OTAWHIWHI RESERVE AND BOWENTOWN DOMAIN

by

Richard Kay

Heather Bassett

A research report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal for Wai 47

December 1996

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF FIGURES

1. INTRODUCTION

My name is Richard James Kay. I have a Bachelor of Arts degree, majoring in history, from Otago University and a Master of Arts Honours degree, majoring in history, from Waikato University. I have a Diploma of Teaching (secondary) from the Auckland College of Education. Since 1994 I have been teaching history and classical studies in Wellington. I am now based in Auckland and this is my first report for the Waitangi Tribunal.

This report has been written with the assistance of Heather Bassett, who holds a Bachelor of Arts Honours degree, majoring in History, from Waikato University. Heather worked as a researcher for the Crown Forestry Rental Trust from 1993 to 1995, during which time she co-authored the Maori Land Legislation Manual. Heather was a staff member at the Waitangi Tribunal from June 1995 to October 1996, and has written research reports on the Otawa No 2 blocks (Wai 210) and the urbanisation of Maungatapu and Hairini (Wai 342 and Wai 370).

All opinions, unless otherwise stated, are those of the authors. This report is a historical narrative, largely compiled from written sources. Although traditional evidence is cited, the report does not claim to speak for Maori. It is anticipated that the evidence produced in this report will be supplemented at Tribunal hearings by submissions from those Maori affected by the events herein described.

Statement of Claim (see Appendix One)

The Wai 47 statement of claim was lodged with the Waitangi Tribunal in February 1990. The claim was made on behalf of Ngati Pukenga, Ngaiterangi and Ngati Ranginui by William Ohia, who was then the chair of the Tauranga Moana Maori Trust Board. The claim lists several grievances relating to the whole of Tauranga Moana, including raupatu, compensation paid under the Tauranga Moana Trust Board Act 1981, Tauranga Harbour, and specific sites of significance.

This report has been produced as a result of a commission from the Tribunal to research one aspect of the Wai 47 claim:

5. The failure of the Crown to provide for the control and management by the claimant iwi and hapu of reserve areas and wahi tapu of special significance to them, namely:

Mauao (Mount Maunganui)
Mangatawa Hill (Maunga Mana)
Pukewhanake
Otawhiwhi Reserve
Nga Kuri a Wharei
Huharua (Plummers Point)
Monmouth Redoubt

Mauao and Monmouth Redoubt are under research as part of commissions for other Tauranga claims (Wai 540 and Wai 580 respectively). This report covers Otawhiwhi Reserve, and separate reports have also been completed under this research commission for Mangatawa, Pukewhanake, Huharua, and Nga Kuri a Wharei.

Location

This report focuses on the area known today as Bowentown Heads at the northern entrance to the Tauranga Harbour, overlooking Matakana Island. A sandy beach eight kilometres long with extensive sand dunes extends from Waihi Beach to the rocky headland at Bowentown. The other side of the peninsula is a tidal estuary (Waiau), facing towards Athenree (see figure 1). The headland contains prominent pa sites, including Te Kura a Maia, on which the terraced fortifications are still clearly visible.

For most of the last 100 years, the majority of the peninsula has been a public recreation reserve, known as the Katikati Domain or the Bowentown Domain. The 75 hectare reserve consists of lot 25 and lot 26, Parish of Katikati, including a long stretch of sand dunes on the ocean beach side and the headland. The reserve is used extensively by both visitors and the small local population, which is considerably increased over the summer months. Lots 25 and 26 were Crown land as a result of the Katikati Te Puna purchase. Today the reserve is vested in the Western Bay of Plenty District Council, who are responsible for its administration.

The name ‘Otawhiwhi’ traditionally refers to sandy flats on the estuary side, in front of the marae, which is also known as Otawhiwhi. The marae is situated on part of a 68 acre reserve created for Maori out of the Katikati Te Puna purchase (Lot 1, Parish of Katikati). Most of this reserve is still Maori freehold land today, held by the Whanau a Tauwhao hapu of Ngai te Rangi.

Issues

In 1982, as part of a submission to the Tauranga County Council and the Bay of Plenty Harbour Board, the Tauranga Moana District Maori Council had this to say about the Bowentown Heads/Otawhiwhi area:

The pa sites on the heads are all included in the Domain area which is public recreation area. The shoreline area adjacent to the marae to the foot of the Pa o Auturourou, and including the wahi tapu, the rock which provided the name Otawhiwhi, should be seen as part of the marae development. This area of Maori land is used by Whanau o Tauwhao for camping, as a base for fishing and gathering pipi and tuangi (cockles) from the nearby beds in the estuary of the Waiau. Because public camping and recreation areas are already provided in the Domain, with access to the harbour this area of shoreline and harbour should be seen as mainly, though not exclusively, used by Whanau o Tauwhao and visitors to the marae.¹

¹ ‘Maori Cultural Values and Planning for Tauranga Harbour’, Submission to Tauranga County Council and Bay of Plenty Harbour Board from Tauranga Moana District Maori Council, March 1982, in Evelyn Stokes, Te Raupatu o Tauranga Moana: Volume 2: Documents Relating to Tribal History, Confiscation and Reallocation of Tauranga Lands, University of Waikato, Hamilton, 1992, p 42

As this quote states, the domain is adjacent to an area that is both traditionally important to Maori, and is still used by Maori today. The domain itself also contains several important pa and wahi tapu sites. The development and management of the domain naturally impacts on the people of Otawhiwhi, one of the small areas of land remaining in Maori ownership after the Katikati Te Puna purchase.

This report focuses on the history of the administration of the recreation reserve under the Katikati Domain Board and the Department of Lands and Survey. It will be seen that throughout most of that administration, Maori had no involvement in decisions made on the use of the domain and little effort was made to protect the pa and wahi tapu sites. The history of the domain reveals conflicting views on what forms public use of a recreation reserve should take, and the increasing pressures and demands made on reserve land. This land is no longer owned by the Crown. It was vested in the Tauranga County Council.

Background History of Bowentown

The original inhabitants or tangata whenua of the region were Ngamarama. These people are thought to have built the terraced pa Te Kura a Maia. Today the earthworks and shell middens of Te Kura a Maia on the peninsula headland overlooking the northwestern entrance to Tauranga Harbour are still one of the best examples of a traditional Maori coastal fortification (see figure 2).² The Maori name for this area was Katikati (not to be confused with the site of the current town of Katikati).

According to the Historic Places Trust, the name Te Kura a Maia, when translated to English, means a training ground for young warriors, which is an apt description for a pa which was much fought over:³

Originally, the headland was just terraced, the ditch and bank across the headland being added later, but when the terraces were built, and when the ditch and bank were added is not known. There are many pa around Tauranga but terraced pa like Te Kura a Maia are uncommon, and are possibly an early form.

A pa such as Te Kura a Maia could have held scores of people, although it is unlikely that so many people would have lived on Te Kura a Maia all the time. The terraces would have needed rebuilding every three or four years, store houses for food, tools and weapons, and cooking places with ovens and fireplaces. Fences around the terraces would have provided shelter.

How the pa was originally defended is not known. There was probably a palisade across the headland and it is quite likely that fighting stages, large wooden platforms on tall posts designed to give a height advantage to the occupants, were situated behind the palisade and on some terraces. The ditch and bank are a later form of defence on the pa, and from their location would appear to coincide with a decrease in the size of the defended area.⁴

² Janet M. Davidson, ‘The Polynesian Foundation’ in W.H. Oliver & B.R. Williams (eds) The Oxford History of New Zealand, Oxford University Press, Wellington, 1981, p26

³ B.G. McFadgen and A.M. Williams, Pa Sites of the Western Bay of Plenty, Department of Conservation, Wellington, 1991, p 19

⁴ McFadgen, pp 4-5

Further histories of Maori occupation of the area can be found in the next section of the report.

After Pakeha settlement of the Bay of Plenty commenced, the ‘Katikati’ area was given the name of Bowentown after Governor Sir George Bowen who camped in the area in 1869. The first Pakeha settlers at Katikati referred to the twin headland as the Katikati Heads, and locals referred to the Maori settlement to the north of the heads as Bowentown. The recreation reserve was gazetted in 1897. The reserve was soon recognised by local authorities as a valuable source of revenue. In 1897 a charge was levied for camping which was locally referred to as a ‘firewood, fish and pipi tax’.⁵ Further information about the early history of the domain can be found in part 5 of this report.

At the turn of the century, trading scows regularly travelled between Tauranga, Bowentown, Katikati and Auckland carrying kauri and other cargo. Supplies were landed north of the heads where the land was flat and a post office and boarding house had been built in 1874. A store was built at Bowentown in 1906 and by 1910, when a stone wharf was built, the settlement had become a popular picnic destination. Between 1908 and 1911, a road from Waihi to Waihi Beach was formed which made access to Bowentown possible via the Ocean Beach route. Regattas were frequently held at Bowentown during these early years of the century and were a highlight of the year for Waihi and Katikati people:

Maori and Pakeha gathered at Otawhiwhi at Christmas-New Year to enjoy themselves with athletics, wrestling, chopping events, a rowing regatta and horse racing on the beach opposite Athenree. There were bonfires at night and dancing, with music by the Waihi Band, which ineluded several Otawhiwhi people.⁶

Bowentown has remained a popular holiday destination for both Maori and Pakeha. However, the area and the domain have in more recent times been dominated and controlled by Crown-appointed local boards. This land is now vested in the local council. The local tangata whenua have been largely excluded and are virtually invisible in the written records of the administration of the domain. The feeling of partnership and shared entertainments identified in the above quote was less evident in later years.

⁵ Evelyn Stokes, Whanau A Tauwhao: A History of a Ngaiterangi Hapu, Occasional Paper No 8, Centre for Maori Studies and Research, University of Waikato, Hamilton, 1980, p 72

⁶ Stokes, 1980, foreword

2. TRADITIONAL HISTORIES

This section has been compiled from written accounts of Maori histories of Katikati, and is largely taken from Stokes’ history of the Ngaiterangi hapu Whanau a Tauwhao, who are most closely identified with the area today. Stokes herself notes that the various traditions regarding battles for occupation of the area are confusing and contradictory. This report only outlines some of the histories relating to Maori occupation of the area, which show the significance of the headland pa in Maori history. It is not intended to explain who has mana whenua of the region.

The original inhabitants of the area were Ngamarama, and waka traditions record the presence of tangata whenua at Bowentown. Strategically, Te Kura a Maia pa was well placed to observe the arrival of the Tainui and Te Arawa waka respectively as they travelled up the Tauranga Harbour in a north westerly direction. The Tainui waka entered Tauranga Harbour at Mount Maunganui and became grounded on a sand bar:

The commander, Hoturoa, looked around for the cause of this mishap and found it in Wahinerua. The old lady was thrown overboard and her body drifted ashore to become known as Kuia Rock. Tainui continued into the harbour and anchored off Rangiwaea at the anchorage called Tauranga, from which the region takes its name, before moving on. As Tainui sailed up the western harbour, some of her ballast was deposited at Ratahi, in the shallow waters between Matakana and Matahui on the mainland. At Katikati, the old name for Bowentown Heads, Tainui people were hospitably received by Ngamarama and some Tainui decided to stay.

Te Arawa sailed west to Moehau, which the commander Tamatekapua claimed for his burial place, then turned back into the Bay of Plenty, following along the coast At Katikati they found that some Tainui people had already settled among Ngamarama.⁷

The Ngamarama are said to have been displaced by a section of the Tainui tribe from Hauraki, Ngai Tamatera. Two or three hundred years ago, the pa Te Kura a Maia was the site of ferocious fighting when Ngaiterangi invaded the Tauranga region. At this point in time the pa was occupied by another Hauraki tribe, Ngati Mara. Ngaiterangi took the pa as utu for the murder of one of their chiefs by a Ngati Mara from Paeroa.⁸

The name Otawhiwhi comes from this battle and involves the butchering and eating of the chief of Te Kura a Maia, Hotorua. The body of Hotorua was eaten raw before the umu could be prepared for its cooking. Hotorua’s entrails were spread out on a rock and since this time the sandy flats near where the marae is situated are known as Otawhiwhi.⁹

Because this region was such a desirable place to live it was frequently fought over. Traditionally the area has been valued for its estuary, harbour and beaches as a valuable kai moana resource, the light sandy soils for kumara planting, and the nearby ranges for birds and berry hunting and gathering.¹⁰ The desirability of the area to its inhabitants and outsiders is evident in a local waiata, quoted by Stokes, which warns off aggressors:

⁷ Stokes, 1980, p 18

⁸ Stokes, 1980, p 21

⁹ Stokes, 1980, p 21

¹⁰ Stokes, 1980, p 18

E uhi tai uhi tai

E uhi tai uhi tai

Kei uhi tai ana ko nga manga ki Otawhiwhi

Kei tutuki te waewae

Ki te poro o te piaka

Uhi tai uhi tai

The tide flows

The tide flows in

The sea covers the estuaries up to Otawhiwhi

Feet may strike against the sharp young shoots of the mangrove

The tide flows on into the land.¹¹

Katikati was the most northerly Ngaiterangi settlement, and became a disputed frontier area between Ngaiterangi and various Hauraki tribes from the Waihi area, such as Ngati Tamatera, Ngati Mara and Ngati Tara.

