • I • "'t I, . ~ "" ~- ... '" "-1.,: .. -:':"'. ._, J ...... :.ut ... '?"_ ,_~!~ _'_:\_ _" ... ~ n - -- '. , ' .. - _. __ .. ___ , ,. 'I __ "...., ,,' = '~""""'". _ . ') .' '--.--------,- -:-- .. --. .l..--/~1 .. ~:;... \( :!~ ~~;-"i;\~' --.."-'.:::j..::;-:;' ''''='' :::'l~?-~~,J,-"-~ __ ,/ 1 v' .' .,~~-~'-': .-". I '_'Z"i~~.'- ;.:!: _',~ tt-:,. '.-:';0 ./ I '\.~ I .1;:...-- ' '-",. ...-/ '7 ' __ l"r~=-- \. ....... ~I ••• ~ I •• __ • . \ ""I~",).r, I , ,_ .. . . v ........ f..~ -~ ,-..I -- f:::-:;-"·;~ _ ~.!.( .. :=.,' ~ : '.;.-:" lvttCA-- .;:, XIIIA . , .. _ ," '~"" . .f'--'"' ",: .,:'. __ :;-,.

• WAIAU 1 .'\.~ \ J, "". :~- ',. .... --........'·.:0. :-- -,'~' ::... I ~ .='/',;0 - y" ~:'<!'A I -'- '" ., ,.-, .... ~_ :.c -i' .. :, . . /{ , _.----- , II V VI WEST I.. .': .. i" '. ,',. L {" ,~~-:..:::-- ., ...... V"~::.!.. '.-../ VI '~~,._,,'- \ _, "'~.:':_ .. ," :.. (., ,.,_ : _ '."_ VI, . ---- V. '---.--.-(-, VI I Vll''''~f'''-'-''~'-'>~~«'-<'''1 "/=-r;" VIII \ ... ". VIA . VII VIII;,. I "'~.' ' Vii; .. - I .. ,f--..... -.;~- ""'t... I. w_ I't... VI .. \'" __ , ... , , _ , _. , _ ' ; : - . .. r....' I .• VIII" Xl ,'- ...... "'-.... /;.:.:---::~" ';\~~';~: A VA ,:.' ...... ""'" .. / -'1 V : VI ..... -" -"'-- ... ,VIII) XII \!------~.:-. .w!H~,U .. _!· . ,f :"k-':.:.--:,,< __ .:..T~Jt"'~.~~.~~~.;_.r~: .I;.:~-::\ .... __ ;'~'::.., ' ... C ' .. I .c. " ... ,,....' ',~,

VI) X ~.";>':: .. ~ ,,~)-. f -,~_j .. ';!II '~~~ •. ~~~~<~~:: .. -----f~--~~~t·;.:·IX:. ;i .... )~ ...... -:.:~::~:>! .. ',-" ~'??' :::~.~:~~:( '/ .. ,'.:[~~. > .. . ::~-.J I[_~~'-~>.:~'/:/ ' .. /~' . XII '--y'" ~ -- ,. ,XVI < .. ..-- ," XI .-. __ .XII " . IX ' . x· . XI _ ._. ,:" X .' .

' ., . - / : ·XV .. _) ... - I .... . - .... ' X . . :' ';.., OPOITI . XII, " ,,/ _ ,: XI. MAHGAHOP4I • l., ... "-". ,,'. : ::. -" } XVII ~-.: ..... '. ~'." ..... . ' .. ', ,'..."- ,c; . . : ,".'. X :'. , MANGAHOPAI WEST .,' '. • ) XXIV :.~ ! .. ~-,.- .. ':).. (.". '~.;r:,.,. ." -" '-" C . , ,,' _ . 1 .. \. _'. '. NUHAK~ NORH

.. " "~V" ~'"/,."xYll,;:~t<~-;:, ,}J .~\, ..~" j;;~ /,~, .'1:."-~:'" '.;':' .. , ,"-V·"' f:~'-:J· :'?,~ I~·'·· '!'." .. :.O, t. ., XVII" •. '. :~,,' " .~.) . .": ,. xx.. t,.,· / .... . " ',' .'. ".:/ XIII ., XI' I' .;,'. ...: XVI .-') ',' : ,.'." .

" \ .>'·'C"·"· ,,< oo:'·~i. ~r '-:'./".',.:,:1:; ... .><, XI" .. C:., . .. or, j' ~, :' . :'fT}' ,. .~: - \f' ~) I ". XIII,:.. \ ~:. XI( xv {--- • - ,." -,. XII'" j' x'x," L lrX"'I' . , f .. : ... I .0 (', ~ .. ~. 'J " '_.... ,,~"\:. '.., '-{ '. _. _____ ,.~. ,

.... . ', -, A.lll • f" . .. . "., . " . \ .. ,', ' _ '.~ XI/I XIV xx " X '.- .,~..:'-- -'- f;;:::; XXII -:..\ XVII""X~_ XVIII', ..... '.. :'. II' "-/. .,,- .. C'.'.-:."". '!.), .• :::i.:r. ~' .. : __ .. '.

VI

TUWATAWATA

IX

XlII

-'1 f D~X!':' '~-' "', '~ ) -.., .... ", - XIX )' XXI -j: ' .XVII "'. <J ." XIX"~~ . "".,,,,,,,", 'xx',' ... :. .... XVII ~; 1 """I'It".~' _;~-. " -. .-:- , ,,., , ;.~. -- \. " \ .. - " ". ...... A '. . .' .' I' 'r ... ",.. ' III'.. "'IV' .( I "<:""-.- : ""\..,-,,~(., _._-"-.... - .--......r ,-.--.---_-,. . __ " __ ~ r:-::-.", r'-..:.. '::"'=-. 'XIX ". ., ), j ". i '.' . I: '.' 'I- .~",.; II ')..: ;.bl .. '. ' .. /' '. -' . ... " ""..]7;,! . :':\. i .. L f .•• : \ \' . '.' ~ <:\, __ ... _

V!II ,"_'->:oj "X • I I .', , , 'II • • .' • I' ,. __ .: -', '.' III IV' CI ,,( . :.,. I . .". ":,_ "~ "

.. /;,/ <Co', / I,"/~::b "'\', ,'j "(':k, . i . ~..;:" .... _.,._ .. ;::...r.. . L. W:'Ir;cft~ \ "'-~~ ~., VI :--".:~ . \III . I ,

y."' \, _______ ,_ SUIl/IU·U'

PANEKIRI TRIBAL TRUST BOARD

P.O.Box 38-153. Wellington Mail. Centre.

Tel : (04) 5668214 Fax: (04) 5668308 t ..

12th November 1992 I

":J;..,. .... ~n!"'''' E ~ct;t:. w ciU

, Waltanr;i T-i0' 'n::>1 'Dlv/"Si"';' ~~_. " i.~.", ...... f:i. To:

. C~4/n? WAI· //r-~ (~)

The Registrar \q\\ Waitangi Tribunal

\ \ Maori Land Court Ne~ WELLINGTON

; 19 NOV 1992 r-----. . "------I. ~,~~!i£,~ . ~

,\5 t\d.o'\'h ,I(

---'-:""'-'~-.r.

HE: LAKE WAIKARIHlANA

, "

I: Vernon Winitana, 64 Guthrie Street, lower Hutt, Manager of Ngati Hinekura - Ngati Ruapani - Te Whanaupani all hapu of Waikaranoana.

For: myself and the Panekiri Tribal Trust Boa1:d of which I an a Trustee/Manber and the Board is the Trustee for all remaining lands of Ngati Ruapani of Waikaremoana - Ngati Hinekura am Te Whanaupani' of th:3 sane locality.

Claim: to be prejooicially affected, or likely to bei py any regulations, order, proclamation, notice, or other statutOIY instrunent made, issued, or given at any time on or after the 6th day of February 1840; or

under any ordinance or Act of the General Legislative Council of New Zealand or of the Provincial Legislative Council of New Munster, or any Provincial Ordinance, or any Act [whether or not still in 'force], passerl at any t:i.!re on or after the 6th day of FebruaIY 1840; or

any policy or practice [whether or not still in force] adopted by or on behalf of the Crown, or by any policy or practice proposed to be adopterl by or on behalf of the CrCMIli or

any Act done or omitted at any t.ima on or after the 6th day of FebruaIY 1840, or proposed to be done or cxnittErl:, by or on behalf of the Crown

and further:

That the following lands and waterways incltrling lakes [ see attacherl map] were alienatErl since 1840 withaIt our consent as a people.

All that area in the Gisborne Land District, County of Wairoa situated in blocks VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, am XIII Waikaremoana West Survey District, containing 12 875 acres (approx) and canprising the bed of Waikarenoana, the islands in that lake, including Patekaha Islam arrl including the present foreshore, nore particularly delineatErl with bold black lines in the plan endorsed (Maori Land Plan 4876, an intergal part of which plan is an endorsenent to the affect that where not definErl by survey fis· the boundary of Lake Waikaranoana for Title pw:poses os too 2020 foot contour in tenns of Kaitawa Datun)

-2-

thctt these lands and waterways including lakes were am continue to be wTaongaw of great social and cultural significance

arrl claim:

those matters to be inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975.

The Tribunal is asked to recarrnend as follows: ' ... I

Tha t these lands and waterways including lakes be .,.-returned to the r: . Panekiri Tribal Trust Board

That where it is not feasible or appropriate to return such larrl canpensation is sought

and other such relief as the Tribunal considers appropriate.

The Tribunal: is asked to <XXllllission a researcher to report this claim before any hearing and for this researcher to Mlrk closely with the TIUst Boaxds Research unit. The Panekiri Tribal Trust Board Mluld like to naninate a Tribal MEmber to do this work - should this position be granted.

The Tribunal: is asked to appoint a Lawyer to assist this Cla.im with a request with Legal Aid assistance.

The Tribunal: is asked to hear this Claim at WaikarEmoana

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

/Urewera National Pari< Board /Electricity Corporation of New Zealand Limited ~Deparbment of CQnservatiQn ---Landcorp and or Depar1Jnent of Lands & Surveys v'

...wairoa District Council ~perty Owners am Oocupiers at Onepoto Sub-division

4Iawkes Bay Regional Council

and any other Fanners or individuals/groups who may have an interest in these lands, waterways and lakes. .

Notices:

Date:

Sign:

To the Clainants should be sent to:

Vernon Winitana P.O. Box 38-153 Wellington Mail Centre

Vernon Winitana TIUstee - Claim Co-Ordinator

IN THE MATTER of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975

- and -(

IN THE MATTER of Claims to the Waitangi Tribunal by WILLIAM HENRY CHRISTIE, TUERI RATAPU, WIKI HAPETA and CHARLES COTTER on behalf of themselves and of members of Ngati Kahungunu Tribe

Claimants

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

KENSINGTON SWAN SOLICITORS WELLINGTON

DAENGA.KAH06

IN THE MATTER of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975

- and -

IN THE MATTER of Claims to the Waitangi Tribunal by WILLIAM HENRY CHRISTIE, TUEHI RATAPU, WIKI HAPETA and CHARLES COTTER on behalf of themselves and of members of Ngati Kahungunu Tribe

Claimants

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

1. THE claimants represent the descendents and rightful

successors of the rangatira and people of Ngati Kahungunu.

2. THE traditional territory of the iwi of Ngati Kahungunu is

that area on the east coast of the North Island stretching from

the Mahia peninsula in the North to Cape Palliser and Lakes Onoke

and Wairarapa in the south and inland to the southeastern shores

of Lake Waikaremoana, and to the Kaweka, Kaimanawa, Ruahine,

Tararua and Rimutaka ranges to the west, and include all inland

and coastal fisheries adjacent to the said area.

The Claim

3. THE claimants, being Maori, say that they have been

prejudicially affected by the following ordinances, Acts,

regulations, orders, policies, practices and all Acts enacted,

omitted or done or adopted by or on behalf of the Crown:-

3.1 Crown and Pre-Treaty Purchases

Between 1840 and 1865 substantial blocks were purchased by

the 'Crown in Wairoa, Hawkes Bay and the Wairarapa. These

included:-

(i) the Mohaka Block;

(ii) the Ahuriri Block;

(iii) the Waipukurau Block;

- 2 -

(iv) the Nuhaka Block;

and others. The claimants believe also that certain pre­

Treaty purchases were subsequently purchased by the Crown

or were regulated by the Crown in such a way as to

disadvantage the claimants. The Crown purchases were a

prime cause of loss of land and impoverishment of Ngati

Kahungunu. The following matters relating to the Crown

purchases require investigation:-

(a) the adequacy of Crown instructions;

(b) inadequacy of the price paid and failure to

make or complete payment;

(c) the Crown's control of its agents;

(d) errors and uncertainties as to the

boundaries of the sale blocks;

(e) whether the transactions were adequately

understood by Maori sellers;

(f) whether those who sold the blocks were in

fact entitled to do so and failure of the Crown to

establish the correct owner;

(g) fa.ilure by the Crown to reserve adequate

tribal endowments or to make the reservations

agreed to by the parties;

(h) protection of mahinga kai, urupa and waahi

tapu.

