My name is Heather Bassett. I have a Bachelor of Arts Honours degree, majoring in history, from Waikato University. From 1993 to 1995 I worked as a researcher for the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, during which time I co-authored the Maori Land Legislation Manual. I was a staff member at the Waitangi Tribunal from June 1995 to October 1996, and have written research reports on the Otawa No 2 blocks (Wai 210) and the urbanisation of Maungatapu and Hairini (Wai 342 and Wai 370). I am now working as a contract historian based in Auckland.

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 third report for the Waitangi Tribunal.

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.

The 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

1.1 INTRODUCTION

Plummers Point is a narrow peninsula of land that is located centrally on the western shores of Tauranga Harbour on the Te Puna Estuary between Omokoroa and Te Puna (see Figure 1). It looks north easterly towards Matakana and Motuhoa Islands and the entrance to Tauranga Harbour, and is at the mouth of the Te Puna River, where a tidal estuary is formed. It is located on an estuary that today is a quiet semi-residential enclave with a shoreline fringed with willow trees, a jetty, boat-ramp, and camping ground. Historically peninsulas on this part of the harbour have been places to ford between the points of land Plummers Point was an invaluable communication link between settlements at Omokoroa and Te Puna (see Figure 2). It was also the site of a deep water wharf and road link during the early part of this century. Similarly, for pre-European Maori the area was significant as a place to ford the point over to Omokoroa as well as being a valuable kai moana resource, with its shellfish beds near the shoreline and sheltered fishing grounds in the estuary. Today it is still considered wahi tapu by local Maori with its urupa, pa and kainga sites.

There are at least three important pa sites on the point of land between Te Puna and Omokoroa (see Figure 1). At the northern point were two pa, called Ongarahu and Huharua which, according to one source, were linked by an underground tunnel.¹ These pa were the site of important battles, and consequently there were many burial grounds in the area. Huharua has also been identified by D. Borell as the home of Pirirakau after Ngati Ranginui were defeated at Mauao by Ngaiterangi.² Further down the Te Puna estuary there is another point of land which was Te Hopuni pa.

In the nineteenth century the name ‘Huharua’ seems to have been used to refer to the whole point of land, rather than the specific pa site. References made to the ‘Huharua reserve’ probably do not mean Huharua pa, as the reserves made for Maori in this area were actually limited to three small areas of land south of Huharua itself. This report looks at the Crown acquisition of the area now known as Plummers Point, and the allocation of reserves there for certain Maori. Details are given of the subsequent alienation of those reserves, and then some examples are given that illustrate Maori concerns about the management of wahi tapu at Huharua.

1.2 RAUPATU AND THE CREATION OF RESERVES

Legal title to land at Plummers Point derives from the confiscation of the Tauranga district in 1865, and the subsequent purchase of the Katikati and Te Puna blocks by Crown agents. 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

¹ Personal communication, Patrick Nicholas, 24 September 1996

² Tauranga Historical Society, ‘Report on Pa Sites Between Pahoia and the Waimapu Stream’, 1969, Tauranga Public Library, Konae Maori, Archaeology

The Katikati Te Puna Purchase

The entire Tauranga district (approximately 290,000 acres⁴), from Nga Kuri a Wharei to Wairakei, was initially confiscated under the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863 on 18 May 1865.⁵ 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 to Maori, the Crown immediately arranged to purchase a substantial area north of the Te Puna Stream, amounting to 93,188 acres.⁶ 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…⁷

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 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.⁸ 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 certain reserves, such as urupa and kainga, for Maori within the purchased area.

³ 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.

⁴ ‘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

⁵ New Zealand Gazette, 1865, p 187

⁶ 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

⁷ 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

⁸ Evelyn Stokes, Te Raupatu o Tauranga Moana: Volume 2: Documents Relating to Tribal History, Confiscation and Reallocation of Tauranga Lands, University of Waikato, 1992, pp 87-116

Some of them had inter-married with Ngatihaua and Ngaiterangi and had become to a certain extent incorporated into the latter tribe. They set up a claim to all the land from Te Wairoa to Waipapa and thence back to the range between the Thames and Tauranga. This was denied by the whole of the Ngaiterangi and Hori Tupaea. They contended that the Pirirakau claims were confined to the back forest between Te Wairoa and Te Puna; and that those were only the rights of a debased tribe the ‘mana’ was with them. Hohepa Hikutaia enraged them very much be saying they were ‘he pataka kai no te Rangihouhiri’ (a food store of the Rangihouhiri, the great conqueror of Tauranga, and from whom Hohepa Hikutaia was descended). The Ngaiterangi allowed the claim of the old Chief Mangapohatu, of the Pirirakau, to some of the land near the coast between Te Wairoa and Waipapa. After the dispute between the Pirirakau and Hohepa Hikutaia they would not attend the meeting, and left on the 11^th July. I however saw Te Keepa Ringatu and others and offered to make a separate arrangement for payment for any claims which they could substantiate within the block under negotiation, and to make reserves where required. He approved of this and went to his tribe to make the proposal. On the 12^th July he wrote to say his tribe would not make any terms.

The whole of the people of this hapu have been in rebellion from the commencement of the war, and with the exception of Mangapohatu and his family were all Hauhau at the time of the meeting.⁹

It is interesting to note that despite saying Pirirakau had no real claim to the area, Mackay was still trying to get their agreement to the purchase and was willing to make reserves for Pirirakau. By dismissing the hapu as ‘hauhau’, and subservient to the Ngaiterangi chiefs with whom he was negotiating, Mackay was able to deny their ancestral rights to the land that was being sold by certain Ngaiterangi chiefs.

Four different deeds of sale for the Katikati Te Puna blocks were signed on behalf of various tribes (Ngatihura, Tawera, Ngatipukenga, Ngatimaru, Ngatitamatera, and Ngaiterangi) in 1866. Although Pirirakau’s claims had been denied in 1866, five years later they did receive a payment for the purchase. This was recorded in the Te Puna and Katikati No 5 Deed, which was signed on 16 May 1871. The deed said that £1,471 had been paid by H.T. Clarke to the:

Chiefs and People of the Tribe Pirirakau and Ngatihinerangi … in consideration of the claims of these three hapus (viz. Pirirakau, Ngatihinerangi and Ngatitokotoko) to the land sold by all the Ngaiterangi to the Government.¹⁰

⁹ James Mackay Jr ‘Report on the Katikati Purchase and other questions relating to the District of Tauranga, 1867’, in Stokes, 1992, p 110

¹⁰ Deed No 462, cited in Evelyn Stokes, Te Raupatu o Tauranga Moana: The Confiscation of Tauranga Lands, A Report Prepared for the Waitangi Tribunal, University of Waikato, 1990, p 246

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.¹¹

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.¹²

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:

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].¹³

Reserves for Maori at Huharua

When negotiating the Katikati Te Puna purchase, it was also Mackay’s role to set aside reserves for Maori. In the Parish of Te Puna, most of the reserves were set aside on Omokoroa Point (see Figure 3). The Plummers Point area was planned to be the site for the Township of Te Puna. The township had been surveyed into lots by T. Heale at the end of 1864.¹⁴

However, three lots in the proposed Township of Te Puna were set aside for Maori by Mackay. These reserves were agreed to by Mackay after he had largely finished awarding reserves, and were made in recognition of occupation rights deriving from Ngati Haua’s role in Tauranga. Stokes gives the following description of Ngati Haua’s relationship with the people of Tauranga:

Te Waharoa had called on Tauranga support in campaigns against Te Arawa in the 1830s, following the killing of his relation, Hunga, by Haerehuka of Te Arawa. This led to the taking of Maketu Pa, and the retaliatory attack by Te Arawa on the Tauranga people at Te Tumu in 1836. Ngati Haua lived at various times in the Tauranga district, often at Omokoroa, but also on Motuhoa, Matakana and

¹¹ Stokes, 1990, p 45

¹² Stokes, 1990, p 40

¹³ William Fox to Governor Grey, 24 September 1865, G 17/3 No 15, National Archives, Wellington

¹⁴ ‘Report by T. Heale, 7 April 1865, re surveys at Tauranga’ in Raupatu Document Bank, vol 124, p 47616

Mackay had earlier agreed to make other reserves for Ngati Haua, although they received no payment for the sale of the land. Mackay explained the Ngati Haua claims as follows in 1867:

The Ngatihaua tribe represented by both loyal and rebel natives, only succeeded in making out claims to a piece of land about four hundred acres at Omokoroa, and also fifty acres at Purakaunui. (Memo. Another reserve of about eight acres was afterwards made … 8 acres Huharua Reserve.) It appeared that at one time they had been entitled to occupy more land on account of the aid rendered to the Ngaiterangi by Te Waharoa (the father of William Thompson) in their wars with the Arawa and Thames tribes, but the Ngatihaua had given up all claims to these at a great meeting held some years ago at Ohuki, Tauranga. The pieces at Omokoroa and Purakaunui were reserved for them, this was however, much against the wish of the Ngaiterangi, who would rather have seen them receive cash compensation.