There are a number of versions as to how this area, now known as Bowentown Heads, got its original name of Katikati. One version relates to the murder of a Ngaiterangi chief:

A woman called Pareaute, who had been living at Matakana, married a young Ngati Mara chief called Rangitoro and went to live with him at Paeroa. Sometime later her brother Kahaute, came to visit them and was warmly received. When he left to return to Matakana, Rangitoro followed his brother-in-law, and kill him.¹²

Rangitoro butchered the body and returned with the body parts to Paeroa. His distraught wife returned to her people at Matakana. She left Paeroa with her dead brother’s severed arm wrapped in a flax mat. She hid the arm in the cleft of a rock at Papatu at Katikati. After hearing her story a group of warriors set out to seek utu:

At Papatu they found the arm which confirmed the story of Pareaute. But it had been nibbled by rats and they exclaimed, “Ha Katikati !”. The war party then went on to storm the heights of Te Kura a Maia which was then occupied by Ngati Mara people and took the pa by surprise.¹³

Other versions for the origins of the name Katikati include a Te Arawa account. The Arawa waka landed at Katikati and the people began to cook themselves a meal. They sighted a large area of mangroves which, from a distance, they believed to be a patch of kumara. The women are reported to have said that there was now no need to continue carrying the kumara they had brought from Hawaiki to plant:

The women had their way, but Tamatekapua, commander of Te Arawa, was not very happy with the decision and spent a long time eating his share of kumara. Hence the place was named Te Katikati a Tamatekapua, the nibbling of Tamatekapua.¹⁴

¹¹ Stokes, 1980, p 18

¹² Stokes, 1980, p 20

¹³ Stokes, 1980, p 20

¹⁴ Stokes, 1980, p 20

Fortunately for those concerned, the wife of Tamatekapua, Whakaotirangi, refused to be parted from her supply of kumara and hid seven tubers in her kit which were planted at Maketu and over time multiplied to become many.

According to Stokes, the account best known amongst Whanau a Tauwhao relates that a decomposing body, that was further disfigured by the feeding of sea lice, was washed up in a cave at the Katikati Heads entrance below the pa Te Kura a Maia. The body was identified by its tattooing:

as being that of Pukeko of Ngati Tamatera, who had married a woman of Ngati Awa, and lived at Whakatane. On one of his journeys back to his own people, he had been drowned at sea. The body was hung on a tree in the cove called Paraparaumu, now known as Shelly Bay.¹⁵

No doubt the claimants will wish to present oral evidence to the Tribunal which more fully conveys these matters and the special significance of Otawhiwhi to them.

¹⁵ Stokes, 1980, p 20

3. CROWN ACQUISITION

The Katikati Te Puna Purchase

The Crown’s title to land at Bowentown derives from the confiscation of the Tauranga district in 1865, and the subsequent purchase of the Katikati and Te Puna blocks by Crown agents. Legal recognition of Maori ownership of Otawhiwhi also derives from the Katikati Te Puna purchase (see figure 3). It is not the intention of this report to provide an historical account of the circumstances surrounding the purchase, and readers requiring further detail should consult reports which have been prepared for the Wai 215 inquiry, such as Evelyn Stokes, Te Raupatu O Tauranga Moana: The Confiscation of Tauranga Lands, and Hazel Riseborough, ‘The Crown and Tauranga Moana’.¹⁶

The entire Tauranga district (approximately 290,000 acres¹⁷), from Nga Kuri a Wharei to Wairakei, was initially confiscated under the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863 on 18 May 1865.¹⁸ During peace negotiations held between Governor Grey and some Tauranga chiefs Grey promised that only one quarter of the confiscated lands would be retained by the Crown, and the remaining three-quarters would be returned to Maori ownership. However, out of the three-quarters returned, the Crown immediately arranged to purchase a substantial area north of the Te Puna Stream, amounting to 93,188 acres.¹⁹ This area has become known as the Katikati Te Puna purchase.

The purchase was achieved by a series of deeds signed by various groups of Maori. Initially the purchase was made from only eight Ngaiterangi chiefs, as described by Professor Keith Sorrenson:

late in August a party of chiefs visited Auckland to urge Grey to return their land. After discussions they returned home prepared to sell the Katikati Te Puna block to the Government. Clarke wasted no time in making a deal with these chiefs. On 26 August he paid them £1000 for the land. Only eight chiefs of the Ngaiterangi tribe signed this agreement - Enoka, Hohepa, Parere, Turere, Tomika, Reeia, Hamiora Tu and Tamati Hawao. Some of them had not been engaged in the fighting and had little claim to the block. This could not be considered a complete or valid purchase. Important Ngaiterangi chiefs including Tupaea, were not included; and other tribes who had claims to the block were completely ignored. The purchase created a great deal of dissatisfaction among left out claimants…²⁰

As a result of protests and petitions by other Maori with claims to the blocks, Civil Commissioners James Mackay Jr and Henry Clarke held a series of arbitrations on the

¹⁶ Evelyn Stokes, Te Raupatu o Tauranga Moana: The Confiscation of Tauranga Lands, University of Waikato, 1990 (Wai 215, A2), Hazel Riseborough, ‘The Crown and Tauranga Moana’, Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 1994, (Wai 215, A23). The summary of the purchase provided in this report largely follows Rachael Willan, ‘Katikati Railway Station Report’, Waitangi Tribunal, 1996, pp 9-12.

¹⁷ ‘Report of the Royal commission on Confiscated lands and other Grievances’, Appendices to the Journals of the House of Representatives (AJHR), 1928, G-7, p 19

¹⁸ New Zealand Gazette, 1865, p 187

¹⁹ Vincent O’Malley, ‘The Aftermath of the Tauranga Raupatu’, An overview report commissioned by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 1995 (Wai 215, A22), p 5

²⁰ M.P.K. Sorrenson, ‘Tauranga Confiscation: Submission to Select Committee on Maori Affairs’, 4 September 1978, reproduced in the Raupatu Document Bank, vol 139, pp 53355-53356

Katikati Te Puna blocks. Records of the commissioners’ decisions can be found in Stokes, Te Raupatu of Tauranga Moana: Volume 2: Documents Relating to Tribal History, Confiscation and Reallocation of Tauranga Lands.²¹ As a result, payments were made to other tribes and more payments were made to members of Ngaiterangi. The commissioners also agreed to set aside as reserves certain urupa and kainga within the purchased area.

As regards the Katikati block, the main claimant heard by Mackay and Clarke was Te Moananui, representing Hauraki tribes. Stokes has compiled a map (see figure 4) demonstrating Ngaiterangi’s and Te Moananui’s claims to the block, which shows the Otawhiwhi area as belonging to Hori Tupaea, a chief of Whanau a Tauwhao.²² The headland area on the map was divided into three blocks; the coastal side was listed as belonging to Te Hiwi and Te Omanu, the headland point belonged to Whakaraka, and the harbour side of the headland was said to be claimed by both Ngaiterangi and Te Moananui. Mackay and Clarke decided that Moananui did have valid claims to the block, on the grounds of having been in occupation of the area prior to the Ngapuhi invasion. They recommended that the purchase money for the block should be equally divided between Ngaiterangi and Ngatitamatera.²³

Historians have argued, given the circumstances in which the purchase was made, that it was, in effect, a compulsory sale and part of the confiscation of the Tauranga district. Stokes has commented:

The Katikati Te Puna Purchase, in the circumstances, must be seen as having the nature of a compulsory purchase. There were certainly many unwilling sellers and subsequent disputes over the ‘rights’ of “Ngaiterangi chiefs” to sell.²⁴

And:

Local people, however, were not really in a position to negotiate the terms of purchase and had little choice but to accept the government’s offer.²⁵

The arbitrations which occurred after the initial agreement to purchase had been made were really to decide who should receive payment for the block rather than to obtain consent to the sale.

It is not only revisionist historians who have described the purchase as a form of confiscation. One contemporary Crown official, at least, felt the same way about the purchase. In 1865 William Fox, the Colonial Secretary, wrote to Governor Grey:

²¹ Stokes, 1992, pp 87-116

²² ‘Te Moananui’s land claims: Map redrawn from Mackay’s “Copy of sketch plan of land at Tauranga as drawn by Te Moananui on the floor of the Wesleyan Chapel, Auckland, on the 12^th December 1864”, in Stokes, 1992, p 88

²³ ‘Report on Te Moananui’s and Ngaiterangi claims to lands at Katikati District of Tauranga’, in Stokes, 1992, pp 90-91

²⁴ Stokes, 1990, p 45

²⁵ Stokes, 1990, p 40

the Colonial Secretary expects unlimited claims of the same sort as these wherever the Cession principle may be attempted, none of which would probably have been heard of had the principle laid down in His Excellency’s proclamation of 11^th July 1863 been consistently adhered to and made the basis of what is after all a forced acquisition of native lands under the colour of a voluntary sale [emphasis added].²⁶

Ngaiterangi Deed

There were at least five separate deeds drawn up for the Katikati and Te Puna blocks, but it was the No 3 deed which provided for the allocation of a Native reserve at Otawhiwhi.

The deed was drawn up by Janies Mackay Jnr on 3 November 1866, and further receipts and signatures were added on 10 December 1866, 24 June 1867 and 23 January 1868²⁷ The deed was written in both Maori and English, and the following summary is taken from the English language version. The deed was a ‘full and final sale conveyance and surrender’ by those chiefs whose signatures were attached, who:

by signing this Deed under the shining sun of this day parted with and for ever transferred unto Victoria Queen of England Her heirs the Kings and Queens who may succeed Her and their Assigns for ever.

In return they were to receive £7,700. The deed included a description of the boundaries of the block and specified that the sale of the land included ‘its trees minerals waters rivers lakes streams and all apertaining to the said Land or beneath the surface of the said Land.’

The deed was signed on 3 November 1866 by:²⁸

The signatures were witnessed by Henry T. Clarke, Civil Commissioner, and H.N. Warner, survey department.

A receipt for payment of £700 was added on 10 December 1866, which was signed by:

The receipt was witnessed by W.G. Mair, Resident Magistrate, and R. J. Gill, Clerk.

On 24 June 1867 a receipt for £3,000 was signed by:

²⁶ William Fox to Governor Grey, 24 September 1865, G 17/3 No 15, National Archives, Wellington

²⁷ Te Puna and Katikati Block No. 3, Tauranga, Bay of Plenty District, H.H. Turton, Maori Deeds of Land Purchase in the North Island of New Zealand, Wellington, Government Printer, 1877-1878, No 461

²⁸ The names have been capitalised, or not, depending on the spelling in the original.

The final receipt, for £3,000, was signed on 23 January 1868 by:

This was again witnessed by Mair and Gill.

Attached to the deed was a list of lands to be returned to Maori, which included Otawhiwhi. It was awarded to ‘Patu, Turere, Te Ninihi, and others’, and was said to be 100 acres.

Reserves in the Katikati block were surveyed in 1868 and the Otawhiwhi reserve became lot 1 in the Parish of Katikati. Although the deed said the reserve was a 100 acre area, the survey plan measured lot 1 as only 68 acres.²⁹ This was slightly adjusted in 1890, when a further survey showed the area as being 68 acres 3 roods.³⁰ The land was described on the survey plan as having light soil, with gorse and manuka growth.³¹

Ngatimaru and Ngatitamatera Deed

The deed of purchase from those Maori from Hauraki who had claimed ownership rights in Katikati was called Te Puna and Katikati No 4’.³² The deed was dated 3 September 1866, and recorded that £1,130 was paid to ‘the Chiefs and People of the Tribes Ngatimaru and Ngatitamatera.’ This deed was signed by:

²⁹ SO 14386

³⁰ SO 5737

³¹ Ibid

³² Te Puna and Katikati Block No. 4, Tauranga, Bay of Plenty District, Turton, No 460

There was no condition that reserves would be set aside included in this deed.