Operation of the Native Land Court and the Native

Land Acts

The claimants say that the whole operation of the Native

Land Acts from 1862 onwards, and especially (but not

- 3 -

limited to) the 1865 Act was disastrous for Ngati

Kahungunu. Most of the worst abuses of the system of free

trade in Maori land occurred in the Ngati Kahungunu rohe.

The claimants say the Crown was at fault in devising the

legislative framework of the Native Land Acts and in

failing to bring the Native Land Court under any proper

control or supervision.

3.3 Confiscation of the Mohaka Block

The claimants say that confiscation of the Mohaka Block

pursuant to the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863 was a

totally unwarranted action by the Crown.

3.4 East Coast Land Titles Investigation Act 1867

The Act related to large areas of East Coast lands , confiscated by the Crown and required all tribes located

in this area to establish to the satisfaction of the Crown

that they had not been in a state of rebellion. The

claimants say that the acts of confiscation, this Act and

subsequent actions of the Crown prejudiced them and Ngati

Kahungunu and in particular:-

(a) the Deed of Agreement dated 5 April 1867

between the Crown and Ngati Kahungunu was unjust

and prejudicial. Ngati Kahungunu was forced to

concede the retention by the Crown of the Kouhourea

Block in return for the Ruakituri, Taramarama,

Tukurangi and Waiau Blocks;

(b) the reserves in the Kouhouroa Block the

Crown agreed to make were not made;

(c) the Crown failed to return the blocks to the

true Ngati Kahungunu owners;

(d) when those lands were revested it was to

- 4 -

persons who immediately sold the land to the Crown,

despite Ngati Kahungunu protests. The transaction

was unfair and improper and this was recognised by

the Sim Commission of 1927 (see p.27);

(e) the compensation recommended by the Sim

Commission and that subsequently paid by the Crown

was inadequate and unreasonable.

3.5 Te Whanganui-O-Orotu (Napier Inner Harbour)

The deed of sale for the 1851 Ahuriri Purchase did not

include Te Whanganui-O-Orotu, which was a valued taonga of

the hapu of Ngati Kahungunu. These lands and waters

included the foreshore, harbour,landing places and other

lands of the Ahuriri Estuary. The Crown has subsequently

taken the position that it owned the harbour, either at

common law or alternatively by statute (the Napier Harbour

Boards Act 1874 and its amendments and/or the Harbours

Acts and its amendments). The claimants seek a full

review of the circumstances by which the Crown claimed to

own the harbour and whether the Crown1s actions in

relation both to ownership and management of the harbour

are in breach of the prinCiples of the Treaty of Waitangi,

including (but not limited to) the following questions:-

(a) the history and traditional usage of the

harbour;

(b) the Crown1s powers and rights of ownership,

if any, at common law in New Zealand;

(c) the effect of the Napier Harbour Board Act

1874 and its amendments and the Harbours Acts and

its amendments, particularly their effect on the

jurisdiction of the Native Land Court;

(d) whether the acts and amendments described in

- 5 -

(c) are contrary to the principles of the Treaty;

(e) the effect of the loss of ownership of

coastal land on foreshore ownership;

(f) whether the Native Land Court continued to

exercise jurisdiction over the harbour;

(g) the petitions, investigations and Royal

Commissions which dealt with the harbour, the

adequacy of such investigations and the adequacy of

the Crown's response;

(h) the legal effect of the Maori ownership of

islands in the Ahuriri Estuary and the consequences

of the 1931 Napier earthquake;

(i) the adequacy of environmental management of

the area;

(j) whether the current law as to foreshore,

harbour and estuary ownership after Re. Ninety­

Mile Beach (1961) NZLR is contrary to the

principles of the Treaty.

This matter has particularly urgency due to the Hawkes Bay

Harbour Board Empowering Act 1989. The claimants are

concerned that the sales pursuant to this Act are now

possible and their claims are not protected. The

claimants say that they never sold Te Whanganui-O-Orotu

and that it is still regarded as belonging to Ngati

Kahungunu, and that actions of the Crown to the contrary

constitute an unlawful taking of the land which are

contrary to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

3.6 Hawkes Bay Commission of 1873

The claimants say that the Hawkes Bay Commission of 1873

- 6 -

was an inadequate response on the part of the Crown to the

scandalous situation brought about in Hawkes Bay as a

consequence of the Native Lands Acts. Of particular

concern was and is the purchase of the Heretaunga Block.

3.7 Kahungunu Maori Reserved Lands

The claimants say that they have been prejudiced by the

legal framework devised by the Crown relating to Maori

reserved lands and by the management of such lands by the

Public Trustee and Maori Trustee.

3.8 The Wairarapa "Five Percents"

The claimants say that the operation of the Wairarapa 5%'s

by the Crown was unfair and disadvantageous to Ngati

Kahungunu.

3.9 Seventy-Mile Bush (Puketoi and Mangatainoka)

The claimants say they have been prejudiced by the failure

of the Crown's investigations concerning these blocks to

remedy the problems identified by the original

complainants.

3.10 Wairarapa Lakes

The claimants say they have been prejudiced by Crown

purchases surrounding the lakes, by the Crown's actions in

restricting fishing on the lakes, by lake drainage, by

Crown and local body management of the lake, and by the

"settlement" of the lakes issue by which Ngati Kahungunu

owners were obliged to accept remote blocks in the central

North Island in exchange for selling the beds of the lakes

to the Crown.

- 7 -

3.11 Loss of Land by operation of Law

The claimants say they have been further prejudiced by

continuing loss of land in the twentieth century and call

upon the Tribunal to institute a full inquiry into the

causes of such continuing loss, including the operations

of the Rating Act, Harbours Act, Railways Corporation

Restructuring Act, the Public Works Act (including lands

taken for river works), and the Town and Country Planning

Act.

3.12 Improper Crown Management of Resources

The claimants say they have been further prejudiced by the

Crown's management of the lands and waters in their rohe,

which has led to river pollution, deforestation, silting

and aggradation of rivers, taking of shingle from the

Mohaka and other rivers, pollution of lakes including

lakes Tutira, Wairarapa and Onoke, and siltation of

estuaries, destruction of wetlands and the consequent loss

of traditional food and other resources.

3.13 Rivers

The claimants say they have been deprived of owning and

management of the rivers within their rohe, including the

Mohaka, the Wairoa, Ngaruroro, Tutaekuri and other rivers.

3.14 Failure to Recognise Customary Rights and Practices

The claimants say they have been further prejudiced by the

Crown's refusal to recognise Kahungunu customary

management rights and practices.

3.15 Loss of and Damage to Inshore Marine Fisheries

The claimants say they have lost exclusive title to and

possession and use of the harbours, sea coasts and onshore

- 8 -

fisheries. They have been further prejudiced by the

decline of the inshore marine fishery, by coastal

management practices conducted by or on behalf of the

Crown including the establishment of marine reserves, by

marine pollution and coastal modification leading to the

impoverishment of coastal food-gathering resources.

3.16 Loss of and Damage to Offshore Fisheries

The claimants say they have been prejudiced by the loss of

their fishing rights to offshore fisheries by the Crown's

management. They say further that the resource has been

and is being damaged by the Crown's management of it.

3.17 Forestry

The claimants say that they have been further

disadvantaged by the Crown policies of afforestation and

acquisition of land for afforestation and consequential

loss of indigenous forest resources.

3.18 Waahi Tapu

The claimants say they have been prejudiced by the loss of

waahi tapu.

3.19 Crown Restraint on Development of Maori Land

The claimants say that policies and legislation of the

Crown have unduly hampered and restricted economic

development of remaining Maori land.

3.20 Loss of Taonga

The claimants say that the loss of many of their treasured

works of art is a great loss and grievance to them. The

claimants seek a complete review of the Crown's actions in

this regard and a full investigation of the Antiquities

- 9 -

and Historic places Acts.

4. THE claimants say that all of the Acts, regulations,

orders, policies, practices, and actions taken, omitted, or

adopted by or on behalf of the Crown referred to in para. 3 are

and remain contrary to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

5. THE claimants claim compensation for the disruption and

social dislocation caused by the Crown's policies as well as

general compensation for land wrongly taken and for environmental

mismanagement. The claimants seek full restoration of the

rangatiratanga and mana of Ngati Kahungunu over the whole of

their traditional territory and their taonga.

6. THE claimants ask that leave be given to amend this

Statement of Claim following the preparation of research reports

and hearings to identify issues.

7. THE claimants seek compensation for the costs of preparing

and submitting this claim and any future amendments.

8. THE claimants authorise the Tribunal to conduct whatever

research the Tribunal regards as appropriate.

9. THE claimants seek the assistance of the Tribunal in

funding counsel and research necessary for this claim.

DATED at Wellington this ~

I~ day of 1991

. Counse~for Claimants

The address for service of the Claimants is at the offices of KENSINGTON 'SWAN (Ms D A Edmunds), 6th Floor, Fletcher Challenge House, 87-91 The Terrace, Wellington. Telephone (04) 727-877, Fax (04) 732-338, P~O. Box 10-246, Wellington.

TO:

AND TO:

The Registrar, Waitangi Tribunal, Wellington

Solicitor-General, Crown Law Office, Wellington

WAI301

CLAIMANT: T.TE RAUNA RAPE CONCERNING: WHARERATA & PATUNAMU STATE FORESTS

HAWKES BAY (5,11) REGION: RECEIVED: 18 JUNE 1992

IN THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL

IN THE MA TIER of the Treaty of

AND

Waitangi 1975 and the Crown Forest Assets Act 1989

IN THE MATTER of the Wharerata State Forest

AND

IN THE MATTER of a claim by Tiopira Te Rauna Hape for myself and on behalf of Te Taiwhenua 0 Te Wairoa and for Te Runanga 0 Ngati Rakaipaaka

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

I, TIOPIRA TE RAUNA RAPE for myself, and on behalf ofTe Taiwhenua 0 Te Wairoa, Runanganui 0 Ngati Kahungunu and for Te Runanga 0 Ngati Rakaipaaka.

CLAIM to be prejudicially affected by:

1.1 The 1865 Nuhaka No 1 Block purchase by the Crown whereby Ngati Rakaipaaka were dispossessed of 38,267 acres.

1.2 The New Zealand Settlements Act 1863 wherein these provisions:

allowed the East Coast Lands Investigation Act 1867 to authorise the Native Land Court to inquire and determine freehold title to papatipu whenua to those maori found to be entitled to land.

allowed the East Coast Lands Act 1866 to exclude persons having title to land found to be in

rebellion.

1.3. The Deed of Cessation dated 18 December 1868 which resulted in Ngati Rakaipaaka purporting to cede to the Crown maori land for the purposes of settlement.

1.4. The Poverty Bay Land Titles Act which purported to authorise the Native Land Court to investigate titles to the remaining part of the ceded territory returned to Ngati Rakaipaaka which had not been adjudicated by the Poverty Bay Commission.

1.5 The acts, policies and omissions done by the Crown proclaiming and acquiring the lands so returned to Ngati Rakaipaaka and its Hapu under the:

Native Lands Fraud Protection Act 1870 Immigration and Public Works Act 1870 Native Lands Act 1873 . Native Land Court Act 1873. Native Land Act 1873 Waste Lands Act 1876 Native Land Amendment Act 1877 Land Act 1877 Land Amendment Act 1879.

AND CLAIM that all these acts and policies undertaken by the Crown, the Crown failed to :

2.1 issue adequate and appropriate instructions to its agents

2.2 pay a fair price for the blocks

2.3 control the actions of its agents

2.4 ascertain the correct boundaries of the blocks

2.5 obtain the consent to sell of all the owners

2.6 reserve adequate tribal endowments

2.7 adequately explain the transaction to the sellers

2.8 protect mahinga kai, urupa and wahi tapu.

AND CLAIM that such omissions and actions are contrary to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi

AND FURTHER CLAIM that the lands forming the Wharerata State Forest is otherwise Crown land available for reparation in settlement of the grievances of Ngati Rakaipaaka arising from the acts, done by the Crown in dealing with and disposing of the tribes land, that were contrary to the Treaty of Waitangi.

THE TRIBUNAL is asked to recommend:

a. That the Wharerata State Forest be returned to the ownership of the a Trust to be established for the beneficiaries of the original 1840 Tangata Whenua of the Wharerata State Forest.

b. Such other relief as the Tribunal considers appropriate.

