OFFICIAL
Wai 898 #A71
Aspects of Rohe Potae Political
Engagement, 1886 to 1913
Dr Helen Robinson and Dr Paul Christoffel
A report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal for the Te Rohe
Potae (Wai 898) district inquiry
August 2011
RECEIVED
Waitangi Tribunal
31 Aug 2011
Ministry of Justice
WELLINGTON
Authors
Dr Paul John Christoffel has been a Research Analyst/Inquiry Facilitator at the Waitangi
Tribunal Unit since December 2006. He has a PhD in New Zealand history from Victoria
University of Wellington and 18 years experience in policy and research in various
government departments. His previous report for the Tribunal was entitled ‘The Provision of
Education Services to Maori in Te Rohe Potae, 1840 – 2010’ (Wai 898, document A27).
Dr Helen Robinson has been a Research Analyst/Inquiry Facilitator at the Waitangi Tribunal
Unit since April 2009 and has a PhD in history from the University of Auckland. She has
published articles in academic journals in New Zealand and overseas, the most recent being
‘Simple Nullity or Birth of Law and Order? The Treaty of Waitangi in Legal and
Historiographical Discourse from 1877 to 1970’ in the December 2010 issue of the New
Zealand Universities Law Review. Her previous report for the Tribunal was ‘Te Taha Tinana:
Maori Health and the Crown in Te Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1840 to 1990’ (Wai 898,
document A31).
i
Contents
Authors
i
Contents
ii
List of maps
v
List of graphs
v
List of figures
v
Introduction
1
The approach taken
2
Chapter structure
3
Claims and sources
4
A note on geographical terminology
5
Chapter 1: Background: 1882 to 1885
7
A thawing in the Crown-Kingitanga relationship
8
A new approach to negotiations
10
The Land Court agreement of late 1883
14
The events of 1884
17
Ballance visits the Rohe Potae in 1885
21
The railway is agreed to
26
Summary
29
Chapter 2: Nineteenth Century Land Loss
31
Objectives of Rohe Potae leaders and the government by 1886
32
The Tauponuiatia Native Land Court application
35
Crown pre-emption in the Rohe Potae
39
Crown purchase of Rohe Potae Lands to 1900
43
A temporary slowdown in purchasing
49
Conclusions
50
Chapter 3: Prophets and Political Movements in the Rohe Potae
53
The Kingitanga
55
Te Mahuki
62
Te Kere
68
Te Kooti
71
Pao Miere
72
The Kotahitanga
72
ii
Conclusions
75
Chapter 4: Maori Representation in Parliament from 1885
77
Background
77
Ballance’s undertaking to Te Rohe Potae Maori
81
Developments after Ballance’s 1885 tour
82
Maori get fairer representation
85
The effects of the 1887 reforms
88
Electoral changes 1887 to 1913
91
Other electoral issues
93
Conclusions
95
Chapter 5: The Kawhia Committee
97
Background to the Native Committees Act 1883
98
The Native Committees Act 1883
100
The Kawhia Committee in operation
104
Gold prospecting
112
The Kawhia Committee, the Government, and the Kingitanga
115
Conclusions
117
Chapter 6: Maori Land Councils and Boards
119
Maori Land Councils and Boards in statements of claim
121
Background to the Maori Lands Administration Act 1900
121
The Maori Lands Administration Act
128
Maori Land Council districts and membership
133
Maori Land Councils in operation
143
Maori Land Councils and Native Townships
149
Legislative change and the demise of the Land Councils
152
Maori Land Boards in the Rohe Potae
162
Conclusions
168
Chapter 7: Maori Councils
171
The Maori Councils Act
172
Council apparatus and membership
177
The Maori Council system in action
187
Council funding
193
The councils fade out
198
Conclusions
200
iii
Chapter 8: Rohe Potae Maori and the Liquor Laws
201
Background
202
The Wanganui Proclamation
207
Policing prohibition
208
The 1891 license application
212
Seddon enters the picture
218
The Pakeha influx
220
The ‘sacred compact’ is born
224
Seddon backs down
233
The ‘compact’ ascendant
239
The elusive royal commission
242
Maori opposition to prohibition declines
247
A new version of the ‘compact’
249
A final attempt
255
Conclusions
259
Chapter 9: Rates
264
Rating in statements of claim
264
Agreements about rating before 1886
265
Rating and Maori land in the Rohe Potae to 1900
267
Rating and Maori land in the Rohe Potae, 1900-1913
273
Conclusions
279
Conclusions
281
General summary
288
Appendix - Direction Commissioning Research
291
Bibliography
294
iv
List of maps
Map 1: Te Rohe Potae Inquiry District
6
Map 2: Maori Council Districts
181
Map 3: The areas in which liquor sales were prohibited through proclamations issued in 1884
(as amended in 1894) and in 1887
209
Map 4: Local government boundaries in Te Rohe Potae, 1876 and 1910
268
List of graphs
Graph 1: Average population per seat (000s), General Elections 1890 - 1943
89
Graph 2: ‘European’ Members of the House of Representatives, elections 1868 – 1925
89
Graph 3: Maori census population as percentage of total population, 1874 – 1926
90
List of figures
Figure 1: Designs for the seals of Waikato and Taranaki Maori Councils, the latter of which
was adapted to be used by all Maori Councils. The resulting stamp is shown at bottom.
178
Figure 2: The July 1900 leaflet prepared by Alliance secretary Frank Isitt, the first known
publication to claim a link between the railway negotiations and the Rohe Potae liquor ban.
227
v
Introduction
This project is part of the political engagement research theme in the casebook research
programme for the Waitangi Tribunal’s Te Rohe Potae (Wai 898) district inquiry. At this
inquiry’s third judicial conference in October 2007, it was agreed that political engagement
would be a priority project.1 The period covered by this report was originally part of project
six, which was to cover political engagement and the Rohe Potae negotiations from the mid
1860s until 1913.2 The project outline, which appears in the Agreed Casebook Research
Programme, stated that the report would cover:
...political engagement/autonomy issues between hapu and iwi to the Te Rohe Potae
inquiry district and the Crown. This project will provide an overview of high-level
political engagement in the immediate post-war period of the 1860s to approximately
1913 and the decline of the Maori Councils.3
The commission was originally assigned to Cathy Marr and Dr Kelly Barclay. However other
urgent demands on Ms Marr’s time, and the departure of Dr Barclay from the Tribunal staff,
meant that work on the report was delayed, and reconfiguration of the commission became
necessary.4 The period from 1886 to 1913 was separated out from the original commission
and reassigned to Dr Helen Robinson and Dr Paul Christoffel.5 A copy of this later
commission, which commenced on 7 March 2011, is appended to this report.6 Other
commissionees have prepared political engagement reports for this inquiry covering the
period 1914 onwards.7 Five of the 13 topics covered by the Marr commission were
transferred to this report, these being:
a)
The extent of continuing understandings of Te Rohe Potae pact during this period
and what this might mean for continuing political relations with the Crown in its
administration of the district.
1
Waitangi Tribunal, Agreed Casebook Research Programme for the Te Rohe Potae District Inquiry, January
2008, Wai 898, doc 6.2.7, p3
2
ibid., p9
3
ibid.
4
Cathy Marr, ‘Te Rohe Potae Political Engagement 1864-1886, Part 1: 1864-1882’, Draft circulated to Te Rohe
Potae (Wai 898) district inquiry parties for comment, June 2011, p ix
5
Waitangi Tribunal, Direction Extending Commissioned Research, 20 April 2011, Wai 898, doc 2.3.69
6
Waitangi Tribunal, Direction Commissioning Research, 20 April 2011, Wai 898, doc 2.3.71
7
See Wai 898, docs 2.3.42 and 2.3.70. Also see Jonathan Sarich, ‘An Overview of Political Engagement
between Hapu and Iwi of the Te Rohe Potae inquiry district and the Crown, 1914 – c.1939’, A report
commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal for the Te Rohe Potae district inquiry, March 2011, Wai 898, doc A29.
1
b)
The operation of Maori committees from the 1870s such as the Kawhia
committee.
c)
District participation in, and support for, 1890s developments in relations with the
government, including the nature of support for the Kingitanga, various prophetic
movements and the Kotahitanga, and the relationships between these movements
in the district.
d)
The Maori Councils established under the Maori Land Administration Act 1900
as a form of political engagement, the extent to which these provided for forms of
local political authority and the fate of the Maori Councils system and Annual
General Conferences by 1911.
e)
The nature of the relationship between the Crown and any hapu and iwi of the
district who were not part of the Rohe Potae alliance.8
This commission commenced on 7 March 2011 and will end on 31 August 2011. Because of
the brief time available, and the range of subjects to be covered, this report can provide only
an overview of the key political engagement issues between Rohe Potae Maori and the
Crown in the 1886 to 1913 period.
The approach taken
Topics b), c), and d) above are covered by specific chapters in this report, while aspects of
topics a) and e) are addressed across several individual chapters. The subject matter of the
remaining chapters has been determined primarily by the apparent objectives of Rohe Potae
leaders in agreeing to lift the aukati in the mid 1880s. These objectives are outlined in chapter
1, which covers events leading up to the start of our period. Discussions between Rohe Potae
representatives and the Crown between 1883 and 1885 are particularly relevant in this regard,
especially those with Native Minister John Ballance in February 1885. Some of the objectives
were supported by government representatives, some were rejected, and others were only
partially supported. Those that appear to have been agreed to by the government are outlined
at the end of chapter 1. However, the objectives themselves were somewhat wider, and can be
summarised as:
8
Waitangi Tribunal, Direction Commissioning Research, Wai 898, 20 April 2011, doc 2.3.71
2
i.
Minimise the role of the Native Land Court in the district by giving Maori
committees a significant role in determining land titles;
ii.
Minimise land sales but lease some land;
iii.
Have their lands excluded from ratings legislation;
iv.
Exclude gold prospecting or have it managed by Maori committees;
v.
Maintain significant autonomy through, for example, greater powers for Maori
committees;
vi.
Improve Maori representation in Parliament; and
vii.
Keep liquor sales from the district.
Chapter structure
This report contains nine chapters and a conclusion. The subject matter of each chapter, with
an indication as to how it relates to the topics and objectives outlined above, is as follows:
Chapter 1 gives a brief overview of the period 1882 to 1885, providing a background and
context to the events after 1885. It was written by Dr Christoffel and is based entirely on
secondary and published primary sources.
Chapter 2 deals with the introduction of the Native Land Court to the district, and the sale of
Rohe Potae lands to the Crown. It therefore covers objectives i and ii above. It also touches
on topic a) of the commission relating to the Rohe Potae ‘compact’. This chapter is a basic
overview of topics covered in more detail in other reports, and is based entirely on secondary
and published primary sources. It was written by Dr Christoffel.
Chapter 3 covers the Kingitanga, Kotahitanga and various prophetic movements (topics c
and e, and objective v). Because of the breadth of topics covered, it is intended as an
overview and is based mostly on secondary sources. It was written by Dr Robinson.
Chapter 4 deals with calls by Rohe Potae leaders for increased Maori representation in
Parliament, which Ballance undertook to support (objective vi). It was written by Dr
Christoffel and is based on secondary and published primary sources.
Chapter 5 covers the establishment and operation of the Kawhia Native Committee, which,
among other things, had a role in managing gold prospecting in the 1880s (topic b and
3
objectives iv and v). Few archival sources were available on this topic, but these were used
when possible. This chapter was written by Dr Robinson.
Chapter 6 covers Maori Land Councils established under the Maori Land Administration
Act 1900, and which became Maori Land Boards under the Maori Land Settlement Act 1905
(topic d). These bodies were distinct from the Maori Councils operating at the same time, in
that they dealt exclusively with land issues. This chapter was written by Dr Robinson and is
based on archival, published primary, and secondary sources.
Chapter 7 deals with Maori councils, especially the Maniapoto Maori Council, established
under the Maori Councils Act 1900. The councils were intended to give Maori a limited
degree of local self-government, particularly over matters involving health and hygiene (topic
d and objective v). This chapter was written by Dr Robinson and is based on archival,
published primary, and secondary sources.
Chapter 8 covers the prohibition of liquor sales in the Rohe Potae, something which several
claimants consider central to the King Country or Rohe Potae ‘compact’ (topic a). This
chapter was written by Dr Christoffel and is based on archival, published primary, and
secondary sources.
Chapter 9 deals with issues relating to the rating of Maori land in the Rohe Potae. Some
claimants contend that rating such land contravened the Rohe Potae ‘compact’ (topic a and
objective iii). This chapter was based mostly on secondary and published primary sources,
and written by Dr Robinson.
The concluding chapter summarises the main conclusions by grouping them under the five
topics a) to e) outlined in the commission for this report.
Claims and sources
Many claims submitted to the Rohe Potae inquiry are relevant to the topic of political
engagement from 1886 to 1913. Claims related to the subject matter of specific chapters in
this report are discussed at the start of those chapters, and so are touched on only briefly here.
Some claims expressed general concerns about Crown failure to protect or recognise
rangatiratanga, or similarly about the loss of autonomy or sovereignty. These claims are
4
relevant to most of the chapters in our report, particularly those relating to the various Maori
councils operating during the period. A number of claims refer to breaches of the Rohe Potae,
King Country or Aotea ‘sacred compact’. These are referred to within individual chapters,
depending on the understanding of the ‘compact’ by individual claimants.
Similarly, the sources used are not discussed in detail in this introduction, but rather within
individual chapters. Time constraints and the extent of previous research undertaken mean
that some chapters are based almost entirely on secondary sources. A common factor to all
the chapters is that they are based almost exclusively on written sources in English. Although
some potentially relevant material in te reo Maori was available to the researchers, time and
resources were unavailable to have these translated. Should translations become available, it
may be necessary to modify the content and arguments of some chapters. If this occurs,
revisions will be provided as an appendix to this report.
Copies of supporting archival documents will be available in dedicated volumes
accompanying the final version of this report. These volumes will also include Maorilanguage archival material identified as potentially relevant, but for which no translation was
available at the time the report was completed.
A note on geographical terminology
It is hoped that the meaning of geographical terms used in this report terms will be clear from
their context. However, some clarification here may be helpful. The terms ‘Rohe Potae
inquiry district’ and ‘inquiry district’ refer to the inquiry district as delineated by the ‘inquiry
boundary’ line in map 1 below. ‘Rohe Potae’ generally refers to the same general area in
cases where exact boundaries are unclear or unimportant. The term has also been used in
chapters 1 and 2 to refer to the area covered in the June 1883 ‘Four Tribes’ petition, and
defined in the Native Land Alienation Restriction Act 1884. This area is also shown on
map 1.
‘Rohe Potae Maori’ refers to Maori living within or close to either the inquiry district or the
area of the 1883 petition, depending on context. The term is not intended to indicate
membership of any ‘Rohe Potae alliance’. The phrase ‘King Country’ has been used as a
historical term, primarily in reference to the no-license district established through
proclamations in 1884 and 1887. Occasionally the terms ‘Rohe Potae’ or ‘King Country’ are
5
used in quote marks to reflect other authors’ usage of the terms; in these cases the author’s
definition will be given where the meaning is otherwise unclear.