4. OTAWHIWHI RESERVE AND MARAE

Occupation of the Reserve

As a result of the Katikati Te Puna No 3 deed, a Crown grant for lot 1, Katikati Parish, dated 5 January 1869, was made in favour of Te Patu, Turere and Te Ninihi in trust for ‘Ngaitauwhao’.³³ Whanau a Tauwhao were also known as ‘Urungawera’, and have a close association with the sea and coastal areas. Their traditional settlement areas have been Tuhua, Motiti, Rangiwaea and Otawhiwhi. They also have an association with the Alderman Islands which were used as a base for fishing expeditions.³⁴ A census of Tauranga’s Maori population in 1878 listed 45 members of Urungawera living at Katikati and Tuhua, and in 1881 Urungawera were said to be living at Tuapiro and Tuhua, and 26 Whanau a Tauwhao were living at Rangiwaea.³⁵ Ngatirau and Ngatiteoteo had a population of 50 living at Katikati and Rereatukahia.³⁶

A new meeting house was built at Otawhiwhi in the late 1880s.³⁷ By the end of the nineteenth century, Otawhiwhi and Rangiwaea were the main marae for Whanau a Tauwhao, as the last of Whanau a Tauwhao at Tuhua had left there in 1901 to settle with their whanau at Otawhiwhi.³⁸ The present meeting house (Tamaoho) was constructed in 1916.³⁹

Following this, steps were taken to clarify the ownership of the land. The 1869 Crown grant only listed Te Patu, Turere, and Te Ninihi as owners, which meant that by the 1920s the occupiers of the land, as well as members of Whanau a Tauwhao living elsewhere, had no legal recognition of their ownership of the block. An application was therefore made to have the beneficial owners of the block determined. This had to be done under Part V of the Native Land Act 1909, which empowered the Native Land Court to ascertain the equitable owners of land held by nominal owners in trust for persons not named in the title to the land. However, section 108 of the Act said that the court could not exercise this jurisdiction over confiscated lands which had been granted to Maori unless the trust in the Crown grant was insufficiently defined. Accordingly, on 30 January 1918 an Order in Council was issued which declared that the Crown grant for lot 1, Katikati Parish, did contain an insufficiently defined trust. The Native Land Court was therefore authorised to:

determine who (if any) are the persons entitled beneficially to the said land, and in what relative interests, and to order the inclusion of those persons in the title together with or in lieu of the nominal owners, and if necessary or expedient, to partition the said land among the persons so found entitled.⁴⁰

The court could also cancel the existing title to the land and issue a new title.

³³ Tauranga Minute Book, vol 11, fol 60, 7 March 1922

³⁴ Stokes, 1980, p 1

³⁵ Stokes, 1990, p 161

³⁶ Stokes, 1990, p 161

³⁷ Stokes, 1980, p 70

³⁸ Evelyn Stokes, A History of Tauranga County

³⁹ Stokes, 1980, p 72

⁴⁰ New Zealand Gazette, 1918, p 395

The owners of the land were determined by the Native Land Court at a hearing on 7 March 1922.⁴¹ At the hearing Petera Te Ninihi explained the ownership of the land:

I am nephew of Te Ninihi named in Crown Grant.

I have made up a list of original Ngatitawhao & also a list up to date. I have all the Ngatitawhao in the list.

When land granted the Crown Grant (the ?) said it was for only those people of Ngatitawhao who lived at Rangiwaea.

In my list I have included people who were allowed to go on land thro’ aroha. They lived at Tuhua, and are of the Urungawera Hapu.

They were at Tuhua when land was granted, but they went to Punakiwai, near Whangamata, & so thro aroha my elders got them to come and live on Katikati No 1. Then they applied to govt for some land - & they were given it - at Waiau - under Urungawera. They were to have equal shares, but some got greater shares than others.

Everyone in Tauranga knew them as Urungawera, & for less than 20 years they called them Ngaitawhao.

I amended my list to include all persons now living on the land. I have in it all the original Ngaitawhao & their descendants. We have had meetings lately of people from all around. Some from the land itself and some from Matakana Is.

I have list of original names. No rightful owners has been left out.⁴²

The lists compiled by Te Ninihi were read out in the court, and passed without objection. The court then ordered that those people named in the ‘up to date’ list were the beneficial owners of the land, and cancelled the previous Crown grant. In September 1923 the Native Land Court partitioned the Katikati No 1 block, in accordance with an arrangement prepared by the owners.⁴³ This partition also created the 1A meeting house site. In 1940 a burial ground site was partitioned from the 1B block, to be Katikati 1B1.⁴⁴

As well as sorting out title to the land, facilities at the marae continued to be improved throughout the 1920s and 1930s when there were about 200 Maori living at Otawhiwhi.⁴⁵ The meeting house was renovated about 1925, and the next step was to build a dining hall. The arguments for building a dining hall were both cultural and practical:

Before that calico tablecloths were laid on the ground and the people sat around them and were served their food. Occasionally, when the weather was really bad, the food would be laid out on cloths on the floor in the centre of the meeting house.⁴⁶

In November 1935, under the direction of Tukumaru Roretana and 17 other marae representatives, an application was made to the Maori Purposes Fund Board for a subsidy to defray some of these building costs. The application was supported by the local Member of Parliament, Taite Te Tomo.⁴⁷ Roretana met with the Secretary of the

⁴¹ Tauranga Minute Book, vol 11, fols 60-62, 7 March 1922

⁴² Ibid

⁴³ Tauranga Minute Book, vol 11, fols 222-223, 21 September 1923

⁴⁴ see New Zealand Gazette, 1977, p 1020

⁴⁵ Bay of Plenty Times, June 1974

⁴⁶ Stokes, 1980, p 72

⁴⁷ Taite Te Tomo to Native Department, 11 November 1935, Maori Affairs (MA) 1 26/9/9/5 Katikati, National Archives (NA) Wellington [pp 1-2], [Numbers in [] refer to pages of the Document Bank.]

Maori Purposes Fund Board, H.R. Balneavis, in Wellington on 12 November 1935. Roretana, on Balneavis’ instructions, gathered quotes for the costs of building materials.⁴⁸ The marae also supplied Balneavis with £38 to be held in the Maori Purposes Fund.⁴⁹

In February 1936 the marae went ahead and ordered the building supplies they required. Balneavis was surprised by this move and replied:

I have to state that the incurring of expense for the timber required for this proposed Meeting-house should not have been made until the Board had considered the Natives application for a subsidy and until a grant had actually been made.

As you have guaranteed this account, I think payment of the sum £38 should be made to you, but I am unable to do this at present as a resolution requires to be passed by the Board before that sum can be paid out of the Maori Purposes Fund. Such a resolution cannot be passed until the Board meets about the middle of March next year, at which meeting the application by the Natives for a subsidy will also come up for consideration.⁵⁰

By March 1937 the marae had yet to receive a reply from the fund board. Roretana spoke to Langstone, a Member of Parliament who was visiting the area. Langstone was sympathetic to the marae’s predicament and agreed with Roretana that ‘the £38 which the Tauwhao have had on deposit in the Maori Purposes Fund since Dec 18^th 1935 (receipt No 95) be sent to pay the enclosed bill.’⁵¹ The Native Affairs Department also wrote to Balneavis inquiring about the Tauwhao funds. Balneavis stated that at past meetings the fund board did not have sufficient funds to grant a subsidy, and that the matter had been deferred until the next meeting where the board would then pay the £38 plus the subsidy amount to the timber company to cover the total cost of the building materials.⁵²

Balneavis by this stage appears to have been thoroughly embarrassed by the board’s inability to repay the marae’s money. At no stage during this entire business was interest on the marae’s money mentioned. By October 1937 Kelso informed Balneavis that he and Roretana had personally paid the £13 extra owed to the timber company, and requested that the £38 being held on their behalf be paid direct to the timber company.⁵³ Kelso suggested that if a subsidy was approved in the future it could be used to pay for interior fittings for the house. Balneavis once again responded with an apologetic letter, saying that while the fund board had resolved to pay the £38 to the timber company, it was unable to provide a subsidy.⁵⁴

Roretana, who was still corresponding with government departments in the early 1950s, wrote to the Minister of Lands raising two matters of concern:

In the matter of a Maori Burial ground of 1886-1927 approximately 1 acres situated at what is known as Bowen Town Domain Reserve. It is the desire of the Local Sub-Tribe (Tauwhaao) to have this Area officially recognised and defined.

⁴⁸ Balneavis to Tukumaru Roretana, 18 December 1935, MA 1 26/9/9/5 Katikati, NA Wellington

⁴⁹ Balneavis to Kelso, 18 December 1935, MA 1 26/9/9/5 Katikati, N A Wellington

⁵⁰ Balneavis to Kelso, 12 February 1936, MA 1 26/9/9/5 Katikati, NA Wellington

⁵¹ Roretana and Kelso to Balneavis, 15 March 1937, MA 1 26/9/9/5 Katikati, NA Wellington [p 5]

⁵² Balneavis to Minister of Native Affairs, 17 June 1937, MA 1 26/9/9/5 Katikati, NA Wellington

⁵³ Kelso to Balneavis, 18 October 1937, MA 1 26/9/9/5 Katikati, NA Wellington [pp 8-9]

⁵⁴ Balneavis to Kelso, 18 November 1937, MA 1 26/9/9/5 Katikati, NA Wellington

In the matter of what is presumed to be a Maori Reserve 50 acres more or less situated in the said Reserve (Bowen Town Domain) and adjoining Katikati Lot 1 (68 acres) and Maori Owned. It is the desire of members of the Tauwhaao Sub-Tribe, Owners of Lot 1 Katikati to approach the Minister for Lands as to the possibility of having this Area handed over to them for Development, as the Said 68 acres Lot 1 Katikati is now too small and uneconomic to settle.⁵⁵

He also made personal submissions to the Minister of Maori Affairs regarding the burial ground and the possibility of having an area of the domain handed over to the hapu for development. In response, the Minister of Maori Affairs said that the burial reserve had been defined as Katikati 1B1, an area of 2 roods, by the partition order of 1940.³⁶ In order to have it officially recognised as a burial reserve, an application would need to be made to have it set aside as a Maori reservation under the Maori Purposes Act 1937. As regards the 50 acre area of the domain (presumably lot 25), which Roretana thought might be a Maori reserve, the Minister informed him that this was Crown land, and suggested that he approach the Commissioner of Crown Lands to see whether it was available for purchase. Presumably the Minister of Maori Affairs was unaware that it had been set aside as a recreation reserve.

Roretana’s approaches to these government departments indicate that Whanau a Tauwhao had insufficient land reserved for them, and thought that they had some rights to the land reserved as a public domain. Given that the domain board granted grazing rights to certain farmers as a means of earning revenue from the domain (see part 6), it would have been possible to make some sort of arrangement which allowed Whanau a Tauwhao use of the domain land to supplement their own reserved land.

Marae Renaissance

Despite the fact that many local Maori felt compelled to leave the area in the 1960s and 1970s for work, education and other opportunities, the marae has retained its place as the focal point for Whanau o Tauwhao: ‘Many return regularly to gather shellfish from the rich beds nearby, to camp and to visit relatives.’ During the 1970s a renewed interest in the marae was fostered through hui and the marae newsletter ‘Te Papaunahi’.⁵⁷

In June 1977 the first issue of the newsletter, ‘Te Papaunahi’, was issued so that the scattered Whanau a Tauwhao could maintain contact. The newsletter reminded the people that they had in the past been dispersed between Rangiwaea, Otumoetai, Otawhiwhi, Tuhua, Motiti and the Alderman Islands, and that salt water was still in their blood. The newsletter went on to remind the people of the common bond which united the people of Tauwhao:

⁵⁵ Roretana to Minister of Lands, date obscured, MA 1 21/1/40 Katikati Burial Tauranga, NA Wellington

⁵⁶ Minister of Maori Affairs to Roretana, 18 July 1952, MA 21/1/40 Katikati Burial Tauranga, NA Wellington [p 10]

⁵⁷ Katikati Advertiser, 15 April 1986

Otawhiwhi is one of the last maraes, which, despite its run-down and neglected appearance, still occupies one of the choicest seaside holiday spots in the Tauranga Harbour. A place where the peaceful harbour waters virtually lap against the front step, where one gathers mataitai in abundance, and the fish are virtually begging someone to hold out a pan, is a rarity in this time and place. For some summers now, families have quietly gone to Otawhiwhi, pitched their tents and relaxed in the sun, while their children sported safely in the cool clear water nearby. Perhaps these were the first stirrings of the slumbering spirit of Tauwhao. People began to talk about the marae so a general meeting was called.⁵⁸

‘Te Papaunahi’ reports that on 26 September 1976 a hui had been held to discuss the future requirements of the marae. It was decided that the entire marae needed work. A three stage project was devised to provide an ablution block, dining hall (Tauwhao), and meeting house (Tamaoho). At this hui a steering committee was elected to find out the legal status of the marae reserve and its accessway, and to identify Tauwhao hapu connections.