It was evident that the Ngatihaua had no claim either through ancestry or conquest; but merely from being allowed to occupy for the reason above stated. Te Waharoa had asked for permission to do so in order to be near a port where he could obtain supplies of gunpowder from trading vessels.¹⁶

The reserves made at Huharua were set aside after approaches from Ngati Tokotoko, regarding their rights, and those of Ngati Haua to land in the area. Stokes gives the following account of Ngati Tokotoko and their relationship with Pirirakau and Ngati Haua:

The Ngati Tokotoko and Ngati Hinerangi tribes occupied the Okauia area east of the Waihou River and into the Kaimai Ranges. They were a remant of Ngamarama who had been pushed eastward by the expansion of Ngati Raukawa and Ngait Haua, both of Tainui waka. They had close kin relationships with Pirirakau and Ngati Haua. Some of their ancestors were also among the Ngamarama who were dispossessed by Ngati Ranginui arrival in the lower Wairoa. However, many generations of intermarriage have made these kin relationships difficult to unravel. In the 1860s, Ngati Tokotoko and Ngati Hinerangi … maintained small settlements on the Tauranga side of the ranges. The Raukawa people were mainly in the lower Wairoa Valley; Ngati Tokotoko and others at Te Puna.¹⁷

In November 1866 Mackay decided to reserve land for Ngati Haua at Huharua after being told by Ngati Tokotoko that Wiremu Tamihana had claims to the area:

I visited Te Puna and some natives of the Ngatitokotoko hapu pointed out a piece of land at Huharua within the township surveyed by Capt Heale, about forty chains in length and two in width, or about eight acres, which they said William Thompson had formerly occupied. The Ngatihaua when present at the meeting in July 1866, never mentioned this piece, or made the slightest allusion to it. I however considered it expedient to reserve it and informed them it should be set apart. It appeared that

¹⁵ Stokes, 1990, p 171

¹⁶ James Mackay Jr ‘Report on the Katikati Purchase and other questions relating to the District of Tauranga, 1867’, in Stokes, 1992, p 109

¹⁷ Stokes, 1990, p 172

Although Mackay refers to an area of approximately 8 acres as the Huharua reserve, there were in fact three sections of land awarded to Maori. The area Mackay was probably referring to above was lot 214, which was 6 acres. Two other 50 acre reserves were also made; lot 210 and lot 211 (see Figure 3).

Lot 210 was awarded to Pene Taka. This is a point of land on the eastern side of Plummers Point which extends into the Te Puna Estuary. Lot 210 included Te Hopuni pa site, which was marked on the survey plan of the reserve drawn up in 1874 (see Figure 4).¹⁹ It was later discovered that no Crown grant to Pene Taka was actually issued at the time (see section 1.3 below).

A Crown grant for lot 211 was issued on 3 June 1886.²⁰ The grant was made under the Volunteers and Other Lands Act 1877 to the following Maori:

The reserve was a 50 acre strip of land south of lot 210. The grant was backdated to 15 December 1884.

Lot 214 was a 6 acre section which was awarded to Mere Taka.²¹ Interestingly, on a survey plan drawn up in 1886, it was only this section which was marked as a ‘Native Reserve’.²²

None of the Crown grants for the three lots record the hapu or iwi affiliation of the grantee. The identity of those persons named in the Crown grants is a matter that should be addressed by the claimants in their submission to the Tribunal.

Some members of Ngati Rangiwewehi also lived at Huharua. These were Te Arawa who had supported the Kingitanga and fought with Tauranga Maori, unlike other Te

¹⁸ James Mackay Jr ‘Report on the Katikati Purchase and other questions relating to the District of Tauranga, 1867’, in Stokes, 1992, p 116

¹⁹ Plan 423 A

²⁰ Particulars of Title, 13 July 1920, BCAC A187 Box 217 2754 Te Puna Lot 211, National Archives (NA) Auckland

²¹ Particulars of Title, 1908, BCAC A187 Box 215 1909-2 Te Puna Lot 214, NA Auckland

²² SO 5222

1.3 ALIENATION OF MAORI RESERVES

Lot 210 Parish of Te Puna

On 2 June 1896 the Native Land Court appointed successors to Penetaka Tuaia, the original owner of lot 210. The successors were: Mita Hamiora, Rikihana, Mere Hauporoa, Tuakiwaho Ihaka, Rauaka Ihaka, Wetea Ihaka, Te Tauawhi, and Hamiora Rahipera.²⁶ Wetea Ihaka and Rauaka Ihaka were later succeeded to by Taukiwaho Ihaka. An earlier succession order had been made on 19 October 1893 in favour of Pumamao Puhirake and six others, but this order was never signed and sealed by the Court, and was later marked as ‘cancelled’.²⁷

On 27 November 1915 Mita Hamiora, Rikihana, Taukiwaho Ihaka, Te Tauawhi, and Hamiora Rahipere signed a deed to sell lot 210 to Thomas Plummer for £250.²⁸ The price was equivalent to the government valuation for the section.²⁹ It appears that the alienation was confirmed by the Waiariki District Maori Land Board, subject to payment of the purchase price.³⁰

When arranging the sale, Plummer’s solicitor, Tudhope, had checked the Native Land Court records to ascertain who held title to the land. After the transfer had been signed by those people named in the succession order of 1896, Tudhope requested the title to the land from the deeds office. It has then discovered that no Crown grant had ever actually been issued granting lot 210 to Penetaka Tuaia.³¹ This meant that Plummer could not obtain title to the land he had purchased from Maori, because legally it was still Crown land.

As a result, Tudhope wrote to the Under Secretary of Lands, asking that a Crown grant be issued in favour of Penetaka Tuaia. The Minister of Lands and Solicitor General then applied to the Native Land Court, under section 11 of the Native Land

²³ Evelyn Stokes, A History of Tauranga County, Dunmore Press, Palmerston North, 1980, p 114

²⁴ Stokes, 1990, pp 171-172

²⁵ Stokes, 1990, p 161

²⁶ Particulars of Title, 27 November 1915, BCAC A187 Box 214 744 Lot 210 Te Puna, NA Auckland

²⁷ Judge Wilson to Chief Judge, 27 May 1918, BCAC A187 Box 214 744 Lot 210 Te Puna, NA Auckland

²⁸ Memorandum of Transfer, 27 November 1915, BCAC A187 Box 214 744 Lot 210 Te Puna, NA Auckland

²⁹ Valuation of 15 December 1915, BCAC A187 Box 214 744 Lot 210 Te Puna, NA Auckland

³⁰ Extract from Tauranga Minute Book, vol 10, fol 6, 2 May 1917, BCAC A187 Box 214 744 Lot 210 Te Puna, NA Auckland

³¹ Ibid

Where any Crown land has been set aside or reserved for the use or benefit of Natives, or where it is proposed to so set aside or reserve any such land, the Court shall have jurisdiction, on the application of the Minister of Lands, to inquire and ascertain what persons shall be included in the certificate of title or other instrument of title of that land, and to determine the relative interests of the persons so ascertained, and the Court shall report its findings to the Governor.³²

The application was heard before Judge Wilson on 2 May 1917.³³ At the hearing Tudhope explained that the successors to the land, according to the Native Land Court records, had sold lot 210 to Thomas Plummer, but now it had been revealed that the original Crown grant had never been issued. Tudhope asked the court to declare Mita Hamiora, Rikihana, Taukiwaho Ihaka, Te Tauawhi, and Hamiora Rahipere as the owners of the land.

This was objected to by Te Potaua Tangitu, who argued that those persons listed as successors in the 1893 succession order were those who had been living on the land at the time. He said that they should be present at the hearing to argue their claim to the land. This raises the question of the intended purpose of the Crown grant to Penetaka. It may be that it was intended to grant him the land in trust for the hapu, or other grouping, occupying the area. In contrast, the 1896 succession order was granted in favour of Penetaka’s legal heirs, and may not have taken into account the claims of other beneficial owners in an implied trust.

Judge Wilson made the following judgment:

Notes on the file show that Penetaka Tuaia is the sole owner of the land and two succession orders have been drawn up in favour of different people but the first in date (19^th October 1893) was apparently cancelled and has never been signed nor completed. The second succession order is dated the 2^nd June 1896 and it has been sealed and signed and succession orders have since been made to three of the persons named in the order of 2^nd June 1896. Further the Board believing in the good faith of these persons; and as their successors have confirmed a sale of the Block and as the order of 2^nd June 1896 comes within the provisions of Section 38/1909 we see no reason for setting aside the names produced by Mr Tudhope. Apparently the original Title should have been issued to Penetaka Tuaia and we are of opinion that is the proper course to pursue in this case.

Ordered therefore that a Crown Grant be issued in favour of Penetaka Tuaia antevesting from 1^st January 1870.³⁴

The judge’s reference to ‘notes on file’ that showed Penetaka to be the owner of the land was to notes written in Native Land Court title searches at the time the applications for succession were being made. These notes, apparently written by a clerk of the court, said that Penetaka was ‘Sole owner. Title not issued yet’, and ‘Sole owner. Previous Order Cancelled.’³⁵

³² Section 11 of the Native Land Amendment Act 1912

³³ Extract from Tauranga Minute Book, vol 10, fol 6, 2 May 1917, BCAC A187 Box 214 744 Lot 210 Te Puna, NA Auckland

³⁴ Ibid

³⁵ Judge Wilson to Chief Judge, 27 May 1918, BCAC A187 Box 214 744 Lot 210 Te Puna, NA Auckland

The Solicitor General does not say that a title should not yet issue, he says, “It may be as a matter of fact in this individual case the land in question was at some previous period lawfully set aside for Penetake”, but if so that should have been proved before your Court.³⁸

The matter was resolved by Tudhope petitioning the Minister of Lands to pass special legislation for the case.³⁹ A draft clause was prepared by Tudhope for inclusion in the Native Land Amendment Bill of 1918. It was common practice at that time for unusual cases to be included in what was referred to as the ‘washing up’ Act. The Minister of Maori Affairs, Herries, agreed to the clause, and it was accordingly passed through the Native Affairs Committee and Parliament, to become section 10 of the Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1918:

Whereas the records of the Native Land Court, Waiariki District, show the following five aboriginal Natives of New Zealand - namely, Mita Hamiora, Rikihana, Taukiwaho Ihaka, Te Tauawhi, and Hamiora Rahipere - to be the owners of the block of land called Allotment No. 210, Parish of Te Puna, containing fifty acres one rood sixteen perches, more or less, as successors to Penetaka Tuaia, deceased, the original sole owner, the title to the said land being shown on the said records as “Crown Grant”: And whereas the said first-mentioned five owners, relying on their title as shown in the Native Land Court, agreed to sell the said land to Thomas Plummer, of Tauranga, farmer, a conveyance to whom was on the fifteenth day of February, nineteen hundred and sixteen, duly confirmed by the Waiariki District Maori Land Board, subject to payment of purchase-money: And whereas after the said conveyance was signed it was ascertained that no trace of the issue of the Crown grant to Penetaka Tuaia could be found: And whereas on the nineteenth day of October, nineteen hundred and sixteen, application was made by the Minister of Lands, under section 11 of the Native Land Amendment Act, 1912, to the Native Land Court, to inquire and ascertain what persons should be included in the certificate of title to the said land and determine the relative interests so ascertained: And whereas on the second day of May, nineteen hundred and seventeen, Judge Wilson, after duly hearing the said application, made an order recommending the issue of a Crown grant to the said Penetaka Tuaia antevesting to the first day of January, eighteen hundred and seventy: And whereas doubts have arisen as to the powers of Judge Wilson to make such an order: And whereas it is equitable that effect should be given to the aforesaid conveyance to

³⁶ Sharp and Tudhope to Native Owners of Te Puna 210, 17 December 1918, BCAC A187 Box 214 744 Lot 210 Te Puna, NA Auckland

³⁷ Chief Judge to Judge Wilson, 18 July 1918, BCAC A187 Box 214 744 Lot 210 Te Puna, NA Auckland

³⁸ Ibid

³⁹ Sharp and Tudhope to Native Owners of Te Puna 210, 17 December 1918, BCAC A187 Box 214 744 Lot 210 Te Puna, NA Auckland

It should be noted that the special legislation passed by the government went as far as validating the sale of the land to Thomas Plummer by those Maori who had signed the deed. This went further than the determination made by Judge Wilson, who simply ordered that a Crown grant should be issued to Penetaka Tuaia. Wilson explained that he had not wanted to award title to those person named in the 1896 succession order because of doubts over the previous succession order:

At the enquiry I was requested to find in favour of the vendors, that is the successors under the second order, but as no steps had been taken to remove the previous order of 21^st April, 1891, I decided to recommend that the name of Penetaka Tuaia be inserted on the certificate of title so that the purchaser could settle the matter between himself and the two sets of successors.⁴¹

By granting a petition made by the solicitors who acted for the purchaser, the Crown passed legislation which effectively declared who were the rightful successors to Penetaka Tuaia. Those people who had agreed to sell the land were therefore said to be the rightful owners of the land, without the benefit of a full investigation by the Native Land Court, or the opportunity for other claimants to present their case.

Lot 211 Parish of Te Puna

In August 1920 a meeting of the owners of lot 211 was held to consider the following resolution: ‘That the said land be sold to William John Francis of Tauranga farmer at the price of seven pounds (£7) per acre.’⁴² The total price for the 50 acre block was therefore £350, which was the government valuation at the time.⁴³

By this time successors had been appointed to seven of the original 22 owners.⁴⁴ The meeting of owners to consider alienating the block was attended by three owners; Henare te Kuka, Timi Kuka, and Tuoia te Kuka, each of whom held a 1/14 share in the block. Three other owners were represented by proxy; Tane te Kuka (1/14), Moetutetahatika (2/6), and Kaiwai Take (21/4). The meeting voted unanimously in favour of selling the block to Francis.

Once the resolution had been passed by the assembled owners, it was necessary for the resolution to be confirmed by the Waiariki District Maori Land Board. In support of the application to the board, a declaration was submitted from George Moore, a licensed interpreter, as to the land holdings of the owners. Moore listed: 11 owners who had died and for whom no succession orders had been made; 11 owners who

⁴⁰ Section 11 of the Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1918

⁴¹ Judge Wilson to Chief Judge, 27 May 1918, BCAC A187 Box 214 744 Lot 210 Te Puna, NA Auckland

⁴² Minutes of Meeting of Owners, 26 August 1920, BCAC A187 Box 217 2754 Te Puna Lot 211, NA Auckland

⁴³ Valuation Certificate, 16 July 1920, BCAC A187 Box 217 2754 Te Puna Lot 211, NA Auckland

⁴⁴ Particulars of Title, 13 July 1920, BCAC A187 Box 217 2754 Te Puna Lot 211, NA Auckland

Despite this rather damning report the Waiariki District Maori Land Board met on 20 October 1920 and confirmed the resolution passed by the assembled owners, subject to the purchase money being paid to the board within two months.⁴⁶ The £350 was deposited with the board on 15 December 1920.⁴⁷ However, it was later discovered that the purchaser was due a refund because the actual area of the block was only 46 acres 2 roods 32 perches. This was because land had been taken from the block for a road line, which was surveyed in 1886.⁴⁸ However, the proclamation taking the land for the road had not been registered on the title.⁴⁹ As a result, the memorandum of transfer for lot 211 recorded that £326:18:0 had been paid to the board by William John Francis for 46 acres 2 roods 32 perches.⁵⁰

Lot 214 Parish of Te Puna

On 22 December 1908 Mere Taka signed a deed transferring lot 211 to Herbert Pasquale Clarke for £9.⁵¹ The Deed had a Maori translation attached and was explained in Maori by a licensed interpreter, J.E. Dalton. The government valuation for the 6 acre section was £5.⁵² At this time Maori land alienations had to be confirmed by the local Maori Land Board, which was supposed to check, among other things, that the price was fair and the Maori owners would not be rendered landless by the sale. The Waiariki District Maori Land Board confirmed the alienation on 21 March 1912, subject to the payment of the purchase money and proof that Mere Taka had other lands.⁵³

The requirements of the board were not met at that time, and it was not until 1920, after Mere Taka had died, that the sale was finally confirmed. In March 1920 solicitors for the purchaser wrote to the Maori Land Board:

We now enclose our cheque for £9 in payment of the purchase money, and as the owner Mere Taka has since died, we presume that you will not require a schedule of “other lands”.⁵⁴

⁴⁵ Declaration by George Moore, 13 October 1920, BCAC A187 Box 217 2754 Te Puna Lot 211, NA Auckland

⁴⁶ Confirmation of a Resolution passed by Assembled Owners, 20 October 1920, BCAC A187 Box 217 2754 Te Puna Lot 211, NA Auckland

⁴⁷ Urquhart and Roe to Registrar Waiariki District Maori Land Board, 15 December 1920, BCAC A187 Box 217 2754 Te Puna Lot 211, NA Auckland

⁴⁸ SO 5222

⁴⁹ Sharp Tudhope &Wilson to Registrar Waiariki District Maori Land Board, 7 February 1921, BCAC A187 Box 217 2754 Te Puna Lot 211, NA Auckland

⁵⁰ Memorandum of Transfer, BCAC A187 Box 217 2754 Te Puna Lot 211, NA Auckland

⁵¹ Copy of Memorandum of Transfer, 22 December 1908, BCAC A187 Box 215 1909-2 Te Puna Lot 214, NA Auckland

⁵² Application to recommend His Excellency the Governor to consent to the Sale of Maori Land, BCAC A187 Box 215 1909-2 Te Puna Lot 214, NA Auckland

⁵³ Urquhart & Roe to Registrar Waiariki District Maori Land Board, 19 March 1920, BCAC A187 Box 215 1909-2 Te Puna Lot 214, NA Auckland

⁵⁴ Ibid

F i re.

The President of the Waiariki Maori Land Board, H.F. Ayson, also noted that no explanation had been given of the long delay in completing the alienation, but agreed that if five percent interest was paid on the purchase price from 1912, then he would confirm the sale. He also pointed out that the successors to Mere Taka were probably under the impression that she had been paid at the time of the sale, and that they should be informed of the situation and make an application for succession to the Native Land Court.

The solicitors paid the interest in May 1920 and informed the probable successors, as required by Ayson. As a result, Ayson signed the certificate confirming the sale on 16 July 1920.⁵⁶

1.4 CONTROL, MANAGEMENT AND ACCESS TO HUHARUA

The Crown’s ‘purchase’ of the Katikati Te Puna block alienated Maori from their villages and pa at Huharua. Only one of the three pa sites was included in the lots awarded to Maori, that is Te Hopuni which was on lot 210. Control of this pa was then lost in 1915 when it was sold to T. Plummer.

A survey plan drawn in 1886 shows three sites marked ‘native village’, none of which were on lot 210, 211 or lot 214 (see Figure 5).⁵⁷ The northern point of the land was lot 225 which included a native village on the eastern side. This lot was also the site of Huharua pa. The section was sold by the Crown to private settlers. The area acquired the name of ‘Plummers Point’ because the point was owned and dominated for a number of years at the beginning of the century by the Plummer family. The impact of Plummer’s ownership of Huharua and control of associated wahi tapu is discussed below. Another two native villages were marked within lot 224, one close to the northern boundary with lot 225, and one straddling the southern boundary with lot 223. These lots were also sold by the Crown to private settlers. It is possible that at the time the map was drawn up, Maori were continuing to live in these villages rather than on the reserves they had been allocated.

As the Crown sold the land in lots, Maori lost the land they had been living on and any chance of involvement in the management of that land. The process of creating Pakeha farm settlements on Plummers Point meant that Maori were denied control, management and access to the land. This meant they became powerless to prevent the wahi tapu from being desecrated.