Map 1: Te Rohe Potae Inquiry District
6
Chapter 1: Background: 1882 to 1885
Many aspects of political engagement in the period 1886 to 1913 are related to the opening
up of the Rohe Potae in early 1880s. Agreements, undertakings and discussions in this earlier
period had ramifications in the latter. This chapter therefore provides a brief overview of
major events in the period 1882 to 1885, particularly those that are referred to in later
chapters in this report. Of particular relevance to these later chapters are the agreements
entered into and the undertakings made by government representatives. These undertakings
became an important focus of political engagement in the period covered by this report.
The secondary sources on which this chapter heavily relies were prepared some years ago, in
some cases within tight deadlines and for other inquiries. Detailed reports have recently been
produced for the Rohe Potae inquiry covering the period 1882 to 1885, particularly Cathy
Marr’s political engagement reports. We recommend readers refer to these commissioned
reports for in-depth accounts of the period in question. At time of writing we had not had
access to a draft of the Marr report for the period 1883 to 1885.
In the earlier reports we have relied on, researchers have conflicting interpretations of the
events of the early 1880s. Cathy Marr and Bruce Stirling argue that, between 1882 and 1885,
a ‘compact’ was concluded between Rohe Potae Maori and the Government.9 The compact,
from the perspective of the Rohe Potae leadership, was about how to manage the introduction
of the railway through the district ‘while avoiding as far as possible the harmful impacts and
loss of land that seemed characteristic of the 1870s process’; and ‘participating in expected
economic benefits in a controlled and managed way with hapu and iwi authority largely
intact.’ In her 1996 report, Marr characterises the compact as involving Maniapoto and being
concluded during 1882 and 1883.10 However, by 2004 she was writing of ‘negotiations from
around 1882 to 1885, and the understandings and expectations forged between the Crown and
significant sections of the Aotea Rohe Potae leadership at this time, now generally known as
9
Bruce Stirling, ‘Taupo-Kaingaroa Nineteenth Century Overview Project, Volume 2’, a report commissioned
by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 2004, Wai 1200, A071, especially pp 810-813; Cathy Marr, The Alienation
of Maori Land in the Rohe Potae (Aotea Block) 1840-1920, Waitangi Tribunal: Rangahaua Whanui Series,
1996, Chapter 3; Cathy Marr, ‘The Waimarino Purchase Report: The investigation, purchase and creation of
reserves in the Waimarino block, and associated issues’, a report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, 2004,
Wai 1130, A43, Chapter 3
10
Marr, Alienation of Maori Land 1840-1920, p 50
7
the Rohe Potae compact or agreement’.11 Donald Loveridge, in his report for the National
Park inquiry, came to a different conclusion:
If nothing else, this study should make it obvious that there was no single ‘pact’ between
Maori and the Crown which led to the opening up of the King Country. Rather, there was
a series of agreements which led by stages to this result, with a few setbacks along the
way.12
The differences seem, in the main, to be ones of interpretation. There does not seem to be a
great deal of disagreement in the earlier literature over the main significant events of 1882 to
1885, which are the subject of this chapter.
A thawing in the Crown-Kingitanga relationship
Historians generally accept that, until at least 1882, a large area of the North Island,
commonly called ‘the King Country’ or ‘Rohe Potae’ was essentially autonomous. For
example, Loveridge has written:
At the end of 1881 a large portion of the western North Island was, for all intents and
purposes, closed to Europeans. This ‘King Country’ was claimed by Her Majesty’s
Government as part of the Colony of New Zealand, but its inhabitants did not recognize
the Queen’s authority. They instead looked to their own King ... and to the traditional
leadership of their own iwi for governance.13
This situation existed largely because of residual enmity resulting from the wars and
confiscations of the 1860s. McLean and Grey had attempted reconciliation in the 1870s
through specific proposals. After these were rejected, governments tended to wait for Rohe
Potae Maori to take the initiative.14 By 1881, signs of reconciliation between the Kingitanga
and the Crown were apparent. In August that year, Tawhiao and a party of some 500-600
followers crossed the aukati to Alexandra, accompanied by the local Native Agent W G Mair.
In a symbolic gesture of peace, Tawhiao and 77 of his followers laid their guns on the ground
before Mair.15
11
Marr, ‘Waimarino’, p 100
Donald M Loveridge, ‘The Crown and the Opening of the King Country 1882-1885’, a report commissioned
by Crown Law, 2006, Wai 903, A076 pp 207-208
13
Loveridge, ‘The Crown and the Opening of the King Country’, p 10
14
Loveridge, ‘The Crown and the Opening of the King Country’, pp 17-18, 21
15
Marr, Alienation of Maori Land 1840-1920, p 15; Loveridge, ‘The Crown and the Opening of the King
Country’, p 18
12
8
Tawhiao visited Auckland in February 1882 and met with the Premier, John Hall. Tawhiao
agreed with Hall’s assertion that there could be ‘only one sovereign in the country, and they
all, both Maoris and Europeans, lived under the shadow of her law’.16 However, there
remained major differences as to what that might mean in practice. That same month, Hall
received a deputation from the Auckland Chamber of Commerce, urging him to support a
survey to find the best route through the King Country for the North Island main trunk
railway. Hall responded that caution was needed, given the delicate state of relations with the
Kingitanga. Attempting to push the railroad through too quickly could conceivably further
delay progress.17 In February 1882, Native Minister Bryce had discussions with Rewi
Maniapoto in Auckland.18
The events of 1882 are described by Marr as ‘initial stages of what became known as the
Rohe Potae compact’.19 A Kingitanga meeting at Whatiwhatihoe in May 1882 agreed to relay
to the government the main points from a speech by Tawhiao, through the member for
Western Maori, Wiremu Te Wheoro. The main requests were that leasing, sales, road
building and the Native Land Court be kept out of the Rohe Potae ‘for the present’. However,
these things may be commenced ‘when the Parliament and the chiefs of our people have
agreed on some mutual basis of settlement between the Europeans and those people who,
under me, are called the King party’.20 The government appears to have been encouraged by
these words, and during the 1882 Parliamentary session, two measures were passed which the
government hoped would speed up the rapprochement with the Kingitanga. One was the
Native Reserves Act, which Bryce hoped ‘might lead to a considerable portion of the
Waikato, known as the King country, being converted into reserves’.21 The Act appeared to
have disappointed the Kingitanga, and the Bill was criticised by Te Wheoro in the house.22
However, he responded positively to the Amnesty Act, which gave the Governor authority to
issue a pardon which, in Bryce’s words, ‘will amount to an amnesty for offences or crimes
that have been committed during, or have arisen out of, our wars with the Native race’.23
16
Loveridge, ‘The Crown and the Opening of the King Country’, pp 19-20
Loveridge, ‘The Crown and the Opening of the King Country’, pp 20-21
18
Loveridge, ‘The Crown and the Opening of the King Country’, pp 22-24
19
Marr, ‘Waimarino’, p 101
20
AJHR 1882, G4, p 2
21
NZPD 1882, vol 41, p 306
22
NZPD 1882, vol 41, p 526
23
Loveridge, ‘The Crown and the Opening of the King Country’, p 40
17
9
Parliament also showed confidence that relations with the Kingitanga would continue to
improve, by passing an Act authorising the government to borrow up to a million pounds for
the North Island main trunk railway, whose likely route would pass through the Rohe Potae.24
Bryce met with Tawhiao in October 1882. Bryce changed his tactics, presumably impatient
with Tawhiao’s unwillingness to lay out his conditions. He presented Tawhiao with a gold
medal that served as a free pass on the railways. He proposed that most of the Rohe Potae be
kept as a native reserve, with parts of it sold or leased. Part of the confiscated land would be
returned, Tawhiao would be given a house and pension, along with several prestigious
appointments, including membership of the Legislative Council.25 Native Agent George
Wilkinson, who features throughout this report, later reported that Tawhiao was being asked
to ‘abdicate’.26 At the urging of Wahanui, the proposals were rejected.27
A new approach to negotiations
Having been rebuffed, the government took a different tack, using both the carrot and the
stick. The stick came in late 1882 and early 1883, when the government began the process of
opening up Kawhia Harbour. Bryce announced that a town site would be laid out on Crownowned land there, a shipping channel marked out, and a pilot and Customhouse officer
installed.28 The carrot came in February 1883, when the Governor issued a proclamation
under the Amnesty Act for offences ‘more or less of a political character’ committed by
Maori ‘when in insurrection against Her Majesty’s authority’. Te Kooti, who had taken
refuge in the Rohe Potae, was included in the amnesty.29 Bryce clearly believed that issuing
the amnesty would relieve tensions enough to enable the government to commence railways
exploration and trig surveys. However, the surveyor Charles Hursthouse, instructed to
explore for railways routes, was temporarily detained at Otorohanga and was unable to
continue his survey.30
24
Philip Cleaver and Jonathan Sarich, ‘Turongo: The North Island Main Trunk Railway and the Rohe Potae,
1870-2008’, a report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, 2009, Wai 898, A20, p 50
25
Loveridge, ‘The Crown and the Opening of the King Country’, pp 45-6
26
AJHR 1883, G1, p 1
27
Loveridge, ‘The Crown and the Opening of the King Country’, pp 50-51
28
Loveridge, ‘The Crown and the Opening of the King Country’, p 59
29
Loveridge, ‘The Crown and the Opening of the King Country’, pp 61-2. Loveridge mistakenly gives a date of
1882.
30
Loveridge, ‘The Crown and the Opening of the King Country’, pp 63-4
10
In the meantime, a split was forming in the Kingitanga. A coalition of chiefs, generally
referred to as ‘the Four Tribes’, came together to develop a strategy for dealing with the
Crown without reference to Tawhiao. Marr notes that differences arose due to concerns over
Tawhiao’s ambitions and the fact that Waikato, having few lands, had nothing to lose from
rejecting the Native Land Court. On the other hand, land-owning Ngati Maniapoto potentially
had much to lose by not engaging with the Court.31 The leaders of the ‘Four Tribes’, which
later became five, met near Kihikihi in January 1883. Marr notes that the ‘Four Tribes’ name
was retained despite the addition of another tribe to the alliance.32 The three main tribes in the
coalition were Ngati Maniapoto, Ngati Raukawa, and Ngati Tuwharetoa, while the other two
tribes involved were Whanganui and Ngati Hikairo. As Loveridge notes, the coalition did not
represent all the hapu of the five tribes. Rather, it represented those former King supporters
who had chosen to reject the King’s authority.33 At the Punui meeting it was agreed to mark
out the boundaries of the Rohe Potae as the area that would be protected from European
claims.
In March 1883, Bryce met with Wahanui, Rewi and several other chiefs at Whatiwhatihoe to
discuss the detainment of Hursthouse.34 Bryce explained that Hursthouse was engaged in an
initial exploratory survey. The Waikato Times reported that, after some discussion, an
agreement was put in writing and signed by Wahanui and the other chiefs, giving permission
for the exploratory survey to go ahead.35 In their report for this inquiry, Sarich and Cleaver
quote from the exchange of correspondence between Wahanui and Bryce, which took place
on the day of the meeting, namely 16 March 1883. Wahanui’s letter gave permission for the
railway survey to go ahead, but there were to be no further surveys until he had further
discussed the matter with his people. A petition would soon be sent ‘praying you and your
Parliament to pass a satisfactory law for the lands of the Ngatimaniapoto’. In a reply written
the same day, Bryce agreed that the survey would do no more than explore rail routes, and
that he would seriously consider the petition, once presented. Other surveys would be delayed
‘for a time’, apart from those having nothing to do with title.36
31
Marr, Alienation of Maori Land 1840-1920, pp 16-17
Marr, ‘Waimarino’, p 119
33
Loveridge, ‘The Crown and the Opening of the King Country’, p 65
34
Loveridge, ‘The Crown and the Opening of the King Country’, p 68
35
Waikato Times, 17 March 1883, p 2
36
Correspondence cited by Cleaver and Sarich, pp 53-54. See also their supporting documents, pp 430-432
32
11
In September 1884, when appearing before the Railways Select Committee, Wahanui gave
his version of the agreement. He stated that, after an exploratory survey ‘our consent would
be formally asked for the [railway] line being made. We wished that all the final
arrangements connected with our lands should be settled first’.37 In February 1885, Wahanui
again recalled the agreement, stating that Bryce ‘made a compact with me, which was signed,
that a search for the railway was to be made’. Wahanui then elaborated on the arrangement:
It was then agreed, on the understanding that it was only to be an investigation to find out
the best route for the railway, and after it was found they were to return and let the Maoris
know before doing anything else. I then said to Mr Bryce, ‘What you wish for has been
agreed to; now I want you to agree to my request.’ Mr Bryce asked me ‘What do you
want?’ I then said, ‘I am going to send a petition to the House, and I want you and your
Cabinet to back it up.’38
Marr and Stirling both place great importance on Wahanui’s statement that Bryce ‘made a
compact’ with him. Stirling states, referring to the above quote, that this March 1883
agreement ‘was later described by Rohe Potae rangatira as the first stage in what became
known as the Rohe Potae compact with the government’.39 Although Wahanui’s two
accounts differ in some respects, they are broadly consistent with the correspondence
exchanged on 16 March 1883.
Despite the 16 March agreement, Hursthouse was stopped from proceeding with his
exploratory survey of the rail route until a further meeting with Bryce and Rohe Potae leaders
on 29 March 1883. After Bryce agreed to stop further triangulation surveys, he and
Hursthouse were able to successfully complete the trip from Alexandra to Mokau through the
heart of the Rohe Potae.40
The promised petition was presented to Parliament in June 1883. It was signed by Wahanui,
Taonui, Rewi Maniapoto and 412 others on behalf of Ngati Maniapoto, Ngati Raukawa,
Ngati Tuwharetoa, and Whanganui (‘the Four Tribes’). By late 1883, Ngati Hikairo decided
to support the petition.41 The presentation of this cross-tribal petition to the government has
37
AJHR 1884, I6, p 16
AJHR 1885, G1, p 14
39
Stirling,‘Taupo-Kaingaroa’, p 797. See also Marr, ‘Waimarino’, p 109
40
Marr, ‘Waimarino’ pp 129-130
41
Marr, Alienation of Maori Land 1840-1920, p 22
38
12
itself been described by some claimants as ‘the Rohe Potae compact’.42 The petition outlined
Maori concerns about the expenses associated with the Native Land Court, often resulting in
loss of the land, and the activities of land speculators (‘land-swallowers’). It was over 1000
words long and made five main requests, as summarised by Loveridge:
First: That they be ‘relieved from the entanglements incidental to employing the Native
Land Court to determine our titles to the land’, and the ‘fraud, drunkenness,
demoralization, and all other objectionable results attending sittings of the Land Court’ be
prevented.
Second: that a law be passed ‘to secure our lands to us and our descendants for ever,
making them absolutely inalienable by sale’.