In October 1976 a second meeting was held where it was reported by the steering committee that the block was listed only as a meeting house site. This meant that an application would have to be made to have the marae and urupa declared Maori reservations. This was done by March 1977, when it was declared that Katikati 1B1 was set aside as a Maori reservation for the purpose of an urupa, and section 1A was set aside as a marae, recreation ground and Maori cultural centre for the common use and benefit of Ngai Tauwhao.⁵⁹

On New Year’s day 1980 a hui was held to discuss the marae and its future. At this hui a scroll was displayed which identified the descendants of Tauwhao. The future of the marae looked promising, particularly as the ‘approaches to the County Council about the access to the marae had been well received.’ The steering committee had been told by the council that:

legal access was along the waterfront, but because this would be costly to build and maintain, discussion revolved around an access from Seaforth Road. This matter is now before the County Council’s Planning Committee. At the meeting, April 24^th, it was reported that gazetting was completed, so the nominated Trustees could now be lodged with the Court for approval.⁶⁰

The last general meeting was held at the Moana Community Centre in Tauranga. A sizeable crowd gathered to support the marae’s initiatives. This good turnout was credited, in part, to an article in the Bay of Plenty Times on 2 June 1977, which had a photograph of a decrepit looking meeting house and a story about plans to raise funds to rebuild and restore the marae.

Throughout the 1970s plans for the marae’s future began with the marae embarking on a long fundraising campaign. From 1977 to 1979 the marae also made applications to the Department of Maori Affairs for marae subsidies for planting trees and shelter belts so that kumara and maize could be produced on adjoining blocks. These

⁵⁸ Stokes, 1980, p 73

⁵⁹ New Zealand Gazette, 1977, p 1020

⁶⁰ Stokes, 1980, p 75

developments were finally completed in 1986 when the last of the three building stages was completed (see figure 12). The motivation for this work was to: ‘Retain the identity of Tauwhao.’⁶¹

⁶¹ Katikati Advertiser, 15 April 1986

5. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DOMAIN

Once the Katikati block had been purchased by the Crown, it was then surveyed and divided into allotments (see figure 5). The Bowentown isthmus was divided into 4 lots: lot 1 (68 acres 3 roods) was the Maori reserve, and lot 24 covered the centre of the isthmus, which at that stage was largely a swampy lagoon. The coastal strip and eastern tip of the headland became lot 26 (105 acres 2 roods) and the rest of the headland area was lot 25 (80 acres).

The survey plan drawn up in 1890 described lot 26 as ‘bare sand hills’, and lot 25 as ‘Fair soil with scrub manuka’.⁶² While lot 26 was probably regarded as Crown waste land, some revenue for the Crown was earned from lot 25, which was leased to Charles Harley, a Waihi farmer, from 1 January 1894 for a term of 25 years. The lease was a licence to occupy the land with a right of purchase, issued under sections 152 to 156 of the Land Act 1892.⁶³

The Bowentown Domain began to be created in 1897. The first step was to temporarily reserve lot 26 from sale under section 235 of the Land Act 1892. Shortly afterwards, as per section 236, the reservation was declared to be permanent. A proclamation was issued on 10 September 1897 which declared that lot 26 of the Parish of Katikati was reserved under section 236 of the Land Act 1892 for the purposes of public recreation.⁶⁴

The same procedure was followed in 1899 to reserve lot 25. After first being temporarily reserved from sale, the 80 acre lot was permanently reserved for public recreation under section 236 of the Land Act 1892, by a proclamation dated 20 May 1899.⁶⁵ It would appear that Harley’s occupation licence was not affected by the reservation. Presumably, the continued use of the land for grazing saved the Crown from having to maintain the reserve and control the spread of weeds.

While the reserve was held under the Land Act 1892, the Crown Lands Department was responsible for its administration. This responsibility was delegated to a local organisation in 1902. In February of that year a proclamation was issued which declared that the recreation reserve was brought under the operation of the Public Domains Act 1881, and would be managed and administered as directed by that Act.⁶⁶ At the same time, 21 February 1902, all powers of administration under the Public Domains Act 1881 were delegated to the Katikati Road Board.⁶⁷ The Order in Council said that the Katikati Road Board (to be known as the Katikati Domain Board) would have:

all the powers conferred by the said Act, except the powers conferred by sections five and twelve thereof, for the period of ten years from the date hereof (unless previously altered or revoked under the said Act).

⁶² SO 5737

⁶³ D.W. Kirk to County Clerk, Tauranga County Council, 19 February 1964, Katikati Domain Records, Western Bay of Plenty District Council, (WBoPDC)

⁶⁴ New Zealand Gazette, 1897, p 1637

⁶⁵ New Zealand Gazette, 1899, p 1053

⁶⁶ New Zealand Gazette, 1902, p 531

⁶⁷ New Zealand Gazette, 1902, p 530

The procedures of the board were set down as follows: to meet for business once a month; special meetings could be convened by the chairman or any other board member providing two days notice had been given; three members were required to form a quorum; the chairman had the casting vote; an annual report would be submitted to the Minister of Lands; if the chairman was not present at any meeting a fellow board member would take the chair; all questions would be decided by the majority vote.

In the first years of its administration the board seems to have continued leasing the reserve for grazing, and established a camping ground. According to Stokes, in its first year the board’s revenue was £10, raised from grazing leases and campers’ fees.⁶⁸ People in Waihi objected to these fees which were called ‘a firewood, fish and pipi tax.’ Later a wharf and pavillion were built by the board.

In 1922 a separate Katikati Domain Board was appointed, rather than the administration being vested in the Katikati Roads Board, which had functioned as the domain board. An Order in Council revoked the previous appointment of the Katikati Road Board, and appointed William Taylor, Walter Burgess, Noble Johnston, Frederick Kendall and Albert Putt to be the Katikati Domain Board.⁶⁹

In 1924 the Bay of Plenty Times described the domain as follows:

Right at hand is attractive fishing and numerous visitors are now patronising the resort, which promises to become one of the most popular watering places in the Auckland Province. Residence sites are let by the Board at 1 pound per annum and between thirty and forty houses are now erected on the reserve. There is also an accomodation house and store, and the Board is determined to do everything possible to increase the popularity of this charming resort.⁷⁰

The next section of this report describes the way the Katikati Domain Board went about developing the reserve.

⁶⁸ Stokes, 1980, p 72

⁶⁹ New Zealand Gazette, 1922, p 3142

⁷⁰ cited in Stokes, 1980, p 72

6. DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOMAIN

Tenants or Squatters, Baches or Shacks

Between 1902 and 1937 the Katikati Domain Board leased sites for baches on the saddle above Anzac Bay. Anzac Bay is located at the southern tip of Bowentown Heads facing towards Tauranga Harbour. It is sheltered by higher land on either side and has patches of bush that meet the water line. The board actively encouraged holiday makers to stay in the domain by pegging out tent and section sites. In 1934 the secretary of the board, C.T. Dunne summed up the board’s attitude toward people building baches:

I may say that among unofficial comments the case of families coming year after year and desiring a little comfort for the children during the holidays, erect a weather-proof shanty, are they expected to pull it down and re-erect it year after year just for a couple of months to sleep in?⁷¹

During this period 30 baches were built. In 1937 the tenants of these baches were advised by the board that in 20 years time they would have to vacate and remove their baches. In 1958, following an acrimonious legal battle, the tenants were evicted. The history of the board’s relationship with the bach owners illustrates conflicting ideas about the nature of ‘public reserves’ and the public’s rights to occupy coastal public land. This is illustrated by the fact that the tenants in early correspondence are referred to as ‘tenants’ with ‘baches’, and later as ‘squatters’ occupying ‘shacks.’ The reason for removing the tenants was so that the area could be used for the purpose it was set aside for, that is public recreation.⁷²

As early as 1923 Lands and Survey had agreed to the board making camp sites available, but instructed that the board’s aim ‘should always be to prevent the erection of permanent structures.’⁷³ However, by 1934 thirty baches, a bathing shed, two lavatories, and two dressing sheds, a recreation hall and a store had been built.⁷⁴ The board had informally leased the whole of the Bowentown Heads to W. Shannon for £70 per year. Shannon recovered costs by letting camp sites, grazing stock, and sales from the store.⁷⁵

In 1937 the Minister of Lands visited the area and directed the board to issue no further permits for buildings. Existing buildings were given a life of 20 years before the tenants would be required to vacate. The tenants were to be given notice that the baches would have to be removed by 31 March 1957.⁷⁶ However, it would appear that the Minister’s instructions were ignored, as in 1948 there was found to be over 40 baches in the domain, and alterations and additions had been made to the previously existing baches.⁷⁷ In 1949 the Crown solicitor instructed that a new notice should be issued that clearly forbid any alterations or additions to existing buildings. He also

⁷¹ Secretary Katikati Domain Board to Under Secretary for Lands, 15 December 1934, Katikati Domain Records, WBoPDC

⁷² as per New Zealand Gazette, 1897, p 1637

⁷³ Head Office Committee, Baches on Katikati Domain, 2 September 1954, LS 3/2/40

⁷⁴ Ibid

⁷⁵ Ibid

⁷⁶ Ibid

⁷⁷ Head Office Committee, Baches on Katikati Domain, 3 September 1954, LS 3/2/40

recommended that printed notices be placed at prominent places in the domain drawing attention to the final date for removal of all buildings. The board acted on these recommendations. They also decided to make an example of two bach owners and warned them that any further breaches of the tenancy would result in the baches being removed.⁷⁸ On 28 April 1952 eviction notices were issued to these two tenants giving them three months to remove their baches.⁷⁹ The tenants ignored the notices. The Director-General of Lands suggested that the board follow up its eviction notices by prosecuting the tenants. He also suggested that notices be delivered to all tenants reminding them of the ministerial decision that all the buildings must be removed by 1957. These notices were to be receipted so that definite evidence was established that the ‘squatters’ knew of the Minister’s decision.

In October 1954 the Crown solicitor was instructed to again examine the situation and advise whether he thought successful legal action could be taken to remove the tenants. The issue was complicated by the fact that the baches themselves were the property of the tenants and any action by the Crown solicitor under the Tenancy Act would have to concentrate on the land that each bach occupied. Section 6 of the Act exempted ‘camp sites’ from the definition of property if they were let for six weeks or less. It was decided to persevere with the Tenancy Act and argue that, because these sites were let for periods in excess of six weeks, they should be regarded as property.

In 1956 the board attempted to negotiate with the tenants to arrange for the baches to be removed.⁸¹ This was unsuccessful, and the board went ahead with plans to make a road through the sand dimes to the beach at Anzac Bay, which was to be levelled for a temporary camping ground once the baches had been removed.⁸² In response the bach owners appointed a committee and a solicitor to protect their interests.

In a letter to the Minister of Lands, the solicitor argued that the tenants were not what was commonly regarded as ‘squatters who occupied the land without colour of right but were reputable citizens’ who were actively encouraged by the board to build ‘permanent holiday baches under the supervision and with the approval of such Board’.⁸³ He went on to state that the tenants had acted in good faith and that the board had failed to honour this faith. He also argued that they had invested time and money in their baches. The solicitor maintained that the notice issued in 1937 was unreasonable under the circumstances when the tenants, rather than the board, owned the baches. The letter said that the tenants’ representatives felt that they had been ignored by the board and would like the Minister to intervene on their behalf.⁸⁴ However, the Minister responded that he fully supported the removal of the tenants and their baches.⁸⁵

⁷⁸ Director-General of Lands to Minister of Lands, 1957, LS 3/2/40

⁷⁹ Ibid

⁸⁰ Crown Solicitor to Commissioner of Crown Lands, 30 June 1956, LS 3/2/40

⁸¹ Commissioner of Crown Lands to Director-General of Lands, 1 June 1956, LS 3/2/40

⁸² Secretary Katikati Domain Board, Development Plan, 1 November 1956, Katikati Domain Records, WBoPDC

⁸³ Foy and Ryan to Minister of Lands, 22 February 1957, LS 3/2/40 [pp 47-50]

⁸⁴ Ibid

⁸⁵ Minister of Lands to Foy and Ryan, 19 March 1957, LS 3/2/40

On 3 October 1957 the case went before the court, which found in favour of the tenants:

In his written decision the Magistrate said that a tenancy had been created by reason of the acceptance of rent over a period of years. Having held that the sections were subject to the Tenancy Act, the questions of alternative accommodation and the relative hardship had to be considered.

