SKT-424191-12-457-V2:crg BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT ENV-2016-AKL-000267 IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal under section 120 of the Act BETWEEN TUWHARETOA MAORI TRUST BOARD Appellant AND WAIKATO REGIONAL COUNCIL Respondent AND ROTOKAWA JOINT VENTURE Applicant AND NGATI TAHU - NGATI WHAOA RUNANGA TRUST Section 274 party EVIDENCE OF BRUCE STIRLING ON BEHALF OF THE TŪWHARETOA MAORI TRUST BOARD Dated: 4 June 2017 Westpac House 430 Victoria Street PO Box 258 DX GP 20031 Hamilton 3240 New Zealand Ph: (07) 839 4771 Fax: (07) 839 4913 tompkinswake.co.nz Solicitor: B A Parham [email protected]Counsel: L F Muldowney [email protected]PO Box 9167, Waikato Mail Centre, Hamilton 021 471 490
Transcript
SKT-424191-12-457-V2:crg
BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT ENV-2016-AKL-000267 IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal under section 120 of the Act
BETWEEN TUWHARETOA MAORI TRUST BOARD Appellant
AND WAIKATO REGIONAL COUNCIL Respondent
AND ROTOKAWA JOINT VENTURE Applicant
AND NGATI TAHU - NGATI WHAOA RUNANGA TRUST Section 274 party
EVIDENCE OF BRUCE STIRLING ON BEHALF OF THE TŪWHARETOA MAORI TRUST BOARD
2. I am a director of HistoryWorks Limited, a Wellington consultancy
formed in 2004 which specialises in historical research and analysis and
which offers a range of historical research and report writing services to
clients throughout New Zealand.
QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE 3. I hold a Bachelor of Arts in History from Victoria University (1995).
4. I have 25 years’ experience in historical research and writing on Maori
land and resource issues, Treaty of Waitangi claims, and heritage issues.
5. From 1989 to 1993, I worked for the Treaty Issues Unit of the Crown
Law Office, initially as a contract researcher and later as a historian. As a
historian my role was to research and prepare evidence for the Waitangi
Tribunal inquiries into the Wellington Tenths and Muriwhenua claims.
6. From 1993 to 2000, I was employed by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust
as a historian and later as Research Manager. From April 1996 I also
began work as a contract historian, preparing and presenting evidence
to the Waitangi Tribunal in the Kaipara inquiry regarding the claims of
Te Uri O Hau o Te Wahapu of Kaipara and Ngati Whatua o Kaipara ki te
Tonga.
7. Since leaving Crown Forestry Rental Trust in 2000 I have completed
numerous research reports for presentation to the Waitangi Tribunal as
well as evidence on various aspects of Maori land and history for
submission to the High Court, Environment Court, and the Maori Land
Court. I have been engaged by a range of organisations including
numerous hapu and iwi groups, Crown Forestry Rental Trust, the State
Services Commission, Office of Treaty Settlements, Waitangi Tribunal,
Heritage New Zealand, the Maori Land Court, and various local bodies.
- 2 -
SKT-424191-12-457-V2:crg
8. I have also worked for a number of iwi involved in negotiations with the
Crown for the settlement of Treaty of Waitangi claims. Most recently
this has included Ngati Tuwharetoa (the Tuwharetoa Hapu Forum), Ngai
Tuhoe, Ngati Rangitihi, and Ngati Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tamaki nui-a-
Rua. In addition to research and historical aspects of claim settlements,
this work has required assisting iwi respond to overlapping claims of
neighbouring iwi and issues of contested customary interests.
9. In 2009, I co-authored (with Mataara Wall and Lennie Johns) Ngati
Tutemohuta: A Maori History of North-East Taupo (Pakira Publishing,
Taupo) and in 2010 co-edited (with Dr Vincent O’Malley and Professor
Wally Penetito) The Treaty of Waitangi Companion (Auckland University
Press).
10. I have read and am familiar with the Code of Conduct for Expert
Witnesses contained in the Environment Court Practice Note 2014. I
agree to comply with that Code. Other than where I state that I am
relying on the evidence of another person, this evidence is within my
area of expertise and I have not omitted to consider material facts
known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions that I
express.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF EVIDENCE 11. In May 2017 I was instructed by the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board to
assess evidence relating to Ngati Tuwharetoa’s customary interests in
the vicinity of Lake Rotokawa in the Tauhara North block. In this regard I
was supplied with the evidence of Buddy Mikaere and asked to respond
to the historical aspects of it.1
1 ‘Statement of Evidence of Buddy Mikaere’, 1 May 2017, 3.11–3.22
- 3 -
SKT-424191-12-457-V2:crg
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 12. My evidence consists of five sections:
(a) The Tauhara North title award, 1869;
(b) Tauhara boundary issues, 1867;
(c) The tapu at Rotokawa, 1867–1872;
(d) Tauhara boundary issues, 1868, and;
(e) The Rotokawa dispute, 1868.
13. These five sections are preceded by a note about a 2004 report of mine
referred to by Mr Mikaere. I next provide an assessment of Mr
Mikaere’s evidence. The five sections are followed by a note on an 1897
Native Land Court case relevant to Tauhara North.
14. I conclude there is no doubt that mana whenua was asserted by Ngati
Tahu at Rotokawa and was acknowledged by several hapu of Ngati
Tuwharetoa in the 1860s, but equally there is no doubt that the mana
whenua of several Ngati Tuwharetoa hapu at Rotokawa was asserted by
those hapu in that period and was acknowledged by Ngati Tahu.
15. In particular, Ngati Tutetawha and Ngati Te Rangiita had mana whenua
at Rotokawa. Other Ngati Tuwharetoa hapu associated with the Tauhara
blocks exercised customary rights at Rotokawa.
16. The mana whenua of Ngati Tutetawha at Rotokawa is evident from their
claims to land around Tauhara, including Rotokawa. These claims did
not exclude Ngati Tahu who in the Native Land Court initially accepted
the ancestral basis of Ngati Tutetawha’s rights and the close ancestral
and familial connections between the two hapu. Amid rising tensions in
the district arising from Native Land Court decisions and land dealings,
the two hapu later disputed each other’s to the land. They agreed to
- 4 -
SKT-424191-12-457-V2:crg
refer their claims to the Native Land Court but title to Tauhara North
was instead awarded in 1869 without any investigation of the disputed
claims.