Third: that the petitioners themselves be allowed ‘to fix the boundaries of the four tribes
... the hapu boundaries in each tribe, and the proportionate claim of each individual within
the boundaries’. The boundaries of the four tribes were described in detail.
Fourth: that once the final the decisions on tribal and hapu boundaries, and individual
‘proportionate claims’ were made, they be officially confirmed by ‘persons’ appointed by
the Government and ‘vested with power to confirm our arrangements and decisions in
accordance with law’.
Fifth: that all leases of lands in individual claims be made by public auctions. 43
The Native Minister tabled the petition in the House on 26 June 1883. The Native Affairs
Committee considered the petition in August, and reported:
After careful consideration the Committee has arrived at an opinion that the complaints
and fears expressed are too well-founded, and the apparent desires of the petitioners are
reasonable. The Committee therefore recommends the petition to the favourable
consideration of the House when the Native Committees Bill and the Native Land Sales
Bill are before it.44
Later that month a rival petition was presented to the House, on behalf of Ngati Maniapoto
and Waikato supporters of the King, objecting to aspects of the Four Tribes petition. In
particular, the new petition took issue with assertions of tribal ownership embodied in the
third and fourth requests from the earlier petition. Marr notes that this rival petition was
ignored, due to the government’s new policy of negotiating with Wahanui and his allies
42
See, for example, Wai 1593, Wai 2014
Loveridge, ‘The Crown and the Opening of the King Country’, pp 85-86
44
AJHR 1883, I2, p 9
43
13
instead of Tawhiao.45 Another petition, from Ngati Tuwharetoa chief Te Heuheu Tukino, also
objected to the boundaries cited in the Four Tribes petition.46
Parliament passed two Acts which met at least some of the concerns expressed in the Four
Tribes petition of June 1883. Marr notes that the Native Land Laws Amendment Act 1883
‘seemed to be intended to address part of the “objectionable” system associated with the Land
Court process noted in the Rohe Potae petition’. The Act outlawed the negotiation of sales of
Maori land before title was investigated by the Court, and made it a criminal offence to
negotiate with Maori for the purchase, lease or transfer of Maori land until 40 days after title
had been ascertained.47 Lawyers and agents were barred from the Land Court, leaving Maori
to demonstrate proof of title themselves.48
The Native Committees Act 1883 enabled committees to be elected in proclaimed ‘Native
Districts’, to act as arbitrators in lesser disputes between Maori in the district. The Act also
empowered committees to investigate the ownership of blocks of land going through the
Native Land Court.49 The Kawhia Native Committee established under the 1883 Act is
discussed in detail in chapter 5 of this report. Wahanui, in writing to the press, expressed
disappointment that the two Acts met only some of the concerns outlined in the Four Tribes
petition.50 The government also repeatedly emphasised the supposed benefits of the railway
for Maori.51 This ‘PR offensive’ complemented the government’s strategy of making
concessions to Rohe Potae Maori through measures such as amnesties, Maori committees,
and reforms to the Native Land Court.
The Land Court agreement of late 1883
Although it had completed an exploratory survey in March 1883, and instituted some
legislative reforms in response to the June 1883 ‘Four Tribes’ petition, the government still
did not have the green light to go ahead with further surveys. When the surveyor John
Rochfort was instructed to undertake a survey of the central rail route in September 1883, he
45
Marr, ‘Waimarino’, p 115
Loveridge, ‘The Crown and the Opening of the King Country’, p 89
47
Marr, ‘Waimarino’, p 119. It appears, however, that technically the Crown could exempt itself from these
provisions.
48
Loveridge, ‘The Crown and the Opening of the King Country’, p 96
49
Loveridge, ‘The Crown and the Opening of the King Country’, pp 93-94
50
Quoted by Loveridge, ‘The Crown and the Opening of the King Country’, p 100
51
See, for example, Cleaver and Sarich, p 56
46
14
encountered progressive Maori resistance as he made his way north from Marton. He found
that those he encountered on the way were divided on the benefits and disadvantages of the
railway. Rochfort’s survey was eventually halted south of Taumarunui, as further
negotiations were clearly required.52
As a result of the survey disruption, Bryce re-opened negotiations with Wahanui, writing to
him in early October 1883. In late November, Bryce had a private meeting with Wahanui and
Taonui in Kihikihi, followed by a public meeting on 30 November and 1 December outside
Rewi Maniapoto’s house.53 Marr describes these negotiations as ‘signalling another stage in
the Rohe Potae compact’.54 Loveridge outlines the three main aspects of what was eventually
agreed. First, ‘the Maori participants agreed to make an application to the Land Court
claiming the block which they had previously identified as their Rohe Potae, and requesting
that the title be investigated by the Court’. According to Loveridge, ‘it was clearly agreed by
the Crown, on several occasions, that tribal titles would be ascertained by the Court first of
all, before any hapu, whanau or individual claims were investigated, and before any
subdivision surveys took place’. Second, ‘the external boundaries of this block were to be
surveyed as required for the purposes of the application’, including a trig survey. The Crown
offered to assist with the payment for the external boundary survey. Third, the Four Tribes
agreed to allow the railway-route explorations to continue.55
Once the boundary of the Rohe Potae district claimed in the Four Tribes petition of June 1883
was surveyed, a claim could be submitted to the Native Land Court for title investigation.
However, details of the government’s offer to assist with the boundary survey still had to be
worked out, so Bryce returned to Kihikihi for further discussions, both private and public, in
mid-December 1883. He encountered some opposition to the agreed survey, and left at the
end of the first day.56 The government was represented on the second day of the meeting by
Assistant Surveyor-General S Percy Smith and some of his staff. Smith reported that the
‘Natives now all concur’, indicating either that the objectors had withdrawn or that agreement
had been reached.57 The agreement between Smith and Rohe Potae representatives was
52
Marr, ‘Waimarino’, pp 121-129
Marr, ‘Waimarino’, pp 130-131
54
Marr, ‘Waimarino’, p 129
55
Loveridge, ‘The Crown and the Opening of the King Country’, p 118
56
Loveridge, ‘The Crown and the Opening of the King Country’, pp 119-121
57
Loveridge, ‘The Crown and the Opening of the King Country’, p 122
53
15
embodied in an exchange of letters on 19 December. The initial letter from the tribal
representatives stated:
We consent that the Government should make an accurate survey of the external
boundary of our block in order that a Crown grant may issue to us, our tribes, and our
hapus for the price as arranged by you, namely, that the cost to us should not exceed
£1,600. Now, this is our decided word: this agreement must not be altered by any other
arrangement or by any future Government.58
The letter of response, signed by Smith, largely echoed the above. It stated that ‘it is agreed to
as a definite word that neither the Government nor any other Government can make any other
arrangement in the future’.59 Presumably that this latter stipulation was included because
representatives were concerned that the government might, despite the agreement made,
increase the negotiated price if the survey turned out to be more expensive than expected.
Marr notes that this exchange of letters was normal, as ‘legislative provisions by this time
required that applicants for survey and Government surveyors make an agreement about how
the survey would be paid for’.60 She also states that, along with the March 1883 agreement
over the Hursthouse exploration, ‘this seems to be the only other formally written and signed
agreement forming part of the Rohe Potae compact’.61 Some years earlier, the Pouakani
Tribunal expressed the view that the exchange of letters on 19 December constituted the
‘Aotea Agreement’, referred to in submissions to that tribunal.62
The external boundary survey began in January 1884. Rochfort’s exploratory survey for the
central route of the main trunk railway re-commenced and was completed in February 1884.63
With the various surveys going on there was some confusion and occasional minor resistance.
In addition, surveys were in some cases being used as a cover for illegal gold prospectors.64
Stirling notes that, despite the recent agreement specifying only an external boundary survey,
a major triangulation survey involving 43 trig stations was taking place.65 He also notes that
some resistance came from King supporters, as the Kingitanga had not been party to the
58
Quoted by Loveridge, ‘The Crown and the Opening of the King Country’, pp 122-123
Quoted by Loveridge, ‘The Crown and the Opening of the King Country’, p 123
60
Marr, ‘Waimarino’, p 141
61
Marr, ‘Waimarino’, p 140
62
Waitangi Tribunal, Pouakani Report, 1993, pp 104-105
63
Marr, ‘Waimarino’, p 143
64
Marr, ‘Waimarino’, pp 143-145, Loveridge, ‘The Crown and the Opening of the King Country’, pp 123-126
65
Stirling, ‘Taupo-Kaingaroa’, p 826
59
16
agreement.66 During 1883, various applications were submitted to the government for Native
Land Court hearings on the fringes of the Rohe Potae. Further applications were submitted in
early 1884. According to Stirling, the government was holding onto these for the time
being.67
The events of 1884
The year 1884 saw a complex series of events. In January, Rewi Maniapoto withdrew his
name from the December 1883 application to the Native Land Court for a title investigation
of the Rohe Potae claimed by the Four Tribes. According to Marr, Rewi was concerned at the
way the application was portrayed in the press, and that the surveys then underway were
more extensive than agreed.68 Other ‘defections’ from the external boundary agreement
followed, along with further objections from Te Heuheu and Ngati Tuwharetoa. Bryce
advised them that only the Native Land Court could determine ownership, and others who
objected received similar advice.69 Despite the boundary survey having commenced, a title
investigation of the Rohe Potae seemed in doubt.
Also in January 1884, a proclamation was issued which started the process for establishing a
Native Committee for the Kawhia district under the Native Committees Act 1883. Elections
for the committee took place in March.70 In April, Tawhiao set off for England to take his
concerns to the Imperial authorities and the Queen.
The first half of 1884 saw much activity by temperance missionaries in the Rohe Potae,
particularly the Gospel Temperance Mission and its Blue Ribbon Army. In late April and
early May, Blue Ribbon Army missionaries circulated a petition calling for a ban on the sale
of intoxicating liquors in the district. Signatories included Wahanui, Rewi Maniapoto, Taonui
and other prominent chiefs.71 The petition, by then with some 1,400 signatures, was presented
to the Governor on 8 September 1884. It called for the Governor to use his powers under
section 25 of the Licensing Act 1881 to ban publican’s licences ‘throughout our district
extending to Waipa, Kawhia, Mokau and all its boundaries’. A supporting letter was attached,
66
Stirling, ‘Taupo-Kaingaroa’, pp 827-828
Stirling, ‘Taupo-Kaingaroa’, pp 835-836
68
Marr, Alienation of Maori Land 1840-1920, pp 41-42
69
Marr, ‘Waimarino’, pp 225, 227
70
Loveridge, ‘The Crown and the Opening of the King Country’, p 139
71
Peter Skerman, ‘The Dry Era: A History of Prohibition in the King Country 1884-1954’, MA Thesis,
University of Auckland, 1972, pp 18-19, 21
67
17
signed by the president and secretary of the Gospel Temperance Mission, outlining the role of
the mission in collecting and authenticating signatures for the petition.72 At its meeting of 25
September 1884, Cabinet agreed to advise the Governor to assent to the petition.73 The
prohibition proclamation was gazetted on 11 December 1884, declaring that no license shall
be granted within the ‘Kawhia Licensing Area’, which included most of the Rohe Potae
inquiry district.74 These and subsequent events were later seen as being central to the Rohe
Potae ‘compact’, although according to Marr they were only a minor part of the pact. 75 The
temperance activities of 1884 are discussed in more detail in chapter 8 of this report.
There was a general recognition in Parliament by 1884 that reforms to Maori land law were
required. With this in mind, Wahanui headed south to promote the interests of the Rohe Potae
‘Four Tribes’ alliance. He arrived in Wellington in May 1884 and stayed nearly six months.
According to Loveridge, Wahanui and his supporters were rapidly changing their mind on the
Kihikihi agreement, because of Bryce’s lack of consultation with Maori over plans to restore
Crown pre-emption over Maori land purchasing.76 However a general election, after a period
of political instability, resulted in a change of government. A new Ministry was eventually
formed in August under Robert Stout.77 On 17 September 1884, Wahanui appeared before the
select committee appointed to decide on the best route for the North Island main trunk
railway. When asked if he favoured the railway going through the King Country, Wahanui
said he was unwilling to answer until certain matters that he had come to Wellington to
discuss were addressed.78 On 9 October, the committee recommended the route through the
King Country between Marton and Te Awamutu.79
Wahanui met with the new Native Minister John Ballance sometime between 25 September
and 9 October – it is unclear exactly when. At that meeting, Ballance told Wahanui that the
government intended to ban liquor sales in Te Rohe Potae, as requested in the 8 September
72
Petition and covering letter forwarded to Premier, 8 September 1884, ‘King Country Licensing’, J1, 1522,
18/25/8, ANZW, SD vol 1, pp 209-212
73
A H McLintock, ‘Liquor and the King Country’, AJHR 1953, p 7
74
New Zealand Gazette, 11 December 1884, p 1685
75
Cathy Marr, The Alienation of Maori Land in the Rohe Potae (Aotea Block) Part 2: 1900 – 1960, Waitangi
Tribunal: Rangahaua Whanui Series, 1999, p 152
76
Loveridge, ‘The Crown and the Opening of the King Country’, pp 143-146
77
Loveridge, ‘The Crown and the Opening of the King Country’, p 146
78
AJHR 1884, I6, p 16
79
Sarich and Cleaver, p 61
18
petition.80 The only record that appears to exist of what else was discussed is contained in the
official account of a meeting at Kihikihi in February 1885, when Ballance was touring Maori
districts. Wahanui told the meeting that the topics discussed with Ballance had included the
main trunk railway, gold mining, the powers of Maori Committees, liquor licensing, and the
Native Land Court.81 Ballance’s proposed Native Land Settlement Bill was also discussed,
for the new government had early on signalled an intention to consult over proposed changes
to Maori land law.82
The Native Land Settlement Bill had its first reading on 9 October 1884. The Bill prohibited
all private dealings in lands within Te Rohe Potae.83 Ballance later indicated to the House that
he had originally intended to apply this prohibition only to land ‘which was likely to be
benefitted by the railway’. However, Wahanui had convinced him to include ‘the whole of
the Waikato, including his lands’.84 Another intention of the Bill was to enable native land to
be brought under government administration.85 Aspects of the Bill clearly alarmed some
Maori, for on 13 October a petition was addressed to the Speaker and Members of the House
of Representatives. The petition was signed by 20 chiefs, headed by Meiha Keepa
Rangihiwinui (Major Kemp), and asked that Wahanui might be allowed to speak to the
House ‘to make known the wants and desires of his people in respect of the now proposed
laws.’86 The request was granted, and Wahanui addressed the House on 1 November 1884.87
On 6 November he addressed the Legislative Council.88
Wahanui told the House that his tribe ‘wish to have the sole administration’ of their ancestral
lands, and ‘I do not wish the action of the Native Land Court to be brought into force over
those lands’. He was critical of the Lands Settlement Bill and said he had asked the Native
80
Waikato Times, 27 November 1884, p 2. The report does not give the date of the meeting, but from other
evidence it must have been after Cabinet agreed to the liquor ban on 25 September, and before 9 October, when
Ballance indicated he had already met with Wahanui.