THE CLAIMANTS seeks leave to amend this claim upon the completion of a Research Report

THE TRIBUNAL is asked to hear the claim at the Kahungunu Marae at Nuhaka at an appropriate date and time to be decided upon with the consent of the claimants by the Waitangi Tribunal.

THE TRIBUNAL is asked to appoint Deborah Edmunds of Kensington Swan as legal counsel for the claimants.

PERSONS affected by this claim and who have notice of it are as follows :

Minister of Forestry Hawkes Bay Regional Council Gisborne District Council Department of Survey and Land Information Maori Land Information Office Crown Law Office Minister of Maori Development Treaty of Waitangi Policy Unit Te Runanga 0 Turanganui a Kiwa Crown Forestry Rental Trust

NOTICES to the claimants should be sent to Mr Tiopira Te Rauna Hape P.O Box 20037, Wellington, Phone and Fax 3891-329

" Ki Te Whare 0 Rata e haruru ana Ki Nga Roimata 0 Te Awa 0 Nga Nuhaka Ki te !hi !hi 0 Moumoukai Maunga "

DATED at Te Whanganui ATara this 15 day of June 1992.

(Signature of Claimant) TIOPIRA TE RAUNA RAPE

IN THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL

IN THE MATTER of the Treaty of

AND

Waitangi 1975 and the Crown Forest Assets Act 1989

IN THE MATTER of the Patunamu State Forest

AND

IN THE MATTER of a claim by Tiopira Te Rauna Hape for himself and on behalf of Te Taiwhell.uaoTe Wairoaand for Ngai Tamaterangi-Ngati Makoro

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

I, TIOPIRA TE RAUNA HAPE for myself, and on behalf of Te Taiwhenua 0 Te Wairoa and for Ngai Tamaterangi - Ngati Makoro.

CLAIM to be prejudicially affected by:

1.1 The New Zealand Settlements Act 1863 wherein these provisions: allowed the East Coast Lands Investigation Act 1866 to authorise the Native Land Court to inquire and determine freehold title to papatipu whenua to those maori found to be entitled to land.

allowed the East Coast Lands Act 1866 to exclude persons having title to land found to be in rebellion.

1.2. The Deed of Cessation dated 5 April 1867 which resulted in Ngai Tamaterangi - Ngati Makoro purporting to cede to the Crown maori land for the purposes of settlement.

1.3 The acts, policies and omissions done by the Crown proclaiming and acquiring the lands so returned to Ngai Tamaterangi - Ngati Makoro under the:

Native Lands Fraud Protection Act 1870 Immigration and Public Works Act 1870 Native Lands Act 1873. Native Land Court Act 1873. Native Land Act 1873 Waste Lands Act 1876 Native Land Amendment Act 1877 Land Act 1877 Land Amendment Act 1879.

AND CLAIM that all these acts and policies undertaken by the Crown, the Crown failed to :

2.1 issue adequate and appropriate instructions to its agents

2.2 pay a fair price for the blocks

2.3 control the actions of its agents

2.4 ascertain the correct boundaries of the blocks

2.5 to obtain the consent to sell of all the owners

2.6 to reserve adequate tribal endowments

2.7 to adequately explain the transaction to the sellers

2.8 to protect mahinga kai, urupa and wahi'tapu.

AND CLAIM that such omissions and actions are contrary to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi

AND FURTHER CLAIM that the lands forming the Patunamu State Forest is otherwise Crown land available for reparation in settlement of the grievances of Ngai Tamaterangi Ngati Makoro arising from the acts, done by the Crown in dealing with and disposing of the tribes land, that were contrary to the Treaty of Waitangi.

THE TRIBUNAL is asked to recommend:

a. That the Patunamu State Forest be returned to the ownership of the a Trust to be established for the beneficiaries of the original 1840 Tangata Whenua of the Patunamu State Forest.

b. Such other relief as the Tribunal considers appropriate.

THE CLAIMANTS seeks leave to amend this claim upon the completion of the Research Report

THE TRIBUNAL is asked to hear the claim at the Rangiahua Marae at Frasertown near Wairoa at an appropriate date and time to be decided upon with the consent of the claimants by the Waitangi Tribunal.

THE TRIBUNAL is asked to appoint Deborah Edmunds of Kensington Swan as legal counsel for the claimants.

PERSONS affected by this claim and who have notice of it are as follows:

Minister of Forestry

Hawkes Bay Regional Council Department of Survey and Land Information Maori Land Information Office Crown Law Office Minister of Maori Development Treaty of Waitangi Policy Unit NOTICES to the claimants should be sent to Mr Tiopira Te Rauna Hape, POBox 20037, Wellington, Phone and Fax, 3891 - 329.

" Ko te whakatauaki 0 Tamaterangi Ao Te Rangi ka uhia rna te huruhuru Te Manu ka rere ai"

DATED at Te Whanganui A Tara this 15 day of June 1992

(Signature of Claimant)

TIOPIRA TE RAUNA HAPE Claim Coordinator

\ \ \

\

\ t. ;

; -.' ;~-: c--':- .:T=:.:: .. --; ~ . :.: ~ t - d

~'. !.

{L~-161!()rjlq4 l6'/l1t2~j 12 eCk.f V-&-j 1-3

Turei 22 0 Poutu Te Rangi 1994

MARAMA HENARE Waitangi Tribunal C/- Tribunals Division Justice Department Private Bag Postal Centre WELLINGTON.

PH: (04) 499.3666 FAX: (04) 499.3676

RE: APPLYING FOR A WAI NUMBER FOR THE mTUNAMU FOREST

Kia ora Marama

Ki nga kaiwhakahaere 0 Te Taraipunara 0 Waitangi, tena koutou, tena koutou, tena koutou katoa. No reira, he mihi poto tenei ki a koutou, me te inoi ki te hinengaro, kia tau te maramatanga, me rangimarie ki runga i a koutou, a ki a tatau katoa.

On behalf of my hapu Tama Te Rangi

I Wi Te Tau HUATA of the following address RD 5 Maraekakaho Rd Bridge Pa, HASTINGS.

FOR THE PURPOSE OF: Apllying to the Waitangi Tribunal for a Wai Number

SO THAT: We can research the wrong doings of the past.

WE CLAIM: That under the Treaty of Waitangi, that our hapu, Tama Te Rangi of Te Wairoa, Hawkes Bay were and still are prejudically affected by the action of the Crown in respect to the land in which the Patunamu Forest grows.

IN PARTICULAR:

We are referring to the Patunamu ki Tukurangi forest. Our kaumaatua believe that the people of Tama Te Rangi never ever sold or gifted these lands in which these forests grow. But today these lands are now occupied by the government and their tenant Juken Nissho.

The question we are asking is that if we never sold or gifted the land then how did they come to own it. Lets face it the land was originally owned by Tama Te Rangi hapu. Thus the reason for wanting to apply to the Waitangi Tribunal for a Wai Number and thus wanting to research our claim.

Ma taku rourou, Ma tau rourou, Ka ora te manuhiri.

C Ii Ii -c-: -):;: r

-- ._. __ ••• _"' __ • ___ ...-.....-__ el ______ ..

J

\-e are applying under the legislation of the Maori Affairs State Owned Enterprise Act in which the Crown Forestry Rental Trust was formed.

Furthermore we also wanting to apply for funding from the C.F.R.T in order for us to carry out our research.

Under the first principal of the Treaty of Waitangi that the Maori Chiefs of Niu Tireni would be given exclusive rights to their lands, forests and fisheries is in our eyes a complete contradiction, to put it bluntly "a load of tito" in our case in respect to Patunamu ki Tukurangi.

THIS CLAIM: Does not amend or replace other hapu such as Te Whaanau Pani or Te Pani Kiris claim but instead we are registering a cross claim on behalf of Tama Te Rangi and Ngaati Makoro instead. And therefore applying for a seperate Wai Number.

WE WILL: Apply first and foremost for Lagal Aid and in the event of us failing to recieve it then we will apply to either the C.F.R.T or to T.O.W.P.U for legal costs. At present we do not have a Solicitor but I should add that it is not our desire to have one yet until we have adequately completed our research, which is to be monitored by the C.F.R.T.

Notify the Wairoa District Council; Juken Nissho; the Hawkes Bay Regional Council. KatE, E.del. 1'19C'1i PohauNe.o,

WE WISH: The Claim to be heard at Pakowhai Marae, Frasertown, WAIROA once all the evidence and research is available.

DATED this ... 22nd... day of ... Poutu Te Rangi... 1 994

AT RD5 Maraekakaho Rd Bridge Pa HASTINGS

I can be contacted at the above address and at the above phone and facsimile number. (Refer to the letterhead).

Ma te Atua tatou e manaaki

Wi Te Tau HUATA TAMA TE RANGI SPOKESMAN

1 I 1

\.

)'

DUPLtCATE 1

I

I CU-\\ki ! \ WAi ,4,~/.. .. ft .. .L:,I. .... 1 _________ -'

The Registrar Waitangi Tribunal

TREATY OF WAITANGI CLAIM

I, CHARLES MANEHI COTrER Of Wairoa, Chairperson of the Proprietors of Tahora 2F2

Incorporation claim under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 that I, and the Proprietors of

Tahora 2F2, and owners of the said incorporation and Ngai Tamaterangi tribe of which I am

a member are prejudicially affected by the action of the Crown in declaring a road over part

of our land in the Ruakituri Vall~"y and by the taking of other land belonging to us and which

have never been used or are not being used for the purpose for which they were taken and

in not ensuring the return of the said land to the owners when the land ceased to be required

by the Crown.

A. In particular, we say as follows:

1.

2.

3.

That a legal road was proclaimed in the New Zealand Gazette 1930 at page

1123 pursuant to section 12 of the Land Act 1924.

That other land was taken by the Crown over the years.

That subsequently the land forming the paper road has never been formed.

4. That the purpose behind the formation of the paper road is no longer valid,

there being an alternative formed access route on adjoining property to the

National Park and in a proposed Right of Way.

',' .. -'I">

3TAJ1J'lUO 2

5. That the taking of the road and other areas of land have prejudicially affected

the incorporation and the Maori owners.

6. We seek the following relief:

(a) The return to us of the land forming the paper road and other Crown

land taken by the Crown.

(b)

(c)

Compensation for the prejudicial affects of the taking of the paper road

and other land by the Crown.

Such other relief as the Tribunal considers necessary.

7. We wish the Tribunal to commission a researcher to report on our claim and

we ask leave to amend this claim where appropriate after any additional

research has been done. We will apply to the Maori Land Information Office

for assistance to facilitate this claim and the incorporation are conducting

further research of its own.

8. We wish this claim to be heard at Rangiahua Marae, Wairoa.

9. We believe the following persons and organisations should be notified of this

claim.

(a) Wairoa District Council

(b) Department of Conservation

(c) Department of Lands and Survey

(d) A M Sceats, Chrisp Caley & Co, 180 Palmerston Road, Gisborne

3

10. We can be contacted care of the following addresses:

(a) Charles Manehi Cotter, care of John Cotter, Tarrant Cotter and Co,

POBox 100, Wairoa.

(b) Our solicitors are Burnard Bull & Co, 64 Lowe Street (P 0 Box 946),

Gisborne, telephone (06) 867 1339, fax (06) 868 5024.

.... :?? ........ ~.~.0. .~ ........... 1994

Signature: Charles Cotter

by his solicitor and agent.

1161

l (

·t o.,

DUPLICATE RECEIVED ; CLADMIN :

12..14-I~

,IN THE \VAITANGI TRffiUNAL

IN THE MA ITER of the Treaty ofWaitangi Act 1975 and the Crown Forests Act 1989

IN THE MA ITER of the Patunamu State Forest

IN THE MA TIER of a claim by Charlie Manahi Cotter for himself and on behalf ofNgai Tama Te Rangi ki Ngati Kahungunu,

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

I, Charlie Manahi Cotter, Kaumatua, for myself and on behalf of Ngai Tama Te Rangi ki Ngati Kahungunu.

CLAIM to be prejudicially affected by :

1.1

1.2

1.3

The New Zealand Settlements Act 1863 wherein these provisions:

allowed the East Coast Lands Investigation Act 1866 to authorise the Native Land Court to inquire and determine freehold tittle to papatipu whenua to those maori found to be entitled to land.

allowed the East Coast Lands Act 1866 to exclude persons having tittle to land found to be in rebellion.

The Deed of Agreement dated 5 April 1867 between the Crown and Ngai Tama Te Rangi purporting to cede to the Crown maori land for the purposes of settlement.

The acts, policies and omissions done by the Crown proclaiming and acquiring the lands so returned to Ngai Tama Te Rangi under:

Native'Lands Fraud Protection Act 1870 Immigration and Public Works Act 1870 Native Lands Act 1873 Native 'Land Court Act 1873 Waste Lands Act 1876

•

--_ ......