17. The mana whenua of Ngati Te Rangiita at Rotokawa was freely
acknowledged by Ngati Tahu in the Native Land Court and in customary
ways, such as in the establishment and lifting of the tapu at Rotokawa
between 1867 and 1872. The leadership of the two hapu also enjoyed
close ancestral connections.
18. The claims of Ngati Tuwharetoa hapu associated with the Tauhara
blocks were evident during 1867 negotiations for leases of land around
Tauhara. Their lease of Tauhara included Rotokawa; the Ngati Tahu
lease of adjacent Kaingaroa land excluded Rotokawa. During the 1869
Native Land Court sitting at which the Tauhara North title was awarded,
the Ngati Tuwharetoa hapu of Tauhara stated their customary rights to
Rotokawa. During the Crown’s subsequent purchase of part of Tauhara
North, it made purchase payments to hapu members.
MY 2004 RESEARCH REPORT 19. As Mr Mikaere has noted, the historical aspect of his evidence draws
heavily on my report “Taupo-Kaingaroa Nineteenth Century Overview”,
completed in 2004 for the Waitangi Tribunal’s Central North Island
inquiry.2 In particular, he references a section of that report dealing
with the three Tauhara blocks, which include Tauhara North.3
20. Mr Mikaere describes my 2004 report as ‘detailed.’4 I would note that
my 2004 report was, as is noted in its title, an overview report of two
large Waitangi Tribunal inquiry districts and covered the period from
about 1840 to 1900. The Central North Island inquiry was what the
2 See Mikaere, 3.12. 3 Bruce Stirling, ‘Taupo-Kaingaroa Nineteenth Century Overivew. Volume One’, Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 2004, pp.424-551. 4 Mikaere, 3.12.
- 5 -
SKT-424191-12-457-V2:crg
Tribunal refers to as stage one inquiry of a two-stage approach. Stage
one deals with generic or big picture issues across an inquiry region and
does not require detailed investigation of specific issues.5 My 2004
report was prepared for such an inquiry and despite its length (over
1,600 pages) is not a detailed study of the specific issues arising in the
Treaty of Waitangi claims made in the Taupo and Kaingaroa districts.
21. The section of my 2004 report dealing with the three Tauhara blocks,
which is appended to Mr Mikaere’s evidence, is a substantial study of
the Tauhara blocks. Yet the part of that section which deals with the
Tauhara land prior to the Native Land Court’s 1869 title award of
Tauhara North is relatively brief (eight pages), as is the section on
Tauhara North block after title investigation (15 pages).6
22. A more significant proviso to my 2004 report is that its overwhelming
focus was on hapu and iwi interaction with the Crown, and examining
Crown actions that affected hapu and iwi in the Taupo and Kaingaroa
districts prior to 1900. As such my report was not an investigation of
customary interests or mana whenua. The section of my report dealing
with Tauhara land in general and Tauhara North does not directly
address matters of mana whenua.
23. Having said that, the Tauhara section of my report does include
evidence that bears on mana whenua in Tauhara North. Other parts of
the report also contain evidence relevant to Tauhara North. In
particular, my report contains evidence about an adjacent block,
Kaingaroa No. 2, abutting Tauhara North to the east, is relevant to mana
whenua in Tauhara North.7
5 Waitangi Tribunal, He Maunga Rongo. Report on Central North Island Claims. Stage One, Legislation Direct, Wellington, 2008, pp.3 and 5. 6 Stirling, pp.424-431 and 524-538. 7 On Kaingaroa 2, see Stirling, pp.14-15, 31-47, 60-73, and 669-765.
- 6 -
SKT-424191-12-457-V2:crg
MR MIKAERE’S EVIDENCE 24. Mr Mikaere’s evidence on mana whenua is admirably succinct.
Unfortunately its brevity obscures more than it reveals. His very narrow
reading of his main source and a failure to consult primary sources have
led him to conclusions that are not supported by the evidence.
25. In the section of his evidence dealing with what Mr Mikaere calls the
‘historic [sic] record’, he briefly summarises some of my 2004 evidence
relating to Tauhara North and quotes a passage from pages 430-431 of
the report which concerns the Native Land Court’s 1869 Tauhara North
title award.8 He then draws attention to what he refers to as two ‘key
phrases’ from the final paragraph of the quoted passage.9
26. From these phrases, and from the 1869 title award, Mr Mikaere
concludes that the mana whenua for the three Tauhara blocks was
decided and agreed in 1869 by ‘a general consensus’ and that in his
opinion ‘there can be no doubt that the mana whenua over Rotokawa
lies with those to whom the land was first granted by the Native Land
Court, Ngati Tahu’.10 He goes further, arguing that any current claims
‘are not supported by the historical record or indeed the actions of
tipuna at the time’.11 Mr Mikaere also asserts that Tauhara North was
claimed by Ngati Tahu ‘without any record of dispute’.12
27. It is my opinion that Mr Mikaere has overreached. First, the 1869 Native
Land Court award was not determinative of customary interests.
Second, contrary to his conclusion, current claims are very much
supported by the historical record and the actions of tupuna at the time.
Third, he has neglected to refer to significant evidence relating to the
28. Some of the evidence not addressed by Mr Mikaere is included in my
2004 report and further evidence can be found in the primary sources
referred to in that report. As noted, the 2004 report was of an overview
nature so I did not draw on all of the sources it relies on to the degree
that I, as a professional historian, would expect to do when dealing with
a more specific issue such as that being addressed in Mr Mikaere’s
evidence.
THE TAUHARA NORTH TITLE AWARD, 1869 29. In 1869, as noted by Mr Mikaere, the Native Land Court awarded title to
Tauhara North to Ngati Tahu.13 That is true, but it is not true enough.