81
AJHR 1885, G1, pp 13-14
82
Loveridge, ‘The Crown and the Opening of the King Country’, pp 147, 151
83
Loveridge, ‘The Crown and the Opening of the King Country’, pp 151-152
84
NZPD 1884, vol 50, p 313
85
Loveridge, ‘The Crown and the Opening of the King Country’, p 153
86
NZPD 1884, vol 50, p 555
87
It appears to be unusual for non-members, other than the Governor General, to address the House of
Representatives. The first overseas leader to do so was Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard on 16 February
2011.
88
NZPD 1884, vol 50, p 427
19
Minister to make changes to it. Wahanui also asked that ‘the sale of spirits within our district
shall be stopped absolutely’ – a reference to the petition presented in September. 89
Ballance spoke immediately after Wahanui, and took the opportunity to announce to the
House that Cabinet had already issued instructions to implement the requested liquor ban, as
a result of the September petition.90 The rest of his speech was devoted to the Lands
Settlement Bill, as Ballance was moving the second reading. Ballance defended his Bill
against Wahanui’s criticisms. However, a few days later the Bill was completely rewritten ‘to
become a straightforward ban on all private dealings’ within Te Rohe Potae.91 As Loveridge
notes, ‘the question of what would become of the King Country lands was, in effect, put aside
for another year’.92
On 24 October 1884, the House approved the central route for the main trunk railway, as
recommended by the select committee.93 The Railways Authorization Bill was passed into
law by the upper house on 7 November, followed the next day by the Native Land Alienation
Restriction Act, formerly the Lands Settlement Bill.94 Also that day, Wi Tako Ngatata told
the Legislative Council that Wahanui ‘has no fears’ about a railway passing through Te Rohe
Potae.95 Work began almost immediately on finding the specific line for the track, but
Wahanui does not seem to have communicated his enthusiasm to his allies in Te Rohe
Potae.96 On 3 December, Taonui wrote to Ballance complaining that the Government had
‘commenced the construction of the railway before coming to see us, the owners of the land,
and discussing the matter fully with us in accordance with the promise made by Mr Bryce to
Wahanui at Whatiwhatihoe… Mr Bryce assured Wahanui that it was only intended at that
time to explore the line of railway and when the best route had been discovered, he would
visit us again to confer with us regarding his wish to commence the construction.’ Taonui
concluded that the Government had not faithfully fulfilled its part of the agreement.97
89
NZPD 1884, vol 50, pp 555-556
NZPD 1884, vol 50, p 312
91
Loveridge, ‘The Crown and the Opening of the King Country’, p 159
92
Loveridge, ‘The Crown and the Opening of the King Country’, p 159
93
NZPD 1884, vol 50, pp 77, 486-489
94
NZPD 1884, vol 50, p 464
95
NZPD 1884, vol 50, p 489. Ngatata was speaking on the Native Land Alienation Restriction Bill, then in its
final reading.
96
Loveridge, ‘The Crown and the Opening of the King Country’, p 161
97
Quote by Loveridge, ‘The Crown and the Opening of the King Country’, pp 162-3
90
20
Loveridge notes that the letter was entirely consistent with the other accounts as to what was
agreed at Whatiwhatihoe in March 1883.98
Wilkinson was requested to talk with Taonui, and to tell him that Ballance was unaware of
Bryce’s promise. Marr notes that this professed ignorance was highly unlikely given the
continuity of Native Department staff. Wilkinson reported back that Taonui was not opposed
to the railway, but objected to the lack of consultation.99 This consultation rather belatedly
took place in February 1885, as part of Ballance’s tour of native districts.
Ballance visits the Rohe Potae in 1885
Ballance’s six-week tour began in Ranana on the Whanganui River on 7 January 1885, and
progressed through the Waikato, Rotorua, Thames, and the Bay of Plenty, ending near
Gisborne on 25 February. It thus encompassed much of the North Island. Michael Allen, in
studying Ballance’s tour, was unable to find any official statement of the reasons behind it.
However, it was clear that the desire to promote his proposed further legislative reforms
relating to Maori land, and the need to negotiate over the main trunk railway, were the main
motives. Ballance was following a precedent set by the likes of McLean.100 Loveridge notes
that the tour was consistent with Ballance’s declared intention of consulting with Maori over
matters directly affecting them.101
Ballance arrived at Kihikihi on 4 February 1885. After being greeted by Wahanui, Taonui,
Rewi and other chiefs, he proceeded to explain the purpose of his visit – namely to discuss
his land law proposals and the railways. Ballance continued to claim ignorance of Bryce’s
promise regarding further consultation over the railway. However, he assured those present
that ‘I felt it was my duty to make good all promises’.102 Wahanui spoke next, and devoted
his speech primarily to a brief summary of what had happened in his dealings with the
government over the previous two years. He re-iterated his March 1883 ‘compact’ with
Bryce, and summarised the main themes of his 1884 discussions with Ballance when visiting
Wellington, namely the main trunk railway, gold mining, the powers of Maori Committees,
98
Loveridge, ‘The Crown and the Opening of the King Country’, p 162
Marr, ‘Waimarino’, pp 165-6
100
Michael Allen, ‘Maori political thought in the late nineteenth century: A microhistorical study of the
document of speeches from John Ballance's tour of seven Maori districts, 1885’, MA thesis, University of
Canterbury, 2004, pp v-vi, 65
101
Loveridge, ‘The Crown and the Opening of the King Country’, p 165
102
AJHR 1885, G1, p 13
99
21
liquor licensing, and the Native Land Court. He ended by encouraging those present to be
clear about their attitude towards the railway, whether for or against.103
The next speaker was John Ormsby, chair of the Kawhia Native Committee, who appeared to
be the main spokesman. Ormsby noted that two things had been ‘granted to us’ out of the
1883 petition that followed the March meeting with Bryce, namely the reforms made by the
Native Land Laws Amendment Act and the establishment of native committees. However, in
Ormsby’s view, native committees had not been given enough power. Ormsby made a
number of requests of Ballance, saying that the alliance wanted:
the Native Land Court to be kept out of Te Rohe Potae, with Native Committees
to carry out the functions of the Court;
no rates levied in connection with the roads and railways;
extra powers to be given to the Native Committees, including the ability to
compel individuals to take civil disputes before the committee;
land ownership based on hapu rather than individuals, and for a committee to be
appointed for each hapu;
these committees to conduct sales and leases of land, without government
interference;
a stay on mineral prospecting;
Maori to be represented in parliament in proportion to their numbers in the
population;
Better consultation over legislation affecting Maori;
Changes to the boundary of the prohibition district, and better enforcement of
liquor prohibition.104
Ballance rejected the first of these requests, but responded positively to the remainder. With
regard to the Native Land Court, Ballance said that Native Committees might be just as prone
to error as the Court, and in addition its members might be partisan in their decisions. As
such, he did no more than indicate that further reforms to improve the workings of the Court
were in train. He also appeared to refer to the agreements of late 1883, saying it was:
103
104
AJHR 1885, G1, pp 13-14
AJHR 1885, G1, pp 14-16
22
…only a short time since most of the important chiefs and people and landowners signed
a petition that the Native Land Court might sit and adjudicate upon their title. I do not
know whether they are still of the same mind, but, suppose they are of the same mind,
why should they not have a Court?105
In relation to rates, Ballance said he did not think any native land in the district should be
subject to rates until it was leased or sold, even if it was near a road or railway.106 Ormsby
asked that something be put in writing regarding government undertakings with respect to
rates, along the lines of the ‘compact’ with Bryce over the preliminary search for a possible
rail route.107 The March 1883 agreement with Bryce was undertaken through an exchange of
letters, and Ballance proposed the same. He suggested that Ormsby should address him a
letter on the issue, and Ballance would send to him an official reply, ‘which will be recorded
in the department, which will be kept on record for future reference, and be binding on future
Governments’.108 According to Marr, ‘this kind of promise is likely to have further
encouraged those at the meeting to believe that it was continuing the solemn Rohe Potae
compact agreements and undertakings’.109
In relation to the request for greater powers for Native Committees, Ballance said he
proposed to bring forward a Bill to amend the Native Committees Act in the next
parliamentary session. The changes he proposed were along the lines Ormsby had requested.
Committees would have the power to adjudicate on cases up to a certain value, without the
ability of parties to opt out. Ballance said he was also considering providing committees with
revenue, by paying the Chairman and possibly by giving them the power to levy the dog-tax.
In addition, ‘we propose to give them larger powers on preparing cases for the Native Land
Court, so that all cases will come before the Native Committee in the first instance, and then
go on to the Native Land Court, which will finally deal with the matter’.110
Ormsby’s request for elected hapu committees gave Ballance the opportunity to outline his
proposed changes to Maori land administration:
105
AJHR 1885, G1, p 17
AJHR 1885, G1, p 17
107
AJHR 1885, G1, p 19
108
AJHR 1885, G1, p 19. No researcher seems to have uncovered any correspondence on this subject.
109
Marr, ‘Waimarino’, p 178
110
AJHR 1885, G1, p 17
106
23
When the Land Court has found out the owners to a certain block of land, we propose that
those owners should meet together and elect a Committee of, say, seven members, who
should have the right of managing that particular block for the interest of all the owners.
We propose that when they wish to lease their land for instance, that they should come to
a Board consisting of three members, and that Board should put in motion the machinery,
in order to have the land surveyed, cut up and leased. It is proposed the Government
should advance the money for the surveys, and that this money should be repaid out of
the rents. Now in order that this Board should be thoroughly represented, we propose that
there should be one Commissioner appointed by the Government, the Chairman of the
district Native Committee should be another member, and that another should be perhaps
elected by the Natives themselves.111
In relation to the requested stay on mineral prospecting, Ballance pointed out that a notice
had recently appeared in the Gazette, ‘stating that no permission be given to any prospector to
prospect, unless he first had the consent of the Native owners and the Native Minister’.
Ballance proposed that the power of granting prospecting licences could be delegated to the
Chair of the Kawhia Native Committee (ie, Ormsby).112
With respect to the request for better Maori representation in parliament, Ballance undertook
to continue advocating for fairer Maori representation, saying that ‘I shall propose that they
shall have the same number of members in proportion to population as the Europeans’.113
Ballance agreed with Ormsby that ‘all large questions of legislation affecting the Native
people should be circulated amongst them before being introduced’. He undertook to
circulate his Bill to reform Maori land law ‘amongst the Native Committees and amongst the
principal chiefs and landowners of the Island’.114
Ballance expressed surprise that there were problems relating to the boundary of the Kawhia
Licensing District as defined in the 1884 proclamation. He undertook to remedy any errors,
and said his government would continue to try and prevent ‘sly grog-selling’ in the district.115
Although Ormsby had initially asked for an exchange of letters only in relation to the rates
issue, he then asked that all the other subjects discussed also be included in this letter.116
Ballance thought this unnecessary.
111
AJHR 1885, G1, p 17
AJHR 1885, G1, p 18
113
AJHR 1885, G1, p 18
114
AJHR 1885, G1, p 17
115
AJHR 1885, G1, pp 18, 20
116
AJHR 1885, G1, p 10
112
24
Those answers are contained in my speeches, with the explanations which I have given,
and the official report of my speeches will be the very best replies you can get. He will
see that most of those questions are proposed legislation, and will be dealt with in the Bill
which we propose to circulate before the session, so that there will be ample time to
discuss them amongst yourselves.117
According to Marr, this exchange between the two ‘confirms the view that both Ballance and
Ormsby were deliberately placing their discussions within the understanding of a solemn
compact between the interior people and the Government’.118
The meeting re-convened the following day. There appeared to be general support for the
railway, for the meeting proceeded to practical issues concerning the rail route. Ballance said
that one or two chains width would be required for the railroad, and five to ten acres for
railway stations, all of which would be paid for by the government once the ownership of the
land was ascertained.119 The general consensus was that the final go-ahead for the railway
could not be given until those unrepresented at the meeting were consulted with – particularly
Ngati Tuwharetoa. Ballance agreed that it was reasonable to wait until the end of February
1885 for a final decision.120 However, Rewi Maniapoto (along with Hopa te Rangianini) felt
there would be little to discuss, as the issue of the railway line had been settled ‘long ago’:
When Mr Bryce was here it was arranged to give up the railway-line, and I wrote a letter
to Mr. Bryce and asked him to hurry on with the formation of the line, in order that it
might be completed within five years, that I might ride on it before I die. I thought that
was all settled, and that there would be nothing to talk about with regard to that; but I find
they are talking about it again.121
Of the various undertakings that Ballance had given, that relating to rates appeared to be the
most important. Ormsby described the railroad as a scorpion, and rates as the sting of the
scorpion. But now that sting ‘had been removed’.122 In fact rates were the only issue raised by
Ormsby that he directly linked to the railway. As Allen’s account of Ballance’s tour shows,
other issues, such as the powers of native committees, were common themes at meetings
throughout the country. Although Ballance had invited an exchange of letters on the subject
of rates, no such exchange appears to have taken place.
117
AJHR 1885, G1, p 20
Marr, ‘Waimarino’, p 179
119
AJHR 1885, G1, pp 22-23
120
AJHR 1885, G1, p 24
121
AJHR 1885, G1, pp 23-24
122
AJHR 1885, G1, p 22
118
25
The meeting closed with Wahanui reminding those present that they had three weeks to come
to a decision.123 That afternoon, Ballance’s party proceeded to Whatiwhatihoe to meet with
Tawhiao and some of his supporters. A similar range of topics were covered at that meeting
as at Kihikihi, although rates were never mentioned. Ballance indulged in a great deal of
boosterism over the railway, emphasising its benefits for Maori and Pakeha alike.124 Tawhiao
said he supported the railway.125 Ballance was unsupportive of calls for a separate Maori
parliament.
Rates aside, most of Ballance’s assurances at the February 1885 hui related to his own
actions: that he would consult Maori over legislation directly affecting them; that he would
prohibit mineral prospecting unless consented to by Maori landowners; that he would
continue to support fairer Maori representation in Parliament; and that he would investigate
and correct errors in boundaries of the proclaimed Kawhia Licensing District. Balance’s other
main undertakings were that the Government’s land takings would be confined to that needed
for the railway and some linking roads. The Government would pay for any land taken once
ownership was ascertained.126
The railway is agreed to
Following their meeting with Ballance of 5-6 February 1885, tribal leaders appear to have
consulted with those unrepresented at the meeting to assess their support for the railway. In
late February, representatives of the Four Tribes met again at Kihikihi to make their final
decision.127 The hui consented to the railway, subject to certain conditions. Land a chain wide
was to be taken for the railway line, with any additional land needed, including that for
stations, to be ‘deferred until your next visit here’.128 The representatives of the four tribes
wished to turn the first sod of the railway themselves, and their letter included a further plea
that Ballance not allow gold prospecting within Te Rohe Potae.129 The matter of who was to
turn the first sod had been an issue for discussion and speculation since at least November
1884, with the rival candidates being Tawhiao and representatives of the four tribes. The
123
AJHR 1885, G1, p 24
AJHR 1885, G1, pp 26
125
AJHR 1885, G1, p 26
126
Marr, ‘Waimarino’, pp 185-186
127
Marr, ‘Waimarino’, pp 187-188, Loveridge, ‘The Crown and the Opening of the King Country’, p 175
128
Quoted by Loveridge, ‘The Crown and the Opening of the King Country’, p 176
129
Marr, ‘Waimarino’, p 189, Loveridge, ‘The Crown and the Opening of the King Country’, pp 176-177
124
26
decision of the meeting was conveyed to the Native Minister in the letter from Wahanui dated
4 March 1885. Ballance suggested that the Prime Minister carry out the sod-turning
ceremony, assisted by Wahanui and ‘other chiefs’.130
Discussions as to who would turn the first sod continued on the morning the ceremony took
place, over five weeks after the decision to assent to the railway was conveyed to Ballance.