The cottages had been built with the consent of the domain board, and the alternative accommodation was not acceptable to the tenants.⁸⁶

The Crown then appealed against the decision to the Supreme Court and sought possession of the reserve on the following grounds:

(a) That the occupiers had become tenants within the definition of the Tenancy Act by payment of ground rent to the Katikati Domain Board, and suitable alternative accommodation was available at the ocean front at Waihi beach; or

(b) That the occupiers were “squatters” holding their respective sites without right, title or license.⁸⁷

A hearing was held in the Supreme Court in Auckland on 22 April 1958. The judgment of T.A. Gresson was issued on 10 July 1958 in favour of the Crown. Judge Gresson reversed the decision of the Magistrate’s Court, and ordered that the tenants must vacate. In his judgment Gresson described the building of private baches on the small area of suitable domain land at Bowentown as being quite inconsistent with the proclaimed purpose of a domain. The judgment stated that a board had no legal powers to permit the erection of privately owned buildings on domains and that such occupiers had no protection under the Tenancy Act, and, as the land was provided for public rather than private recreation, then the Crown was entitled to its possession.⁸⁸

Even though the Supreme Court had brought judgment in favour of the Crown, the tenants refused to remove their baches. However, once the access road to the bay had been bulldozed, the baches too could be bulldozed. By December 1958 the area had been levelled.⁸⁹ In its annual report for that year the board declared it had been ‘a memorable year in the history of the Katikati Domain Board, in that it has seen the departure of the Bowentown squatters after many years of negotiation.’⁹⁰

Although it is clear from the judge’s interpretation of the legislation that the domain was intended for public rather than private use, the tenants who were evicted could rightly feel they had been badly treated by both the Crown and the board administering the domain. They built their holiday baches with the active encouragement of the board which pegged out sections. The board, for most of this time, was quite prepared to ignore the legislation because they were gaining revenue and free labour to maintain the domain. The history of the removal of the bach

⁸⁶ Evening Post, 3 October 1957 [p 43]

⁸⁷ Judgment in the Supreme Court of New Zealand Northern District Auckland Registry, 10 July 1958, LS 3/2/40 [pp 50-52]

⁸⁸ Ibid

⁸⁹ Ibid

⁹⁰ Katikati Domain Board, Annual Report for year ending 31 March 1959, Katikati Domain Records, WBoPDC [p 13]

owners illustrates conflicting ideas about the type of access that the public should have to coastal areas of land. However, at no stage was consideration given to which form of access or control local Maori would have preferred.

Promoting, Developing and Managing the Domain - 1950s Onwards

During the 1950s there was general recognition that Bowentown could be further developed as a holiday destination. At Bowentown, as with the rest of the Bay of Plenty, there was extensive work being done on improving road access which resulted in increased numbers of holiday makers to the area. The board actively engaged in promoting and developing the domain’s economic and recreational potential. This view was expressed by the Chairman of the Katikati Domain Board, H. Cooper, who stated the ‘varied attractions and the need to develop it so as to serve a greater population for many years to come.’⁹¹

The board got revenue to finance the domain’s development from government sources as well their own revenue earning ventures, such as cattle grazing, pine tree planting and sand extraction. The board was encouraged by the Crown Lands Department:

The Board has received an offer from a Mr. J. Ryan of Waitakaruru to lease the grazing of Bowentown Heads at an annual rental of £100. The Board recommended that this be accepted. The Board was informed that this office was not in accord with the leasing of the area at this figure and suggested the whole area should be re-examined and schemed to give a suitable area for picnic grounds in the two bays, an area for camping and approximately 50 acres of workable ground for development either by lease or by the Board into a grazing area.⁹²

This would have been an opportunity for the Crown Lands Department, had it so desired, to press for the 50 acres of development land to be leased by (or for) Roretana and his people in response to their appeals for more land in this area.

At the time, the board’s plans were referred to as ‘modernising’ the domain so that it would be a ‘credit to this productive and beautiful district, and afford recreation to the local residents as well as being attractive to tourists.’⁹³ A development plan for the domain was drawn up. It involved four stages;

1. The construction of roads through the sand dunes and the domain.

2. The digging of a bore and the construction of a water tank and pump site.

3. The building of a caretaker’s residence.

4. The clearing of potential farm land and the building of a permanent camping ground between Anzac Bay and the Ocean Beach.⁹⁴

During the late 1950s the cost of this development programme began to be a burden to the board. The board sought further financial assistance from the Tauranga County Council. Although the council was not the local body controlling the Bowentown

⁹¹ Secretary Katikati Domain Board to Commissioner of Crown Lands, 5 November 1956, Katikati Domain Records, WBoPDC

⁹² Commissioner of Crown Lands to the Director-General of Lands, 12 April 1954, LS 3/2/40

⁹³ Waihi Gazette, 29 July 1954

⁹⁴ Katikati Domain Board Development Plan for Bowentown Reserve, November 1956, Katikati Domain Records, WBoPDC

Domain, it agreed to assist financially. The eventual outcome of this arrangement was that ultimately control of the domain passed to the county council. From Lands and Survey’s perspective this was seen as being advantageous because it placed less of a strain on the Crown’s financial resources. A Lands and Survey field officer said in 1957:

I think the assistance given to the Katikati Domain Board by the Tauranga County Council is commendable and if you consider there is no irregularity or precedent being created, I would recommend that a £1 to £2 subsidy be offered to the County on the amount expended (£368.3s.9p.) in assisting the Katikati Domain Board with development work on Bowentown Heads Domain.⁹⁵

In 1960 the board began work on building the camping ground, with ablutions and kitchen facilities (see figure 6). The following year, electricity was installed with the aim of attracting more campers to the area. The cost was £4,900 which would be recovered by the increased usage of the domain. In 1961 the board issued a ‘Seven Yearly Report’ which identified the role of the Crown and the council in providing financial assistance, and commended the board on its own revenue generating ventures.⁹⁶ No such Crown assistance was, as far as we are aware, provided to Roretana and his people.

By 1963 the board was able to report that although the financial burden of developing the campsite was heavy, the use made of it by the public justified the expense. The board felt confident enough, to start new projects on the domain. These included the planting of trees, developing the parking area, improving the roads on the domain, and allowing the waterskiing club to flag areas for recreation at Shelly Bay.⁹⁷

By the mid 1960s Bowentown Domain was being actively promoted as a holiday destination in the Automobile Association Bulletin, and in national and regional newspapers, such as the article below from the Waihi Gazette in January 1964. This article shows the varied ways that the reserve was being used, but makes no mention of the cultural significance of the heads:

Beautiful Bowentown Bids Fair To Beat The Best Of Beaches

Hundreds Of Holidaymakers Discover Unique Attractions

This summer, many hundreds of campers, cararavaners, and day-trippers have really discovered Bowentown - and by no means are all of them strangers to the area. The grand work of a most enthusiastic Katikati Domain Board under the aegis of the Tauranga County Council, has really opened up this historic area, which has everything in natural scenic beauty that better known resorts provide and much more besides.

The old adage, you need a boat for Bowentown, is no more. Even for the day visitors there is surf fishing as good as will be found any where on the coast. There are mussels, pipis, even an incredible number of blackberries just for the picking as well as good surfing on Ocean Beach, first-class boating from the Anzac Bay and Pio’s beaches, and smooth water for surf-skiers at sheltered Shelly Bay with its glistening white beach and fine native bush.

⁹⁵ Field Officer to Commissioner of Crown Lands, 28 February 1957, LS 3/2/40

⁹⁶ Katikati Domain Board ‘Seven Yearly Report’, 1961, Katikati Domain Records, WBoPDC [p 16]

⁹⁷ Waihi Gazette, 23 May 1963 [p 57]

Most striking new feature at Bowentown is the recently constructed Cave Point Lookout, a large elevated parking area near the trig station, which offers scenic views second to none in New Zealand.

Where narrow overgrown tracks were the only means of reaching high vantage spots or moving beach to beach, wide bulldozed walks, very wisely closed, to traffic, have been provided for ramblers. They give access to some magnificent views embracing the harbour entrance with its picturesque deeps and shoals, the estuary and beautiful coastline opposite, native bush now regenerating well, and networks of gnarled pohutukawa trunks and boughs, a mass of crimson beauty in bloom.

Which ever way the wind blows there is a sheltered beach for swimmers, none too far distant from the others. Sea-etched rocks with plenty of handholds and stretches of clean sand, with tracks up from the beaches at intervals, make a trip around the shore line possible with little danger of being trapped by an incoming tide. Auckland visitors, plucking mussels from the rocks at the week-end unreservedly lubbed [sic] the area ‘fabulous.’

The Katikati Domain Board, under keen chairman Mr Ross Sharp and with an enthusiastic secretary, Mr H. J. Cooper, have brought many of these attractions within reach of the general public. They have not hesitated, individually, to roll up their sleeves and pitch in with voluntary labour to eke out the limited finance available.⁹⁸

This tribute to the attributes of Bowentown went on to describe the advances made at the domain camping ground, where during the peak of the holiday period in 1964 it said there were 42 tents and 20 caravans for a camp population of close to 500 people.⁹⁹

In July 1964 approval was given for the Bowentown Boating Club to build a clubhouse, wharf, boat ramps and parking area on a site near Pio’s Beach.¹⁰⁰ The site of the boating club is on the same side of the peninsula as the Maori reserve, so that boats use the water directly in front of Otawhiwhi.

By 1968 the projected costs of future development of the domain over the next five years had reached $25,000. The board looked to the Tauranga County Council for assistance.¹⁰¹ The council was not keen to take on such a heavy financial burden and wanted the Crown to play a larger part in carrying the financial responsibility. Before Lands and Survey would take any action on this matter, it first wanted to see the board produce an overall plan for the future development of the domain.¹⁰² The board and the council prepared financial plans for the period November 1969 to November 1975 which involved the construction of public toilets, foreshore protection, parking facilities, sewerage disposal and water supply.¹⁰³

In April 1971 the ‘Development Plan for the Preservation and Use of Bowentown Domain: Katikati’ was completed. It was prepared so that ‘orderly development of the Domain and its conservation could take place.’ The plan was a brief document, with one page on the history of the area, including three sentences on the pre-European

⁹⁸ Waihi Gazette, 30 January 1964

⁹⁹ Ibid

¹⁰⁰ Head Office Committee: Reserves Incorporation of Additional Area in Permit Over a Recreational Reserve, 11 July 1964, LS 3/2/40

¹⁰¹ Tauranga County Council, Schedule of Development Works Immediately Required, or Projected, in the Bowentown Peninsula, November 1968, LS 3/2/40

¹⁰² Commissioner of Crown Lands to Director-General of Lands, 28 April 1969, LS 3/2/40 [p 64]

¹⁰³ Director-General of Lands to Minister of Lands, 19 November 1969, LS 3/2/40 [pp 65-66]

occupation. There was, however, no mention of contacting local Maori about their involvement with the area. While the plan suggested that the history of the area should be investigated, it did not suggest that Maori should be approached to provide information:

Even a cursory examination of the recent history of the Bowentown Domain reveals an entirely fascinating glimpse of European colonisation.

Evidence of pre European occupation lies everywhere on this peninsula still only partly mapped and recorded.

Initially all sources of information should be investigated i.e. Historical Society journals, local and regional museums, Alexander Turnbull Library.

The New Zealand Historic Places Trust or the Waikato Museum Archaeologist may be prepared to assist mapping of sites of Maori occupation, and with advice on interpretation.¹⁰⁴

It was also proposed to create historic walking trails and permanent free standing displays and pamphlets on the history of the domain. There appears to be no evidence to indicate that any of these initiatives were ever carried out. The remainder of the plan dealt with signs, reading, camping and the area’s natural resources. The plan was intended to provide a more integrated approach to the domain’s management. Prior to this plan, the board’s general agenda had been to develop the domain as quickly as possible with public amenities and services. This tended to create a negative cycle by encouraging more and more people into the area, thus requiring more and more amenities, without any analysis of the impact on the area.

In June 1976 the board decided that control of the whole of the domain should be placed in the hands of the Tauranga County Council. By this stage, the council was paying the majority of the domain’s maintenance costs, but had to seek the board’s permission before doing any work on the domain. The council was willing to take control of the domain, with the proviso that the area be vested in the council as a recreational reserve. The council argued that it would be easier to administer the area as a recreational reserve which was vested in the council, rather than it remaining Crown land reserved for public recreation.¹⁰⁵

In July 1976 the transfer of control and ownership of the domain to the Tauranga County Council was approved by the Minister. It was proclaimed on 2 July 1976 that lots 25 and 26, Katikati Parish, would cease to be subject to Part III of the Reserves and Domains Act 1953, and would instead be deemed a recreation reserve subject to Part II of the Act.¹⁰⁶ The reserve was vested in the Tauranga County Council in trust for recreation purposes, and ceased to be Crown land. On 2 April 1984 the Bowentown Domain was declared to be a recreation reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977.¹⁰⁷ Following local government reform in 1989 the Tauranga County Council became part of the Western Bay of Plenty District Council, which body now administers the reserve.

¹⁰⁴ Development Plan for the Preservation and Use of Bowentown Domain, 19 April 1971, Katikati Domain Records, WBoPDC [pp 23-24]

¹⁰⁵ Director-General of Lands to Minister of Lands, 29 June 1976, LS 3/2/40

¹⁰⁶ New Zealand Gazette, 1976, p 1576

¹⁰⁷ New Zealand Gazette, 1984, p 1173

Some more recent issues relating to the management of the domain are covered in the next section of this report.

7. CASE STUDIES IN DOMAIN MANAGEMENT

This section looks at four different issues relating to the protection or exploitation of the domain, and highlights a general failure to recognise the cultural and environmental value of the reserve. Two examples are provided of recent consultation with Whanau a Tauwhao, as per the requirements of the Resource Management Act, but it will be seen that the views of tangata whenua have not always been taken into account when decisions were made. Before 1991 there is no record of local Maori being consulted with about planned developments in the domain, and claimants may wish to provide evidence to the Tribunal on any issue that has been of concern to them relating to the management of the domain.