There is very often considerably more to an assessment of mana
whenua than a Native Land Court title and this is certainly the case with
Tauhara North. This is not to say that Ngati Tahu do not have strong
customary interests in Tauhara North. That too is true, but it is not the
whole truth. The following section provides some context for the 1869
title award and sets out the evidence from the 1869 hearing that is
relevant to the mana whenua of not just Ngati Tahu but several Ngati
Tuwharetoa hapu.
30. A primary function of the Native Land Court was determining the
ownership of Maori land according to Maori custom, and deciding
between claimants and counter-claimants. In doing so, it converted
collective customary tenure (which was often complex and could
accommodate many different interests of closely related groups) into
individual ownership interests. The Waitangi Tribunal has repeatedly
and sharply criticised the native land legislation for this distortion of
customary interests. For instance, in its Central North Island report
covering the Taupo region, the Tribunal concluded that the ‘operation
of the Crown’s court resulted in prejudice to communities of right-
holders whose rights were not recognised, or were inadequately
13 Mikaere, 3.17. See also Stirling, pp.431-433, and; Taupo Native Land Court Minute Book 1, pp.196-202.
- 8 -
SKT-424191-12-457-V2:crg
recognised, by its determinations of customary rights’.14 Considerable
care is needed, therefore, in treating Native Land Court titles as
accurately reflecting customary interests or recognising mana whenua.
31. The Court’s awarding of title to Tauhara North was not in fact the result
of any determination of customary interests because the claimants to
Tauhara lands agreed amongst themselves as to how they would divide
up their land into multiply-owned individualised titles and to whom it
would be awarded. As a result no evidence about customary interests in
Tauhara North or other parts of Tauhara was put to the Court.
32. When the case began at Oruanui (near Taupo) on the morning of 16
March 1869, Aperahama Te Werewere of Ngati Tutemohuta set out a
single Tauhara claim which comprised more than 140,000 acres.
Aperahama gave the boundaries which extended from Rotokawa and
Mount Tauhara in the north to Hatepe and the Hinemaiaia River in the
south. He then said:
The hapus to whom this land belongs are Ngati Tu [Tutemohuta],
Ngati Tutetawha, Ngati Hinerau, Ngati Rauhoto, Ngati Te Urunga,
Ngati Hineure.15 These hapu live on the Tauhara side. They all live on
the land. They have a pa at Paetiki, also at Opepe and at
Tapuaeharuru at the mouth of the Waikato River. The hapu on the
southern side of the block are Ngati Whanaurangi, Ngati Te Rangiita,
Ngati Rua, and Ngati Purua. These are all the hapus who claim. … The
hapus living at the north end at Parariki are Ngati Tahu, Ngati Te
Kume, and Ngati Te Ranginui. They have a pa and cultivations at
Nihoroa at the mouth of Parariki. Otamarauhuri is another
cultivation. We also catch birds at Rotokawa.16
14 Waitangi Tribunal, He Maunga Rongo (2008), Vol 1, p.496. Further, the Tribunal was “in little doubt that the Native Land Court as introduced by the Crown to the Central North Island was not the appropriate body to determine matters of customary interest”, p.506. 15 The minutes use the abbreviation ‘N’ for Ngati and use lower case for hapu names. These have been corrected in the cited passage, so that ‘N’hinerau’ is rendered as ‘Ngati Hinerau’. 16 Taupo Native Land Court Minute Book 1, pp.195-196.
- 9 -
SKT-424191-12-457-V2:crg
33. Aperahama Te Werewere named 13 hapu for the Tauhara block, three
of which lived in the north of the block on what was later defined as
Tauhara North. They were Ngati Tahu, Ngati Te Kume, and Ngati Te
Ranginui. He indicated that while these hapu had a pa and cultivations
there, they were not the only hapu who held customary rights. The
hapu of Tauhara – the ‘we’ to which he refers – went to Rotokawa to
catch birds.
34. Paora Hapimana of Ngati Te Rangiita then handed in a list of names to
go on the title to the combined Tauhara block. The list had been ‘agreed
upon by the various hapu to represent their interests’. There was an
unspecified objection to the list so the Court adjourned ‘to give them
time to reconsider the matter’. When the Court resumed after lunch it
first heard from claimants to another block who had come from the Bay
of Plenty and wanted the Court to adjourn as they were ‘anxious to get
home’. This followed the arrival of news that Maori forces led by Te
Kooti had attacked and destroyed settlements near Whakatane. Those
at the Court were also suffering from ‘the want of food’ at Oruanui.17
35. Taupo hapu and the Court held very real fears that the war against Te
Kooti was about to be brought to the district. A few days earlier, Judge
Thomas Smith had wanted to adjourn the Court but needed written
evidence from officials or the military that there was an imminent
threat. The ‘alarming intelligence’ he sought was obtained on 17 March
and the following morning the Court adjourned all remaining cases,
although by then most Maori had already left ‘to attend to the defence
of their own places’.18
36. Amid this climate of hunger and fear, the Tauhara case was quickly
concluded on the afternoon of 16 March 1869. The 13 hapu claiming the
land needed to get the title completed before the Court adjourned so
they could finalise their lease of the whole Tauhara block to Alfred Cox. 17 Taupo Native Land Court Minute Book 1, pp.196-197, and; Stirling, pp.75 and 432. 18 Stirling, pp.75-76, and; Taupo Native Land Court Minute Book 1, pp.212-213.
- 10 -
SKT-424191-12-457-V2:crg
In the first instance they needed him or his rental income to pay for the
survey charges of over £900 (about $100,000 today).19
37. Accordingly, Paora Hapimana told the Court the hapu of Tauhara had
agreed to divide the block into three titles and selected 14 individuals to
represent what were now 14 hapu in the titles. Tauhara was divided
into three blocks; Tauhara North (an estimated 5,000 acres20 for one
hapu), Tauhara Middle (over 100,000 acres for six hapu), and Tauhara
South (about 35,000 acres for seven hapu). Tauhara North was awarded
to Hare Reweti Te Kume and ‘Hare Matina Taua’ (Hare Matenga Taua)
to represent Ngati Tahu.21
38. Even this brief examination of the circumstances of the 1869 title award
reveals more than the award itself suggests. The evidence shows there
were three hapu who lived on Tauhara North but the hastily arranged
final agreement awarded title to just one of them, omitting Ngati Te
Kume and Ngati Ranginui. The evidence also shows that Taupo hapu
other than the three named in northern Tauhara also had customary
rights to Rotokawa and the waterfowl for which it was prized.