The events of that day were subsequently at the centre of claims that a ‘sacred compact’ was
made to keep liquor out of the district, as outlined in chapter 8 of this report. On 15 April
1885, Premier Robert Stout met with an assembled group of Maori, including several
prominent chiefs, outside Wahanui’s house near Alexandra. Stout was accompanied by the
Assistant Engineer-in-Chief of the railway, and by Native Agent Wilkinson, who wrote an
account of proceedings.131 By Wilkinson’s account, Ormsby spoke first, suggesting that
Wahanui be allowed to turn the first sod, with the Premier contributing by wheeling it away
in a barrow. Stout agreed, but emphasised that the ceremony ‘had nothing to do with the title
to the land, nor did it affect the chieftainship.’132 Stout then for some reason proceeded to
lecture those present on health and education. He commended to them a booklet on Maori
health recently published by James Pope, Chief Inspector of Native Schools, and advised
them of the benefits of well-ventilated dwellings, healthy food, and abstaining from alcohol.
He said he was pleased to hear that schools were recently erected in the district.
Hote Tamehana of Ngati Haua spoke next, suggesting that, as Tawhiao was not present and
had not given consent, the ceremony should be adjourned. Taonui gave a response which
Wilkinson summarised as a Maori way of telling Tamehana to ‘mind his own business’.
Wilkinson considered Taonui’s firm response would have deterred any other King supporters
present from further objections.133 Everyone present then set out for the banks of the Puniu
River, some eight miles away, for the sod-turning ceremony.
For a description of the ceremony itself, Wilkinson deferred to the New Zealand Herald,
which he considered gave an accurate account of the speeches. The event was attended by
many hundreds of spectators, most of who came from Auckland and Hamilton by rail. As had
been agreed, Wahanui turned the first sod, eventually placing three divots of turf in a barrow
130
Loveridge, ‘The Crown and the Opening of the King Country’, p 177
AJHR 1885, D6, p 1
132
AJHR 1885, D6, p 1
133
AJHR 1885, D6, p 2
131
27
that was ceremoniously wheeled away by Stout. The only new agreement to come from the
proceedings was that Stout agreed to Wahanui’s request that the new section of rail be named
Turongo, after a Ngati Maniapoto ancestor.134
The process of taking land for the railway began in the weeks prior to the sod-turning
ceremony. Proclamations were issued to take the required land under the Public Works Act
1882, and to allow construction of the railway to begin. Marr notes that this latter
proclamation allowed up to three chains for construction, despite only one chain being agreed
to. The additional negotiations referred to in Wahanui’s letter of 4 April 1885 appear to have
been ignored.135
Ballance’s Native Land Disposition Bill was circulated in English and Maori in June 1885.136
Marr notes that copies of the Bill appear to have been distributed within Maori districts.137
The Bill aimed to introduce the reforms to Maori land management that he had outlined at the
Kihikihi meeting in February. The Bill had a rocky passage in Parliament, with many
members opposing it.138 Leanne Boulton notes that Ballance made it clear in the debates that
the government intended to buy land for settlement in Te Rohe Potae, although he had not
revealed this in his discussions with tribal representatives.139 Indeed, Napier member John
Ormond accused Ballance of ‘grievously’ misleading Maori over the government’s
intentions.140 The numerous petitions received from Maori on the Bill presented a range of
views. The Native Affairs Select Committee received many submissions on the Bill,
including from Wahanui. According to Loveridge, Wahanui appeared to have further
softened his opposition to the Native Land Court, although Marr notes that in November
1885, Wahanui wrote to the Waikato Times reaffirming his opposition to the Court.141
Ballance accepted the Select Committee’s recommendation that the Bill ‘should not be
further proceeded with this session’.142
134
AJHR 1885, pp 4-5
Marr, ‘Waimarino’, p 190
136
Loveridge, ‘The Crown and the Opening of the King Country’, p 188
137
Marr, ‘Waimarino’, p 214
138
Loveridge, ‘The Crown and the Opening of the King Country’, p 190
139
Leanne Boulton, ‘Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1884 – 1908: An Overview’,
Consultation Draft, March 2011, pp 112-113
140
Sarich and Cleaver, pp 87-88
141
Loveridge, ‘The Crown and the Opening of the King Country’, pp 190-191, Marr, ‘Waimarino’, p 217
142
Loveridge, ‘The Crown and the Opening of the King Country’, pp 190-191
135
28
Despite the February 1885 agreement of the ‘Four Tribes’ to support the railway, residual
opposition remained. This tended to be centred around Tawhiao and the prophets such as Te
Kere, and will be discussed later in this report.143 All the same, the isolation of Te Rohe Potae
was diminishing rapidly. In 1884, a government school was requested for Te Kopua, in the
heart of the district, and it opened in 1886.144 On 1 December 1885, Wahanui presented the
Native Minister with a taiaha representing ‘the emblematic authority of the aukati around the
King Country. According to the New Zealand Herald, the effect of this gift was ‘to remove
the Maori aukati from the King Country, and to inaugurate an era of friendly relations
between the native of New Zealand and their European fellow-subjects of Queen Victoria’.145
Relations had certainly warmed dramatically in just a few years. But residual tensions
remained as a result of the wars and confiscations of the 1860s.
Summary
The period 1882 to 1885 saw the end of the aukati in place since the 1860s, and the opening
up of the Rohe Potae. This process involved a series of unilateral concessions and negotiated
agreements, with the aim, from the government’s perspective, for the main trunk railway to
go through the district and lands to be opened for Pakeha settlement. This process has been
described by some historians, such as Marr and Stirling, as stages in the Rohe Potae
‘compact’ which led to the opening up of the district. Others, such as Loveridge, claim there
was no ‘compact’, but rather ‘a series of agreements’ which led by stages to the opening up
of the district, ‘with a few setbacks along the way’.146 Certainly by 1886 there were a number
of agreements and undertakings in place, but also a number of matters yet to be settled. The
main things agreed that are directly relevant to political engagement were:
There would be reforms to Maori land administration.
Maori land in the Rohe Potae would not be liable for rates if it did not produce
an income.
Gold prospecting would be excluded unless it was managed by Maori
committees.
143
Marr, ‘Waimarino’, pp 228-229
Paul Christoffel, ‘The Provision of Education Services to Maori in Te Rohe Potae’, a report commissioned
by the Waitangi Tribunal, 2011, Wai 898, A27, p 54
145
New Zealand Herald, 2 December 1885, quoted by Loveridge, ‘The Crown and the Opening of the King
Country’, p 192
146
Loveridge, ‘The Crown and the Opening of the King Country’, pp 207-208
144
29
The powers of Maori committees would be increased, and they would receive
some funding.
Maori representation in Parliament would be improved.
The ban on liquor sales in the Rohe Potae would be better enforced.
Most of these matters are discussed in individual chapters in this report.
30
Chapter 2: Nineteenth Century Land Loss
This chapter looks at the political issues associated with land acquisition within the inquiry
district between 1886 and 1899. As was seen in chapter 1, in the mid-1880s the Rohe Potae
leadership aimed to minimise the role of the Native Land Court in the district, maintain iwi
and hapu control over land alienation, and restrict alienation largely to leasing. However, the
proportion of Maori land sold to the Crown within the inquiry district rose from three percent
in 1889 to 33 percent in 1899 and nearly 49 percent in 1908.1 Crown pre-emption prevented
the leasing of Rohe Potae lands, except to the Crown or on an informal basis, until after 1900.
In order to be sold or leased, this land had first to go through the Native Land Court. Rohe
Potae Maori were therefore unsuccessful in their efforts both to keep the Native Land Court
out of the district and to minimise land sales. Some claims to this inquiry allege that the
actions of the Crown leading to its purchase of Rohe Potae lands were in breach of the King
Country ‘sacred compact’ negotiated in the mid-1880s. For example, the ‘Te Whakataute
Interests Claim’ alleges that the passing of legislation that facilitated land purchase ‘failed to
adhere to the terms and spirit of the Sacred Compact’.2
This chapter gives an introductory political overview of events that enabled the Crown to
purchase so much land and examines why the Native Land Court was not able to be excluded
from the Rohe Potae. It also deals with attempts by Rohe Potae leaders to overturn Crown
pre-emption, imposed in 1884, so that they could gain an economic return for their land. The
chapter is based almost exclusively on secondary sources, due both to time constraints and
also to the significant amount of research already being undertaken in this regard. This
includes Waitangi Tribunal-commissioned reports by Boulton (land sales), Cleaver and
Sarich (the main trunk railway), and Mitchell and Husbands (the Native Land Court).3
Twentieth century land issues are covered in chapter 6 on Maori Land Councils and Boards.
1
Boulton, pp 38, 265
Wai 1593, p 9. See also Wai 2014.
3
The commissioning documents for these reports on the Wai 898 record of inquiry are 2.3.26 (Cleaver and
Sarich), 2.3.46 (Boulton), 2.3.47 and 2.3.67 (Mitchell and Husbands).
2
31
Objectives of Rohe Potae leaders and the government by 1886
As was seen in chapter 1 of this report, Government representatives gave assurances to Rohe
Potae Maori over a number of matters in discussions leading up to the commencement of
work on the main trunk railway and the opening up of the district. These assurances were
largely related to the issues covered by other chapters in this report. The discussions also
covered land issues, including a November 1883 agreement that the Native Land Court could
determine ownership of land within the boundaries of the ‘Rohe Potae’ area claimed by the
‘Four Tribes’ alliance in their June 1883 petition. This agreement is seen by some historians
as an important part of a ‘compact’ between Rohe Potae Maori and the Crown. However,
despite this ‘compact’, there was, according to Boulton, little in the way of agreement
between Rohe Potae Maori and the Government with respect to their objectives relating to
land sales and the Native Land Court.4 The Government made some concessions to Rohe
Potae iwi concerns about the operations of the land court through legislative reforms that,
among other things, barred lawyers from the court. But the desire of the ‘Four Tribes’
alliance to minimise the role of the Native Land Court in the district was at best given only
partial support by the Government. In March 1885, John Ormsby told Native Minister John
Ballance that Maori wished to keep the land court out of the district altogether. Ballance in
reply said that some Rohe Potae Maori had already indicated a desire for a land court title
investigation. He also outlined measures that might reduce the relative importance of the
court, including empowering Native Committees to undertake a preliminary hearing of
Native Land Court cases, and elected block committees to control leasing and sales of land.
However, the bottom line for the Government was that the land court was needed to establish
title.5
The initial Government objective in relation to land was to acquire the territory needed to
complete the main trunk railway. The Act authorising the passage of the railway through the
Rohe Potae was passed on 7 November 1884. This was followed the next day by the Native
Land Alienation Restriction Act, which defined a district of over 4.6 million acres, generally
referred to as the King Country or Rohe Potae, in which private dealings in land were
prohibited. The boundaries of the defined district were those outlined in the June 1883 ‘Four
4
5
Boulton, p 99, 424
AJHR 1885, G1, pp 14-17
32
Tribes’ petition. The Government’s main objective in this Act was to ensure it was not outmanoeuvred by private speculators in acquiring land in the district. Land for the railway, and
any land whose value might be enhanced by the railway, could be bought by the government
only. Private leases were also prohibited under ‘Crown pre-emption’, severely restricting
Maori ability to make a return from their land.6
When still in Bill form, the Native Land Alienation Restriction Act 1884 contained
provisions for the administration of Maori land in the Rohe Potae, but these were thrown out
due to Maori objections. Ballance’s tour of Maori districts in 1885 was in part to promote a
replacement for these administrative provisions, which were enacted in 1886. Under the
Native Land Administration Act, boards were to be appointed in native districts to oversee
the disposal of Maori land. The Act was repealed in 1888 before it could be applied to any
Rohe Potae lands. Few Maori had by then made use of the Act, indicating its unpopularity.
The day the Native Land Administration Act was repealed, the Native Land Court Act 1886
was amended to prohibit private dealings in Rohe Potae lands, effectively continuing Crown
pre-emption, which remained in place with minor variations until the turn of the century.7
The Crown’s objectives for the Rohe Potae can therefore be summarised as allowing the
Native Land Court to determine titles in the district, prevent private dealings in land that had
been through the court, purchase land for the railway, and purchase land to on-sell for
settlement. Maori aspirations for the district were in general rather different to those of the
Government - indeed ‘there was little common ground between the two visions’.8 As was
seen in chapter 1, the ‘abiding message given by Wahanui and other Rohe Potae leaders to
the Crown from 1884 to 1886 was their determination to retain complete control over their
land and resources’.9
One aspect of this determination was a desire to keep the Native Land Court out of the
district. Against this was the uncomfortable fact that representatives of the Four Tribes
alliance had already agreed to an external boundary survey of the lands over which they
claimed ownership, in preparation for a land court title investigation. In addition, some land
owners had already applied for Native Land Court hearings. Marr speculates with some
6
Boulton, pp 67-74
Boulton, pp 75-84
8
Boulton, p 85
9
Boulton, p 90
7
33
plausibility that the anxiety generated by any land court applications stimulated further
applications, as parties sought to ensure their own interests were not overlooked.10 An
alternative proposal, which avoided having lands increasingly sucked into the land court
process, was having the Kawhia Native Committee determine title. A meeting of the
committee in December 1885 confirmed the desire of committee members to undertake this
task.11 However, at a meeting with Ballance at Kopua in April 1886, committee chairman
John Ormsby stated that the people wished ‘to investigate the title and settle it amongst
ourselves by the native committees, but found they had not the power to do so’.12 Ormsby’s
statement carried with it a strong hint of a rethink on the issue. He was at Kopua for a hui of
Rohe Potae leaders to discuss how to deal with land court, and the hui did indeed agree to a
revised approach. The Waikato Times reported that the meeting agreed to apply to have Rohe
Potae lands adjudicated by the Native Land Court.13 In May 1886, Native Agent George
Wilkinson reported that Ngati Maniapoto, Ngati Raukawa, Whanganui and Ngati Hikairo had
submitted an application to the land court.14 Rohe Potae Maori could not change the law, and
were thus forced to concede to the Government with respect to the role of the Native Land
Court in investigating and awarding legally recognised title to their lands.