The Recognition and Protection of Archaeological Sites

There are three major pa sites on Bowentown Heads (see figure 7). The most notable is Te Kura a Maia. It overlooks the northwestern entrance to Tauranga Harbour, and provides views of the harbour, Orokawa Domain, the Waihi Beach township, Mayor Island and the upper harbour. This pa is easily accessible to the public from the headland car park and from Anzac Bay. The pa on the east headland is called Te Ho, and in 1974 George Bryan, a Whanau a Tauwhao kaumatua, was reported as saying that important ancestors were buried on the summit where they could look towards their former home of Tuhua (Mayor Island).¹⁰⁸ The third pa, Te Pa o Auturourou, is on the north-western boundary of the domain and the Maori reserve. Throughout the low lying sections of the domain and on the flat areas above Anzac Bay and Shelly Bay (Paraparaumu) there are numerous shell middens indicating long term Maori occupation. Archaeologists B.G. McFadgen and A.M. Williams describe Te Kura a Maia as:

a good example of a headland pa. The pa was originally much larger … Radiocarbon dates from shells indicate that the topmost terrace was built between about 250 and 350 years ago. This ditch and bank cut across the terraces and reduced the size of the pa.¹⁰⁹

Over the years the attitude of various domain boards and government departments towards the pa sites has been to pay lip service to their significance by recognising their existence in the yearly management plan. Archaeological sites were included in the management plan in 1976 on the advice of the Archaeological Association.¹¹⁰ Nevertheless, this has done little, if anything, to protect these sites for future generations. The Historic Places Trust and a number of archaeologists and universities have shown an historical and scientific interest in the area but these initiatives seem to have come from the individuals and institutions themselves, rather than the board which seemed surprised and embarrassed when contacted by these groups about damage to historic sites. The board, rather than acting on this expert advice, tended to note year after year the historic significance of the area and then continue to make the same mistakes, whether it be creating roads and firebreaks over

¹⁰⁸ Bay of Plenty Times, 1 June 1974

¹⁰⁹ McFadgen, p 9

¹¹⁰ New Zealand Archaeological Association to Director of Planning and Development, 3 August 1978, Katikati Domain Records, WBoPDC

pa sites, or redesigning pa sites with lawn mowing ramps for ease of access. There is no record of local Maori being consulted over how the sites could be managed. The value of these sites was seen by the board in terms of attracting tourists to the area:

Bowentown has historical interest in its Maori earthworks. An ancient communication trench, now largely filled, runs across the top of one of the hills and there is a series of 15ft. wide terraces around the hill which, when cleared and grassed will make picnicking spots.¹¹¹

If Maori had been consulted it is quite possible that they would have seen the transformation of significant occupation sites into picnic areas as an inappropriate development. This is a matter on which the claimants may wish to present oral evidence to the Tribunal.

Prior to the 1970s there is little to show that any plans were made for the protection of these sites. Various boards have at times responded to the input of outside institutions such as the New Zealand Archaeological Association, Waikato and Auckland Universities’ Earth Science Departments, and the Historic Places Trust. Surprisingly, there is no record of local Maori being consulted about the significance of the sites and how they could best be preserved. Protecting these pa sites was not a priority for the board. Between 1950 and 1970 the main concern of the board was to provide recreational facilities on, and earn revenue from, the domain. They encouraged tourists to the area by building campsites, roads and the necessary amenities.¹¹² Further revenue was gathered by leasing parts of the domain for grazing cattle and the extraction of sand.¹¹³ These revenue gathering measures had a detrimental effect on the pa sites (see figure 8).

In 1972 archaeologist Janet Davidson inspected the domain and drew the following information to the attention of Lands and Survey:

A large impressive and very important pa adjacent to the parking area on the eastern headland overlooking Anzac Bay and extending from it down the tip of the headland. If cleared and grassed this pa would be a very interesting one to members of the public. However machinery should not be used as this would damage the earthwork of the pa. Similarly, any extension of the parking area would damage it badly.

Possible small pa on access road to parking area mentioned above. Bulldozing of the access track has exposed and so badly damaged this site that it is probably beyond redemption.

Extensive shell midden deposits visible all along the edge of the dunes behind Anzac Bay. Most of the deposits are probably safely sealed under the grassed parking area on the flat. If artifact (sic) bearing layers should ever become exposed a proper archaeological exploration authorised by the Minister of Lands should be made to recover information before it is lost through the normal process of erosion and curio hunting.

Appears to be a small but strongly fortified pa on the ridge to the north of the waterskiing Beach but covered in thick scrub and difficult to see. The bulldozed track in the vicinity has cut through the ditches of the pa at the western and eastern ends of the site and along its northern sidecausing (sic) considerable damage.

¹¹¹ Automobile Association Bulletin, May 1962

¹¹² Waihi Gazette, 29 July 1954

¹¹³ Commissioner of Crown Lands to Director-General of Lands, 12 May 1954, LS 3/2/40

Shell midden deposits on the flat immediately behind the waterskiing Beach may relate to a village or pa site on the ridge above, although there is no definite indication of this. Further investigation is required to assess the value of this area.

Disturbed shell midden deposits where the track from Anzac Bay to the waterskiing Beach crosses the main ridge between the two beaches. A bulldozed track or firebreak down the main ridge from this point has probably destroyed much of what appears to have been an undefended village or hamlet .¹¹⁴

Despite this report little effort would seem to have been made to avoid causing further damage to these sites. As recently as October 1993 more damage had been done to Te Kura a Maia, the first pa Davidson mentions in her report. The damage to this pa happened much in the way that Davidson had envisaged 20 years earlier:

You will remember our earlier discussions about minor earthworks carried out by one of your employees last summer on Bowentown Heads to provide easier and safer lawnmower access from one terrace to another. Any earthworks on an historic site are termed a modification under the Historic Places Act and accordingly require an authority from the Historic Places Trust. In this instance, the site works were carried out without Council instruction and so no Historic Places Trust Authority was applied for or obtained. The Reserves/Manager Planner was placed in an embarrassing position when queried by two archaeologists about the unauthorised earthworks.¹¹⁵

If there are other examples of wahi tapu being damaged by the domain development work this should be included in the claimants’ evidence to the Tribunal.

Sand Removal, Erosion and Planting

Prior to the passing of the Resource Management Act 1991 little thought seems to have been given to managing the natural resources of the domain in a sustainable way. The removal of sand from the domain is an example of failing ‘to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.’¹¹⁶ The amounts of sand removed, where it was removed from, and by whom were not always certain. In the 1990s programmes such as the Project Crimson pohutakawa planting plan, and the local Maori pingao planting and harvesting initiative have tried to protect the sand dunes from the erosion process that has been exacerbated by sand extraction.

Starting in the 1960s the Katikati Domain Board issued permits authorising the removal of sand, by commercial operators, from the sand dunes.¹¹⁷ The objective, from the board’s perspective was not protection or conservation, but rather revenue gathering. The site for sand extraction was west of the camping ground (see figure 9) and for at least a 20 year period there were four officially sanctioned operators. It would also appear that other contractors were working other parts of the domain

¹¹⁴ Commissioner of Crown Lands to Secretary Katikati Domain Board, 12 July 1972, Katikati Domain Records, (WBoPDC) [pp 27-28]

¹¹⁵ Reserves Manager/Planner to Environmental Services Group, 27 October 1993, Katikati Domain Records, WBoPDC

¹¹⁶ cited in Heather Bassett, Rachel Steel, Dr David Williams, The Maori Land Legislation Manual: Te Puka Ako Hanganga Mo Nga Ture Whenua Maori, Crown Forestry Rental Trust, Wellington, 1995 update, p 488.1

¹¹⁷ Head Office Committee, Reserves, Application to Remove Sand from Katikati Domain, 30 July 1962, LS 3/2/40

without the board’s consent, or the legal authority of the Crown.¹¹⁸ In the early 1960s Lands and Survey had refused to allow licences to be issued to people wanting to extract sand from this area of the Bay of Plenty. The Crown’s own reports indicated that the area was particularly vulnerable to foreshore erosion. Nevertheless, permission was given to remove sand from the Bowentown domain because the area was described as ‘overburden’, or surplus to requirements. At the time, both the Commissioner of Crown Lands and the assistant engineer favoured sand extraction because the area was well grassed and therefore, they thought no problem with erosion would result.¹¹⁹

By the 1970s erosion had become a problem, and it would appear that the board was failing to exercise any control over the sand extraction operations. In 1976 the following comments were made:

Quarrying is still being carried out. Sand is being removed by Taylor Brothers and other operators for commercial purposes. The borrow pit is immediately behind and encroaching into the foredune… .

It would appear that no formal agreement exists authorising Taylor Brothers from the Bowentown Reserve. The agreement by which the licensee operates was not signed by the Domain Board, and furthermore, it was drawn up for a period of time greater than the one year permitted by the Mining Act 1971. The method of controlling the sand taking appears to be very lax, with no check on who takes sand or from where it is taken in the pit. Royalty payments have been haphazard and under the present system there is no way of checking their accuracy.

An industrial activity within the confines of the reserve is in conflict with the purpose of a recreational reserve. The effects of the sand removal operation could be very harmful to the environment by way of promoting erosion of the foredunes. It is strongly recommended that the quarrying operation be immediately stopped and that the area be landscaped, replanted and developed as a car park to serve visitors to the ocean beach.²²⁰

So cavalier was the board’s approach to administering the licence that it was eventually only time and pressure from outside groups, such as the Conservation Council, that saw the end of sand extraction from the domain in 1978. This whole episode was about gathering revenue, a situation that was exacerbated and fed by building programmes within the Bay of Plenty and the domain itself, as the sand removed was used in construction and development works. Although there is no written record in the files of the government department or local body of Maori concerns over sand removal and damage to the foredunes, the claimants may wish to address this matter in their submissions to the tribunal, particularly if the erosion damaged any wahi tapu sites in the dunes.

In 1994 two initiatives reflected a changing attitude towards resource management. In April the Project Crimson Trust determined on a pohutukawa re-establishment programme and Bowentown became a site for planting. In November, Wayne

¹¹⁸ Engineer’s Assistant for draft of a Management Plan for Bowentown Domain and Reserves, June 1976, Katikati Domain Records, WBoPDC

¹¹⁹ Commissioner of Crown Lands to Head Office Reserves Committee, 5 September 1966, LS 3/2/40

¹²⁰ Engineer’s Assistant for draft of a Management Plan for Bowentown Domain and Reserves, June 1976, Katikati Domain Records, WBoPDC

¹²¹ Project Crimson Funding Application to Project Crimson Trust, 26 April 1994, Katikati Domain Records, WBoPDC

Tawhiti, the Lands and Development Representative of Otawhiwhi Marae, requested permission to plant five kilograms of pingao seeds on the sand dunes of the domain. The seeds represented about 250,000 pingao plants. The marae intended to harvest pingao for cultural and financial purposes. Harvesting would take place annually and would involve seed gathering for an on going planting programme. The Western Bay of Plenty District Council approved this plan.¹²² Planting was also a means of protecting the sand dunes from any further erosion.

Toilet Block Site

In August 1995 a meeting of the Waihi Beach Community Board was held to discuss plans for the site of the new toilet block at Anzac Bay. Two sites were proposed, referred to as B and C (see figure 10). Site B was central for most users of the domain and was believed to remain dry in winter. Site C was less obtrusive than B, which was considered an advantage aesthetically but a disadvantage from a practical or access viewpoint. Site C was also considered damp in the winter and likely to cause an obstruction of the view for those picnickers who ate while parked in their cars.¹²³

The meeting was attended by a representative from Otawhiwhi Marae, Wayne Tawhiti, who stated:

The area is wai tapu and is within one kilometre of the site. As well, the kaimoana (mussles, (sic) kina, paua) in the channels of the harbour were to be protected under the resource management Act.¹²⁴

Tawhiti was reported in the Waihi Leader as saying:

He did not understand how the toilets had ever come to be built there in the first place. He indicated the tangatawhenua [sic] want a definite say on where any replacement facility goes. Mr Tawhiti pointed out there are three urupa or burial sites in close proximity of the toilets.¹²⁵

Tawhiti was told the plans were at the ‘conceptual stage’, despite the fact that the funds had been set aside and the design plan had been secured.¹²⁶

The Reserves Technical Officer, Doug Green was concerned about the present site ‘because it was three metres from a past slip and there was a possibility of sewerage leaking into the harbour.’ He went on to say: ‘When people come over the hill to the bay the first thing they see is the toilet. I would like it to be the sea.’¹²⁷ At this stage the issue of where the toilet block would be cited, centred on cultural, health and environmental concerns.