39. It should be noted that the 1869 minutes refer to the two grantees to
Tauhara North as trustees for Ngati Tahu. The Native Lands Act 1865 did
not provide for the appointment of trustees and the title award instead
vested ownership of Tauhara North in the two grantees exclusively. The
Crown subsequently dealt with them as absolute owners when it was
purchasing part of the block. Even so, Crown land purchase officers did
recognise that others had customary interests in Tauhara North that
had to be acknowledged, and parts of the purchase price were paid to
Wi Maihi Maniapoto, Mere Hapi, and Te Heuheu.22 None of them were
19 Stirling, pp.426-428 and 435-436. 20 The final surveyed area was 10,605 acres; see ML 1545-8. Land Information New Zealand. 21 Taupo Native Land Court Minute Book 1, pp.197-200. 22 Stirling, pp.524-533.
- 11 -
SKT-424191-12-457-V2:crg
Ngati Tahu and instead represented other customary interests in
Tauhara North.
40. The Tauhara North award shows some of the ways in which the form of
title available under the Native Lands Act 1865 was unable to account
for or reflect the multiple, overlapping, and fluid customary interests
involved in Maori land. The result was that a block in which several hapu
had a range of customary interests was in law the exclusive property of
two individuals.
TAUHARA BOUNDARY ISSUES, 1867 41. In making its 1869 award of Tauhara North the Native Land Court did
not take evidence on customary rights to the land. Mana whenua was
expressed outside the Court in a variety of other ways before 1869. This
section examines evidence from 1867, a period in which Tauhara and
adjoining land on the Kaingaroa plains was leased and the land within
the Kaingaroa lease was awarded title. This evidence shows that mana
whenua around Mount Tauhara and Rotokawa was contested. In
addition to Ngati Tahu, this land was claimed by Ngati Te Rangiita and
Ngati Tutetawha. Ngati Tahu accepted that they did not hold exclusive
mana whenua.
42. In 1866 and 1867 the arrival of runholders seeking to lease large
pastoral runs from Taupo Maori led to contesting over who should
control and benefit from the leases and how the boundaries should be
defined. In early 1867 the soldier Captain John St George negotiated
principally with the rangatira Paora Matenga for the lease of a large
area of land on the Kaingaroa plains, east of Tauhara. St George
identified Paora Matenga only as Ngati Tahu and his dealings for the
lease included others of Ngati Tahu.23
23 Stirling, pp.12-15, and; Taupo Native Land Court Minute Book 10, pp.106-107.
- 12 -
SKT-424191-12-457-V2:crg
43. St George’s dealings with Ngati Tahu immediately provoked opposition
from other hapu with mana whenua to the Tauhara end of the
Kaingaroa lease. In April 1867 he and Paora Matenga met with Hohepa
Tamamutu to discuss claims to the land around Mount Tauhara but the
parties could not agree and decided to leave it for the Native Land Court
to ‘settle their different claims’. St George saw this dispute as ‘raruraru
between the hapus Ngati Tahu and Ngati Rauhoto’. Hohepa Tamamutu
had numerous hapu connections but most often identifed himself as
Ngati Te Rangiita and frequently opposed Ngati Rauhoto claims to
land.24 It seems likely that St George wrongly identified Ngati Rauhoto
and that the dispute instead involved Ngati Te Rangiita.
44. By June 1867 the dispute about the land around Mount Tauhara took on
a more serious aspect as the two parties ‘were nearly coming to blows’
and Ngati Tahu had armed themselves. The competing claims were
instead left for the Native Land Court to resolve as many of the hapu in
the Tauhara area were seen as ‘decidedly loyal and wish to be entirely
guided in everything by the law of the Queen’.25
45. Paora Matenga’s son, Nepia Matenga, later recalled that St George had
wanted to extend the Kaingaroa lease to the west, beyond Rotokawa
and as far as Huka falls, but Paora had said it had to stop further down
the Waikato River at the mouth of Parariki Stream (the boundary of
Tauhara North).26 This indicates what other evidence makes very clear;
that the boundary for the Kaingaroa lease could not be extended west
of Parariki Stream and Mount Tauhara without infringing on the
customary rights of other hapu.
46. Another runholder entered the picture in 1867 when the Canterbury
politician and pastoralist Alfred Cox obtained a lease of all of Tauhara,
24 Stirling, pp.48 and 236. 25 St George diary, 29 April and 11 July 1867, and; St George to Donald McLean, 12 June 1867. Cited in Stirling, pp.15-16 and 26. 26 Taupo Native Land Court Minute Book 10
- 13 -
SKT-424191-12-457-V2:crg
including Rotokawa. This brought him and his landlords into dispute
with St George and Ngati Tahu as the boundaries of the Tauhara block
and Kaingaroa block conflicted.27
47. The first Native Land Court sitting in the district was at Oruanui in
October 1867 but it lasted just one day. Hohepa Tamamutu, who had
been a leading opponent to Ngati Tahu’s claim to Kaingaroa No. 2 (St
George’s lease block comprising 143,000 acres), was absent from the
district when the Court sat so his hapu’s claim to the Tauhara portion of
Kaingaroa No. 2 was not heard.28 This left the way clear for Ngati Tahu
but other opposition was raised.
48. Kaingaroa No. 2 has, like Tauhara North, been simplistically presented in
the past as an exclusively Ngati Tahu block but this is not supported by
the evidence. Paora Matenga claimed Kaingaroa No. 2 for Ngati Tahu
but when testifying about the source of his customary rights to part of
the block he noted: ‘I derive my title to the part next [to] Tauhara from
Te Ranginui’.29 His claim to most of Kaingaroa No. 2 was derived from
Tahu, the ancestor for Ngati Tahu. As noted, Ngati Te Ranginui was one
of the hapu assoicated with Tauhara North.