(-=:::~~;~'\ :" ,>.:.:~

3TA31J'{UO Native Land Amendment Act 1877 Land Act 1877 Land Amendment Act 1879

AND CLAIM that all these acts and policies undertaken by the Crown, the Crown failed to:

issue adequate and appropriate instructions to its agents pay a fair price for the land blocks to control its land agents ascertain the correct boundaries of the blocks to obtain the consent to sell of all the owners reserve adequate hapu endowments from the land sales adequately explain the transaction to the maori sellers protect mahinga kai, urupa and waahi tapu

AND CLAIM that such omissions and actions are contrary to the principles of the Treaty ofWaitangi.

AND FURTHER CLAIM that the lands forming the Patunamu State Forest is otherwise Crown land available for reparation in the settlement of the grievances of Ngai Tama Te Rangi ki Ngati Kahungunu arising from the acts, done by the Crown in dealing with and disposing of the hapu land, that were contrary to the Treaty of Waitangi.

THE TRffiUNAL is asked to recommend:

a. That the Patunamu State Forest be returned to the ownership of a Trust to be established for the beneficiaries of the original 1840 hapu owners of the Patunamu State Forest.

b. Such other relief as the Tribunal considers appropriate.

THE CLAIMANTS. seeks leave to amend this claim upon the completion of the Research Report.

THE TRffiUNAL is asked to hear the claim at the Rangiahua Marae at Frazertown near Wairoa at an appropriate date and a time to be decided upon with the consent of the claimants by the Waitangi Tribunal..

THE TRIBUNAL is asked to appoint Mark Gray of Bell Gully BuddIe Weir as legal counsel for the claimants.

PERSONS affected by this claim and who have notice of it are:

Minister of Forestry Crown Law Office J uken Nissho Ltd Hawkes Bay Regional Council

2

Department of Survey and Land Infonnation Maori Land Infonnation Office Minister of Maori Development Treaty ofWaitangi Policy Unit

NOTICES to the claimants should be sent to the Claim Negotiator, Mr Tiopira Te Rauna Rape, P a Box 20037, Wellington, PhonelFax 04 3838149 ..

Ko te whakatauaki 0 Tama Te Rangi

" He ao te rangi ka uhia , rna te huruhuru te manu ka tau"

DATED at Te Whanganui-A-Tara, Aotearoa this 11 day of April 1995

Charlie Manahi Cotter Kaumatua Ngai Tama Te Rangi ki Ngati Kahungunu

3

•

BEFORE THE W AITANGI TRIBUNAL

IN THE MA'ITER OF

AND

IN THE MATIEROF

;Va-t 6:<' 1/ ff 1. 1 NtM' :z 01/ #.1 . ;;,

\WAI 0:</ \

the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975

CLAIMS BY Rangi Paku on behalf ofall beneficiaries of the Wairoa-\Vaikaremoana Maori Trust Board.

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Address for Service'~·. Secretary . ( Wairoa Waikaremoana Maori Trust Board

40 Marine Parade P. 0 Box 162 WAIROA

Telephone: (06) 838-8262 Facsimile: (06) 838-7851

BEFORE THE W AITANGI TRIBUNAL

IN THE MATTER OF

AND

IN THE MATTER OF

the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975

CLAIMS BY Rangi Paku on behalf of all beneficiaries of the the Wairoa­Waikaremoana Maori Trust Board.

The claimant who is a maori, as Acting Chairperson of a group of maori which is a Maori Trust Board established pursuant to the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955, on behalf of himself and all those maori persons who are its beneficiaries, claims pursuant to section 6 of the Treaty of Waitangi Act that:-

L They have been, are, and will continue t~ be, prejudiced by the following actions, policies, practices, and omissions to act of the Crown, which have occurred since 6 February 1840, in particular:-

The New Zealand Settlements Act 1863; The East Coast Land Titles Investigation Act 1866; The East Coast Land Titles Investigation Amendment Act 1867; The Immigration and Public Works Act 1870, as amended Native Lands Act 1865 Native Lands Amendment Act 1867 Native Lands Amendment Act 1873 Native Lands Amendment Act 1886 Water Power Act 1903 Native Lands Act 1909

. Native.Lands Amendment Act 1913 Public Works Act 1928 Maori Affairs Act 1953 . Maori Trust Boards Act 1955 Water & Soil Conservation Act 1967 Coal Mines Act 1979 Resource Management Act 1991

which the Claimant says are contrary to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

1

AND BY WAY OF FURTHER CLAIM THE CLAIMANT SAYS:-

2. ALL policies and practices mi.dertaken, or omitted to be undertaken, by the Crown pursuant to the above legislation specified in paragraph 1 above which failed to:-

(a) ensure adequate, and appropriate, instruction to its agents in particular with regard to the protection from alienation of lands owned by Kahungunu Maori according to their customary law, to the Crown; in particular with regard to the sale and purchase over the land blocks known as Wairoa [Kauhauroa], Ruakituri, Taramarama, Tukurangi, and Waiau; and

(b) ensure Kahungunu Ki Wairoa Maori hapu and iwi ownership, and control, over their interests in Lake Waikaremoana, both its lakebed and its waters in particular with respect to the following Crown actions:-

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

(v)

(vi)

The Crown did not proceed with its appeal of 1916 against grant of title to the owners of Lake Waikaremoana until 1944 which meant that the owners could not be represented to make claim against hydro-electric development works which by 1944 were virtually completed; and

The Crown has constructed hydroelectric works at Lake Waikaremoana without any consent or approval of the owners of Lake Waikaremoana for the use of its lakebed and waters for hydroelectric generation purposes.

The Crown has not paid any compensation or negotiated any settlement or arrangement for the use of Lake Waikaremoana, its lakebed or waters for hydroeleCtric generation purposes to the Claimant group who were subsequently confirmed owners; and

The hydroelectric structures (outlets, slphons, tunnels etc) continue to occupy the bed of Lake W iukaremoana the property of the claimant group; and

by the Crown's continued use of lakebed and waters for the purposes of electrical power generation; and

The effect of blocking the outlets on the bed of Lake Waikaremoana the property of the Claimant group, has been to increase the flow of water through the power stations and decrease the control and ownership of said waters which the owners of said -waters which the owners may exercise to their own benefit, and

2

.:. ,. ;.~

(vii) The proposed alienation of the Crown's ownership interests in Electricity Corporation assets which are the said hydroelectric generating power stations, and structures rather than retaining Crown ownership and control for future Treaty settlement;

(viii) The failure of the Crown in the alienation process referred to above to place the lands and all interests in land upon which these hydroelectric schemes have been constructed in a land bank so as to satisfy Treaty grievances arising from peoples who constitute the beneficiaries of the Claimant group.

(ix) and the failure to grant to the Claimant group right of first refusal in said sales process alluded to in sub,-paragraph (vii) above

(c) to ensure to the Claimant group their undisturbed possession and control of all waterWays, riverways, which lie within their tribal authority; (Rangatiratanga).

(d) to ensure that the forests, and associated fora and fauna subject to the authority of the Kahungunu hapu and iwi, with marae based on the lands, named in paragraph (2a) above, would not be disturbed save for free and willing consent.

The Claimant says these are all policies and practices of the Crown which have, are, and will continue to be in breach of the principles of Treaty of Waitangi.

WHEREFORE THE CLAJMANT SEEKS BY WAY OF REMEDY FINDINGS;

3. THAT the Crown has acted contrary to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi as claimed;

AND THE CLAJMANT SEEKS RECOMMENDATIONS OF TIllS HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL;

THAT the Crown seek to utilise those assets it owns within the territorial boundaries of Kahungunu Ki Wairoa, in particular'those assets of' i Electricity Corporation in its ownership and/or control, be returned to the Claimants and or at least offered to the Claimant first at discounted price.

5. THAT pursuant to sSA(2) (a) of the Treaty of Waitangi Act those hydroelectric structures and the lands on which they stand be returned to the Claimants ownership.

3

5. SUCH OTHER remedy as the Tribunal sees fit to recommend.

Dated this day of September 1996

Signed for on behalf of the Wairoa-Waikaremoana Maori Trust Board

(hereto affixed is the Seal of the Wairoa-WaikaremoanaMaori Trust Board in witness of the Boards mandate of this claim) .

In witness of the above as required by section 34 Maori Trust Board's Act 1955:-

~.-:z:.~ ~.§.~ ..................................... . [Member-W.W.M.T.B]

~~: .. ... ~ .... ~ ......... -::;.;;~ ..... : [S~M.T.B]

THIS CLAIM: is filed by the Wairoa-Waikaremoana Maori Trust Board whose address for service is:-

Mr R T. Manuel Secretary Wairoa Waikaremoana Maori Trust Board 40 Marine Parade P. o Box 162 WAJROA Telephone: (06) 838-8262 Facsimile: (06) 838-7851

4

~ersons affected by this claim and who should have notice of it are:-

Urewera National Park Board Electricity Corporation of New Zealand Department of Conservation Landcorp

Department of Land Information of New Zealand Wairoa County Council Ministry of Works Forestry Corporation Ministry of Forestry Hawke's Bay Regional Council Ministry of Maori Development Tuhoe-Waikaremoana Maori Trust Board

Waitangi Tribunal Claimants for: Wai 36, 40, 144, 333, 386, 506

Right Honourable D Graham - Minister for Justice Right Honourable W Birch - Minister of Finance

5

Y"0' \, c C!\..c __ OFf') CIl\ L

;reha Taraia Trust and Turanga Ariki 26 Salmond Street HoonHay Christchurch 8002

16th May 1997

The Registrar Waitangi Tribunal PO Box 5022 Wellington

Attn: Moana Murray

w \.\

CLAIM

WAI ... G..~!.] ............. .

Please receive the following claim for Registration:

Claim 1:

That the land disposal process of the Investigation Unit, Crown Property Services (Acquisition and Disposal) is prejudicial to the Treaty ofWaitangi land claims settlement processes under the Kahungunu-Rongomaiwahine iwi, and Rangahau Whanui thereto, head claims Wai 201 and consolidations thereto, Wai 382 consolidations, Wai 404, Wai 506 consolidations etc.

Claimant: TeOkoro Joe Runga and Tareha Taraia Trust and Te Rahi 0 Te Mokopuna 0 Te Turanga Ariki a Kaiuku (1823-1850 approx) Okoro-Rakaihikuroa Te Rongomaitara Te Rongomaiwahine Te Rakaato Te Rakaipaaka Te Hauraki-Toheriri Te Hokowhitu a Tu 0

Kahungunu nui tonu

Signed,

Pearl Kawai RUpgli Trustee of the Firs Schedule Tareha Taraia Trust and Turanga Ariki

.reha Taraia Trust and Turanga Ariki 26 Salmond Street Hoon Hay

Off \ C\ AL., ,~J)f \ , c..co. k

Christchurch 8002 RECEIVED Waltangi Tribunal

The Registrar Waitangi Tribunal PO Box 5022 Wellington

Attn: Moana Murray

WELLll'IGTON

,9 MAY 1997

DEPT FOR COURTS WELLINGTON

Please receive the following claim for Registration:

Claim 2:

*1·' .

: CLAIM

WAI 4"~.~::r. ............. .

That the government proposal (199611997) to sell the Waikaremoana Power Station's Tuai, Piripaua, and Kaitawa offers no guarantees of protection of interests of indigenous owners of Waikaremoana and is therefore prejudicial to the Treaty ofWaitangi claims processes of the Kahungunu-Rongomaiwahine iwi, and Rangahau Whanui thereto, head claims Wai 201 and consolidations thereto, Wai 382 consolidations, Wai 404, Wai 506 consolidations, and Wai 119 etc.

Claimant: TeOkoro Joe Runga and Tareha Taraia Trust and Te Rahi 0 Te Mokopuna 0 Te Turanga Ariki a Kaiuku (1823-1850 approx) Okoro-Rakaihikuroa Te Rongomaitara Te Rongomaiwahine Te Rakaato Te Rakaipaaka Te Hauraki-Toheriri Te Hokowhitu a Tu 0

Kahungunu nui tonu, and estates Kararaina Paraone Runga (Rongomaiwahine, Hauraki-Toheriri) part owner Waikaremoana,

Signed,

... ' .... '~ .. -.... (" • /"', I

. .,,'-

.-... < ..... .' .-'

Pearl Kawai RUlfga Trustee of the Firs Schedule Tareha Taraia Trust and Turanga Ariki

:eha Taraia Trust and Turanga Ariki 26 Salmond Street Hoon Hay Christchurch 8002

16th May 1997

The Registrar Waitangi Tribunal PO Box 5022 Wellington

Attn: Moana Murray

1:'1;-FVf RECEIVED

Waitangi Tribunal _ WELLINGTON

1 ~ MAY 1997

DEPT FOR COURTS WELLINGTON

Please receive the following claim for Registration:

Claim 3:

'-

CLAIM

WAI .... k;8.:1 ........... ..