The following episode is a good example of the Crown’s failure to allow Maori control of land that had considerable traditional and spiritual significance. The issue

⁵⁵ Acting Registrar to Urquhart & Roe, 15 April 1920, BCAC A187 Box 215 1909-2 Te Puna Lot 214, NA Auckland

⁵⁶ Certificate of Confirmation under 1909/219 and Native Land Amendment Act 1913, 16 July 1920, BCAC A187 Box 215 1909-2 Te Puna Lot 214, NA Auckland

⁵⁷ SO 5222

This is a petition from us that have signed their names hereunder in regard to the road leading to the cemetery at Huharoa, being part of Te Puna block, wherein our ancestors are interred, praying that the Tauranga County Council be prevented from closing same because this road has been in existence for a long time and used as a road to the cemetery of our ancestors.

Secondly, this road runs to the sea shore and gives the Maoris access to the beach to obtain shell-fish upon which the Maoris live. This cemetery is one of the matters submitted to the Confiscated Lands Commission for enquiry with the view of having same reserved as a burial ground for all times.

Wherefore we strongly object to the closing of this road. There is a pakeha growing food on this cemetery, and desecrating the remains of our ancestors. A petition from our European friends to close the said road has been lodged with the Minister. We strongly oppose this very wrong action of the Europeans. Be strong in opposing these wrong deeds of these Europeans.⁵⁸

Further insult and disregard for human decency was provided by Plummer, who informed the Crown that he had cultivated the area of the burial ground for his vegetable patch and found no evidence of human remains although he did acknowledge that human ‘remains have been found in various parts of his section. ’⁵⁹

Borrell was highly annoyed with the actions of the Crown. Borrell, by referring to the land as his, was speaking as a Maori on behalf of all Maori to a fellow Maori in the hope that together this wrong against Maoridom could be redressed. His interest in the road closure was based on cultural grounds as he wished to protect the physical integrity of the area which had once been Maori customary land. Borrell’s letter had the Public Works Department inquiring whether he had any personal interest in land, with the presumption being that he owned the adjoining section 224 and was interested in protecting his own interests. This was not the case. His concerns were with the rights of local Maori regarding land in which they had a particular interest: Land which Pakeha, in the process of developing, had damaged with little regard for Maori burial grounds or pa sites. From Borrell’s perspective, Maori association with

⁵⁸ Werahiko Borrell to Sir Maui Pomare, 7 November 1927, Works (W) 1 35/161 Omokoroa - Te Puna, National Archives (NA) Wellington. A check of petitions to the Sim Commission in the Raupatu Document Bank failed to find a petition which specifically mentioned Huharua, or any urupa.

⁵⁹ District Engineer to Permanent Head Public Works Department, 15 December 1927, W 1 35/161 Omokoroa - Te Puna, NA Wellington

From the government’s perspective, Borrell’s statements regarding the property were only relevant in so far as they were related to legal title of ownership. As Borrell did not hold title to either section 224 or 225, the Crown ignored his appeal. The government clearly felt that it was in no position to address the issue in terms that would have suited Borrell’s requirements. As far as the Public Works Department was concerned, it was witnessing a dispute between private individuals and the local body; A dispute it was able to say that it had no jurisdiction over. The debate over ownership and land usage and public interest degenerated into a neighbourly feud between Pakeha farmers. It was resolved by the building of gates and the putting up of fences.

Borrell’s attitude regarding Maori land, and the use made of it by the local council and the Crown, was also expressed in a subsequent letter to Pomare regarding land that he did own:

Herewith written in ink is the predicament into which an unsuspecting, innocent Maori is placed by the statutes of the white man and his so-called ravages. Involved in this case is the Public Works Act which gives me undue injustice. Twenty years ago three acres of land was taken from me under that Act for the purpose of a school ground, which was, of course, a rather legitimate cause. However with the advent of the East Coast Railway there was a further requirement for land in its surveyance, which meant the complete severance of the property diagonally, the railway line cutting it right in half which is a rather awkward way to treat one’s property. But let that suffice, and again I have been threatened by a further enforcement to accede to the request of the Tauranga County Council for a road to go through the whole length of the property again while there is a road giving access to their objective. Is this fair ? I strongly protest against this action and I sincerely recall their proverb “Mon Dieu et mon Droit” in accordance with the unconditional enforcement of this threat. Taking three acres for the school ground, eight acres for the railway and its respective isolation of the property. Now I am confronted with a threat that another eight acres will be taken. Will you grant me light or help in this predicament.⁶⁰

This letter clearly identifies the strength of feeling that Borrell had towards the Crown, which he felt had taken land at will without any regard towards maintaining the cultural or ancestral integrity of the land for Maori, not to mention the practical integrity of farming land that had been dissected by a railway track.

Further evidence of land damage and disfigurement was the desecration of the pa sites and burial grounds on the Plummers’ property. This information was recorded by D. Borrell, a member of the Tauranga Historical Society:

The pa at Hakarua [sic], as was subsequently found, was a repository of scores of stone axe-heads. Miss Violet Plummer, while I was there building at her home, showed me two boxes of these stone axe-heads. Some of them were well polished, others were of a rougher nature, and the best ones she told me were sent away to the Auckland museum, a box full of them. Then she related to me how a taiaha was found in the swampy ground lower down. These discoveries, especially of the stone axes, do show that this pa is of the very oldest type. Who knows, there may be a lot of other

⁶⁰ Werahiko Borrell to Sir Maui Pomare, 15 November 1927, W 1 35/161 Omokoroa - Te Puna, NA Wellington

While this was presented as an archaeologically interesting story, the quote also proves that Plummer and his family had excavated and disturbed the pa site, and removed a considerable amount of Maori cultural artefacts. It does not seem likely that any of these artefacts were handed over to Maori for care, and one gets the impression from the amount of material removed that the Plummers enthusiastically collected whatever they could find on their land.

In 1982 a submission was produced that echoed the concerns expressed by Borrell back in 1927. The submission was made to the Tauranga County Council and Bay of Plenty Harbour Board by the Tauranga Moana District Maori Council, and argued for protecting the harbour, as it is of great significance to Bay of Plenty Maori. One of the main concerns of the submission was to alert local authorities to sites of ancestral significance around the harbour edge:

There have been many instances of desecration of such sites, ranging from people in their ignorance picnicking on an old burial ground, to deliberate fossicking for artefacts, and disturbance of old bones… .Old burial grounds tend to be in two sorts of localities around the harbour shores - inside the earthworks of old pa, or in swampy or sandy areas often at or near high water mark. Not all have been identified here, but such areas should not be included in any form of public recreational use. In cases where an adjacent beach is used for public recreation, there should be clear indications that wahi tapu are not part of the public area, and that penalties for trespass or damage to such a site may be invoked. Maori complaints about such infringements should also be taken seriously by the County Council and Harbour Board.⁶²

The last sentence of this quote can be seen as an expression of Maori frustration at not being able to have their views on the management of cultural sites taken into account.

Today, the Western Bay of Plenty District Council owns part of what was lot 225 as an esplanade reserve. This provides a narrow strip of reserve land on the coast of the northern point of land on which cars can be parked to admire the view. Presumably, the esplanade reserves include the pa sites and wahi tapu of Huharua.

1.5 SUMMARY

• The Crown acquired the Huharua area from Maori by means of the Katikati Te Puna purchase. The sale of the Katikati Te Puna blocks by some Tauranga Maori has been described as a compulsory sale, which was part of the confiscation of the Tauranga Moana region.

• Once the Crown had negotiated the Te Puna purchase, Mackay set aside three reserves for Maori within the proposed township of Te Puna. These were lot 210 (50 acres), lot 211 (50 acres), and lot 214 (6 acres).

⁶¹ D. Borell ‘Historic Te Puna’, in Journal of the Tauranga Historical Society, 1964, No 21, p 11

⁶² ‘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’, in Stokes, 1992, p 38

• Lot 211 was sold in 1920 to William Francis for £326:18:0. The decision to sell to Francis was made by a resolution of assembled owners, which was confirmed by the Waiariki District Maori Land Board. At this time most of the shareholders were either landless, or unsucceeded to.

• The owner of lot 214 signed a deed in 1908 to sell the section to Herbert Clarke for £9. However, the sale was not confirmed by the Waiariki District Maori Land Board until 1920 by which time the owner had died and it was no longer necessary to prove she had other land interests.

• There are at least three pa sites on Plummers Point, but only one of them, Te Hopuni, was included in the land awarded to Maori. Huharua pa and Ongarahu pa were on land sold by the Crown to a Pakeha fanner, T. Plummer. This had the effect of further alienating Maori from their villages and pa at Huharua. Control, and management of and access to Huharua passed from Maori to the Crown and from there into the hands of a private individual. This was significant for Maori as Huharua was the site of at least three important pa, a number of important battle and burial grounds, and the home of Pirirakau after Ngati Ranginui were defeated by Ngaiterangi.

• Plummer’s ownership and use of this land is an example of the Crown’s failure to recognise the traditional and spiritual significance of this land to Maori. Urupa were desecrated as the result of cultivations. As well, control of the land was considered vitally important to Maori as it provided access to the above mentioned, sites as well as the estuary with its shellfish beds and fishing grounds. Plummer’s control of this land also illustrated the problems of one individual controlling access to a coastal strip of land that is significant to a large group of people. This is illustrated by Plummer’s blocking the road access, which had a detrimental effect on the lives of both Maori and Pakeha on the point.