49. Paora Matenga then named 12 grantees to represent the owners. Hunia
Takurua of Ngati Tutetawha asked why he was not included but Paora
told him, ‘You are represented by [Te] Kohanga’ who was one of the 12
grantees named. At this point, Hunia concluded that the piece in which
he was interested was outside Kaingaroa No. 2 so he withdrew his
claim.30 Even so this shows that Ngati Tutetawha interests had been
acknowledged in the list of grantees even though Hunia was not
personally named.
27 Stirling, pp.33 and 427-429. See also survey of Cox’s Tauhara lease shown on Theophilus Heale, “Sketch Map of Bay of Plenty and Taupo Districts”, 1869, Geographical Board Map No. 385. Land Information New Zealand. 28 Stirling, p.27. 29 Taupo Native Land Court Minute Book 1, p.7, and Stirling, p.31. 30 Taupo Native Land Court Minute Book 1, p.9, and Stirling, p.31.
- 14 -
SKT-424191-12-457-V2:crg
50. The 12 grantees to whom an interlocutory award of Kaingaroa No. 2 was
made included Te Kohanga and Te Waaka Tamaira. The award would
become final if the land was surveyed within nine months.31 As Paora
Matenga had acknowledged, Te Kohanga represented interests other
than Ngati Tahu. It is not known which interests were represented by Te
Waaka Tamaira but I have not seen any source in which he identifies
himself as Ngati Tahu. He later claimed in the Wairakei block (across the
Waikato River from Tauhara North) as Ngati Te Rangihiroa, a hapu
associated with Ngati Te Rangiita, and he was strongly associated with
Tokaanu.32 It is highly likely that he was included to represent interests
other than Ngati Tahu.
51. The fact that Paora Matenga referred to two different ancestors for
Ngati Tahu’s claim to Kaingarora No. 2 reflects an important aspect of
Native Land Court titles, which is that surveyed block boundaries do not
always reflect just one set of customary interests. Customary interests
are flexible, can operate on several different levels, and often overlap,
but rigid survey lines and the fixed titles issued to the land within them
often cannot represent customary interests.
52. Paora Matenga sought to overcome the limitations of a Native Land
Court title by acknowledging that Ngati Tahu’s interests around Tauhara
came from Te Ranginui, not from the hapu’s eponymous ancestor, Tahu.
His son, Nepia, later acknowledged that the boundary between Tauhara
North and Kaingaroa No. 2 was not an ancestral boundary and was used
‘merely for the purposes of leasing’.33 The leases were what drove the
title investigation process in Kaingaroa No. 2 and Tauhara Native Land
Court. The titles were sought by the lessees to legally define and protect
their interests, but they did not define or protect the interests of all
Maori rights-holders.
31 Taupo Native Land Court Minute Book 1, pp.8-9. 32 Stirling, pp.42, 384, 388, 943, 1330, and 1415-1416. 33 Taupo Native Land Court Minute Book 10, p.114.
- 15 -
SKT-424191-12-457-V2:crg
PAORA MATENGA AND THE TAPU AT ROTOKAWA, 1867-1872 53. This section examines how the death at of Paora Matenga led to the
establishment of a tapu at Rotokawa, preventing bird-hunting there for
five years. The establishment and the lifting of the tapu demonstrate
Ngati Tahu mana whenua at Rotokawa, but the events also reveal that
there were other hapu with mana whenua, notably Ngati Te Rangiita,
and that this was freely acknowledged by Ngati Tahu. The close
connections between the two hapu are also evident.
54. Paora Matenga died as the result of a shooting accident at Rotokawa on
Christmas Day 1867.34 Until his death he had been the leading rangatira
of Ngati Tahu, had initiated the lease of Kaingaroa No. 2 to St George,
and led the Native Land Court claim to that block.
55. While usually identified only with Ngati Tahu, Paora Matenga was also
known as Ngati Te Rangiita, being a direct descendant of Tamamutu. His
obituary states: ‘No Ngatiterangiita taua tangata, he rangatira. Ko
Tamamutu tona tupuna; ka wha nga whakatupuranga i muri mai i a
Tamamutu ka tae mai ki Paora Matenga [He is of Ngati Te Rangiita, a
rangatira. Tamamutu is his direct ancestor; four generations after
Tamamutu comes Paora Matenga]’.35
56. The death of Paora Matenga at Rotokawa led to the establishing of a
tapu there for five years, preventing the hunting of ducks from 1867 to
1872. Mr Mikaere, relying on evidence provided by Ngati Tahu, implies
this tapu was established by Ngati Tahu alone and is thus ‘a further
acknowledgement of Ngati Tahu’s mana whenua status’.36 This is
incorrect.
34 Stirling, p.38, and; ‘Te matenga o Paora Matenga’, Te Waka Maori, 9 January 1868, p.116. 35 ‘Te matenga o Paora Matenga’, Te Waka Maori, 9 January 1868, p.116. 36 Mikaere, 3.7.
- 16 -
SKT-424191-12-457-V2:crg
57. When testifying in 1897 about the tapu established at Rotokawa, Nepia
Matenga stated, ‘the people by whom the tapu was imposed were Ngati
Tahu, Ngati Te Rangiita, and outside tribes, even Ngati Kahungunu took
part in the imposition of the tapu’.37 Nepia Matenga was a son of Paora
Matenga. Ngati Kahungunu are a Hawke’s Bay iwi whose territory
borders that of Ngati Tuwharetoa at Titiokura (a hill between Te Haroto
and Te Pohue, on what is now the Napier–Taupo road).
58. The role of Ngati Te Rangiita in in establishing the tapu at Rotokawa in
1867 affirms the links between Ngati Tahu and Ngati Te Rangiita, and
the customary interests of Ngati Te Rangiita at Rotokawa. It should be
noted that Nepia Matenga drew a distinction between Ngati Te Rangiita
and ‘outside tribes’ who also assisted with establishing the tapu.