That the failure of the Crown to define the precise equity of its Treaty partner in the natural (fresh) waters and in situ minerals of Aotearoa (New Zealand) is prejudicial to the Treaty settlement processes of the Kahungunu-Rongomaiwahine iwi, and Rangahau Whanui thereto, head claims Wai 201 and consolidations thereto, Wai 382 consolidations, Wai 404, Wai 506 consolidations etc.

Claimant: Claimant: TeOkoro Joe Runga and Tareha Taraia Trust and Te Rahi 0 Te Mokopuna o Te Turanga Ariki a Kaiuku (1823-1850 approx) Okoro-Rakaihikuroa Te Rongomaitara Te Rongomaiwahine Te Rakaato Te Rakaipaaka Te Hauraki-Toheriri Te Hokowhitu a Tu 0

Kahungunu nui tonu.

Signed,

Pearl Kawai J.'rltI~a. Trustee of the First" chedule Tareha Taraia Trust and Turanga Ariki

~ ') ~~ G 1 '.1 0 n rl S t r e 0

(>ll-i:3tchUl"ch COO:

L'{lita!1~~i f1rihun: __ _ Sir,

a .. ,

Please register clai~ in 1-12:

:\I i. HJI

--.........u.LJCLA\~ .• ~.B..i ...... lG February

Waitangi Act 1975

hapu

DUPLICATE 1) I TeOkoro Joe Runga having exhausted fair avenues of communications with the Crown and Crown Agencies to impinge a customary right in rangatiratanga, and whereas the Minister in Charge of Treaty Settlements Hon Douglas Graham uttered on Television Broadcast in February 1998 that, the Crown owned seabeds; and Crown Appeal to Marlborough Sounds (97) case, and

2) Whereas this statement is not consistent with Customary Fish­ery Rights established aproximate1y 260 years ago and in iwi lore not expunged by the Treaty of 1840 and sured1y endorsed by ,~ording thereto so that the rahui of the Rakaipaaka chief Te Huki affecting mana moana and mana awa in the Te Kupenga a Te Huki is extant and ongoing to the present, an~ this claimant is descended uri, and

3) Whereas that Statement (1) of the Minister is not consistent with Article 2 of the Treaty which guarantees Maori by their representative ran3atira their customary fisheries unencumbered.

(4) Whereas by notice to Prime Minister Han James Bolger and Fisheries Minister Han Douglas Kidd in 1992 that the Fisheries Estate equities of Kingi Te Apatu Runga were not to be diminished nor impeded, and

(5) Whereas, by proclamation or demand or specific caveat or annual caveat served upon the Crown or Crown Agencies by myself and ~ Turan3s Ariki assembled for the purpose, pertainin~ to :1atters 1-2-3-4 ~creto to protect custo~ary ri3hts when the actions of the (;ro11n deSignated to dinini8h or impede t1.10se cU8to~ary ri3hts, and

( r) TTl rO:'\t TT· l' 1 t' . l' t 1 • • 'f t 'J ..... 1Cr8n3, 10 'J!1U ,':,al~lOana (enlee :1J..S C a1.;'lan Spe(L~:ln.:; r1.;;n s in contravention o~ a ranzatira ri3ht to ~rotcct the customary right equities of the iwi and the unborn generations of that ivi, as rangstira and whakatungia 0 te kawa as born or as fit or as endowed by Turanga, thereby acting contrary to Article 2 of the Treaty and the asides of matters 1-2-3-4 nor giving these representations full accreditations and access to informa­tion when knowing whom they were (cite first TOK meeting Christ­church), and

(7) Uhereas this claimant objected to an TVnZl broadcast per­taining to matters 1-2-3-4 and was not given credence by the HZ Broadcasting Authority such matter were not broadcast fairly and that decision was reached principally because of acts of government omission and propa3anda to the distress of myself and many iwi, and

(:~) T::l~r(~::::c; t:li,:; Cl;}i!~lnnt 10J~e':1 a cO:"lylnint I.'ith th(~ :~ace

~Lltio;lS J'::Zicc r'~>lrdiil:; i1(ltters of 1-2-]-1, "hie:) dcnicrI j 1I r i. ~ die t ion 0:': "U C : l ":1 r-, t t c r S !) \l t £ a :L 1 edt 0 e i ere l ::; e i ,1 jl cae h :V~ 11 t of t~l.'~ l\ttor!1cy (~c:l(~ral u:lcn pressetl, nnd'

(~~) i;'~l~~rc:.~:; ccrtai,:l .·.:CtiO;1~ oI t~1Q ;:a~lun~unll ~aaanJQ;l:li 'f.!2r:-: tn':cn to prcr;crve equities llertnininr; to r.Jutters of 1-2-3 t~.lC !~~r()T\.r:1 1)'1 l:.ct.S of o··~i.~:lio!1 ~'ln8 ~lot ~)ro:;J;~rly 8.ddrcn02~1 ;--.1Cltt0.rS

thereto in respect 0;: the ~unanganui, nor of these representa­tions in tandem, and

(10) Whereas customary.fisheries affect mana moana mana awa in unison the Minister by his statement (1) indicated mana awa was also at risk of Crown assumption thus affecting all land claims under IIead Claim Wai 201 and Wai 687 and the Rangahau entoto and all land claims associated, and the lakes, the lagoons head waters and catchments thereto, and the rivers, streams, acquifers and harbours where ever they occur within the Rangahau Whanui Rohe at and including Muriwai with the negotiated assent of Rongo~hakaata and Tamanuhiri and their whanau at and including various pa of Aitanga Mahaki west and south of Muriwai as also assenting with their whanau at and including Whakatohea resident in the Rangahau Whanui rohe at and including all Ruapani resident in the rohe at and including all Ngati Hikairo thus resident at and including all Uruwera resident and assenting, at and assenting all Te Rangitane, Muaupoko, Upokoiri, and all the hapu and whanau of Tamatea arikinui and Toi Kai Rakau as residing, and whereas the iwi of Tuwharetoa and of Ngai Tuhoe are fully autocratic those resident in the Ran3ahau are by "lhanaungatanga included in these asides, ",herein the Rangahau Whanui rohe is enmassed east of the rohe divides and extending to Palliser and with an Makara Head enclave, but not including Port Nicholson ~arbour nor the Raukawa Strai~ht, excepting in an e qui t Y Hit h n:; a t i !hI a, H gat iTa r:1a, iT gat iTo a, !T r; a iTa r a , and ~sati Poneke as maybe negotiated in respect of the harbour and the ;forthern half of Raukaua Straight.

'·.lOana :l(~reto are the li~itless SC::lS of ~:Ioann

!ui n 7~i~·:n n~1tl t:le "la'l.'l :rai!ni~:i oE t~lC iHi na~.10d ;u~reto and ;)e;innin~,; fro:;, t:l.e foreshore of t'le [;:tiel -:;antiahau ~:h2.nui ~o~e and ~oundcll the point to point widt~ of the fores~ore and curv­in~ to such limit as defensible in the e~ual equity Hith the ,., .>rO\'!11 .

(12) That the ~a11a awa hereto vest ia the ivi hereto nentioned in the equal equity Hith the CroHn excepting as occurring on private land. Vhereas these asides establish an equity where none is so far established those hapu establishin8 or having established a greater equity in mana awa supercede these asides.

Claimant: TeOkoro Joe Runga and Tareha Taraia Trust and Te Rahi o Te Mokopuna 0 Te Turanga Ariki a Kaiuku (1823-1350 approx) Okoro-Rakaihikuroa Te Rongomaitara Te Rongomaiwahine Te Rakaato

(

Te Rakaipaaka Te Hnuraki-Toheriri Te Hokowhitu a Tu 0 Kahungunu nui tonu ..... .---

\Si8 ned .. / 7~

Ngahina Road Ruatoki RD 1 Whakatane

September 12,- 1998

The Registrar Waitangi Tribunal PO Box 5022 Wellington

Tena koe,

CLAIM

WAI .... 7.r;2.L .............. .

riO, TGI :If J./

RECEIVED 1 WAITAf':JGI TRIBUNAL I

WELLINGTON -,

f 7 ':""." 'I:"~o8 ~, .,: t~..,{

DE -----r:._.FOR COUfiTS ~Vi:LLiNGTO~J

.: -.

On behalf of myself and other members of the Maori known as Tuhoe of the Urewera I claim that myself and the Tuhoe of the Urewera are prejudiced by acts, policies and administrative actions of the Crown.

While I make application to you under the Treaty of Waitangi Act of 1975 and its amendments; please note that the application is to you as the body established by the Crown, to 'receive and investigate the, acts of the Crown, under the Treaty legislation. It is the Crown that is bound by the Treaty legislation not the Tuhoe, for I say that the Tuhoe of the Urewera are a domestic, dependent nation, free of the sovereignty of the Crown. That is a legal stand that will be substantiated in the statement of claim that will emerge from both the investigation of the Tribunal and the independent research and advice of the Tuhoe of the Urewera.

The acts, policies and administration actions of the Crown that are a breach of the 'legal obligations or responsibilities of the Crown are in summary:

1 Non compliance by the Crown with the treaty obligations established by agreement with the Tuhoe of the Urewera, as a sovereign nation, documented under the Urewera District Native Reserve Act 1896.

2 Wrongfully acting under various legislation, (such as the East Coast Land Titles statutes, New Zealand Settlements Act), to depri ve the Tuhoe of the U rewera of their native lands and aboriginal title of such lands.

3 Disregarding the sovereignty and administration of the Tuhoe over the rivers in the Urewera, being the I;ivers known as Whakatane, Waimana and Whirinaki, as to the fishing and lands use related to these rivers and their tributaries and streams.

4 As to Lake Waikaremoana:

(i) wrongfully recording the ownership and control of the lake; (ii) denying the Tuhoe full use and benefit of the lake, in accordance with the customs of the Tuhoe; (iii) utilising the lake in a way that has affected the ability of the Tuhoe to enjoy the lake, in the manner previously established, prior to Crown involvement and actions;

5 In general: acting in administrative practices that removed the ability of the Tuhoe to preserve and maintain the Urewera' in accordance with the customs and mana of the Tuhoe. .; -.

I seek the following relief:

1 The acknowledgment by the Crown that the Tuhoe of the Urewera are a domestic, dependent nation with their own country.

2 A treaty with the Crown to record;

the legal standing of the Tuhoe as a domestic, dependent nation,

. and detail the manner in which the Tuhoe continue as a nation under New Zealand government administration, with the Tuhoe retaining the absolute sovereign title to the Urewera and their lakes, and rivers.

I also seek reparation and compensation for the wrongful actions of the Crown, and payment for the cost of resolving the wrongful actions of the Crown.

Kia ora,

Peter Keepa

46 Russell Road ROTORUA 05/05/99

To: The Registrar Waitangi Tribunal P.O. Box 5022 Wellington

Tena koe,

I, Hirini Paine, Address: as above Occupation: Student of Maori StudieslTaxi driver

~ CLAIM \' )

t :rgS-\ WAI ........................... . '.--- ... ---.~

And others, for and on behalf of the lwi TUHOE POTIKI (of which we are descendents)

1. - RELATING TO TIffi WATERS OF TE W AIKAUKAU 0 NGA MATUA TIPUNA - W AlKAREMOANA

A) Claim that we are have, and continue to be, prejudicially affected arising as a result of injurious Crown action and that as a consequence of a variety of legislative enactment and omission by the Crown, we state the !WI TUHOE POTIKI have been severed our free and inalienable ability to exercise the continuum of our TINO RANGATIRATANGA, that is our independent authority and control, as sole and responsible decision maker as guaranteed and provided for under Article (II) of The Treaty of Waitangi over all those natural waters found to be lying in the ecological district referred to as the Waikaremoana catchment, a principle division of Tuhoe lands, within TE RORE POTAE 0 TUHOE POTIKI

B) Wish to draw your attention to Article II of the TREATY OF WAITANGI, both the English and Maori text, in particular to the following wording:

Ko te Kuini 0 Ingarani ka wakarite ka wakaae ki nga Rangatira, ki nga Hapu, ki nga tangata katoa 0 Nu Tirani, te tino Rangatiratanga 0 0 ratou whenua 0

ratou kainga me 0 RATOU TAONGA KATOA.

Her majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and tribes of New Zealand, and to the respective families and individuals there of, the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their lands and estates, forests, fisheries and other properties which they my collectively or individually possess, so long as it is their wish to retain the same in their possession.

We state and reiterate that all these natural waters are TAONGA commonly referred to as W AI MAORI or W AI TIPUNA and as such we emphasize the diverse traditional and contemporary values attached to these waters. They are fundamental taonga that underpins our foundation as a uniquely individual people and culture, the

- 1 -

recovery of which is vital to the restoration of our generation, and our future generations, total wellbeing.