• Maori attempts to have the Crown intercede on their behalf concerning access to and ownership of this land were unsuccessful, with the Crown clearly feeling itself unable to intervene and protect the traditional cultural significance of the land when the concept of British legal ownership determined that Plummer owned the rights to the land. More recent submissions to local bodies and the Crown demand that Maori cultural values be recognised.

2.1 LOCATION AND PEOPLE OF PUKEWHANAKE

Pukewhanake is an ancient pa site located on the spur of a low hill running along the west bank of Wairoa River, near the river mouth. Today, Pukewhanake is included within the boundaries of lot 178, Parish of Te Puna, which is privately owned farmland (see Figure 6).⁶³ It is visible from Te Puna Station Road which runs parallel to the hill and is fenced on private farm land. Pukewhanake is also near to where the East Coast Main Trunk Railway crosses the Wairoa River. The hill remains eye catching: Not because of any natural feature but rather because it has one side sheered away by quarrying (see Figure 10).

Pukewhanake is a very important site to Ngati Ranginui because it was the site of their first settlement in Tauranga. When Ranginui, the son of Tamatea Pokai Whenua, bought his people to Tauranga, he settled at Pukewhanake, and subsequently established Ngati Ranginui in the area by defeating Ngamarama.⁶⁴ J.A. Wilson provides the following account:

Ranginui moved with his people from Hangaroa (between Poverty Bay and Wairoa, H.B.) to Tauranga, and camped on the left bank of the Wairoa, near where the bridge on the Katikati road is now. They were squatting on land belonging to Ngamarama, a numerous tribe, who owned the whole country west of Waimapu River. The Ngamarama resented the encroachment, and, to put a stop to it, caused two Ngatiranginui children to be drowned by their own children while bathing together in the Wairoa. The Ranginui children fled home and told what had been done to them. The tribe considered the matter, and next day the children were directed to return and bathe as though nothing had happened, and when the Ngamarama children joined them they were without fail to drown some of them; this the children did, and reported that they had drowned a Rangatira girl. War followed, resulting in time in the destruction and expatriation of Ngamarama, and this is how Ngatiranginui became possessed of Tauranga…⁶⁵

Pukewhanake is therefore associated with the very establishment of Ngati Ranginui in Tauranga, and more particularly along the Wairoa River.

As well as Pukewhanake, there are many pa sites on both sides of the river, that have been identified by Des Kahotea as belonging to the hapu of Ngati Kahu, Ngati Pango, and Ngati Rangi (see Figure 7).⁶⁶ These hapu are today generally considered as hapu of Ngati Ranginui, but they also trace their descent from Ngamarama.

⁶³ Certificate of Title, 21B/122

⁶⁴ Turi Te Kani and Wiremu Ohia, ‘A Maori History of Tauranga Moana’, in Evelyn Stokes, Te Raupatu o Tauranga Moana: Volume 2: Documents Relating to Tribal History, Confiscation and Reallocation of Tauranga Lands, University of Waikato, 1992, p 19

⁶⁵ ‘Extract from J.A. Wilson, The Story of Te Waharoa and Sketches of Ancient Maori Life and History in Stokes, 1992, p 68

⁶⁶ Des Tatana Kahotea, ‘Ngati Kahu, Ngati Pango, Ngati Rangi: Draft Report for the Waitangi Tribunal’, 1996

Figure 6

Ensign Best also visited Pukewhanake and gave the following description:

The chief of this place Hamiora was an old friend of mine a most intelligent and go ahead young man was not at home but his people treated us with every hospitality taking pride in showing me all they had worthy of attention. The principal objects were a well built and roomy church and a small field of fine wheat. Puke whanaki is prettily situated on the face of a steep cliff it is a place of considerable strength and the regularity and cleanliness pervading the settlement bespeaks the presence of a Master mind.⁶⁸

In the 1840s there was very little Pakeha settlement in Tauranga Moana. However, after the Crown confiscation of Maori land in the 1860s, Pakeha settlement was actively encouraged. This severed the relationship Maori had with Pukewhanake, and other traditional sites.

2.2 RAUPATU WEST OF THE WAIROA RIVER

Legal title to Pukewhanake derives from the confiscation of the Tauranga district in 1865. It is not the intention of this report to provide an historical account of the circumstances surrounding the confiscation, 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’.⁶⁹ It should be noted that the use of the term ‘Pirirakau’ in the following section follows the description used by nineteenth-century officials for those Maori who refused to surrender. It may be that ‘Pirirakau’ actually included other Ngati Ranginui hapu from the Wairoa River area.

⁶⁷ The table is compiled from extracts from Brown’s diary in Kahotea, pp 38-39

⁶⁸ cited in Kahotea, p 39

⁶⁹ 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).

Nevertheless, in May 1866 the district surveyor reported that:

nothing like an adequate quantity of “good agricultural land” can be obtained within the limits of the confiscated block, as the greater part of it is of so rugged and broken a character, that scarcely any practicable road at all can be laid out upon it …⁷³

One of the government’s objectives was to establish a military settlement at Tauranga. The Crown was therefore anxious to obtain a sufficient area of land that would be suitable for farming settlement. Premier Frederick Whitaker had instructed that the survey should proceed west of the Wairoa River towards Te Puna, so that 50,000 acres could be obtained.

When the surveyors crossed the Wairoa River to survey land on the west bank, they were resisted by Pirirakau, who apparently had the support of Ngati Haua. The surveyors had their tents broken into and instruments stolen.⁷⁴ Wiremu Tamihana wrote to Commissioner Clarke to tell him that the survey on that side of the river should be stopped:

When I arrived here I heard that you were living in trouble, the reason, because the survey has crossed this side of the Wairoa and other places of Tauranga, that is the places which the Natives have agreed should be surveyed. I have heard that the surveys have reached those places, and that the chain has been taken twice on this side of the Te Wairoa, and twice on another place. Now do you hearken. I agree to their sending back the chain. This is a decided word of mine to you. Stop your work let it cease at Te Wairoa and at Waimapu on the other side, do not persist determining.⁷⁵

This is a clear indication that Maori understood that the confiscated block to be retained by the Crown should be between the Wairoa and Waimapu rivers only. It also shows that those Maori who lived on the west of the Wairoa River had not agreed to their land being included within the confiscated block.

A meeting was held on 1 November 1866 to explain why the boundary of the confiscated block would extend to the Te Puna River. The following is Commissioner Mackay’s account of the meeting:

Some discussions ensued and the Arawa claims near Puwhenua were mentioned as a reason for the survey not being carried further back. Mr Clarke explained that the arrangement entered into with His Excellency the Governor and Mr Whitaker was that “if the fifty thousand acres could not be obtained between the rivers Waimapu and

⁷⁰ ‘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

⁷¹ New Zealand Gazette, 1865, p 187

⁷² Stokes, 1990, p 39

⁷³ cited in Stokes, 1990, p 102

⁷⁴ Rachael Willan, ‘Wairoa River Report’, a Report Commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, 1996, p 24

⁷⁵ W. Tamihana Te Waharoa to Mr Clarke, AJHR, 1867, A-20, enclosure no. 3

It should be noted that although Mackay claimed that his proposal received unanimous agreement, those people who were most effected, the Pirirakau hapu who lived west of the Wairoa River, were not present at the meeting to give their consent, or to object. Mackay himself seemed to acknowledge this by saying that he would like to meet with them. However, the Crown Commissioners were well aware that Pirirakau opposed the boundary extension. Not only had Pirirakau disrupted the surveys, and repeatedly refused to meet with the Crown and negotiate, they also wrote in protest:

We will not agree to (or consent to give) the land from Te Wairoa extending to Waipapa. We will not consent to the money these words are true: No, for the money, No for the rebellion. Desist from your disputing (do not contend the point) stop where you are. This is a true word by the tribes of the Wairoa extending to Waipapa.⁷⁷

However, by claiming that Pirirakau were ‘slaves’ of Ngaiterangi, and by pointing out that they were ‘hauhau’ Mackay was able to justify to the government the inclusion of Pirirakau lands within the confiscation boundary. He was also able to justify using their lands to reward those Maori who had agreed to his arrangements:

This tribe were very much inclined to be troublesome when I was last at Tauranga. I would point out that with the exception of some two or three persons they have all been in rebellion, and have not returned to their allegiance to this day. In my opinion it would only be just to confiscate all their lands, reserving about 2,500 acres for their use and occupation. Their lands are principally between Te Puna and Wairoa, and I would suggest that a portion of these should be given to those friendly Natives who have lost land in the block of 50,000 acres before mentioned.⁷⁸

⁷⁶ cited in Stokes, 1990, pp 108-109

⁷⁷ Tribes of the Wairoa to Waipapa to Mackay and Clarke, 3 November 1866, AJHR, 1867, A-20

⁷⁸ Mackay to Rolleston, 25 September 1866, AJHR, 1867, A-20, p 22

The Crown decision to include land west of the Wairoa River within the confiscated block was resisted and protested by those hapu who lived there. The result was that land traditionally belonging to certain Ngati Ranginui hapu was acquired by the Crown without payment or consent. The intention was to obtain land that would be suitable for settlement It also meant that Pukewhanake, and other wahi tapu, were included in reserves awarded to chiefs for their ‘loyalty’ to the Crown.

2.3 LOT 178 PARISH OF TE PUNA

As part of the negotiations over the confiscated block, and the purchase of the Katikati Te Puna block, Clarke and Mackay were given the task of setting aside reserves for Maori within the land acquired. It has already been noted that Mackay planned that the land taken west of the Wairoa River could be used to provide land for Maori who had not fought against the Crown, but who had lost their land in the

50,0 acre block.