59. Nepia Matenga also testified in 1897 about the lifting of the tapu at
Rotokawa, five years after it was estabished: ‘The year the tapu was
removed, Te Reweti [Te Kume] was the person who came to me
accompanied by Hare Matenga and this was what they said, “take the
tapu off Rotokawa” and I agreed. I said it rests with you, the old people,
and I called on the hapu interested in the removal of the tapu, Ngati Te
Rangiita – Ngati Te Rangiita south of Taupo, Ngati Te Rangiita at Oruanui
– these are the only hapu I called on to come and take off the tapu and
some of the Ngati Tahu.’38
60. When the tapu was removed from Rotokawa, Ngati Tahu called on
Tukorehu to lift the tapu from the birds hunted there. As Nepia put it,
Tukorehu ‘whakanoa’d the first bird killed’.39 Tukorehu was not named
in full but is most likely Tukorehu Mamao, a leader associated with Ngati
Te Ranghiroa and Ngati Te Rangiita at Tauranga-Taupo and at the head
37 Taupo Native Land Court Minute Book 10, p.109. 38 Taupo Native Land Court Minute Book 10, pp.109-110. 39 Taupo Native Land Court Minute Book 10, p.110.
- 17 -
SKT-424191-12-457-V2:crg
of Lake Taupo (in, for instance, the Rangatira block west of Taupo
township).40
61. The role of Tukorehu and of Ngati Te Rangiita in lifting the tapu reflects
their kaitiakitanga of Rotokawa. The evidence of Nepia Matenga
indicates that Ngati Te Rangiita had a very significant role in the removal
of the tapu at Rotokawa.
62. The significance of Ngati Te Rangiita is further evident from their
participation in the hui held in July 1868 for the distribution of the first
rental payment made by St George. Matenga Taua of Ngati Tahu said,
‘welcome my elder brother, the Ngati Te Rangiita, come and listen to
our talk, we are all one tribe’. Tuiri Rangihiroa spoke next, saying, ‘come
Ngati Te Rangiita, come to your land’. Another speaker cautioned that
‘there are strangers here and they will make use of what they hear’ but
said ‘you Ngati Tahu and Ngati Te Rangiita are all right’.41 In other
words, Ngati Te Rangiita were not ‘strangers’ but attended the hui as
holders of mana whenua.
63. When the tapu was removed in 1872, Reweti and Rawiri Kahia
suggested that the role of Ngati Kahungunu in establishing the tapu
should be recognised so they decided to ‘send them some birds, 5 of 6
taha (receptacles for the preserved birds)’, which were taken to
Hawke’s Bay.42 ‘Reweti’ is Reweti Te Kume of Ngati Tahu. At the same
time his connections to Ngati Te Rangiita were so close that when a
Taupo Native Committee (‘the committee of Taupo Te Aupouri’) was
formed in 1877 he joined Rawiri Kahia and Hohepa Tamamutu as the
representatives of Ngati Te Rangiita (while Te Roera Matenga
represented Ngati Tahu).43 As noted in the next section, Reweti’s
mother was of Ngati Tutetawha. Rawiri Kahia was a rangatira of Ngati Te
40 Stirling, pp.102, 388, and 943 (note that at p.943, I have misread his name as ‘Tukorehe’ in the primary source cited). 41 Cited in Stirling, p.62. 42 Taupo Native Land Court Minute Book 10, p.110. 43 Stirling, pp.235-236.
- 18 -
SKT-424191-12-457-V2:crg
Rangiita and the related hapu Ngati Te Whanaurangi.44 His wife was
Hariata, the sister of Paora Matenga.45
64. These marriage connections between Ngati Te Rangiita and Ngati Tahu
were maintained in the next generation through, for instance, the
marriage of Te Amoroa (a close relative of Reweti Te Kume)46 to
Hemopo Hikarahui of Ngati Te Rangiita and other hapu. Hemopo was a
contemporary of Paora Matenga, had the right (through his marriage) to
hunt ducks at Rotokawa, and was called on by Ngati Tahu to conduct
their critical 1897 Native Land Court case involving Tauhara North. His
seniority and knowledge meant he was also called on by them as a
witness.47
65. Chiefly marriages such as these were a way of maintaining the ancestral
connections between Ngati Te Rangiita and Ngati Tahu. I note that Mr
Mikaere refers to marriage links over generations as a way in which
mana whenua can be acquired.48
66. A final point related to the tapu established in 1867 is that asserting the
right to establish such a tapu is one thing, but having the authority to
compel other hapu and iwi to recognise it is another. The tapu
established between 1867 and 1872 by Ngati Tahu and Ngati Te Rangiita
seems to have been widely respected, but before 1867 the right claimed
by Ngati Tahu to control the hunting of ducks at Rotokawa was not
always acknowledged by other hapu. In January 1865, a visiting military
officer noted that Reweti Te Kume and his people asserted the right to
control the taking of ducks at Rotokawa but that when they took the
officer to the lake to begin the seasonal hunt they found that other
44 Stirling, p.432. 45 Stirling, pp.68 and 673. See also whakapapa given by Te Rehutai in Taupo Native Land Court Minute Book 5, following p.98. 46 One source refers to Te Amoroa as a daughter of Reweti Te Kume, but Te Hemopo himself is recorded as referring to her as Reweti’s sister. 47 Stirling, pp.67, 80, 525, 534, 536, 557-558, and 562, and; Taupo Native Land Court Minute Book 10, pp.34, 36, and 62-65. 48 Mikaere, 3.1.
- 19 -
SKT-424191-12-457-V2:crg
Maori had beaten them to it, taking several hundred birds. This angered
the Ngati Tahu hunting party and resulted in it taking very few ducks.49
TAUHARA BOUNDARY ISSUES, 1868 67. This section looks at how the overlapping and contested mana whenua
in the vicinity of the boundary between Tauhara and Kaingaroa No. 2 re-
emerged in 1868, when the latter block had to be investigated anew by
the Native Land Court. Ngati Tutetwaha again asserted mana whenua in
the Tauhara boundary area, including around Rotokawa. Ngati Tahu
agreed with Ngati Tutetawha that on the Tauhara side of this boundary
both hapu claimed from the same ancestor, Kurapoto, and that both
hapu were closely related. The Court’s alteration of the boundary
between the two blocks was recognition in part of Ngati Tutetawha
mana whenua to Tauhara lands.