C) We remind the Crown that in the years following the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi the Crown failed to provide statutory expression (laws) securing Tuhoe Potiki the full protection, ownership and enjoyment, as expressly provided for under the QUEEN OF ENGLANDS implicit instruction.

We state that the collective interest hapu of Tuhoe Potiki never agreed to Crown intervention into affairs concerning our waters. We consider that this intervention is of an excessively adverse nature and is contrary to our expectations under the Treaty of Waitangi. We believe it constitutes a clear and transparent violation, as outlined in the above paragraph (C), of Tino Rangatiratanga over the so described waters TE WAI KAUKAU 0 NGA MATUA TIPUNA.

In particular in this instance we are referring to the waters commonly known as:

Lakes(s) WAIKAREMOANA WAIKAREITI KIRlOPUKAI

and all those smaller volumes and divisions of river and water tributaries within the above described locational framework geographically situated within the TE RORE POTAE 0 TUHOE POTIKI.

We state that prior to 1840, the 1wi NGAI TUHOE POTIK1 had secured TINO RANGATIRATANGA, MANA WHENUA, MANA MOANA over all those lands and waters within the WAIKAREMOANA catchment, and as at February 6th

, 1840, and post that day until the present time, that was and remains our position, contrary to Crown policy that reflects otherwise.

We also draw to the Crowns attention that post 1840 the Crown, on numerous occasions, took it upon themselves to conduct negotiations concerning Waikaremoana and related issues with other 1wi who had lost any former interests, customary association, or had no legitimate interest what so ever. Certain counter claims have arisen as a result of these actions and it is our submission that they be viewed as immaterial and that the Crown acted ultra vires, in terms of its treaty responsibilities.

Further we state that the Crown introduced certain acts/policies in regard to water that's primary function was, or resulted in, a manner consistent with confiscation of our water taonga and grossly weighted in the favour of the Crowns' sole interest and aspirations, contrary to and excessively far removed from, the true intent of that Treaty document, being the spirit of goodwill and partnership.

Once again the contracting partner in this sought redress, which has been discarded in favour of the assumption of "common good". It follows that, we the 1wi TUHOE POT1K1 are, at the end of the day, neither considered an equal Treaty partner or a valued component of the "common good".

-2-

And further, for ourselves and on behalf of the descendents of Tumatawhero, of the Iwi - TUHOE POTIKI

2.- RELATING TO TIlE SPECIFIC LANDS OF THE PA SITE KNOWN AS 'TE POU 0 TUMA TA WHERO'

(A) Claim that as a result directly attributed to crown action, we have been unduly dispossessed of the so described lands, mentioned above (2) that prior to Crown intervention, were the property of the above fore said mentioned, geographically situated to the south east of Lake Waikaremoana, close by the settlement known as Te Onepoto.

In summary we state: non-fulfillment by the Crown in its Treaty obligations in regard to these matters

We hereby seek the following relief:

l.RELATING TO THE WATERS - TE W AIKAUKAU 0 NGA MATUA TIPUNA

(I) Legislative recognition and exclusive title of ownership and full and absolute authority that is our Tino Rangatiratanga as provided and guaranteed under Article II of the Treaty of Waitangi over those described waters, be returned and rest with the Iwi TUHOE POTIKI, as was the original position prior to Crown intervention. Non negotiable.

(ll) Compensation (fair) as a result of substantial financial profits, acquired as a direct result of Crown enactment that, via the utilization of the waters of Lake Waikaremoana for HydrolPower generation, was unlawfully acquired, without the expressed authority of the true and rightful owners as decision makers.

(III) Compensation (fair) as a result of such human related activities initiated as a result of Crown action that have contributed to the despoilment and lack of quality and purity of those said described waters.

(IV) Compensation (fair) as a direct result arising from Crown polices that have provided for human related activities and in the application of a variety of such human related activity for whatever purpose, may have caused or contributed to the: a) Desecration ofWaahi Tapu b) Environmental damage (e.g. land slippage, soil erosion) c) Indigenous species habitat destruction (water reliant) d) Loss of indigenous species (water reliant) e) Decline of indigenous species (water reliant)

- 3 -

f) Introduction of exotic and foreign matter, and any other such related matter, that has unduly intruded upon those waters causing contamination and the irreversible despoilment of both those waters and indigenous species reliant on that life sustaining volume of natural water, and any other degradation of ecological bio-diversity, reliant, attached or formally attached to those bodies of water, that may be identified as being a result of human related activity.

g) Degradation of the Mauri of those waters and such other affronts to the Mana 0 Te Wai Kaukau 0 Nga Matua Tipuna and Te Mana 0 Tuhoe Potiki.

(V) Compensation "arising, as a result of any person(s), organisation(s), company(s) or Crown agencies that have, via the utilization of the said waters, for whatever purpose, have sought and acquired financial reward, other than persons of TuhoelPotiki descent.

(VI) Compensation as a result of loss of potential revenues.

(VII) Compensation arising as a result of the undue grief and suffering imposed on the rightful owners, as a result of Crown denial of that ownershiprrino Rangatiratanga.

(VIII) Any other such relief that the Iwi TUHOE POTIKl consider appropriate.

(IX) Any other such relief that the Waitangi Tribunal may recommend

2.- RELATING TO TIlE LANDS SPECIFIC TO TIlE PA SITE 'TE POU 0 TUMATA WHERO'

(1) The return of the land in question to the rightful owners (that is the descendents of Tumatawhero.)

And any other relief that the descendents of Tumatawhero consider appropriate.

And any other such relief that the Waitangi Tribunal may recommend.

We seek leave, whereby in due time the Waitangi Tribunal will be advised as to whether we require that Tribunal to commission a researcher, or alternatively, an Iwi appointed researcher. We seek permission to amend this claim if necessary.

The tribunal is advised that it will be notified of appointment of legal counsel subject to a successful application for legal aid for Waitangi Tribunal matters and, if" legal counsel is deemed necessary, we wish this claim to be heard at Waimako Marae, Waikaremoana or alternatively Tauarau Marae; Ruatoki.

We believe the following person(s) and/or organisations need to be notified of this claim:

-4-

Office and Minister of Treaty Settlements Minister and Secretary of Energy Attorney General, Rt. Hon. Sir Douglas Graham Minister and Commissioner for Environment Minister and Secretary for Maori Affairs Minister and Secretary of State Owned Enterprises (S.O.E.) Minister and Secretary of the Dept. of Conservation Te Mana Motuhake 0 Tuhoe, P.O. Box 57, Taneatua E.C.N.Z. Huntly S.O.E. National Water and Soil Conservation Organisation Wairoa District Council Hawkes Bay Regional Water Board Trust Boards (TuhoelW aikaremoana, WairoaIW aikaremoana) Genesis Power Maori Land Court

Heoi ano mo tenei wa.

Signed this Day: 05/05/99

Hirini Paine as claimant

- 5 -

...

ATTENTION

6 August, 2001

~7 AUG 2001

To: The Registrar Waitangi Tribunal P.O Box 5022 Wellington.

< , ;>. o

IN THE MATTER

AND

IN THE MATTER

RE: Claim 795, Te Pou 0 Tumatawhero

Tena koe,

CLAIM

WAI .1~o~ .. ~.J...L(QJ.

of section 6 of the

Treaty of Waitangi

Act 1975

of a claim by Hirini

Paine and others on

behalf of members of the

Tuhoe Tribe

I, Hirini Paine, a member of the Tuhoe Tribe hereby advise the Waitangi Tribunal that the following amendments are to replace sec 2 of the original statement of claim, Wai (795) concerning theTe Pou 0 Tumatawhero land site.

1.0 Claim that the Tuhoe tribe has been seriously prejudiced as a result of 'actions' employed by the Crown in collaboration with the Native land Court, (a legal instrument of the Crown) between 1866 and 1875 in

respect to the Te-Pou-o-Tumatawhero Pa site.

1.1 That between 1866-1875 the Crown maliciously but wrongfully propagandized the Tuhoe tribe as 'rebels' in order to invade Tuhoe.at Waikaremoana, in a military capacity, and confiscate Tuhoe lands by legal force - Namely,

o ' The East Coast Land Titles Investigation act 1866, o The East Coast Land Titles Investigation Amendment Act 1867, o East Coast Act

1 .2 That in 1875 the Tuhoe tribe were forced to abandon their interests in the -~'.'-.-.

;~"~;~l Waiau, Tukurangi, Taramarama, and Ruakituri Blocks, as part of a Crown orchestrated effort to denationalize Tuhoe Lands at Waikaremoana and rid (displace) the region of the Tuhoe people, for colonial expansion purposes.

1.3 In 1874 Tuhoe sought a Native land Court investigation, with the intent of advancing Tuhoe interests in the blocks in question.

1.4 In 1875, a Native land Court investigation commenced, in which Tuhoe were forced to kow tow into a corrupt legal environment, underpinned and influenced by the Crown, extremely hostile to Tuhoe interests and protestations.

1.5 In the face of Crown threats of confiscation's and possible military reprisals, it is alleged that Tuhoe were forced under duress to release their rightful interests in the four blocks.

1.6 It is submitted that subsequent to the annexation of Tuhoe lands immediately south of Waikaremoana, the Crown wrongfully took into its possession the Te Pou a Tumatawhero land site situated in the Tukurangi block.

2.0 Submissions.

The following submissions are made;

2.0 That Te Pou 0 Tumatawhero was socially abandoned, as a direct result of Crown directed military actions, and that Tuhoe were forced to withdraw or

----_.

face' inhumane' military responses.

2.1 That Te Pou 0 Tumatawhero was destroyed by Colonial Military forces and a colonial armed constabulary was installed directly on the site.

2.2 In 1879 the site formed part of a larger area surveyed for the purposes of a Government reserve.

2.3 That in 1965 the Te Pou 0 Tumatawhero site, then sec 9 part of block 1 Waiau SO, was set apart for water power development, under sec 25 Public Works Act 1928.

2.4 That the placementpf a meteorological station on the Te Pou 0

Tumatawhero site is culturally offensive to the Tuhoe tribe.

2.5 That Te Pou 0 Tumatawhero Pa site is of important social and historical value to the Tuhoe Tribe

2.7 It is submitted that Crown actions between 1866 and 1875 directly led to the wrongful Crown acquisition of the Tuhoe pa site, Te Pou 0

Tumatawhero.

Relief

The claimants seek a finding that the Crown breached the prinCiples of the Treaty of Waitangi in respect to the above-mentioned issue.

3.0 A recommendation that sections 17 and 18 Block 1 Waiau S.O (formerly sec 9, Block 1 Waiau S.O) be returned to the Tuhoe tribe.

3.1 A recommendation that all costs in relation to this claim be met by the Crown.

.'

3.2 Any other relief that the Waitangi Tribunal may recommend.

The claimants reserve the right to amend this claim as time progresses.

The Tribunal is advised that this is not a final statement of claim.

H.D Paine

.. x sent by 64 4 9166832 ){PMG LEGAL

IN THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL

IN THE MATTER of the Tr~aty ofWaitangi ACl1975

AND

IN THE MATTER of the Wairoa claims - Wai 855

AND

WAI

IN THE MATTER of claims to the Waitangi Tribunal by

Trainor Tait and Hincmoa Herewini for

and on behalf of themselves and the

descendants of Noa Tiwai (aka Noa

Harawiri) in respect to Lake

Waikaremoana and other lands and

resources

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

KPMGLEGAL

89 The Terrace PO Box lO246

DX SP26517 Wellington

Telephone (04) 472 7877 Facsimile (04) 472-2291

Counsel: 0 A EdmundslK Bellingham ". t'.t

Fax sent b4 64 4 9166832 }(PMG LEGAL

"<-; ...

l:' .

2

1 The Claimants

1.1 This claim is lodged by Trainor Tail and H.inemoa Herewini for and on behalf

of themselves and the descendants of Noa Tiwai (aka Noa H.arawiri) ("the

Claimants").

1.2 Trainor Tait and Hinemoa Herewini have the authority to file these claims for

and on behalf of the descendants of Noa Tiwai (aka Noa Harawiri).

2 The Claimants, their Lands and Rangatiratanga

2.1 The Claimants arc descendants of Noa Tiwai (aka Noa Harawiri.

Noa Tiwai = Te Ruakahurura

I I Te Kiriwera Hikihiki Noa Tuahine Noa Wiri Noa Noa

I I Te Ninihi Sonny White Tangiwai Nehemia Wiri Kiriwera Tuahine

I Manawanui Ivan White TrainorTai Robert Wiri Tapine-

I Hinemoa Herewini

2.2 The traditional lands of the CLaimants include Lake Waikaremoana and

Waikareiti and the Waikaremoana reserves on the banks of these lakes and all

of their environs; the Tukurangi, Taramal11arama, Waiau and Ruakituri blocks.