Boulton speculates that the decision to apply to the Native Land Court may have been related
to a lack of confidence in the Kawhia Native Committee due to the way it was elected. 15 As is
discussed in chapter 5, the Kawhia committee does not appear to have lasted beyond the
1880s. Another factor, as noted above, is that a number of applications had been made for the
land court to investigate title in parts of the block. Some of these applications were for very
large areas. For example, in December 1885 an application was submitted for a land court
investigation of what was to become the Waimarino block, totalling some 490,000 acres to
the south of the Rohe Potae inquiry district.16 Even more significant was the application by
Ngati Tuwharetoa for the huge Tauponuiatia block, which is discussed below.
10
Marr, Alienation of Maori Land 1840-1920, pp 36-38
Boulton, p 97
12
Quoted by Boulton, p 97
13
Quoted by Boulton, p 98
14
AJHR 1886, G1, p 6
15
Boulton, p 99
16
Marr, ‘Waimarino’, pp 256-257
11
34
The application for investigation of title for what became known as the Aotea (Rohe Potae)
block came shortly after the April 1886 hui referred to above. The application covered some
3.5 million acres. Boulton notes that a significant area of disjunction between the aims of
Ngati Maniapoto leaders and those of the Government was the former’s preference for title to
land to be held by hapu and hapu-based committees. Wahanui elaborated on these ideas when
he appeared before the Native Affairs select committee in August 1885.17 In January 1887,
John Ormsby held out hope that the Native Land Court would be able to put these wishes into
effect.
The natives considered that now the block had passed through the Land Court the next
thing was to have it sub-divided, first amongst the tribes and then amongst the hapus and
when the court sat again on the 3rd March he hoped the matter would be commenced.18
However, the Land Court clearly did not operate in the way envisaged, and by April 1888,
Ormsby had changed the stance he expressed on behalf of the Rohe Potae leadership. At a
meeting with Native Minister Michelson he said that during Ballance’s time ‘they wanted the
land awarded to hapus’ but they now ‘wish our land individualized’.19 We understand that
Husbands and Mitchell speculate on the reasons for this change of stance in their report for
this inquiry, which was not completed at time of writing.20 Again, it was Rohe Potae Maori
rather than the Government who backed down on their stance relating to the operations of the
court.
The Tauponuiatia Native Land Court application
The dispute over the Tauponuiatia Native Land Court Application showed how the land court
could undermine the political objectives of the Rohe Potae ‘Four Tribes’ alliance – although
in the end they won a minor victory over the Court. As was outlined in chapter 1, the June
1883 petition outlined a boundary of the Rohe Potae claimed by the Four Tribes alliance as
their lands. However, although affiliates of Ngati Tuwharetoa were included in the alliance,
the tribal leadership were unhappy that some lands claimed as exclusively Tuwharetoa were
included within these boundaries. Tuwharetoa leader Te Heuheu was among those who
17
Boulton, p 100
Waikato Times, 27 January 1887, p 3, quoted by Boulton, p 101
19
Waikato Times, 12 April 1888, p 2, quoted by Boulton, p 102
20
Commission documents Wai 898, 2.3.47 and 2.3.67
18
35
petitioned Parliament objecting to the boundaries cited in the ‘Four Tribes’ petition.21
Government officials assured Te Heuheu and other objectors that only the Native Land Court
could determine title. The Central North Island Tribunal noted that, as the subsequent
boundary survey proceeded, ‘it was only a matter of time’ before Te Heuheu filed a claim
with the land court.22 Thus, in October 1885, Te Heuheu submitted an application to the
Native Land Court on behalf of Ngati Tuwharetoa for the Tauponuiatia block, which included
some lands within the 1883 petition boundary for the Rohe Potae.23 By filing this claim,
Tuwharetoa aimed to use the court to subdivide the land between hapu.24
The fact that Te Heuheu’s application covered such a large area certainly suited the
government, which did all it could to facilitate it getting to court. Stirling documents how the
Crown withheld 108 smaller land claims in the district, but supported the Tauponuiatia
application with assistance from the three Grace brothers (Lawrence, William and John), who
had Tuwharetoa and parliamentary connections.25 The area claimed under the application
overlapped with the Rohe Potae in the west – possibly due to government collusion.26 It thus
included areas claimed by Ngati Raukawa and Ngati Maniapoto.27 Wilkinson reported in
December 1885 that the ‘King natives’ were ‘rather surprised’ at the application ‘and will I
think try and induce Taupo natives to withdraw their claim’.28
Wilkinson was correct, for the Tauponuiatia application constituted a threat to the aspirations
of the Rohe Potae alliance. The deal that Wahanui and other alliance leaders had done with
the government for a cut-price survey of their claimed boundary, followed by a title
investigation, risked being undermined by a land court hearing over Tauponuiatea. In late
1885, Kawhia Native Committee Chairman John Ormsby asked for the Land Court hearing to
be delayed until a boundary between the Tauponuiatea block and those to its west had been
determined, but his plea was ignored.29
21
Loveridge, ‘The Crown and the Opening of the King Country’, p 89
Waitangi Tribunal, He Maunga Rongo: Report on Central North Island Claims Stage 1, volume 1, 2008, p
327
23
Stirling, ‘Taupo-Kaingaroa’, p 876
24
Waitangi Tribunal, Maunga Rongo, p 331
25
Stirling, ‘Taupo-Kaingaroa’,pp 880-886. See also Marr, ‘Waimarino’, pp 254-255
26
Waitangi Tribunal, Maunga Rongo, p 332
27
Waitangi Tribunal, Maunga Rongo, volume 2, p 494
28
Quoted by Stirling, ‘Taupo-Kaingaroa’, p 889
29
Stirling, ‘Taupo-Kaingaroa’, volume 3, p 1097
22
36
The Tauponuiatia hearing began in January 1886, but was almost immediately adjourned for
discussions among and between claimants and objectors. A committee consisting of
Tuwharetoa and neighbouring iwi amended the boundary of the claim to exclude some Ngati
Maniapoto and Whanganui lands.30 Stirling notes that moving the boundary satisfied Ngati
Maniapoto concerns to some extent, but that there were problems later because the tribe was
not involved in the process of setting its precise location.31 The unofficial Tuwharetoa komiti
chaired by Te Heuheu determined the subdivisions and by 22 January, ‘the tupuna, iwi, and
hapu for the vast block had been determined in just a few days’.32 The court then determined
the ownership of the 151 sub-divisions, excluding all non-Tuwharetoa hapu. The court later
refused to modify the decision, even with the agreement of all the iwi involved.33 Appeals
were submitted relating to around 20 percent of the total land in the block. The reasons for
the appeals were numerous, among them being the dubious role of the Grace brothers in
proceedings.34 In early 1888, the Chief Judge of the Native Land Court heard a number of
applications for rehearing of the Tauponuiatea block awards, but all except one appeal was
rejected.35
Unhappy at having their appeals rejected, Taonui and Hitiri unsuccessfully went to the
Supreme Court in July 1888 seeking an injunction.36 They also petitioned the government
over concerns that Ngati Raukawa and Ngati Maniapoto interests had been left out of titles
awarded in the Tauponuiatia block.37 In August 1888, the Native Affairs Committee
recommended a tribunal be appointed to inquire into the concerns of the petitioners.38 The
government was initially unimpressed with this recommendation. However, T W Lewis, the
Undersecretary of Native Affairs, eventually brokered a deal whereby Ngati Maniapoto
agreed not to appeal the Supreme Court decision in exchange for a royal commission being
established with relatively limited terms of reference.39
30
Waitangi Tribunal, Maunga Rongo, volume 2, p 494
Stirling, ‘Taupo-Kaingaroa’, pp 928-929
32
Waitangi Tribunal, Maunga Rongo, volume 2, p 478. The Tuwharetoa komiti was a village committee within
the Kawhia District proclaimed under the Native Committees Act 1883.
33
Waitangi Tribunal, Maunga Rongo, volume 2, pp 494-495
34
Waitangi Tribunal, Maunga Rongo, volume 2, pp 479-480
35
Waitangi Tribunal, The Pouakani Report, (Wai 33) 1993, p 124
36
Stirling, ‘Taupo-Kaingaroa’, p 1027
37
Waitangi Tribunal, Pouakani, p 124
38
Stirling, ‘Taupo-Kaingaroa’, pp 1027-1028
39
Stirling, ‘Taupo-Kaingaroa’, pp 1040-1052
31
37
In 1889, the Government appointed the promised royal commission to look into a number of
matters relating to the Tauponuiatia hearings, including the boundary between Tuwharetoa
and Ngati Maniapoto.40 The two-member commission sat at Kihikihi in July 1889 for 17
days, and examined 26 witnesses.41 John Ormsby, chair of the Kawhia Native Committee, set
out the case for the five tribes that signed the June 1883 petition. He outlined the events that
led to the signing of the November 1885 agreement for the boundary survey of the Rohe
Potae, and said that the hearing over Tauponuiatia, which included part of the Rohe Potae,
was in violation of that agreement.42 The most important Maniapoto arguments were that
Taonui had been unable to put his case because of being detained at the Magistrates Court in
Cambridge during the original Tauponuiatia investigation; that the dividing line between
Maniapoto and Tuwharetoa had been fixed without reference to Maniapoto; and that as a
result lands which belonged to them had been included in Tauponuiatia.43
The commission reported on 17 August 1889, saying that it was prepared to accept part of the
boundary laid down by Taonui.44 The implication of this was that special legislation was
required to annul the Court’s decision on the blocks in question. Maraeroa, Pouakani, and
what later became Hurakia were thus returned to the status of uninvestigated Maori land by
the Native Land Courts Act Amendment Act 1889, to allow a new title investigation to
proceed.45 Special legislation was then passed and a new investigation of title was made in
1891.
The ‘Four Tribes’ alliance in the end won a minor victory over the Tauponuiatia hearing. But
in the meantime they had been forced to submit part of their claimed Rohe Potae, the Aotea
(Rohe Potae) block, to the Native Land Court for title investigation, to protect their
ownership claims. They also discovered that the deal they had done with the government in
late 1883, under which the boundaries of their claimed Rohe Potae would be surveyed before
being submitted to the Native Land Court for title investigation, meant little once the Land
Court was involved. According to Stirling, the government’s forwarding of the Tauponuiatia
40
Pouakani, pp 124-125
The members were Colonel Haultain and Hanita Te Aweawe.
42
Pouakani, pp 127-128
43
Stirling, ‘Taupo-Kaingaroa’, pp 1091-1108; Pouakani, pp 124-30
44
Stirling, ‘Taupo-Kaingaroa’, p 1116
45
Stirling, ‘Taupo-Kaingaroa’, p 1124
41
38
application to the Land Court before the boundary and ownership of the claimed Rohe Potae
was determined was a ‘unilateral overturning of the Rohe Potae compact’.46
Crown pre-emption in the Rohe Potae
Crown pre-emption, prohibiting private sales and leasing within the Rohe Potae, became a
source of conflict between Rohe Potae leaders and the Government. As outlined earlier,
Crown pre-emption over Rohe Potae lands was first imposed by the Native Land Alienation
Restriction Act 1884, then by an 1888 amendment to the Native Land Court Act. These
provisions expired on 30 August 1891. But in the meantime an amendment to the North
Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Application Act prohibited private sales and leasing in
most of the district. Crown pre-emption therefore remained after 1891, although the size and
shape of the district over which it applied changed. Then in 1892, the railway loan Act was
amended again, expanding the railway restriction zone almost back to its original 1884
boundaries. The smaller zone was therefore in place for only a year.47 Finally, in 1894, a new
Native Land Court Act imposed Crown pre-emption and prohibited private dealings over all
Maori land in the country. The railway restriction zone therefore became redundant and was
abolished.48
Wahanui and some other Rohe Potae representatives initially appear to have supported
Crown pre-emption in 1884, perhaps on a misunderstanding as to what it involved.49
However, at its first meeting in June 1884, the Kawhia Native Committee condemned the
Crown’s proposed introduction of pre-emption.50 Many Rohe Potae Maori were concerned
that, under Crown pre-emption, they would be unable to profit from their land through
leasing and sales on the open market. Pre-emption in the Rohe Potae initially attracted little
criticism in Parliament. When its life was extended in 1889, the only recorded critic was
Western Maori member Hoani Taipua.51 But the concerns of the Rohe Potae leadership were
made clear at a meeting with the new Native Minister Cadman at Otorohanga in April 1891.
John Ormsby, as chief spokesman, urged the removal of all restrictions over lands that had
passed through the Native Land Court, although the main concerns of those present related to
46
Stirling, ‘Taupo-Kaingaroa’, vol 3, pp 1112-1113
Boulton, p 147
48
Boulton, p 161
49
Boulton, p 118
50
Kawhia Committee Minute Book, p14, Ormsby Family Papers, MSY-5008, ATL. SD vol 3, pp 619-85
51
NZPD 1889, vol 66, p 233
47
39
restrictions over private leasing. Cadman provided little support for these views, reiterating
the Government desire to prevent private profiteering.52 Later that month, Taonui, Henry
Edwards and Whitinui appeared before the Rees-Carroll (Native Land Laws) Commission on
behalf of Ngati Maniapoto. They again urged the removal of restrictions on private leasing.53
Taipua again took up the cause in Parliament in September 1891.
In all other parts of New Zealand, when the Natives have had their lands surveyed and
subdivided, they have had the privilege of leasing them to Europeans, and have derived
benefit in consequence. That privilege is now denied to those Natives in the
KingǦcountry.54
This time Taipua was supported by other members. James Carroll suggested limits could be
placed on the amount of land owned by particular individuals under private sales. Hutt
member Alfred Newman commented on the potential unfair advantage the Government
gained over Maori by eliminating its competitors when buying land. Waitotara member
George Hutchinson commented on the large area covered by the railway restrictions, much of
which was a great distance from the rail route.55 Hutchinson proposed an amendment to allow
alienation restrictions to be removed from particular blocks by proclamation, but it was
defeated by 34 votes to 14.56
In December 1891, a further meeting was scheduled between Cadman and the Rohe Potae
leadership. The reporter for the New Zealand Herald appeared to have inside knowledge that
the Government was ‘prepared to release some of the restrictions upon sale of Native lands’,
and that hapu and iwi were aware of this and had drafted a proposal of their own. This
included a concession to enable the Government to purchase the lands it needed at a
reasonable price, providing most restrictions were removed over the remaining land.
However, restrictions would be placed over how much Rohe Potae land could be held by
individuals and companies.57
52
Boulton, pp 276-277
Boulton, pp 279-285
54
NZPD 1891, vol 74, p 772
55
Boulton, pp 152-153
56
NZPD 1891, vol 74, p 776
57
New Zealand Herald, 21 December 1891, p 5, quoted by Boulton, p 287
53
40
Before the meeting with Cadman, a hui at Te Mahuki’s base at Te Kumi (see chapter 3) was
attended by ‘a large number of principle chiefs of Ngatimaniapoto’. Press reports of the
meeting must have given the Government cause for concern.