The process used by Clarke and Mackay seems to have been largely informal, and based on promises made at various meetings. In 1866 Mackay recorded the following arrangements he had made about land at Pukewhanake:

Maihi and others at Pukewhanake to have sufficient land for their requirements. If not enough for Wiremu te Matewai within boundaries arranged with Mr Turner, an addition to be made for him. Enoka agrees to allow a right of road through his piece. Maihi wishes to have a site for houses near the bank of the Wairoa, but this is to be arranged between them.⁸¹

In 1867 Clarke provided a return of the reserves he had allocated. The schedule of reserves included Pukewhanake, and said that 100 acres was to be awarded to ‘Maihi, Ihaka, Wiremu Te Matewai, Te Uara and others.’⁸² In 1871 Clarke reported to the government that the grants of land had been made. However, the arrangements were now slightly different. Maihi Haki and others had been granted lots 175 and 176, Parish of Te Puna, which totalled 60 acres. Enoka Te Whanake was granted lots 177 and 178, with a combined area of 125 acres.⁸³

⁷⁹ Stokes, 1990, p 111

⁸⁰ Ibid

⁸¹ ‘Memorandum of Outstanding promises, engagements etc by James Mackay Jnr, July 1866’, in Raupatu Document Bank, vol 124, p 47755

⁸² from Stokes, 1990, p 249

⁸³ from Stokes, 1990, p 254

Not long afterwards, Enoka sold the block to Thomas Craig, a timber merchant from Auckland, on 13 May 1869.⁸⁶ Craig paid £17:10:0 for the 70 acre lot. The deed was endorsed by licensed interpreter C.T.F. Baron de Thierry, who declared he had read the deed to Enoka in Maori and that Enoka understood the full meaning of the deed. It appears that the deed was signed in Auckland.

Craig, as well as being a timber merchant, seems to have been something of a land speculator, because in 1870 he sold lot 178, as part of a sale of 13 freehold and 8 leasehold lots to J.S. Macfarlane.⁸⁷ The block passed through two more owners before being purchased by William Alfred Clarke of Tauranga. On 17 February 1877 Clarke paid £600 for lot 178.⁸⁸

Lot 178 was held by the Clarke family until 1971, when it was transferred to ‘Te Wairoa Farm Limited’.⁸⁹ This may have been a Clarke family company, as the Clarkes had called their property ‘Te Wairoa’. The first certificate of title for lot 178 was issued in 1930, and registered Florence Mary Clarke, the wife of Herbert Pasquale Clarke, as the owner of the land. In 1932 the land was transferred to Isabel and William Clarke, who then transferred it to Hector James Clarke in 1938.

2.4 CONTROL, USE AND MANAGEMENT OF PUKEWHANAKE

Pukewhanake was part of the area confiscated from its traditional owners west of the Wairoa River. Although it was part of an area of land that was subsequently awarded to Maori, the fact that it was awarded to a chief for his loyalty, rather than because he had traditional ties to the land, meant that it was quickly alienated into Pakeha ownership.

Once lot 178 had been transferred to private Pakeha ownership, Maori had no say over the use and management of Pukewhanake. Lot 178 became part of Clarke’s farm on the west bank of the Wairoa River. Clarke’s property, as it was in 1910, was described by the Bay of Plenty Times:

⁸⁴ ML 9760

⁸⁵ Crown Grant 448k, South Auckland Land District

⁸⁶ Deeds Book K1/223, deed 449K

⁸⁷ Deeds Index 1K/394

⁸⁸ Deeds Book K1/929, deed 1850K

⁸⁹ Certificate of Title 521/214

This quote provides evidence that Pukewhanake had been plundered for cultural artefacts once it came into private ownership. It is unlikely that any of the taonga unearthed were given over to Maori, and indeed the pounamu tiki had been given to Captain Mair, who today would seem to have been a most inappropriate recipient.

Wairoa Bridge Construction

The most obvious desecration of Pukewhanake occurred in 1965 as a result of work carried out by the Crown to improve the bridge crossing the Wairoa River. The river was first bridged in 1875, when it provided an important link north for the growing settlement of Tauranga. In 1915 the original bridge was replaced by a one lane concrete bridge. By 1964 the Ministry of Works found it had to replace the concrete bridge because it had become unstable:

Due to flood scouring, settlement is taking place in Pier Foundations with resultant serious damage to the superstructure and consequent costly repairs. Lately, 30 ton loads, and 15 m.p.h. speed restrictions, have been imposed by the Resident Engineer.⁹¹

Replacing the bridge also meant constructing new approaches to the bridge, and realigning State Highway 2 with the new bridge. The first stage was to deposit fill material for the bridge approaches. Work started in February 1965 on the eastern approach. Because the ground was swampy the approach was initially built up ten feet above the proposed grade so that it would settle properly. The resident engineer reported that when construction of the bridge was completed the excess fill would then be deposited between the old and new bridge to form a riverside park.⁹²

⁹⁰ Bay of Plenty Times, 1 April 1910

⁹¹ Designing Draughtsman to Chief Designing Engineer, 11 February 1965, W 72/2/3A/2 Tauranga Section, National Archives (NA) Records Centre, Auckland

⁹² Resident Engineer to District Commisioner of Works, 21 April 1965, W 72/2/3A/2 Tauranga Section, NA Records Centre, Auckland

1. Further to Stores Quotation No. 1 dated 20.1.65 an additional quantity of 26,000 cubic yards of non-organic filling is now required for the north approach to the new Wairoa River Bridge on S.H. 2.

2. Quotation No. 1 for 44,000 cubic yards of filling was accepted from J.E. Prince Ltd at a delivered price of 3/- per cubic yard. The material supplied was a selected pumice which required ripping before it could be loaded, was extremely satisfactory as filling and was easily compacted. Lead from the borrow pit to the fill was approximately 1.5 miles. The contractor had to pay a royalty of 6d per yard to the owner of the land on which the pit is situated and had to maintain 1.1 miles of County Road (Te Puna Station Road) over which he carted the material.

3. The 26,000 yards of filling now required is to form the north approach fill to the bridge and also to form the new intersection of Te Puna Station Road with the State Highway. This work is necessary now so that the successful bridge contractor will not be inconvenienced by traffic when constructing abutment “A” of the bridge.

4. Prince is prepared to supply the additional filling required as an extension to his original order of 44,000 yards at 3/- and it is recommended that this course be adopted for the following reasons:

(a) If fresh quotes are invited from interested contractors it is expected that the delivered price will be increased because it is known that the owner of the pit, Mr H.J. Clarke, has been trying to increase his royalty charge to 1/- per yard;

(b) Prince apparently has some agreement with Clarke whereby material delivered under the original order or extensions to it will incur a royalty payment of only 6d per yard;

(c) Prince proved a most satisfactory contractor when the original fill was delivered;

(d) He will be in a position to commence deliveries in approximately two-three weeks time;

(e) A delivered price of 3/- per yard for this selected material is considered to be a most realistic and competitive price.⁹³

This letter also shows that Clarke was in a position to make substantial amounts of money from exploiting the resources of Pukewhanake. This is confirmed by a later letter from the District Commissioner of Works, who recommended that the order from Prince Ltd should proceed because the material from Pukewhanake was in demand:

⁹³ Resident Engineer to District Commissioner of Works, 19 July 1965, W 72/2/3A/2 Tauranga Section, NA Records Centre, Auckland

Approval was given in August 1965 for the additional 26,000 yards to be supplied by Prince Ltd. In total 70,000 cubic yards of material was removed from the north face of Pukewhanake to supply the Ministry of Works. For this material Clarke received £4,200 in total.

Not only was the Pukewhanake pa damaged by the excavation of filling material (see Figure 10), but another form of desecration occurred as well. In the process of removing the hillside, skeletal remains were exposed. According to members of Ngati Kahu the bones were deposited on the road. Kaumatua from Ngati Kahu collected the bones from the road and buried them in the hapu cemetery on the other side of the river.⁹⁵

Calls for Protection of Pukewhanake

Ironically, the very fact that Pukewhanake had been damaged led to an interest being taken in its preservation. In 1970 the Lands and Survey Department sent a representative to Tauranga to identify coastal pa sites which were being threatened by roading and residential development. The senior assistant surveyor from Rotorua, M.J. Wilson, met with D. Borrell, representing the Tauranga Maori Executive and the Tauranga Historical Society, and N. Nicholls from the Tauranga District Museum Committee. After inspecting old maps Wilson decided that three pa were ‘in immediate need of protection and preservation.’⁹⁶ These were Pukewhanake and Paorangi, both owned by H.J. Clarke, and Oruamatua pa at Matapihi. The Bay of Plenty Times reported that Wilson intended:

approaching the landowners concerned seeking co-operation in protecting the sites from further deterioration. He hopes to have the sites fenced off.

Mr Wilson said it was apparent most of the other pa sites in the area were already protected by coastal reserves. Others were on private land within the city boundary well preserved by their owners.