Within this rohe the Claimants held numerOUS pa, marae, kainga, urupa and

other places, and within it are located numerous wahi tapu and sites of

significance to the Claimants.

PH: '3/9

dX sent b4 64 4 9168832 KPMG LEGAL 82/87/81 16:45

3

3 The Claim

......... . ::~:- :}

3.1 The Claim relates to the areas of land, lakes, rivers, fisheries and other

resources in the traditional rohe of the Claimant<; and to the Crown dealings

with the ancestral lands and resources of the Claimants in this rohe and

~ubsequent a<-1s or omissions by the Crown that were and remain in breach of

the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

3.2

3.3

The Claimants say that they have been prejudicially affected by iffordinances,

Acts, regulations, proclamations, notices and other statulory instruments, and

the policies, practices, the acts Or omissions of the Crown and further as set out

in this Statement of Claim.

The Claimants further claim that all of the Acts, regulations, orders, pOlicies,

practices and actions taken, omitted or adopted by or on behalf of the Crown

referred to are and remain inconsistent with the terms and principles of the

Treaty of Wailangi.

Breaches of Article II: Taking of Land and resources

3.4 The Claimants say that Crown singularly failed to actively protect the claimant

hapu interesL<; and taonga and act honourably, rea..c;onably, sincerely and on the

basis of justice, and ulmost good faith towards them .

Breaches 0/ Article J and 11: Creation and Failure to Remedy Social, Cultural and

Economic Loss

3.5 The deliberate Crown intervention caused the destruclion of traditional

leadership, the dislocation of social relationships between hapu and whanau,

and lost their righls and ability to exercise rangatiratanga over their traditionaL

lands, wah; tapu, and resources.

3.6 The Claimant~ say that the social and economic difficulties which afflicted the

Claimants in the period after 1865, including social and cultural damage,

poverty, sickness, high mortality and economic marginalisation were a direct

and indirect result of Crown action, purchasing and the operations of the

PH': 4/9

\- • ..I' .. t

Fax sent b4 64 4 9166832 J(PNG LEGAL 62/67/61 16:45

4

Native Land Court and other Crown actions in the preceding and

contemporary periods.

3.7 The Crown having caused or contributed to this damage failed to take action to

ameliorate or remedy this slate of affairs.

4 Loss of Lands and Resources

.:. :." 5

4.1 The Claimants say that they were prejudiced by the actions of the Crown

including:

(a)

(b)

The Military action of the Crown in the 1860's and 1870's and the

"Scorched earth Policy";

The Native Land Court Investigations for Tukurangi, Taramamarama,

Waiau and Ruakituri blocks during 1868 to 1872; .... ~

(c) The East Coast Land Titles Investigation Act 1868;

(d) The Urewera District Native Reserve Act 1896, the Vrewera

Commission Hearings 1907, Urcwera Lands Act 1.921/22;

(e) The Maori Affairs Act 1953, National Parks Act 1952 and the Lake

Waikaremoana Act 1972.

Social, Cultural and Economic Impacts

. Effects of Crown Action and Omission

5.1 As a result of all of the foregOing breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi by the

Crown, the Claimants have suffered prejudice and as a result loss. This

prejudice affected:

(a) the social structures of the people;

(b) the cullural taonga and traditions of the people;

(c) the existing tenurial regime based on Maori customary law;

(d) the economic base or {he people;

P9': 5/9

, ...... .

Fax sent b4 64 4 9168832 }(PMG LEGAL

5

(e) the political and cultural relationships of the people;

(f) the physical environment in which the Claimants had lived for

hundreds of years.

5.2· As a consequence of large scale acquisition of their lands as particularised

above, the Claimants were dispossessed of their economic and sustaining

resources, including the land, mahinga kai, birding, cultivation, gathering and

fishing resources.

5.3 As a result of Crown intervention te Claimants were dislocated from their

traditional lands, wahi tapu, and resources and as a consequence destabilised

their traditional patterns of resource usc, economic structures and societies.

5.4 As a result of Crown intervention the Claimants were hampered and/or

prevented from economic utilisation and development of their remaining

resources.

Crown Failure to Remedy

5.5 The Crown failed to take action to actively protect the Claimants when as a

result of the Crown IS actions and omissions as described above the health of

the people deteriorated.

6 Environmental Impacts

6.1 The Claimants say further that their lands and resources including waahi tapu

have been damaged, depleted and polluted by Crown land management

practices, including indigenous forest deforestation, exotic arrorestation,

pollution and mismanagement of lakes and waters, accelerated soH erosion and

flooding.

7 Summary

7.1 The Crown acted in breach of_the principles of the Treaty in that it:

(a) failed to actively protect the interests of the Claimants guaranteed by

the Treaty to the fullest extent reasonahly practicable and failed to take

steps to ensure they were not placed in a position injurious to their

P!f: 6/9

\-•. t~ t

Fax sent b4 64 4 9166832 J<PHG LEGAL

6

interests. A.r:. a consequence the Claimants were left without suffiCient

land and resources for their present and future needs.

(b) failed to protect the Claimants's land tenure and relationships with

other hapu, customary laws, and the integrity of their life and culture

and failed to actively protecl the Claimants' rights and interests in land

and other taonga.

(c) failed to act honourably, reasonably and on the basis of justice,

sincerity and utmost good faith. The Crown took intentional and

purposive steps to undermine the Claimants rangatiratanga, treat them

in a prejudicial manner and acquire thei.r reSources for its own benefit.

(d) failed to exercise its powers and responsihilities of government,

including the application of the law, properly and justly, without any

underlying desire of benefit, and withoul unfair discrimination hetween

its pakeha and Maori subjects.

(e) failed Lo accord to the Claimants the righl~ and protection guaranteed to

them as British citizen!', and further that the Crown deliberately to'ok

illegal action in hreach of the common law and constitutional principles

of British law to suppress those rights. It is submitted that the evidence

has shown that it did so to further the intere!\t~ of itself and a segment

of its population (European selllers) and the interests of its own

executive agents.

8 Relief

tlll:t10302

The Claimants seek recommendations from the Tribunal that:

8.1 The land which has been claimed by the Claimants and which is still held in

the ownership of the Crown, including reserves and con~c.rvation lands, be

returned to the Claimants in a manner which appropriately recognises those "' hapu/whanau that have a direct interest in the land.

,.

Prr: 7/9

",.,~ .

Fax sent by

Ct"'tlU.'U:!

64 4 916e832 )(PMG LEGAL

7

8.2 The improvements on the land held by the Crown which is returned to the­

Claimants be vested in the appropriate hapu and/or whanau that have a direct

interest in the land.

8.3 Pursuant to Section 6(3) of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 the Tribunal

recommend the Crown:

(a) Compensate the Claimants in respect of the disruption of the hapu and

whanau; the social dislocation which has occurred as a consequence of

legislation and government policy; and for the taking Qf measures

dealing in social issues of unemployment and loss or mana; and for

compensation by way of policies, practices and funding appropriate to

restore the mana of the tribes; education and training of tribal members;

and

(b) Make such other remedies as the Tribunal considers appropriate.

8.4 Compensation to be paid to tbe Claimants for the loss of their economic base

and lands including accrued loss qf earnings.

8.5 Compensation for all costs involved in relation to endeavours by the claimant's

ancestors ~ince the loss of lands to reCover possession of the lands claimed.

8.6 The matauranga and traditional knowledge base of the Claimants associated

with their rongoa and other taonga be fully recognised and protected as the

CUltural and intellectual property rights of the appropriate whanau and hapu.

8.7 The Crown, to assist and facilitate rcstoratjon of access to mahinga kai and to

other forms of traditional food resources of importance to the Claimants.

8.8 The return and revesting of the 'Crown owned lakes and streams together wiUr

other water hodies within their robe (including the bcd, bank$, and water in,

under and adjacent to such water bodies} in the relevant whanau and hapu.

8.9 The return and revesting of the lake and its resources to the Claimants;

8.1.0 Monetary compensation for the costs of bringing this claim.

P~: 8/9

, .. , ....

Fax sent b4 64 4 916B832 }{PNG LEGAL B2/B7/B1 16:45

•.. "':" ..... t..::.:;.,,; .~

/~"::Y':'. '.:.:~:.::::,;!

8

8.11 Any other recommendations the Tribunal thinks fit.

9 The Claimants reserve the right to amend or add further to the claim as appropriate.

DATED at Wellington this c9-. 2001.

Deborah Edmunds

THIS Statement of Claim is filed by DEBORAH ANNE EDMUNDS of the firm KPMG

Legal, Solicitors for the claimants and whose address for service is ~9 The Terrace,

Wellington, PO Box 10.246, Wellington.

The address for service pf the claimants is at the above address.

1I1U(~fl.'tJl

38 Valley Road Tuai. R.D.S Wairoa

Phone 06 8373 906

'- ~ JUL 2001

DEPT FOH COURTc vVELLlNGTf")1\1 '---

Fax 068373916 Email:renata@voyager.co.nz

30th June 2001.

The Registrar, Waitangi Tribunal, P.O. Box 5022, Wellington.

C~{/07/ O/O'S"G

\tt{ l q4-S --4f \. \ -i <6~S #- \. r

"'Aia kitehua otei~a

wilakapakarihia ld te hua 0 te kawariki"

I Desmond Renata, on behalf of myself, and other descendants of "NGATI-RUAPANI" who are, and have always lived here on the Waiau, and the Tukurangi and Taramarama blocks in the Waikaretaheke Valley are defmitely the -----

" Ahi Ka" and "Tangata Whenua"

"NGA WHANAU 0 RUAPANI KI WAIKAREMOANA"

CLAIM: to be prejudicially affected by ordinances, Acts, regulations, orders, legislations policies, practices and all Acts enacted, omitted or done or adopted by or on behalf of the Crown given at anytime on or after the 6th February 1840, further claim that this is inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

1 -- I CLAIM as -- "Ahi Ka" and "Tangata Whenua'~ Compensation for -- the use, and alienation of our Ancestral Lands,Forests and Waterways that the Crown acquired through their Acts and Legislation, for roads~ housing, buildings, sewage-systems, schools, recreational facilities, in the construction of their State Owned Enterprise with all its utilities, that being, the Hydro Electric Power Scheme at Waikaremoana.

2 -- I CLAIM as -- "Ahi Ka" and "Tangata Whenua'-;-· Compensation for -- the use, and alienation of our Ancestral Lands acquired by the Crown, through their Acts and Legislation, for the erection of their permanent, steel structural towers, for the purpose of conveying electricity by means of over-head Hi -Tension cables.

3 -- I CLAIM as -- "Ahi Ka" and "Tangata Whenua" For the Return -- of All Surplus Ancestral Lands some of those being, Te-pou, Te-kowhai, Te-kuri, Te-lringa, Waihua, Taumata-mama, Taumata-mania, Papawaitiria, Whakamarino, Kairere, Kaitawa, Kaipungapunga, Te-Hautahi, Te-Kokako,that were originally acquired by the Crown through their Acts and Legislation, for the construction of their Hydro- Electric Power Sch~me and all its utilities, and are now no longer required by the Crown, and are currently being held by Treasury.

4 -- I CLAIM as "Ahi Ka" and "Tangata Whenua" Exemption -- from the State Owned Enterprise Act. 1986 Section 27b, for the individual home-owners of the villagesTuai, Kaitawa, and Piripaua, who bought those houses constructed by the State Owned Enterprise, to enable those home-owners to have Clear and Unconditional Land Titles to their properties.

1

5 -- I CLAIM as -- "Ahi Ka" and "Tangata Whenua" Compensation for-- and the Return of -- all our Ancestral Lands that the Crown acquired through their Acts and Legislation for the construction of their Hydro Electric Scheme, and then·portions of that said land were transferred to the Ownership,~f the Wairoa District Council, instead of being· returned to tl.s the rightful owners. The said portions are as per Waiau Survey District, Block IV ref. to Deposited Plan 7989. &

I. Deposited Plan 7990, and Deposited Plan 7991. Copies of Certificate volume folio reference numbers are attached t<Jthis

- registration of claim.

6 -- I CLAIM as -- "Ahi Ka" and "Tangata Whenua" Compensation for all our Ancestral Lands within the Taramarama and TukurangiBlocks, that were acquired by the Crown through their Acts and Legislations, and when no longer were required by Crown for the purposes originally taken for, were then transferred into the hands of Land corp Management Services Ltd, and these Lands, were then sold to i~dividuals Under Section 24(1) State Owned Enterprise Act 1986.

7-- I CLAIM as -- "Ahi Ka" and Tangata Whenua" Compensation for all our Ancestral Lands acquired by the Crown through their Acts and Legislation, and surveyed out by the Crown; for Crown use, and the original owners were made to pay twice for the Crown survey, firstly- by the loss of our AncestraL Lands and Turangawaewae, and secondly- by Land tenure when we could not pay for Crowns survey expenses, additional Ancestral Lands were taken.