The natives regretted that they had taken their lands from the jurisdiction of Tawhiao, and
expressed disgust at the action of the Government in first inducing them to pass their
lands through the Native Land Courts, and afterwards declining to allow them to sell their
property to anyone but the Government, at any price the latter chose to pay. They
resolved that they would attend no Courts, and allow no surveyor, and they affirmed that
the sole authority over their lands should be vested in Tawhiao, as formerly.58
Those present also resolved not to attend a scheduled meeting with Cadman the following
day, although in fact the meeting went ahead. In the event, the meeting had to be re-convened
several days later for Rohe Potae Maori to discuss Cadman’s proposals. Cadman had initially
taken an aggressive stance, suggesting the Government could get what it wanted through
legislation and making veiled threats to suppress the informal (ie, illegal) leasing going on
within the restriction zone.59 In her land alienation report for this inquiry, Boulton outlines
the course of negotiations over several days, and how an agreement initially appeared to have
been reached.
By the end of 1891 Ngati Maniapoto and the Crown had agreed that Maori would offer
some blocks of land for sale to the Crown in exchange for a lifting of restrictions on the
remaining land. With this agreement in place both parties focused on working out the
details of which restrictions would be lifted. Hapu and iwi leaders had moved away from
a complete lifting of restrictions, instead asking that the restrictions on leasing be lifted,
while those on selling to Europeans remained in place for all but the very small pieces of
land.60
Cadman also indicated that the Government might provide for Maori input into pricing, at
least within blocks in which the Crown had not as yet purchased any interests. However, in
subsequent press interviews he also indicated that he favoured significantly restricting the
size of blocks Maori could lease.61
When Cadman visited Otorohanga again in May 1892 to firm up the agreement, a significant
problem became apparent. The fact that the Native Land Court had individualised shares in
58
Taranaki Herald, 22 December 1891, p 2
Boulton, pp 288-290
60
Boulton, p 296
61
Boulton, p 296
59
41
land blocks made agreement of owners over an entire block difficult to obtain. Instead, Rohe
Potae leaders offered to use their influence to encourage sales of shares in blocks that the
Government wished to acquire.62 The fact that Rohe Potae Maori were unable to offer
specific blocks for sale led to a collapse of the December 1891 agreement.63
Not only did the restrictions on private sales and leasing remain, but in 1892 these were
extended to a much wider area. As outlined earlier, in 1892 an amendment to the North Island
Main Trunk Railway Loan Application Act restored the restriction zone close to its 1884
boundaries. As one MHR pointed out, such a large area was no longer justified now that the
exact route of the railway had been determined. Many other members also objected to the
size of the restriction zone, which appeared to be based on the fact that land sales had been so
slow in the smaller area previously provided for.64 Boulton notes that the fact that the
restriction zone covered a reduced area for a period enabled some private leasing and sale
agreements to take place between September 1891 and October 1894. However, she also
notes that there was considerable confusion over just what lands were or were not covered by
the restrictions at different times.65 Some leasing and private purchasing took place in the
Mokau area during this period, and there was some illegal leasing in the late 1880s and
1890s.66
In 1892, Maori sent a number of petitions and letters to Parliament protesting the alienation
restrictions.67 When Seddon and Carroll visited the Rohe Potae on their tour of Native
Districts in 1894, Maori took the opportunity to again express their disapproval of Crown
pre-emption in the district.68 However, this was extended to the entire country by the Native
Land Court Act 1894. Opposition to pre-emption thereafter became a focus of protest by the
Kingitanga and Kotahitanga during the 1890s. In 1897, Rohe Potae Maori were among those
who petitioned Parliament over ‘the injustice under which we suffer through the Government
62
Boulton, pp 297-298
Boulton, pp 298-302
64
Boulton, pp 154-157
65
Boulton, pp 154, 317
66
Boulton, p 390
67
Boulton, p 156
68
Boulton, pp 302-304
63
42
alone having the right to purchase our land.’69 Many of the restrictions were removed after
the introduction of Maori Land Councils from 1900, as discussed in chapter 6 of this report.
Crown purchase of Rohe Potae Lands to 1900
The Crown purchase of Rohe Potae lands initially progressed very slowly, but took off
dramatically after 1892. The aim of the Rohe Potae leadership to retain control of land
alienation, and restrict it largely to leasing, was never realised. The North Island Main Trunk
Railway Loan Application Act 1886 authorised borrowing for the railway, including
£100,000 for land purchase within the Rohe Potae as defined by the Native Land Alienation
Restriction Act 1884. The profits from any land on-sold for settlement would be used to help
fund the railway.70 The drawn-out land court process of partitioning and determining titles for
the huge Aotea (Rohe Potae) block meant that purchasing could not begin there until 1889.
By then, 565,179 acres of land, having passed through the court in the Whanganui, Taupo
and Taihape regions (and thus outside of the inquiry district), was purchased for the
railway.71 This used up most of the money available for land purchase, so in 1889 the North
Island Main Trunk Railway Loan Application Act was amended to authorise an additional
£100,000 for this purpose.72
The decision to officially commence purchasing Maori land in the Aotea (Rohe Potae) block
was made in June 1889, by which time the Native Land Court had completed much of its
work determining title to subdivisions in the block.73 Some land had already been alienated in
the inquiry district, mainly through Crown purchasing in the 1850s. Boulton estimates that
the total area alienated by 1889 amounted to 3.2 percent of the total land in the district, most
of it north of Aotea Harbour.74 By the end of 1892, this figure had increased to four percent.
Clearly the initial stage of land purchasing in the inquiry district progressed at a snail’s
pace.75 But by 1899 a third of land in the district had passed out of Maori ownership, almost
entirely through Crown purchasing.76 So what brought about this major change?
69
Boulton, pp 165-166
Cleaver and Sarich, p 91
71
Cleaver and Sarich, pp 91-92
72
Cleaver and Sarich, pp 91-92
73
Boulton, p 185
74
Boulton, pp 39, 265
75
Boulton, p 265
76
Boulton, p 423
70
43
Officials associated with land purchasing at the time cited several factors that led to a slow
rate of land sales between 1889 and 1893. The most significant one was simply Maori
unwillingness to sell. George Wilkinson was appointed land purchase officer in 1889, and
regularly reported that Rohe Potae Maori did not wish to part with their land.77 The
Kingitanga and Rohe Potae leadership had opposed land sales in varying degrees, and this
was no doubt a considerable influence. Even the few who did sell did all they could to
conceal the fact from others, indicating widespread community disapproval of the practice.78
But Wilkinson was of the view that economic factors also played a major part. The price
offered for land – Native Undersecretary Lewis was unwilling to allow offers of more than
five shillings per acre – was too low to attract more than a handful of sellers. Even when
Wilkinson was granted discretion to go to the maximum, he knew that Maori were well aware
they could get considerably more if allowed to sell on the open market.79 Another economic
factor identified by Wilkinson was his belief that Maori in the district had no particular need
for cash. The lack of Pakeha settlers in the district meant that Rohe Potae Maori had not
acquired European consumption preferences. What cash they did need could, in Wilkinson’s
view, be easily obtained by selling flax, rabbit skins and livestock, and undertaking labouring
and seasonal work.80 Another economic opportunity exploited by Rohe Potae Maori was
pastoral sheep farming. In some cases this meant running up debts to pay for stock, but in
other cases the enterprises were run as partnerships with Pakeha. Either way, farming
necessitated holding onto land as long as the enterprises were profitable.81
There is some debate as to how the Government was able to overcome the unwillingness of
Rohe Potae Maori to sell land. Bolton notes that the increase in Maori land sales during the
1890s was not confined to the Rohe Potae. It was happening throughout the North Island.82
Other historians have also drawn attention to the significant land purchases undertaken during
the 1890s by the Liberal Government that came to power in 1891.83 According to Tom
77
Boulton, p 265
Boulton, p 235
79
Boulton, pp 236-239
80
Boulton, pp 241-242
81
Boulton, pp 242-244
82
Boulton, pp 20-21, 452
83
Tom Brooking, ‘”Busting Up” The Greatest Estate of All: Liberal Maori Land Policy, 1891-1911’, New
Zealand Journal of History, vol 26, no 1, April 1992, pp 78-98; Richard Boast, Buying the Land, Selling the
Land: Governments and Maori Land in the North Island 1865-1921 (Wellington: Victoria University Press,
78
44
Brooking and Richard Boast, the ideological inclinations of the Liberals were a significant
factor in this renewed land grab. The Liberals were strongly characterised by a belief in
‘closer settlement’ – the idea that ordinary men and women could gain a living farming the
land. This was related to a ‘sentimental ruralism’ – a belief in the simple virtues of rural life
in contrast to the corrupting influences of the urban environment. Thus ‘sturdy independence
on the land was far better than the degenerate life of large cities’.84
Large land holdings with few owners worked against the ideal of closer settlement, and were
therefore abhorred by Liberal leaders. The Lands for Settlement Act 1894 thus enabled the
compulsory government purchase of large estates to be subdivided for resale as small farms.85
But, as Brooking notes, although most of the large estates were in the South Island, the
biggest estate of all was Maori land held in the North Island. The Liberal programme to ‘bust
up’ the big estates also included a determination to purchase as much Maori land as possible
to fulfil its objectives of closer settlement (meaning closer European settlement).86 Boast also
argues that there was an official perception that the shrinking Maori population was well
endowed with land and used only a small proportion of it.87
There is some disagreement among historians as to how the Liberal ideology was translated
into increased purchasing of Maori land. Brooking argues that the ‘interconnected’ Maori
land legislation passed by the Liberals was the main factor.88 However, Boast argues that
much of this legislation was ‘re-enacted or developed from what had been in place for some
years’. For example, the provisions of the Native Land Purchases Act 1892, which allowed
the Government to exclude private buyers from blocks targeted for Crown purchase, ‘was in
fact merely an updating of legislation that had been in force since 1877’.89 Boulton cites the
re-organisation of the Land Purchase Department, which was put under the control of the
Department of Lands in 1893, as another factor behind the increased purchasing.90 Again,
Boast appears to consider this only a minor factor. ‘The techniques of land purchasing had
2008), pp 177-212. The Liberals were elected in December 1890, but did not take office until the following
January.
84
Boast, pp 180-181
85
Boast, p 182
86
Brooking, ‘Busting Up’, pp 78-98; Boast, p 186
87
Boast, pp 184-185
88
Brooking, ‘Busting Up’, pp 80-81
89
Boast, pp 193-194
90
Boulton, p 452
45
been perfected during the 1870s’, and land purchasing staff were ‘old hands at the work’ by
the 1890s. Instead, for Boast, the Government’s most significant action ‘lay in simply
providing more money for land purchasing’.91
There is no doubt that the Liberals spent more on land purchasing than their predecessors did
during the decade before 1891.92 The Government appears to have devoted increasing sums
of money to land purchasing as the economy improved during the 1890s, and were prepared
to increase the price it paid for land. Figures cited by Boulton show an increase from 4.5 to
6.1 shillings per acre in the average price paid for Maori land between the period 1883/84 to
1890/91 and the period 1891/2 to 1900/01.93 This represents a 36 percent increase in the price
paid per acre, despite the fact that Crown pre-emption was imposed over all Maori land in
1894, creating a monopsony that enabled the Government to dictate price.94 Of course, as
Brooking notes, the price paid was a fraction of the average 84 shillings per acre paid to
estate owners for (admittedly superior) land under the Lands for Settlement Act 1894.95
The amount paid for land in the Rohe Potae appears to have been lower than that paid for
Maori land elsewhere in the country between 1891 and 1901.96 More research would be
required to determine why this was the case, but a number of factors are likely to be relevant.
Crown pre-emption was in place for most Rohe Potae lands throughout this period, but was
only imposed universally on other North Island lands at the end of 1894.97 In 1895, a number
of exceptions were made to Crown pre-emption, particularly the valuable Maori lands within
town districts and boroughs.98 There were no town districts or boroughs within the Rohe
Potae at this time.
But despite the lower prices paid for land in the Rohe Potae, the evidence indicates that these
prices increased significantly after 1892. Comparisons are difficult given that so little land
was purchased between 1889 and 1892, but Boulton provides some useful figures in her land
purchase report for this inquiry. These show that in the year to December 1892, the
91
Boast, p 193
See, for example, Brooking, ‘Busting Up’, p 81 and Boulton, p 22.
93
Boulton, p 22
94
A monopsony is a situation in which there is only one buyer for a particular good.
95
Brooking, ‘Busting Up’, p 78
96
Boulton, p 387
97
Native Land Court Act 1894, s 117
98
Native Land Laws Amendment Act 1895, s 3
92
46
government bought 17,213 acres of land in the inquiry district, paying an average of 0.13
pounds (expressed as a decimal) per acre. In the year ending August 1894, the government
bought 146,512 acres of land in the district at an average price of 0.24 pounds per acre - a
price increase of 85 percent. These significantly higher average prices persisted into the early
1900s, with the notable exception of 1896, when only 4,419 acres were purchased.99
There is no reason to suppose that the quality of land purchased increased over time. Rather,
these higher prices were made possible by the increasing amounts of money the Liberal
Government allocated to land purchase within the inquiry district. Section 3 of the Native
Land Purchase Act 1892 empowered the Government to borrow up to £50,000 per year for
land purchasing without parliamentary approval (more could be borrowed with the approval
of Parliament). This provision meant that once the land purchase money set aside in railway
loans legislation was exhausted in 1894, Maori land within the Rohe Potae could be bought
using funds from the Native Lands Purchase Account established under the 1892 Act.100
Boulton’s figures show that, with the exception of 1898, the drawings on this account for
land purchases in the inquiry district were generally fairly modest thanks to the low prices
paid.101 The increasing amount of Maori land the government purchased each year
nationwide eventually exhausted all the funds it was able to borrow for this purpose by 1896.
The Government therefore proposed borrowing a further £250,000. In Parliament, Seddon
boasted about the lack of opposition to this idea, declaring that this indicated that the
Government’s policies had the unanimous support of the House and the country.102 Seddon
had earlier, in 1894, intervened to try and influence land purchasing in the Rohe Potae. As
Marr notes, he was motivated in part by the scattered nature of holdings purchased to date:
This may have been one reason why, in late 1894, Seddon appears to have decided to reenergise and rationalise purchasing in the district. In October 1894 he requested the
Minister of Lands, McKenzie, to take steps to increase the number of land purchase
officers and to give all of them instructions to purchase land as near roads and settlements
as possible. He also instructed McKenzie to review prices if that might possibly achieve
more sales. Seddon was confident that, with the recent increase in money available for
99
Boulton, p 387
Boulton, p 168
101
Boulton, p 387
102
Boulton, p 170
100
47
purchasing and recent legislation, more land might be purchased in the district in the
coming year than in any previous year: ‘this year we ought to break the record’.103
Boulton also notes that costs associated with the processes of the Native Land Court may
have reduced the resolve of Rohe Potae Maori to hold onto their land.104 In January 1889, at a
meeting at Otorohanga, the Government and Ngati Maniapoto agreed that the Government
would make accurate, relatively cheap surveys, with payment by the Maori owners delayed
for two years.105 This meant that from 1891, owners started to become liable for survey costs
with attendant temptation to sell land in order to meet them. In fact by the end of 1908, over
80,000 acres of Rohe Potae land had been transferred to the Crown in lieu of survey costs.106
Another feature of the 1889 agreement was that the Government would bear the survey costs
for any land it purchased.107 This provided further temptation to sell land to avoid these costs.