The department’s concern, Mr Wilson said, was mostly with pas and fortifications adjacent to coastal reserves, but not quite protected by them.⁹⁷

It is not known whether Lands and Survey did approach Clarke about protecting the pa sites on his property, and if so, what the outcome was. However, it is clear that by this time, the Crown’s attempt to preserve sites was too late. Pukewhanake had

⁹⁴ District Commissioner of Works to Commissioner of Works, 3 August 1965, W 72/2/3A/2 Tauranga Section, NA Records Centre, Auckland

⁹⁵ Des Tatana Kahotea, ‘Tauranga Urban Growth Strategy: Cultural Resource Inventory: Features of Significance to the Maori Community’, Tauranga District Council, 1992, p 59

⁹⁶ Bay of Plenty Times, 8 May 1970

⁹⁷ Ibid

A recent report written for Ngati Kahu by Antoine Coffin explains why tangata whenua have concerns about the way traditional sites have been treated. It also shows the sorts of protections they would like to see sites such as Pukewhanake given:

All areas of heritage significance to Ngati Kahu and other hapu on the Wairoa River and harbour margin must be preserved. These areas are Ngati Kahu’s life history, a physical and spiritual link to the ancestors. Historic places, areas and wahi tapu exist along the banks of the Wairoa River, both on Ngati Kahu lands and lands in private ownership. Many of these sites have been modified. The excavation works on Pukewhanake is an example of degradation to historic sites that are not protected. Many more may be referred to in patere and whakapapa. The protection of these sites is required to;

• stop further degradation of the sites by sub-division, residential and commercial development and vandalism.

• preserve and maintain the ancestral landscape

• preserve the importance of the place to Ngati Kahu and other hapu in reference to events, persons and mythology

• restore the mana of Ngati Kahu over its ancestral landscape.⁹⁸

Today Pukewhanake is still in private ownership. Ngati Kahu have asked the Waitangi Tribunal to recommend that Pukewhanake be returned to Maori ownership, but the Treaty of Waitangi Act prohibits the Tribunal from making recommendations regarding land in private ownership. Regardless of whether the ancestral site can be returned to Maori or not, strong arguments can be made for greater say from Maori in how such sites are managed, to ensure that further destruction, such as that which has already happened at Pukewhanake, does not occur again.

2.5 SUMMARY

• Pukewhanake is an ancient pa site on a hill on the west bank of the Wairoa River. It is an important pa because it was the site of Ngati Ranginui’s first settlement in Tauranga. There are many other pa sites on both sides of the river belonging to Ngati Kahu, Ngati Rangi and Ngati Pango, all hapu of Ngati Ranginui and tracing their ancestry to Ngamarama.

• Pukewhanake was part of the area west of the Wairoa River confiscated by the Crown from its traditional owners. The decision to extend the boundary of the 50,000 acre confiscated block over the Wairoa River was resisted by Pirirakau and other Maori. Although Crown Commissioners met with various ‘Ngaiterangi chiefs’ to obtain their consent to the confiscated boundary, those Maori most

⁹⁸ Antoine Coffin, ‘Wairoa River and Coastal Environment Issues and Options Paper’, Bay of Plenty Polytechnic, Tauranga, 1995, p 13

• The result was that land traditionally belonging to certain Ngati Ranginui hapu was acquired by the Crown without payment or consent. The intention was to obtain land that would be suitable for settlement. It also meant that Pukewhanake, and other wahi tapu, were included in reserves awarded to chiefs for their ‘loyalty’ to the Crown.

• Pukewhanake was included in lot 178, Parish of Te Puna (70 acres), which was awarded to Enoka te Whanake by a Crown grant dated 5 January 1869. Although Pukewhanake was part of an area of land that was subsequently awarded to Maori, the fact that it was awarded to a chief for his loyalty, rather than because he had traditional ties to the land, meant that it was quickly alienated into Pakeha ownership.

• Enoka sold lot 178 on 13 May 1869 to Thomas Craig for £17:10:0. The section was later purchased by H.P. Clarke, and remained in the Clarke family for nearly 100 years. Once it had been sold into private pakeha ownership Maori had no say over the use and management of special sites on this land. Pukewhanake was turned into farmland, and the pa was ‘robbed’ of cultural artefacts, none of which appeared to have passed into Maori control.

• In 1965 serious damage was done to Pukewhanake, as a result of work carried out by the Ministry of Works to improve State Highway 2 where it crosses the Wairoa River. Fill material required to build up the level of the highway where it approached the new bridge was acquired from Pukewhanake. A total of 70,000 cubic yards of fill was quarried from Pukewhanake by a contractor for the Ministry of Works. For this Clarke received royalty payments of £4,200.

• As a result, Pukewhanake today has a clearly exposed cut northern face. Not only was the land itself desecrated, but skeletal remains were disinterred while the hillside was being removed. At that time, the Crown had little regard for the Maori people of the area or their maunga and this in turn led to the maunga’s near total destruction. More recently Maori have called for greater say in how sites such as Pukewhanake are managed to prevent any further destruction.

Nga Kuri a Wharei has proven to be an elusive site for research. Although it is relatively straightforward to present different accounts of Nga Kuri a Wharei as a boundary marker, conflicting sources mean that this report makes no attempt to pinpoint its exact location. As will be shown, various sources place Nga Kuri a Wharei at different points along the Western Bay of Plenty coast between Waihi Beach and Bowentown. Tangata whenua may be able to provide more specific information to the Waitangi Tribunal.

3.1 TRADITIONAL BOUNDARY: ‘Mai Tikirau ki Nga Kuri a Wharei’

Nga Kuri a Wharei marks the western boundary of the territory inhabited by the descendants of the Mataatua waka. This territory is traditionally described as ‘Mai Tikirau ki Nga Kuri a Wharei’. This area covers the Bay of Plenty from Cape Runaway to Nga Kuri a Wharei.⁹⁹ The Western Bay of Plenty tribe descended from Mataatua is Ngaiterangi iwi.

Whanau a Tauwhao are a hapu of Ngaiterangi who inhabit the Otawhiwhi (Bowentown) area. Stokes provides the following description of Whanau a Tauwhao and their relationship with Nga Kuri a Wharei:

At Otawhiwhi, they are the guardians of the western outpost of the Mataatua waka - Nga Kuri a Wharei. This Hawaiki name was originally applied to some rocks on the mainland at Moehau [Coromandel]. It is sometimes said these rocks were opposite the place where the canoes gathered off Ahuahu, Mercury Island. This name was referred to in the rahui composed by Muriwai, sister of Toroa, commander of Mataatua, after her children were drowned at sea - Mai I Nga Kuri a Wharei ki Tikirau. Today this name marks the western boundary of Mataatua settlements at the stream called Waiorooro, between Waihi Beach and Bowentown.¹⁰⁰

A slightly different description of the location and meaning of Nga Kuri a Wharei was given to the Bay of Plenty Times in 1974 by George Bryan, a Whanau a Tauwhao kaumatua:

their mainland border was marked by two mounds named, “Nga Kuri a Whare” two small mounds near Emerton Road, Athenree.

George Bryan says the history of these little mounds goes back to the arrival of the Mataatua canoe in the Bay of Plenty over 600 years ago.

The mounds represent supernatural dogs which came in the canoe, and travelled from Whakatane to Athenree.¹⁰¹

No other written traditional accounts of settlement or events at Nga Kuri a Wharei have been located. There is, however, some indication that the beach area was an ancient settlement site. Stokes quotes the following description by Mair of an ancient

⁹⁹ Evelyn Stokes, A History of Tauranga County, Dunmore Press, Palmerston North, 1980, p 25

¹⁰⁰ 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 5

¹⁰¹ Bay of Plenty Times, 1 June 1974

About ten years ago, owing to the destruction of the vegetation by fire and the trampling of stock, the sandhill began to move seawards before the fierce and prevailing westerly winds, leaving in a short time, the original surface of clayey [sic] soil, and forming a level sort of plateau some chains wide and perhaps 150 yards long, and disclosing the site of an ancient village with numerous middens and workshops. Around the latter cartloads of obsidian, chert, and different kinds of stone knives and flakes could be seen. Heaps of even-sized round stones for net-sinkers and fishing-sinkers, and hundreds of bone implements made from whalebone, human bone, moa, albatros, and native-dog bones could be seen in every stage of manufacture. Barbed points for fish-hooks or bird spears also strewed the surface. In fact, here were to be found specimens of almost every domestic article used by a primitive people. Here and there were stone platforms or pavements, consisting of flat stones neatly fitted together and set in some kind of cement, apparently made from ashes or burnt shell. These places were circular, about 6ft. in diameter, and were probably used for roasting or drying food on. The comer posts (of totara) of many of the houses were still standing, but crumbled to brown dust on being touched. None of the huts appeared to have been more than 8 ft. wide and 10ft. to 12ft. long. Stone hammers were also very numerous, and so were stone axes, adzes, gouges, wedges, chisels, drill points, &c. - some showing signs of rough carving; but they fell to pieces on being touched, as did most of the bone articles - hooks, &c. - excepting the uhis or tattoooing-adzes and beautiful little sewing needles, which, being made from the fine hard bone of the albatros-wing, are in prefect preservation. I also noticed a number of slabs of a kind of sandstone called “hoanga” by the natives, none of which, so far as I know, is to be found in the neighbourhood of Tauranga, and large smooth stones or anvils. The axes, adzes, &c., are also made from a hard kind of stone not found on the mainland, but probably obtained from Tuhua, or Mayor Island, which is just opposite and about fifteen miles off shore. A number of shafts made from bone, stone, or petrified wood were found… .

Only a few greenstone ornaments or greenstone clips were found, and they are probably of much later date. The manner in which the stone weapons are chipped out is really most artistic, and evidences great skill. The class of weapons are evidently the work of a people in a much lower stage of civilisation, and are not highly polished and like those used by the Hawaikians, or ancestors of the present Maoris. Many of the axes and adzes had been fitted with wooden handles, and even the binding of kiekie-roots lay in spirals round the wood and stone, but was quite perished, and the wood crumbled at the lightest touch.

Not the least interesting of my discoveries was finding the tiny model of an ancient pa tiwatawata, or palisaded fort, which had evidently been a plaything of the village children. It had been made by sticking three rows of totara splinters into the ground, forming the three lines of defence knows as the Pekerangi, Kaikirikiri, and Kiri tangata. There were two gateways (waharoa), approached by long alleyways.