68. When the Court sat Oruanui in April 1868 to hear Kaingaroa No. 2 again,
Hunia Takurua of Ngati Tutetawha renewed their claim. He said that
when he withdrew that claim in 1867 the land had not been surveyed
and ‘I did not see the boundary laid down’. Now that he had seen it, he
opposed the boundary Ngati Tahu had surveyed at Tauhara.50
69. Hunia Takurua defined the Ngati Tutetawha boundary in this vicinity as
extending from Aratiatia on the Waikato River and eastwards across
part of Kaingaroa No. 2. This took in Tauhara North and land east and
south-east of Mount Tauhara. He said the boundary had been ‘laid
down by my ancestor Kurapoto’. The boundary took in Rotokawa but
when Hare Reweti Te Kume of Ngati Tahu was cross-examining Hunia he
asked: ‘Is Rotokawa yours?’ to which Hunia replied, ‘No, I don’t claim
that.’51
49 H. Meade, A Ride Through the Disturbed Districts of New Zealand, London, 1870, pp.98-100. 50 Taupo Native Land Court Minute Book 1, p.23. 51 Taupo Native Land Court Minute Book 1, pp.22-23.
- 20 -
SKT-424191-12-457-V2:crg
70. The following day Hunia’s elder brother Hamuera Takurua testified for
Ngati Tutetawha but he did not make any concession about Rotokawa.
He disputed the boundary around Tauhara, and gave the same
boundary for Ngati Tutetawha as Hunia, taking in Rotokawa. He said it
was ‘an old boundary of our ancestors’. He was not questioned on the
point, nor was Aperahama Te Werewere, who gave the same boundary
for Ngati Tutetawha.52
71. When Hare Reweti Te Kume led the Ngati Tahu claim he said the
boundary they had surveyed between Kaingaroa No. 2 and Tauhara in
the Rotokawa area did not define their ancestral claim but instead
defined the area leased to St George. Like Ngati Tutetawha he claimed
to the west of this line, to Aratiatia (taking in Tauhara North) but that
was outside the lease and thus outside the block. In contrast, the
Kaingaroa No. 2 boundary south-east of Mount Tauhara was claimed as
an ‘an old boundary of my ancestors’. He acknowledged (as had Paora
Matenga in 1867) that Ngati Tahu’s claims around Tauhara were from
two ancestors: ‘from Tahu on the east side of this line and from
Kurapoto on the west.’ Tauhara North is west of this line. He claimed
Tauhara from Kurapoto, and acknowledged that ‘Kurapoto is the
ancestor from whom the Ngati Tutetawha claim. We are closely
related’. He added, ‘I am closely related to the Ngati Tutetawha, my
mother was of this tribe’.53
72. The Native Land Court ordered that the boundary between Kaingaroa
No. 2 and Tauhara be altered to exclude the interests of Ngati
Tutetawha as it defined them. It did not recognise all of the interests
asserted by Ngati Tutetawha in Kaingaroa No. 2 so the alteration to the
boundary applied only to a band of land in the area south-east of Mount
Tauhara where the Court found ‘Ngati Tutetawha had exercised rights
52 Taupo Native Land Court Minute Book 1, pp.24-26. 53 Taupo Native Land Court Minute Book 1, pp.26-30.
- 21 -
SKT-424191-12-457-V2:crg
of ownership’.54 The boundary in this area was moved to the east, and
St George complained that the result was that he lost eight to ten
thousand acres of his lease.55
73. The outcome was that the boundary north of Mount Tauhara was not
altered. The reason for this is that the Rotokawa area (later defined as
Tauhara North) had already been excluded from Kaingaroa No. 2, as the
boundary of Kaingaroa No. 2 ran from near Mount Tauhara north to the
mouth of Parariki Stream on the Waikato River.56 This meant that Ngati
Tutetawha interests in the Rotokawa area were not yet affected by
Native Land Court titles (as Tauhara North was not awarded until 1869).
74. The 1868 title award for Kaingaroa No. 2 named only 10 grantees,
rather than the 12 given to the Court in 1867. Te Waaka Tamaira was
still included, which may be in order to recognise interests other than
Ngati Tahu. However, Te Kohanga, who was on the 1867 list to
acknowledge Ngati Tutetawha interests, was not included in the 1868
title and was not present in Court. Hare Reweti Te Kume explained to
the Court that Te Kohanga was an ‘old man’ who had been put in the
1867 list by Paora Matenga.57 The Court was not informed why Paora
Matenga had included Te Kohanga and it did not inquire as to why Ngati
Tahu no longer wished to uphold Paora’s wishes in this regard.
75. The 1867 and 1868 evidence on Kaingaroa No. 2 established that the
mana whenua west of that block, in what was later known as Tauhara
North and Tauhara Middle, was derived from the ancestor Kurapoto
(and descendants such as Te Ranginui). Ngati Tahu and Ngati Tutetawha
had agreed that this was the source of their ancestral rights in the area
around Tauhara and Rotokawa, and that both groups were closely
related. The Court found Ngati Tutetawha’s definition of the ancestral
54 Taupo Native Land court Minute Book 1, pp.30-31. 55 Stirling, p.428. 56 Kaingaroa No. 2 plan, ML 3926 and ML 3926A. Land Information New Zealand. 57 Taupo Native Land Court Minute Book 1, p.31.
- 22 -
SKT-424191-12-457-V2:crg
boundary between Kurapoto and Tahu to be more accurate than that
defined by Ngati Tahu in their survey of Kaingaroa No. 2. Accordingly,
the boundary was amended in favour of Ngati Tutetawha. The
legitimate expectation was that the mana whenua derived from
Kurapoto would be recognised when the Tauhara block was awarded.
As noted, the mana whenua of Ngati Te Ranginui was initially recognised
when the Tauhara claim opened in 1869 but the hastily arranged award
of Tauhara North later excluded them.
ROTOKAWA DISPUTE, 1868 76. In the wake of the 1868 title award for Kaingaroa No. 2, the ownership
of the land around Rotokawa remained to be determined by the Court.