8 -- I CLAIM as -- "Ahi Ka" and "Tangata Whenua" Compensation for Our Ancestral Pa site of Te Tukutuku 0

Heihei and our Marakai, Te Paka Kirkiri that was acquired by the Crown through their Acts and Legislation taken under the Scenery Act at Te Raekohu Onepoto, and then portions of that land were sold privately to individuals.

2

9 -- I CLAIM as -- "Ahi Ka" and Tangata Whenua" The return of all our remaining Ancestral Lands at'Te-" =.,

- Rae Kohu Onepoto that was acquired by the Crown through their Acts and Legislation taken under the Scenery Preservation Act. Crown then proceeded to clearly breach their own Acts by privately se,~ling portions of lands. On that basis, we claim the Return of oU,r remaining Ancestral Lands.

i, 10 -- I CLAIM as -- "Ahi Ka" and "Tangata Whenua" Compensation for all our Ancestral Lands, that were ,':"'.J

confiscated by the Crown, through their Acts and Legislations alienating the "Ahi Ka" and "Tangata Whenua" from their own Ancestral Lands, and then the Crown givi~g these lands to another Tribe namely the. (Kahungungu) as payment for their assistance to the Crown This is a clear abuse of the Crown using their authority, whichjs inconsistent with the Treaty of Waitangi.

11 -- I CLAIM as -- "Ahi Ka" and "Tangata Whenua" Compensation for the breaches by Crown according to the Treaty of Waitangi with particular reference to the abuse of Crowns Authority in their strategies put in place in order to acquire land, e.g. "Scorched Earth Strategy," and also inclusive of The Compulsory acquisition of land.

12 -- I CLAIM as -- "Ahi Ka" and "Tangata Whenua" Compensation for Our Ancestral Lands that were wrongly recorded for Ownership by the Crown through their Acts and Legislation in the surveying of the following blocks:-

a) Taramarama Block - A difference of 13,970.acres still to be compensatedfor (over 45%)

b) Tukurangi Block - A difference of 2346. acres still to be compensated for.

c) Waiau Block - A difference of 7000. acres still to be compensated for.

3

\

13 -- I CLAIM as "Ahi Ka" and "Tangata Whenua~' _­Compensation for all Confiscated Ancestral Lands. or ~ .. Ngati-Ruapani in the Taramarama, Thkurangi, Waiau, and Ruakituri Blocks, acquired by the Crown through their Acts and Legisl.ations, of which portions of these said Lands were transferred into the ownership of other peoples, including· individuals, and some were sold.

.... '

14 -- I CLAIM as "Ahi Ka" and "Tangata Whenua" Compensation for all of our Ancestral Lands that were, and still are "Wahi-Tapu", to the descendants of Ngati .. Ruapani ki Waikaremoana that was acquired by the Crown through their Acts and Legislations for tht? construction of their Hydro Electric Power Scheme, and all its utilities, that being Te Moimoi a Tuai Pa-Site, Te Pou a Tuai Mara-kai, Te Pikonga­whiti Urupa a Tuai., and others in the Taramarama and the Tukurangi Blocks.

15 -- I CLAIM as "Ahi ka" and "Tangata Whenua" Compensation for all our Ancestral Lands that were, and still are "Wahi-Tapu". to the descendants of N gati .. Ruapani ki Waikaremoana that was acquired by the Crown through their Acts and Legislations that alienated the Ngati-Ruapani people from those said Lands, in the Waiau, Tukurangi, Taramarama, Ruakituri Blocks. inclusive of Te Pouturiao-Mangapapa, Waimoana, Te Piraunui, Te-Mararoa, Tekauwhata, Taketake-a­Maru Te-Pa-o-Maru, Te-Kaokao, Te-Wai-Pa-Hihi, Te-Wai-O­Makoro, Te-Iringa, Te-Raekohu, Te-Turi-O-Kahu, and others.

4

Persons affected by this claim and should have notice are: _

Urewera National Park Board Electricity Department of New Zealand Genesis Power Company Department of Conversation Land Corp ap.d or Lands & Survey Wairoa District Council

t, Ms KFoote

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

TaptiiStation, ' . K. Simpson -Big Bush Holiday Park Property owners at Onepoto Ministry of Works Forestry Corporation State Owned Enterprises Crown . Any other farmers or individual Groups who may have interests in these claims.

I ask for the right to add to or amend any part of this claim, and seek the support of the researchers in connection with our claim, from the Waitangi Tribunal Office.

All correspondence relating to this claim should be addressed to:

Desmond Renata 38 Valley Road, Tuai, R.D.S, Wairoa. Fax: 06 8373 916 Phone 06 8373 906 Email: renata@voyager.co.nz

j

;

i ,J

SCH:EDULE - -­... - -::'.,

All that parcel of land containing 1094 square metres more or less being Lot 3 on Deposited ~lan 7989 situated in Block IVWaiau Survey District, and being all the land comprised and described in Certificate of Title Volume 5C Folio 1033 (Gisborne Land Registry) . SUBJECT TO:' Section 11 Crown Minerals Act 1991 Section 27B of the State-Owned Enterprbes Act 1986 Part IV A of the Conservation AcfI987

All that parcel of land containing 1535 square metres more or less being Lot 4 on Deposited Plan 7989 situated in Block IV Waiau Survey District, and being all the land comprised and described in Certificate of Title Volume 5C Folio 1034 (Gisborne Land Registry) . SUBJECT.TO: Section 11 Crown Minerals Act 1991 Section 27B of the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986 Part IVA of the Conservation Act 1987

All that parcel of land containing 1578 square metres more or less being Lot 13 on Deposited Plan 7989 situated in Block IV Waiau Survey District, and being all the land comprised and described in Certificate of Title Volume 5C Folio 1043 (Gisborne Land Registry) SUBJECT TO: Drainage Easement in Transfer 187467.3 Section 11 Crown Minerals Act 1991 Section 27B of the State-Owned Enterpris(~ Act 1986 Part IVA of the Conservation Act 1987

All that parcel of land containing 1193 square metres more or less being Lot 14 on Deposited Plan 7990 situated in Block IV Waiau Survey District, and being all the land comprised and described in Certificate ofTit!e Volume 5C Folio 1045 (Gisborne Land Registry) SUBJECT TO: Section 11 Crown Minerals Act 1991 Section 27B of the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986 Part IVA of the Conservation Act 1987

J

I.

J

J

'j

All that parcel of land containing 1128 square metres more or less being Lot 16 on Deposited Plan 7990 situated in Block IV Waiau Survey District, and being all the land compri~ed and described in Certificate of Title Volume 5C Folio 1047 (Gisborne Land Registry) SUBJECT TO: Section 11 Crown Minerals Act 1991 Section 27B!Jfthe State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986 Part IVA oftne Conservation Act 1987

All that parcetof land . containing 1 020squate Il1ettesIl10reor less being LPtlTon Deposited Plan 7990 situated in Block IV Waiau Survey District, and being all the land comprised and described in Certificate of Title Volume 5C Folio 1048 (Gisborne Land Registry) SUBJECT TO: Drainage Easement in Transfer 187468.4 Section 11 Crown Minerals Act 1991 Section 27B of the State-Owned ~nterpriscs Act 1986 Part IVA of the Conservation Act 1987

All that parcel of land containing 1409 square metres more or less being Lot 21 on Deposited Plan 7990 situated in Block IV Waiau Survey District, and being all the land comprised and described in Certificate of Title Volume 5C Folio 1052 (Gisborne Land Registry) SUBJECT TO: . Section 11 Crown Minerals Act 1991 Section 27B of the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986 Part IVA of the Conservation Act 1987

All that parcel of land containing 997 square metres more or less being Lot 26 on Deposited Plan 7990 situated in Block IV Waiau Survey District, and being all the land comprised and described in Certificate of Title Volume 5C Folio 1057 (Gisborne Land Registry) SUBJECT TO: Section 11 Crown Minerals Act 1991 Section 27B of the State-Owned Enterprise.s Act 1986 p'art IVA of the Conservation Act 1987

I.

j All that parcel of land containing 1222 square metres more or less being Lot 31 on Deposited Plan 7990 situated in Block IV Waiau Survey District, and being all the land comprised and described in Certificate of Title Volume 5C Folio 1062 (Gisborne Land Registry) SUBJECT ·TO: Drainage E~ement in Transfer 187468.4 Section 11 Ct0wn Minerals Act 1991 Section 27B ofthe State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986 Part IVA of the Conservation Act 1987

..

All that parcel of land containing 1033 square metres more or less being Lot 33 on Deposited Plan 7990 situated in Block IV Waiau Survey District, and being all the land comprised and described in Certificate of Title Volume 5C Folio 1064 (GisborneLand Registry) SUBJECT TO: Section 11 Crown Minerals Act 1991 . Section 27B of the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986 Part IVA of the Conservation Act.:1987

All that parcel of land containing 915 square metres more or less being Lot 43 on Deposited Plan 7990 situated in Block IV \Vaiau Survey District, and being all the land comprised and described in Certificate of l1tle Volume 5C Folio i074 (Gisborne Land Registry) SUBJECT TO: Drainage Easement in Transfer 187468.4 Section 11 Crown Minerals Act 1991 Section 27B of the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986 Part IVA of the Conservation Act 1987

All that parcel of land containing 2115 square metres more or less being Lot 49 on Deposited Plan 7990 situated in Block IV Waiau Survey District, and being all the land comprised and described in Certificate of Title Volume 5C Folio 1079 (Gisborne Land j Registry) SUBJECT TO: Section 11 Crown Minerals Act 1991 Section 27B of the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986 Part IVA of the Conservation Act 1987

J

: J' , .

J

All that parcel of land containing 2133 square metres more or less being Lot·94 on Deposited Plan 7990 situated in Block IV Waiau Survey District, and being all theland comprised and described in Certificate of TitIe-Volume 5C Folio 1090 (Gisbome Land Registry) SUBJECT TO: Drainage Easyment in Transfer 187468.4 Section 11 Cr~wn Minerals Act 1991 Section 27B of the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986 Part IVA of the Conservation Act 1987

:.'

;,AUthat parcel of land containing 1049 square metres more or less being Lot 61 on :Deposited Plan 7991 situated in Block IV Waiau Survey District, and being all the land comprised and described in Certificate of Title Volume 5C Folio 1092 (Gisbome Land Registry) SUBJECT TO: 9 Drainage Easement in Transfer 187468.4 Section 11 Crown Minerals Act 1991 Section 27B of the State-Owned Enterpris.es Act 1986 Part IVA of the Conservation Act 1987

All that parcel of land containing 1041 square metres more or less being Wfa):rron Deposited Plan 7991 situated in Block IV \Vaiau Survey District, and being all the land comprised and described in Certificate of Title Volume 5C Folio 1094 (Gisbome Land Registry) SUBJECT TO: "1 Drainage Easement in Transfer 187468.4 Section 11 Crown Minerals Act 1991 Section 27B of the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986 Part IVA of the Conservation Act 1987

All that parcel of land containing 1108 sqllare metres more or less being Lot 64 on Deposited Plan 7991 situated in Block IV Waiau Survey District, and being all the land comprised and described in Certificate of Title Volume 5C Folio 1095 (Gisbome Land Registry) SUBJECT TO: Section 11 Crown Minerals Act 1991 Section 27B of the State-Owned Enterprise~~ Act 1986 Part IVA of the Conservation Act 1987

'I

P" f " , ..... :

\ R !

! ~

" t'

1:

t I ,

I I '-

-I

j

All that parcel ofland containing 1247 square metres more or less being Lot 79 on Deposited Plan 7991 situated in Block IV Waiau Survey District, and being all the land comprised and described in Certificate of title Volume 5C Folio 1108 (Gisborne Land Registry) , SUBJECT TO: Section 11 Crown Minerals Act 1991 Section 27B of the State-Owned Enterpri~es Act 1986 Part IVA of the' Conservation Act 1987

.AIIihaiparcel'· of 'landcontalrung277 "squaremetres 'rnereer Tess being 'tie.8Cron· Deposited Plan 7991 situated in Block IV Waiau Survey District,-and being all the land comprised and described in Certificate of Title Volume 5C Folio 1109 (Gisborne Land Registry) SUBJECT TO: Section 11 Crown Minerals Act 1991 Section 27B of the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986 Part IVA of the Conservation Act 1987

All that parcel of land containing 223 square metres more or less being Lot 90 on Deposited Plan 7991 situated in Block IV \.Vaiau Survey District, and being all the land

J comprised and described in Certificate of Title Volume 5C F:olio 1110 (Gisbome Land Registry) SUBJECT TO: Section 11 Crown Minerals Act 1991 Section 27B of the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986 Part IVA of the Conservation Act 1987