It is evident that these villagers were a tribe of artisans who made weapons and domestic articles for trading purposes. While they were on a prolonged visit to some other place a gale of extraordinary severity must have overwhelmed their kainga, burying it 20 ft. or 30 ft. deep with drifting sand, and now, after a lapse of perhaps hundreds of years, it has been exposed to view. Since I last visited it the sand has again covered the larger portion of the village-site.¹⁰²

¹⁰² Stokes, Whanau a Tauwhao, pp 27-29

3.2 RAUPATU BOUNDARY

The name ‘Nga Kuri a Wharei’ has always been given to the northern boundary of the Tauranga confiscation. The boundary of the confiscated district was described using Maori names to denote features of significance. At the time the boundaries were decided the land had not been surveyed and so the exact areas and locations were not known.

The entire Tauranga Moana area was confiscated on 18 May 1865 by a proclamation under the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863. The schedule to the Order in Council described the confiscated district as:

All that land estimated to contain 211,000 acres, known as the Tauranga Block.

Bounded on the north-east by the sea from the mouth of Wairaki Creek to Ngakmia-whare Point; on the south-east by a line bearing south 45° west (true) 16 miles; thence on the south-west by a line bearing north 45° west (true) to the summit or watershed of the dividing range of hills between the East Coast and the Thames Valley: and thence following the said watershed northward to the summit of the Aroha Mountain; and on the north-west by a straight line from the summit of the Aroha Mountain to Ngakuria-whare Point.

Together with the Island of Tahua or Mayor Island, and such portions of Motiti or Flat Island as shall be adjudged to belong to the Ngaiterangi Tribe, or to individual members thereof.¹⁰⁴

The Tauranga District Lands Act 1867 validated the Tauranga confiscation and subsequent arrangements that had been made. Section 4 of the Act declared that all lands in the Schedule to the Act should be taken to be the lands defined by the Order in Council. The Schedule to the Act is as follows:

All that land estimated to contain two hundred and fourteen thousand acres known as the Tauranga Block. Bounded on the north-east by the sea from the mouth of the Wairakei Creek to Ngakuri-a-whare Point on the south-east by a line bearing south forty-five degrees west (true) sixteen miles thence on the south-west by a line bearing north forty-five degrees west (true) to the summit or watershed of the dividing range of hills between the East Coast and the Thames Valley and thence following the said watershed northward to the summit of the Aroha Mountain and on the north-west by a straight line from the summit of the Aroha Mountain to Ngakuri-a-whare Point.

Together with the Island of Tuhua or Mayor Island and such portions of Motiti or Flat Island as shall be adjudged to belong to the Ngaiterangi tribe or to individual members thereof.¹⁰⁵

The Tauranga District Lands Act 1868 replaced the Schedule of the 1867 Act with the following schedule:

¹⁰³ For examples see Stokes, Whanau a Tauwhao, pp 21-27

¹⁰⁴ New Zealand Gazette, 27 June 1865

¹⁰⁵ Tauranga District Lands Act, 1867, Schedule

It is interesting to note that this description of the boundaries was also used in the Tauranga Moana Maori Trust Board Act 1981 which awarded compensation to Tauranga Maori for the confiscation of their lands.¹⁰⁷

The above boundary descriptions all refer to the area originally confiscated by Order in Council. Within that area the Crown arranged to keep 50,000 acres as the confiscated block, and the rest of the land would be returned to Maori. However, the land north of the Te Puna Stream was then ‘purchased’ by the Crown, as described in the Huharua section of this report.

The various deeds signed by Maori selling the Katikati and Te Puna blocks also give ‘Nga Kuri a Wharei’ as the name of the northern coastal point of the sale. The Te Puna and Katikati No 3 deed, signed on 3 November 1866, gives the following boundary description:

Ko nga rohe enei o taua whenua ka timata I Nga Kuri-a-whare ka rere Waingaere ka rere Oteotahi ka rere te whareotumapere ka rere te Onepu ka rere Waimata ka rere nga Puketurua ka rere te Wharehakahaka o Rangihau ka rere te Onewhero ka rere Huruhuru ka rere Pukekauri ka rere Mangahokio ka rere Kakarikikaitahi ara ki te Aroha auta katahi ka rere ke te tonga Pukekohatu ka rere Ngatukitukiahikawera ka rere Pukewhakataratara ka rere te Tuahu ka rere Motutapere ka rere Maungakahika ka rere Ngatamahinerua ka rere Haanga ka rere te Aroaro o Paretapu ka rere te Rekerekeokautere ka rere Maungakaiwhiria katahi ka whati mai whaka te moana te Umuokorongaehe ka rere Te Ranga ka rere Pukemanuka ka rere Te Puna katahi ka haere it te tahataha moana a - Ngakuri a Whare te rohe o te timatanga.¹⁰⁸

The translation was:

These are the boundaries of the Land commencing at ngakuri a whare thence to Waingaere thence to Oteotahi thence to Te whareotumapere thence to te Onepu thence to Waimata thence to Ngapuketurua thence to Wharehakahaka o Rangihau thence to Onewhero thence to Huruhuru thence to Pukekauri thence to Mangahokio thence to Kakarikikaitahi that is to say to Te Aroha auta thence in a southerly direction to Pukekohatu thence to Ngatukitukiahikawera thence to Pukewhakataratara thence to Te Tuahu thence to Motutapere thence to Mangakahika thence to Ngatamahinerua thence to Haanga thence to te Aroaro o Paretapu thence to te

¹⁰⁶ Tauranga District Lands Act, 1868, Schedule

¹⁰⁷ Vincent O’Malley, Alan Ward, ‘Draft Historical Report on Tauranga Moana Lands’, Crown/Congress Joint Working Part, 1993, p 4

¹⁰⁸ 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

The plans accompanying the purchase deeds show Nga Kuri a Wharei as being sharply north of Mt Te Aroha and the Waiau Estuary (see Figures 11, 12, 13). Today, this would be within the Waihi Beach township at the northern end of the sand dune beach.

However, it would appear that when the Katikati block was surveyed the named location of Nga Kuri a Wharei was changed. A map of the Katikati Te Puna purchase compiled by Evelyn Stokes (see Figure 14) clearly shows the difference. The ‘original’ confiscation line was as per the deed maps, but the ‘Confiscation line and purchase boundary adjusted on survey’ runs more directly from Mt Te Aroha to the coast, and places Nga Kuri a Wharei about half way down the coast between Waihi Beach and Bowentown, just to the north of the Waiau estuary.

Another map prepared by Stokes, places Nga Kuri a Wharei itself to the north of the confiscation line (see Figure 15). On this map, Stokes has placed Nga Kuri a Wharei at the mouth of the Waiorooro Stream. The Waiorooro Stream is shown as midway between Waihi Beach township and the confiscation line. A drive up the coast from Bowentown to Waihi Beach in October 1996 failed to find any stream which was marked with that name. Today most of the area is either coastal reserve or residential housing.

3.3 SUMMARY

• The importance of Nga Kuri a Wharei to Maori is recorded in the saying ‘Mai Tikirau ki Nga Kuri a Wharei’. This marks the boundary of Mataatua territory.

• As a traditional site, the most likely location seems to be at the mouth of the Waiorooro Stream. Unfortunately, today at Waihi Beach, no stream is marked by this name.

• Nga Kuri a Wharei has always been the name of the northern boundary of the district confiscated under the New Zealand Settlements Act. ‘Nga Kuri a Wharei’ was a reference point in the Order in Council, the Tauranga District Lands Acts of 1867 and 1868, and the boundary descriptions of the purchase deeds for the Katikati Te Puna blocks. Sketch maps accompanying the deeds place Nga Kuri a Wharei at the northern end of Waihi Beach.

• However, when those blocks were surveyed, the northern boundary of the confiscated district seems to have been shifted south of Nga Kuri a Wharei itself to just north of the Waiau Estuary.

¹⁰⁹ Ibid

Figure 13

Published Sources

Appendices to the Journals of the House of Representatives

Bay of Plenty Times

New Zealand Gazette

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, Hamilton, 1990

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

Raupatu Document Bank, vol 124

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

Unpublished Sources

Coffin, Antoine, ‘Wairoa River and Coastal Environment Issues and Options Paper’, Bay of Plenty Polytechnic, Tauranga, 1995, p 13

Kahotea, Des Tatana, ‘Tauranga Urban Growth Strategy: Cultural Resource Inventory: Features of Significance to the Maori Community’, Tauranga District Council, 1992, p 59

‘Ngati Kahu, Ngati Pango, Ngati Rangi: Draft Report for the Waitangi Tribunal’, 1996

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

O’Malley, Vincent, Alan Ward, ‘Draft Historical Report on Tauranga Moana Lands’, Crown/Congress Joint Working Part, 1993

Stokes, Evelyn, ‘Te Raupatu o Tauranga Moana: Reserves for Maori in the Tauranga Confiscated Lands’ Draft Only, 1996

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

‘Wairoa River Report’, Waitangi Tribunal, 1996

Files

BCAC A187 Box 214 744 Lot 210 Te Puna, National Archives Auckland

BCAC A187 Box 215 1909-2 Te Puna Lot 214, National Archives Auckland

BCAC A187 Box 217 2754 Te Puna Lot 211, National Archives Auckland

W 1 35/161 Omokoroa - Te Puna, National Archives Wellington

W 72/2/3A/2 Tauranga Section, National Archives Records Centre, Auckland

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…

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)

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

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

Cont…

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

10c/22