This section examines how Ngati Tahu claims to the land were strongly
disputed by other hapu in this period, including at a meeting between
Ngati Tahu and Ngati Tutetawha where their respective claims to the
land were debated. Both hapu agreed to leave the dispute to be decided
by the Native Land Court but, as noted, it did not hear evidence on the
matter before the Tauhara North title was awarded in 1869.
77. Immediately after the Kaingaroa No. 2 award was made in April 1868, St
George was informed by Ngati Tahu that there was a ‘great raruraru’ at
the Oruanui Court as Poihipi Tukairangi was angry at what he thought
was the awarding of his hapu’s land to Ngati Tahu. St George identified
Poihipi’s hapu as Ngati Rauhoto, and said they responded to the Court’s
award by proposing to go to Rotokawa in spring to hunt ducks. This was
intended as a provocative breach of the tapu established there after
Paora Matenga’s death, so ‘there is sure to be a fight’. Tensions arising
from this and other Court awards were such that St George feared that
if shots were fired, ‘I am afraid the whole of the hapus of Taupo will join
in and there will be a general war’.58
58 Cited in Stirling, pp.428-429.
- 23 -
SKT-424191-12-457-V2:crg
78. The issue was not immediately resolved although no fighting was
recorded. In June 1868 St George wrote that Ngati Tahu were calling a
meeting at one of their kainga to discuss the land west of Parariki
Stream, meaning the Rotokawa land (Tauhara North). At first he was
under the impression the land was to be offered to him to lease, but this
seems unlikely given the unresolved dispute over the Tauhara land,
which Cox was already leasing.59 The meeting did concern the land
around Rotokawa but it did not involve Ngati Rauhoto or any offer to
lease the land to St George. The meeting was instead between Ngati
Tahu and Ngati Tutetawha, who had ‘stormy discussions’ about the land
before deciding to leave the issue for the Native Land Court to resolve.60
As noted, the Native Land Court was not called on to resolve this
dispute as the Tauhara land was divided in an out-of-court arrangement
in 1869.
79. St George wrote that during the meeting Hohepa Tamamutu abused
Reweti Te Kume for having claimed the northern Tauhara land.61
Hohepa is identified with several hapu, including Ngati Te Rangiita, but
seems to have been advocating for Ngati Tutetawha at this meeting. St
George was of the view that Reweti’s response proved the claim of
Ngati Tahu. Paora Hapi, speaking on behalf of Ngati Tutetawha and
‘Ngati Tu’ (Tutemohuta), also claimed the Rotokawa land, but St George
did not think he proved his claim to it. Aperahama (probably Aperahama
Werewere of Ngati Tutetawha) also spoke in favour of Ngati Tutetawha
and Ngati Tutemohuta.62
80. St George was not an impartial observer of the meeting, and favoured
Ngati Tahu with whom he had agreed a lease as well as a good working
relationship. The extent to which he clearly understood what was being
said at the hui, conducted in te reo Maori, is also questionable. For
59 St George diary, 26 June 1868. 60 St George diary, 27 June 1868, and; Stirling, p.430. 61 Stirling, p.430. 62 St George diary, 27 June 1868, and; Stirling pp.60 and 430.
- 24 -
SKT-424191-12-457-V2:crg
instance, he asserted that Reweti said that Ngati Tutetawha had
previously acknowledged the claim of Ngati Tahu to the land and St
George endorsed this assertion; claiming to have heard Ngati Tutetawha
give their boundary on the Waikato River as ‘Otakaka or Opinga and [it]
ran from thence to Tauhara’.63 In fact, Ngati Tutetawha had clearly
given Aratiatia as the starting point of their claim on the Waikato River,
which took in Rotokawa.
POST-SCRIPT: TAUHARA NORTH EQUITABLE OWNERS CASE, 1897 81. The application by Te Heuheu Tukino V, Tureiti, to the Native Land Court
for an equitable owners inquiry into Tauhara North is referred to by Mr
Mikaere as a Ngati Tuwharetoa ‘challenge’ to the 1869 award of the
land to Ngati Tahu.64 He goes on to describe the withdrawal of the Te
Heuheu application as ‘equivalent to a chiefly approval and
acknowledgement of the Ngati Tahu position’.65 Neither statement is
borne out by the evidence.
82. An equitable owners inquiry was not and could not be a ‘challenge’ to
the customary interests recognised in the original title. It instead
enabled the Native Land Court to recognise the customary interests of
those who had been excluded from the original title by the ‘ten-owner
rule’ of the Native Lands Act 1865. The two grantees on the 1869 title to
Tauhara North were deemed to be in the position of trustees for their
hapu and the Court was charged with identifying the individual
beneficiaries of such a trust, who were to be added to the list of owners.
Only those claiming ownership through Ngati Tahu could be added to
the title.
83. Te Heuheu did not act alone. He led an application submitted by
himself, Te Waaka Tamaira, Takarea Te Heuheu, Enoka Te Aramoana,
and Te Moananui Manaipoto. Te Waaka Tamaira’s interests in the 63 St George diary, 27 June 1868. 64 Mikaere, 3.19. 65 Mikaere, 3.20.
- 25 -
SKT-424191-12-457-V2:crg
adjoining Kaingaroa No. 2 block had previously been acknowledged by
Ngati Tahu through his inclusion in the title. This was the first such
application made for Tauhara North. Hera Peka and Whata Hera Peka of
Ngati Tahu filed a susbequent application.66 This second application was
opposed by several Ngati Tahu rangatira during the 1897 case.
84. A few days after the case opened, by which time it was evident that
Ngati Tahu were fully engaged in the matter, Te Waaka Tamaira told the
Court Te Heuheu’s application was being withdrawn. He said, ‘we made
the application to benefit Ngati Tahu, to afford them a means of sending
in their names. I don’t propose to send in a list of names but withdraw
my application and will let Ngati Tahu settle the matter themselves’.67
This is an example of how the arikitanga of Te Heuheu was asserted for
the benefit of his people. Rather than making any sort of claim to the
land he was exercising his kaitiakitanga over Taupo lands.
Bruce Stirling
66 Taupo Native Land Court Minute Book 10, p.19. 67 Taupo Native Land Court Minute Book 10, pp.29 and 32-33.