On 20 November 1995, the Western Bay of Plenty District Council reported that:

1.1 In the 1995/96 Budget there is a sum of $85,000 to be used to replace the existing toilet block at Anzac Bay.

¹²² Reserves Officer to Waihi Beach Community Board, 1 December 1994, Katikati Domain Records, WBoPDC [pp 33-34]

¹²³ Waihi Community Board Meeting, 20 November 1995, Katikati Domain Records, WBoPDC

¹²⁴ Meeting of Waihi Beach Community Board, 3 August 1995, Katikati Domain Records, WBoPDC

¹²⁵ Waihi Leader, 15 August 1995

¹²⁶ Meeting of Waihi Beach Community Board, 3 August 1995, Katikati Domain Records, WBoPDC

¹²⁷ Waihi Advertiser, 8 August 1995

2.1 The initial design of the toilet has been drawn (copy attached)

2.2 Iwi were invited to consider the proposal at a meeting held on the Otawhiwhi Marae and were satisfied with the proposed sites.

2.3 Progress on the detailed design of the toilet can begin shortly, but before this takes place a site must be decided on.¹²⁸

After having consulted with interested parties about sites B and C, the board then decided to build the new toilet block on the site of the existing block. The board chairperson was pleased with the decision because she did not want to see the toilets in the area of site B because ‘that area is used by heaps of people and cars. It would be a crying shame to see the grounds with a toilet block on it.’¹²⁹ The chairperson preferred the original site below Te Kura a Maia on the foreshore of Anzac Bay. The board endorsed this view and voted to build on the present site.¹³⁰ The decision to leave the toilet on its present site showed a disregard for the expert advice of council staff and an architect:

The board had been told that the present site was not an option because of sewage problems and the local iwi supported the two alternatives proposed. Board members appeared to be less enthusiastic about either alternative.

Starting the ball rolling, Mrs De Luca (Chairperson) said she had looked at the toilet herself that morning and did not believe there were any sewage leakage or erosion problems.¹³¹

Even though the board had already voted on where to build the toilet block there was still talk of discussing the site with the local iwi. The decision to discuss the issue of where the block would be sited after the board had already made a decision raises some interesting questions regarding the consultation process. The board chairperson stated that ‘the Maori people were happy with the toilet block in its present spot’.¹³² This was clearly contrary to what Wayne Tawhiti had said a few months earlier.

Coastguard Site

In late 1991 the Waihi Volunteer Coastguard applied to lease a site for a building in the Bowentown Domain. This initiated a series of public consultation procedures and council and community board meetings. Two sites were proposed.¹³³ They are referred to in the correspondence as site I and site II (see figure 11).¹³⁴

In October 1991 the Maori Liaison Officer, J. Rauputu, visited the Bowentown area and spoke to people from the local Maori community about the proposed sites for the coastguard building:

¹²⁸ Meeting of Waihi Beach Community Board, 20 November 1995, Katikati Domain Records, WBoPDC

¹²⁹ Waihi Gazette, 13 February 1996

¹³⁰ Ibid

¹³¹ Waihi Leader, 20 February 1996

¹³² Waihi Leader, 12 March 1996

¹³³ Preliminary Briefing, Volunteer Coastguard Building Site Meeting, 13 December 1991, Katikati Domain Records, WBoPDC

¹³⁴ Meeting of Policy and Finance Committee, 28 August 1991, Katikati Domain Records, WBoPDC

I first spoke to Betsy Tuanau who indicated that she was familiar with the proposal by the Coastguard Association. She explained that the matter had been aired and discussed at various meetings over the last couple of months.

She made mention of a previous possible site which appeared to lie due south of the motor camp and at the foot of the southern reserve. She pointed out that there were several burial grounds in the vicinity and therefore, that site was definitely out of the question.

In referring to site I lying due west of the motor camp on the opposite side of the road and at the foot of the hill, she could not recall of being told of any burials being made in that vicinity. She was aware of the history of that particular hill in relation to the burial ground on top adjacent to the newly built condominiums, however as far as she could recall, there was nothing tapu on the site labelled “Site I”.

She went on to say that the location of Site II was by far the most appropriate in terms of the protection of the hill. She did not want to see any development on that part of the reserve because it may open up to more development in future years.¹³⁵

In December 1991 the Otawhiwhi Marae Committee met. It was revealed that the Waihi Volunteer Coastguard preferred an alternate site to either site I or site II. They intended to build their clubhouse at Anzac Bay. This site commonly became known as the ‘water tank’ site. In July 1991, the marae had received a letter from the secretary of the coastguard requesting their support for the Anzac Bay water tank site. The marae responded that they were unable to make a decision at this stage because of a lack of detail concerning the new site. The coastguard chairman and secretary then decided to attend a marae committee meeting to seek a decision. The committee again replied they were, at that stage, unwilling to make a decision either way. At this point in the meeting, the coastguard members stated it would be less of a problem for everyone if they withdrew their application for the Anzac Bay site.¹³⁶ The marae assumed that this was the end of the matter. It was not. The coastguard proceeded with the Anzac Bay application without informing the marae committee.

The marae committee was against the water tank site for the following reasons:

1. First and foremost, the Reserve area should remain untouched due to its historical value i.e: close proximity to site of Te Kura a Maia pa and tapu burial grounds.

2. We feel that if the Waihi Beach Volunteer Coast Guard were permitted to build, it could set a precedent for other organisations who may feel the Reserve is an ‘ideal location’. How can one justify a two storeyed building at Anzac Bay, when years ago people, their homes and other properties were removed by court order to specifically to create an area of enjoyment for all.

¹³⁵ Maori Liaison Officer, Notes on Waihi Beach Coastguard Site, 7 October 1991, Katikati Domain Records, WBoPDC [pp 35-36]

¹³⁶ Te Whanau o Otawhiwhi to Chief Executive Officer District Council, 4 December 1991, Katikati Domain Records, WBoPDC [pp 30-31]

3. Is it imperative that W.B.V.C.G. have their headquarters at Anzac Bay? We feel it is not - the location of site two kindly offered by Pio Shore Developments would be a more appropriate site. We have to question - what exactly are the Coast Guard’s motives? - It would be unfortunate to think that they are seeking their site merely to provide a magnificent view for their Clubrooms. We would like to see W.B.V.C.G. make a genuine effort to consider site two and leave Anzac Bay unblemished for those who appreciate its historical and aesthetic qualities.¹³⁷

The Waihi Leader reported on the proposed new site in detail and suggested the barriers to the coastguard building on the water tank site were considerable:

After months of chess-like bureaucratic manoeuvres the coastguard last week came out and pinpointed the site it wants to lease and build on. It is neither of the two locations put forward, and recently opened up to public submission … it is highly unlikely the coastguard organisation will be allowed the site it prefers.¹³⁸

It would seem from the outset that the coastguard had their sights set on the water tank site. To secure this site they had to overcome the Tauranga County Council 1988 management plan which emphasised the need to maintain the domain’s natural character of open spaces. This plan took into account the council’s responsibilities under the Reserves Act, the Town and Country Planning Act and the Historic Places Act. The coastguard did not gain approval for their preferred site.¹³⁹

On 8 October 1992 the proposed lease for site II was advertised for public objection subject to sections 119 and 120 of the Reserves Act 1977. No objections were received.¹⁴⁰ On 18 December the council decided that the general location of the site was acceptable and, after the unchallenged objection period to October 1992, decided to go ahead with leasing proposals. The Department of Conservation confirmed that there were no apparent historical or archaeological sites in this locality, an opinion that had earlier been confirmed by the Maori liaison officer’s consultation process with local Maori.¹⁴¹

It is possible to argue that the defeat of the coastguard’s preferred site at Anzac Bay was a victory for the Resource Management Act and Otawhiwhi Marae. A more pragmatic assessment would show that the coastguard were unrealistic in their attempt to gain approval to build at Anzac Bay. They were either unaware, or unconcerned about, the recent history regarding the domain board’s and Crown’s efforts to remove bach owners. The battle to remove the bach owners in the 1950s made future building on the site unlikely.

¹³⁷ Ibid

¹³⁸ Waihi Leader, 3 December 1991 [p 32]

¹³⁹ Reserves Planner/Manager to District Planner, 8 June 1993, Katikati Domain Records, WBoPDC

¹⁴⁰ Ibid

¹⁴¹ Ibid

8. SUMMARY

The area under research was all part of the land confiscated by the Crown in 1865. Although the Katikati area was nominally returned to Maori after confiscation, the Katikati block was then purchased by the Crown, in what has been described as a forced sale. Chiefs from Ngaiterangi, Ngatimaru and Ngatitamatera received payments for their interests in the block. Government officials agreed to the creation of reserves within the purchase land, and Otawhiwhi reserve was awarded in trust to Ngai Tauwhao. Otawhiwhi reserve was an area of just over 68 acres, in lot 1 Katikati Parish, although the original agreement had been for a substantially larger reserve of 100 acres.

Whanau a Tauwhao’s ownership of Otawhiwhi reserve was formalised in 1922, when the Native Land Court made an order determining the beneficial owners of the reserve. The owners were said to be those included in a list drawn up by Petera Te Ninihi. The list included members of Whanau a Tauwhao who had been living at Tuhua at the time of the confiscation, but who had subsequently been invited to settle at Otawhiwhi. The block was then partitioned in 1923. The commitment of Whanau a Tauwhao to their whenua was evident from the construction (and reconstruction) of the meeting house and development of the marae site. During the depression in the 1930s money was raised from the hapu to fund the construction of a dining hall. An application was made for a subsidy from the Maori Purposes Fund Board. Not only was the application declined, but the funds supplied by the hapu were held by the fund board for two years, despite repeated requests for the money to be released.

By the 1950s there is evidence that the area reserved for Whanau a Tauwhao was insufficient to support the hapu. At this time, requests were made to government departments about the possibility of part of the recreation reserve being made available for Maori settlement. There was also some suggestion that the recreation reserve contained Maori reserved land. In the 1960s a lack of land exacerbated the movement of Maori away from traditional marae based communities. These communities, at this time, were unable to offer employment and housing for their people. Fortunately, by the late 1970s there was renewed interest in Otawhiwhi, and a campaign was launched to restore the marae and encourage Whanau a Tauwhao to return to the area. This campaign was successful in both rebuilding the marae structurally and socially. Today there are a few families living permanently on the land.

The Crown retained ownership of the remainder of the headland. Bowentown Domain is made up of two areas of former Crown land; lot 26, Katikati Parish, is a coastal strip on the eastern tip of the headland, and the remainder of the headland is lot 25. In 1897 the Crown reserved lot 26 for public recreation, and in 1899 lot 25 was also reserved. In 1902 the power to administer the domain under the Public Domains Act 1881 was delegated to the Katikati Domain Board which administered the domain until 1976.

The various domain boards encouraged people to build baches on the domain between 1902 and 1937. In 1937, under Ministerial direction, the board advised these tenants that they would be required to vacate their holiday homes in 20 years time.

Nothing much more was made of this request until the 1950s when the area was in demand from holiday makers wanting to picnic and camp on the domain. The bach owners refused to vacate the domain, and in October 1954 the Crown solicitor was instructed to prepare papers for taking legal action against the tenants. In October 1957 the case went before the Magistrates Court which found for the tenants. The Crown took the case to the Supreme Court, which found for the Crown because building baches on land set aside for recreation was contrary to the proclaimed purpose of a domain and the board did not have the power to authorise these buildings.

By December 1958 all the baches had been removed and the board were free to promote, develop and manage the domain as they wanted. Prior to 1937, the tenants were useful to the board because they provided revenue and free labour on the domain. After the World War Two, increasing demand for holiday places ensured that the tenants would no longer be wanted on the domain. It was thought that campers would provide more revenue than a small group of bach owners.

To develop the domain the board required revenue and this was initially found through cattle grazing. The building of a road through the domain increased its use and the need for more amenities. The board’s 1956 management plan identified extensive plans for development. The costs of these developments soon became too much for the board, which sought increasing financial assistance from the Tauranga County Council.

These financial problems were exacerbated by the increasing popularity of Bowentown as a holiday destination. Despite the board’s building programmes, amenities on the domain were under increasing pressure in the 1960s. Evidence of Bowentown’s popularity can be found in local newspapers and tourist material of the time. The board again looked to the council for assistance, which, in turn, looked to the Crown. The Crown decided to delay any immediate action and requested that all parties involved draw up plans for future management of the area. In 1971 a development plan was completed that had a number of objectives which would require more funds to achieve. Many of these objectives were never carried out. The plan did, however, emphasise the need for integrated management so that environmental, financial and cultural needs could be bettered addressed.

In 1976 control of the domain was transferred to the Tauranga County Council. The domain also ceased to be Crown land, and ownership was vested in the council. This means that, under current policy, it is no longer available to be returned to Maori ownership as part of any Crown settlement negotiated for the Tauranga claims. In recent times, local government reforms have made the Tauranga County Council part of the Western Bay of Plenty District Council, which now administers the reserve.

For much of its existence the board failed to produce a plan of approach to managing the domain which would balance the cultural, environment and financial requirements. Whether this failure to produce a balanced plan was due to a lack of interest, ability or direction from the Crown is difficult to identify. The consequences, however, are more readily identifiable.

The failure to adequately recognise or protect the three pa sites on the domain illustrates the board’s mismanagement. These pa sites are of national significance, and of great significance to local Maori. They are all accessible to the public, some as pa sites, others as car parks and roads, tracks and firebreaks. The attitude of various boards and of the government has been to pay lip service to their archaeological significance but do little, if anything to protect them from further damage. This is despite the fact that they had been notified of their national importance by a number of archaeologists over the years. There is no evidence to suggest that there was any consultation with the local tangata whenua as to the significance of these sites, or the best way to protect and preserve them. When questioned about damage to sites, local administrators talked in terms of embarrassment, rather than expressing any regret. They made no mention of their professional and legal responsibilities, or any moral duty to protect these sites for Maori or other New Zealanders.

A change in the direction of domain management took place in the 1990s. This new approach reflected the recently passed Resource Management Act. A pohutukawa planting project, and a pingao planting and harvesting project, were approved.

In 1995 the site of a new toilet block for Anzac Bay came under discussion Concern had been expressed by the marae about any future site for the toilets. The marae stated that the present site endangered a valuable kai moana resource. Local council engineering staff were also concerned about the possibility of sewerage seepage. Alternative sites were presented at local meetings. The reserves technical officer believed the toilets should be moved further inland. After consulting on the basis of using an alternative site, it was then decided to construct the new block on the site of the existing toilet. The decision ran contrary to the expert advice the board had sought from the council, and the expressed wishes of Otawhiwhi Marae.

In 1991 the Waihi Volunteer Coastguard applied for a site to build clubrooms in the domain. Two sites were identified. Their preferred site was actually in Anzac Bay, however, which was neither of the two sites subject to public discussion. The Maori liaison officer consulted with a number of local Maori concerning the cultural significance of the two proposed sites. All those consulted said that they had no problems with either of the two sites. In December the coastguard met with the Otawhiwhi Marae committee in an attempt to gain their support for the Anzac Bay site. The marae declined their support, and the coastguard proceeded with plans to obtain this site without informing the marae that they intended to do so. The marae vigorously opposed this application. The local newspaper argued that building on the site would be particularly difficult considering public feeling and legislative requirements to protect the character of the reserve. The coastguard did not gain approval for the Anzac Bay site, and were granted one of the two sites originally proposed.

The most recent examples of decision making over the use of the Bowentown Domain include the input of local Maori, even if the Maori preferences were not always granted. However, throughout most of the history of the domain Maori remain invisible in the written record of its administration. Decisions were made which significantly altered the physical attributes of the domain, including pa sites and urupa, without any reference to Maori. This clearly illustrates the contention that the

Crown failed to provide for the control and management of sites of special significance by the claimant iwi and hapu.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Published Sources

Appendices to the Journals of the Home of Representatives

Automobile Association Bulletin

Bassett, Heather, Rachel Steel, Dr David Williams, The Maori Land Legislation Manual: Te Puka Ako Hanganga Mo Nga Ture Whenua Maori, Crown Forestry Rental Trust, Wellington, 1995 update

Bay of Plenty Times

Evening Post

Katikati Advertiser

McFadgen, B.G. and A.M Williams, Pa Sites of the Western Bay of Plenty, Department of Conservation, Wellington, 1991

New Zealand Gazette

New Zealand Law Reports

Oliver, W.H., & B.R. Williams (eds) The Oxford History of New Zealand, Oxford University Press, Wellington, 1981

Raupatu Document Bank

Stokes, Evelyn, A History of Tauranga County, Dunmore Press, Palmerston North, 1980

Whanau A Tauwhao: A History of a Ngaiterangi Hapu, Occasional Paper No 8, Centre for Maori Studies and Research, University of Waikato, Hamilton, 1980

Te Raupatu o Tauranga Moana: The Confiscation of Tauranga Lands, University of Waikato, 1990

Te Raupatu o Tauranga Moana: Volume 2: Documents Relating to Tribal History, Confiscation and Reallocation of Tauranga Lands, University of Waikato, Hamilton, 1992

Turton, H.H., Maori Deeds of Land Purchase in the North Island of New Zealand, Wellington, Government Printer, 1877-1878

Waihi Advertiser

Waihi Gazette

Waihi Leader

Unpublished Sources

Maori Land Court, Tauranga Minute Books

O’Malley, Vincent, ‘The Aftermath of the Tauranga Raupatu’, An overview report commissioned by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 1995

Riseborough, Hazel, ‘The Crown and Tauranga Moana’, Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 1994

Willan, Rachael, ‘Katikati Railway Station Report’, Waitangi Tribunal, 1996

Files

Katikati Domain Records, held by the Western Bay of Plenty District Council

Lands and Survey, LS 3/2/40 Katikati Domain, now held by the Department of Conservation, Head Office

Maori Affairs 1 21/1/40 Katikati Burial Tauranga, National Archives, Wellington

Maori Affairs 1 26/9/9/5 Katikati, National Archives, Wellington

Pa sites of the western Bay of Plenty.

Fig. 2 Locations of pa mentioned in the text.

Fig.3

Te Moananui’s land claims: Map redrawn from Mackay’s “Copy of sketch plan of land at Tauranga as drawn by Te Moananui on the floor of the Wesleyan Chapel, Auckland, on the 12th December 1864.”

Fig. 4

Fig. 5

Fig. 6

Figure 7

Fig. 8

Fig. 9

Fig. 10

Fig. 11

Fig. 12

Fig. 13

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Published Sources

Appendices to the Journals of the House of Representatives Automobile Association Bulletin

Bassett, Heather, Rachel Steel, Dr David Williams, The Maori Land Legislation Manual: Te Puka Ako Hanganga Mo Nga Ture Whenua Maori, Crown Forestry Rental Trust, Wellington, 1995 update

Bay of Plenty Times

Evening Post

Katikati Advertiser

McFadgen, B.G. and A.M. Williams, Pa Sites of the Western Bay of Plenty, Department of Conservation, Wellington, 1991

New Zealand Gazette

New Zealand Law Reports

Oliver, W.H., & B.R. Williams (eds) The Oxford History of New Zealand, Oxford University Press, Wellington, 1981

Raupatu Document Bank

Stokes, Evelyn, A History of Tauranga County, Dunmore Press, Palmerston North, 1980

Whanau A Tauwhao: A History of a Ngaiterangi Hapu, Occasional Paper No 8, Centre for Maori Studies and Research, University of Waikato, Hamilton, 1980

Te Raupatu o Tauranga Moana: The Confiscation of Tauranga Lands, University of Waikato, 1990

Te Raupatu o Tauranga Moana: Volume 2: Documents Relating to Tribal History, Confiscation and Reallocation of Tauranga Lands, University of Waikato, Hamilton, 1992

Turton, H.H., Maori Deeds of Land Purchase in the North Island of New Zealand, Wellington, Government Printer, 1877-1878

Waihi Advertiser

Waihi Gazette

Waihi Leader

Unpublished Sources

Maori Land Court, Tauranga Minute Books

O’Malley, Vincent, ‘The Aftermath of the Tauranga Raupatu’, An overview report commissioned by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 1995

Riseborough, Hazel, ‘The Crown and Tauranga Moana’, Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 1994

Willan, Rachael, ‘Katikati Railway Station Report’, Waitangi Tribunal, 1996

Files

Katikati Domain Records, held by the Western Bay of Plenty District Council

Lands and Survey, LS 3/2/40 Katikati Domain, now held by the Department of Conservation, Head Office

Maori Affairs 1 21/1/40 Katikati Burial Tauranga, National Archives, Wellington

Maori Affairs 1 26/9/9/5 Katikati, National Archives, Wellington

The Registrar

Waitangi Tribunal

Tribunal’s Division

Justice Department

Private Bag

Postal Centre

WELLINGTON

I, WILLIAM OHIA of “Kopukairoa”, Welcome Bay Road, R D 5, Tauranga, for myself and the Ngati Pukenga iwi of which I am a member and for the iwi and hapu of Ngaiterangi and Ngati Ranginui (and with the consent of the Tauranga Moana Maori Trust Board of which I am Chairman, whose members comprise representatives of all those iwi and all but two of those hapu) CLAIM to be prejudicially affected or likely to be prejudicially affected by the following actions, omissions, policies and practices of the Crown:

1. The confiscation last century by the Crown and its Agents of lands belonging to the hapu of the Ngaterangi, Ngati Ranginui, Ngati Pukenga and related peoples. These lands are known as Raupatu lands. The confiscations deprived these iwi and hapu of their mana and of an economic base on which to live and develop contrary to the guarantee of tino rangatiratanga in Article II of the Treaty.

2. The failure of the Crown adequately to compensate the claimants for this wrongful confiscation. While the claimants acknowledge that the payment by the Crown of $250,000.00 on the setting up of the Tauranga Moana Maori Trust Board is a partial compensation for the confiscations, they insist that this payment is totally inadequate given the Crown’s acknowledgement of the injustices which occurred and the catastrophic effect of the confiscations on the claimant iwi and hapu.

3. The failure of the Crown contrary to Article II of the Treaty to Cont…

protect the claimant iwi and hapu in the use control and management of the Tauranga Harbour and in the use, control and management of their shell and other fisheries within the Tauranga Harbour.

4. The failure of the Crown contrary to Article II of the Treaty to protect the claimant iwi and hapu in the use, control and management of their coastal fisheries which extend along the shore line from Maketu Bar to Whangamata to a distance of 100 miles off shore at right angles from that shore line.

5. The failure of the Crown to provide for the control and management by the claimant iwi and hapu of reserve areas and wahi tapu of special significance to them, namely:

Mauao (Mount Maunganui)
Mangatawa Hill (Maunga Mana)
Pukewhanake
Otawhiwhi Reserve
Nga Kuri A Wharei
Huhara (Plummers Point)
Monmouth Redoubt

6. The failure of the Crown to provide for the control and management by the claimant iwi and hapu of their ancestral places of special significance to them including:

The Te Ranga battle site
Karewa Island
Motuotau
Moturiki
Hopu Kiroe (Mt Drury)

8. Restrictions or prohibitions placed by the Crown on the taking by the claimant iwi and hapu of matapuna kai (tītī & godwits).

AND WE CLAIM:

1. That all these matters are inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

2. The Tribunal is asked to recommend as follows:

(a) Compensation by the return of all tribal lands still in Crown ownership and the payment of monies sufficient for the iwi of Ngati Pukenga and the iwi and hapu of Ngaterangi and Ngati Ranginui to restore their mana and rebuild their tribal economy.

(b) The amending of the Tauranga Moana Maori Trust Board Act 1981 to provide proper compensation for the claimant iwi and hapu for the raupotu lands.

(c) Proper legislative measures to ensure that the claimant iwi and hapu regain a say in the use control and management of the Tauranga Harbour and regain and maintain the use, control and management of their shell and other fisheries within the Tauranga harbour.

(d) Proper legislative action to ensure that the claimant iwi and hapu regain and maintain the use, control and management of their coastal fisheries.

(e) Proper legislative provision to ensure that the claimant iwi and hapu regain and maintain the control and management

of reserve areas wahi tapu and ancestral places of special significance to them.

(f) The restoration of the right to take matapuna kai

(g) Such further or other relief as the Tribunal considers appropriate.

3. The Tribunal is asked to commission a researcher to report on this claim before any hearing. We seek leave to amend this claim following that report.

4. The Tribunal is asked to appoint Mr J C Gooch of the firm of Messrs Cooney Lees & Morgan, Solicitors, Tauranga to assist me.

5. The Tribunal is asked to hear the claim at a Marae in Tauranga.

6. Persons affected by this claim and who should have notice of it are:

(i) The Treasury Box 3724 Wellington

(ii) Works & Development Services Corporation (New Zealand) Limited, Box 12-041 Wellington.

(iii) Western Bay of Plenty District Council Private Bag, Tauranga

(iv) Tauranga City Council Private Bag, Tauranga

(v) Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Private Bag, Wellington

(vi) Department of Conservation, PO Box 10420, Wellington

(vii) Land Corporation Limited, PO Box 1790, Wellington

(viii) Department of Lands, PO Box 12162, Wellington

(ix) All other persons who may have lodged or who may lodge claims with the Tribunal concerning or touching any of the matters in respect of which this claim is made.

7. This claim amends and replaces the claim as given in the letter of 4 February 1988.

8. Notices to the claimant should be sent to the Offices of Messer Cooney Lees & Morgan, Solicitors, 87 First Avenue (PO Box 143), Tauranga.

Date

Signature

WILLIAM OHIA