Boulton also speculates that the death of a number of significant Rohe Potae leaders during
the 1890s – Taonui in 1892, Rewi Maniapoto and Tawhiao in 1894, and Wahanui in 1897 –
further weakened ‘community cohesion, organization and resistance to selling’.108 However,
as was seen by the failed attempt of Rohe Potae leaders to broker an agreement with Cadman
in 1891, the individualisation of title in the Aotea (Rohe Potae) block had already weakened
all these things. Individualisation made it difficult to get consensus on a community approach
to selling whole blocks or withholding them from sale, undermining the ability of the
traditional leadership to act as effective spokesmen for the community in their dealings with
the government. This general problem was identified by the MHRs William Rees, James
Carroll and Thomas Mackay, who were commissioned to investigate the Native Land Court
system. Their 1891 report argued that the power of the chiefs and custom had been
undermined by the individualisation of title, because the law regarded every co-owner of a
piece of land as equal.109
103
Marr, Alienation of Maori Land 1840-1920, p 124
Boulton, pp 455-456
105
Marr, Alienation of Maori Land 1840-1920, p 51
106
Boulton, pp 448, 455-456
107
Marr, Alienation of Maori Land 1840-1920, p 51
108
Boulton, p 455
109
AJHR, 1891 session II, G-1, pxi
104
48
A temporary slowdown in purchasing
By the late 1890s the Liberal Government appeared to be having second thoughts about its
purchase of Maori land. It was not prepared to allow free trade in land, but was instead
moving towards a halt in land purchase altogether in favour of leasing. In 1897, Seddon
signalled a return to something similar to the failed system legislated by Ballance in the mid1880s, which is briefly touched on in chapter 1. When asked about the purchase of lands in
the King Country, Seddon said a scheme was in place under which elected Maori boards
would lease land. Unlike Ballance’s earlier scheme, land sales would cease.110 Marr suggests
that this ‘taihoa’ policy may have been due to concerns about Maori landlessness and the
resulting possibility that Maori might become a burden on the state. She also cites the
‘considerable pressure’ on Government from political movements such as the Kingitanga and
Kotahitanga, backed up by numerous petitions calling for greater iwi management of
remaining Maori lands.111 Boulton suggests another factor, namely the fact that the
Government was not able to sell Maori land as quickly as it was able to acquire it. By 1897
the Government had on-sold only 210,000 acres of the 1.6 million acres of Maori land it had
purchased in the previous four years.112
The legislation that resulted from this change of policy is outlined in chapter 6 of this report.
It included the Native Land laws Amendment Act 1899, which prohibited the alienation of
Maori land to the Crown by way of sale, and the establishment of Maori Land Councils from
1900. The 1899 Act was only a temporary measure, but it signalled a medium-term change
in policy. The Act allowed purchases already started to be completed.113 Thus, as Boast notes,
it ‘did not stop purchasing in its tracks, as there were a considerable number of incomplete
arrangements which took a number of years to be finalised’.114 This can be seen in the Rohe
Potae inquiry district, where the proportion of Maori land alienated increased from 33.4
percent in 1899 to 37.8 percent in 1901.115 However, the restrictions then kicked in, and for
several years the only purchasers were the few private buyers given dispensation from Crown
110
Boulton, p 172
Marr, Alienation of Maori Land 1840-1920, p 129
112
Boulton, p 174
113
Native Land laws Amendment Act 1899, ss 3, 5
114
Boast, p 213
115
Boulton, pp 423-424
111
49
pre-emption under the Native Land Court Act 1894.116 As a result, land alienation by sale in
the inquiry district almost ground to a halt. By 1906, the proportion of Maori land sold to the
Crown in the Rohe Potae inquiry district had increased just 1.6 percentage points in five
years, to 39.4 percent,.117
However, the Maori Land Settlement Act 1905 ‘ushered in the return of large-scale Crown
purchasing’.118 By 1908, 48.5 percent of the Rohe Potae inquiry district had passed out of
Maori hands, an increase of over nine percentage points in just two years.119 Crown holdings
of land in the district were regularly on-sold for settlement, particularly before 1900 and after
1906.120 The result was a growing Pakeha settler population in the Rohe Potae. Census data
indicates that the non-Maori population of the inquiry district increased from around 1000 in
1901 to over 5000 in 1911.121
Conclusions
In the early 1880s, the Crown had rather different objectives to Rohe Potae leaders with
respect to their lands. The ‘Four Tribes’ wished to keep the Native Land Court out of their
district and minimise land sales. Despite this, they did agree at the end of 1883 to submit their
claimed Rohe Potae to the Native Land Court for title investigation, preceded by a survey of
the boundary. They seemed to hold out the hope that the Kawhia Native Council would be
able to undertake any further determinations of ownership, with ownership being determined
at a hapu rather than individual level – perhaps by amendments being made to the legislation
government the Native Land Court.
The Government, on the other hand, wished to purchase sufficient land for the North Island
main trunk railway, and to on-sell land for settlement to fund the railway. These aims
required the title to the land to be determined by the Native Land Court, which would allocate
individual shares. The Government also desired to keep out land speculators wanting to profit
from the enhanced land values accruing from the railway. It achieved this end by imposing
Crown pre-emption in the district - an action increasingly opposed by Rohe Potae Maori, who
116
Boast, p 214
Boulton, p 424
118
Boast, p 224
119
Boulton, p 424
120
Boulton, p 169
121
New Zealand census populations for those parts of the Kawhia, Awakino and Waitomo counties with the
inquiry district, 1901 and 1911
117
50
realised it prevented them from making a financial return from their land by leasing it. In
1891, the Rohe Potae leadership tried to broker a deal with the new Native Minister, Cadman,
by which blocks of land would be sold to the Government in exchange for limited removal of
Crown pre-emption. This attempt failed, and pre-emption remained in place for the rest of the
decade. As is outlined in chapter 6, Rohe Potae Maori gained the right to lease land privately
after 1900.
The reason for the failure of Rohe Potae leaders to broker an agreement with Cadman in 1891
was ultimately the individualisation of the Aotea (Rohe Potae) block. This made it difficult to
get consensus on a community approach to selling whole blocks or withholding them from
sale. In other words, individualisation greatly undermined the ability of the traditional
leadership to act as effective spokesmen for the community in their dealings with the
government. This general problem was identified by the Rees-Carroll Commission. Their
1891 report argued that the power of the chiefs and custom had been undermined by the
individualisation of title, because the law regarded every co-owner of a piece of land as
equal.122
Although Rohe Potae leaders had agreed in late 1883 to submit their claimed lands to the
Native Land Court for title investigation, prominent leaders subsequently changed their
minds. However, a renewed agreement to submit a large portion of these lands – later to
become the Aotea (Rohe Potae) block – for Native Land Court title investigation went ahead
in April 1886. This further change of mind was likely due to several causes, including the
Kawhia Committee’s lack of power to determine title at an iwi and hapu level as they had
hoped. In addition, there were concerns that large neighbouring blocks had been submitted to
the court, in particular the Tuwharetoa application relating to the Tauponuiatia block. This
block included lands claimed by Ngati Maniapoto and Ngati Raukawa. The Tuwharetoa
application was in turn provoked by concerns that the ‘Four Tribes’ alliance had designs on
some of their lands. The land disputes, of which the Tauponuiatia application was a part,
were eventually the subject of a royal commission in 1889. It was this commission that, in
effect, finally determined the boundary between Tuwharetoa and Maniapoto lands. John
Ormsby, as spokesman for Maniapoto, told the royal commission that the hearing over
Tauponuiatia was in violation of the November 1883 agreement that the Native Land Court
122
AJHR, 1891 session II, G-1, pxi
51
would determine the boundaries of Rohe Potae lands.123 In Stirling’s words, the Government
had broken the ‘Rohe Potae compact’.124
By 1889, title investigation in the Aotea (Rohe Potae) block subdivisions had progressed far
enough for the Government to begin purchasing lands within the Rohe Potae. At that time the
Crown had purchased some three percent of land in the inquiry district during the 1850s,
almost all of it north of Aotea harbour. By 1892, it had purchased a further one percent. Rohe
Potae Maori were heavily resistant to selling land for a variety of reasons, including the low
prices on offer, limited need for additional cash over that obtainable from labouring and
trade, and the development of pastoral farming.
However, by 1899 the Crown had purchased a third of the Rohe Potae inquiry district. This
rapid acceleration in sales came about largely because of the Liberal Government’s
ideological commitment to ‘closer settlement’. This involved ‘busting up’ the large South
Island estates, and buying up Maori land in the North Island to on-sell to European small
farmers. The Crown was thus prepared to pay higher prices for Maori land than in the past
(although still far less than for Pakeha-owned land), and to devote more resources to purchase
efforts. The desire of Rohe Potae leaders to minimise land sales, as expressed during the
railway negotiations, was ignored. These sales were slowed dramatically by the ‘taihoa’
policy in place between 1899 and 1906, but increased again thereafter. The on-selling of
Crown land in turn facilitated a five-fold increase in the number of Pakeha settlers in the
Rohe Potae between 1901 and 1911. This influx further contributed to a loss of Maori
autonomy in the district, with the development of new Pakeha-dominated local institutions.
123
124
Waitangi Tribunal, Pouakani, pp 127-128
Stirling, ‘Taupo-Kaingaroa’, vol 3, pp 1112-1113
52
Chapter 3: Prophets and Political Movements in
the Rohe Potae
Topic C of the commission for this report was ‘district participation in, and support for,
1890s developments in relations with the government, including the nature of support for the
Kingitanga, various prophetic movements and the Kotahitanga, and the relationships between
these movements in the district’. Because of this, the focus of this chapter will be on the
political elements of the movements and figures discussed, especially their relationships with
the government and with each other. To fully cover the relationships of Rohe Potae Maori
with the Kingitanga, Kotahitanga, and Te Kooti, even just in the 1886 to 1913 period, would
take far more time than is available for this report. Because of this, this chapter is essentially
an overview based primarily on secondary sources. It is recognised that the spiritual
dimensions of most of the topics discussed here have an importance which will not be
reflected in this chapter. However it was felt that it was more appropriate for such matters to
be explained by the claimants and their whanau, should they wish to do so.
Many Maori movements and organisations have had both political and spiritual components.
Maori prophetic leaders gained prominence from the 1860s. Their increased following was
prompted by disillusionment resulting from population decline, warfare, introduced diseases,
land loss and confiscation, and the loss of autonomy that accompanied Pakeha settlement.1
Some Maori leaders taught that religious belief and activity would in itself lead to a return of
the land and to peace, while others used religion as an adjunct to secular means of enacting
change, and others still alternated between religious and secular activity.
There are records of several Maori prophets active in and around the Rohe Potae during the
1880s and 1890s. The most important of these may have been Tawhiao who, as well as being
the Maori King, was also founder of the Tariao religious movement. From before 1886 until
his death in 1894, Tawhiao was based outside the Rohe Potae, but remained highly influential
in the region, as a political leader and as a prophet. The prophet Te Whiti of Parihaka also
had numerous followers in the Rohe Potae. Other prophets and tohunga lived within the
inquiry district and had varying levels of support and influence in the area and elsewhere.
1
Bronwyn Elsmore, Mana from Heaven: A Century of Maori Prophets in New Zealand, 2nd edition (Auckland:
Reed, 1999), pp 141-67
53
Several were most visible, and perhaps most important, as leaders of resistance to the opening
of the Rohe Potae. The essentially secular Kotahitanga movement also had supporters in the
Rohe Potae.
During the 1880s various Rohe Potae Maori leaders entered into negotiations with the
government, resulting in the lifting of the aukati, the building of the main trunk railway and
the beginnings of Pakeha settlement in the area. The decision by these chiefs to allow the
opening up of the district was a controversial one. Not all Rohe Potae Maori supported the
new direction, and publicly recorded opposition to the opening of the district was
spearheaded mostly by prophetic leaders.
Reliable contemporary sources on Maori prophets and religious movements are difficult to
find. Many of the prophetic movements seem to have been most popular amongst Maori who
did not want to engage with the government or Pakeha generally, and it was those very
contacts with Pakeha which tended to enter into the written record. Moreover, many Maori
have been reluctant to discuss religious matters with Pakeha, and this has resulted in a
shortage of accessible English-language documentary evidence. There are few publicly
available archival sources on the Rohe Potae prophets in this period, a rare exception being a
file on Te Mahuki’s occupation of Te Kuiti in 1890.2 Te Mahuki is generally better
documented than most prophets, due to his repeated brushes with the law, but virtually all
this documentation is from a Pakeha, and often very negative, viewpoint. There are also
numerous primary sources on Te Kooti; however because of time constraints it has not been
possible to examine them. Fortunately Judith Binney’s biography is so comprehensive that it
is unlikely that any significant and available material remains unexamined.
Political movements are somewhat better documented. There is some material on the
Kingitanga in Archives New Zealand, although primarily relating to the period before 1886.
There is also material on the Kingitanga and Kotahitanga movements in the Alexander
Turnbull Library, although much of it is in te reo Maori and no translation was available at
2
MA 23 5/6, Archives New Zealand, Wellington (ANZW)
54
the time of writing.3 However the English language material includes translations of the
minutes of some sittings of the Kotahitanga parliament.4
There are some excellent secondary sources on Maori prophets and prophetic movements.
Bronwyn Elsmore’s Mana from Heaven discusses the lives and careers of dozens of prophets
including several with connections to the late nineteenth century Rohe Potae.5 Binney’s
biography of Te Kooti, Redemption Songs, is an extremely detailed account of his life and
beliefs, and also contains some material on other prophets such as Te Mahuki.6 David
Young’s Woven by Water includes a chapter on the prophet Te Kere, although with a focus
on the Whanganui River, and most of the prophets discussed in this chapter have entries in
the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography.7 The political movements are less well served,
with the Kotahitanga lacking any dedicated published history. David McCan’s
Whatiwhatihoe gives an overview history of the Kingitanga, which is supplemented by
Michael King’s biography of Te Puea, Ann Parsonson’s 1972 MA thesis on the opening of
the Rohe Potae, and Dictionary of New Zealand Biography entries on the movement’s central
figures.8
The Kingitanga
The Kingitanga, or Maori King movement, although based outside of the Rohe Potae inquiry
district for most of its existence, has been a vital influence in the district. Rohe Potae hapu
and iwi have been closely involved in the movement, and the King and many of his Waikato
followers took sanctuary in the Rohe Potae for two decades after the invasion of the Waikato.
This section will explore the relationships between the Kingitanga and Rohe Potae Maori in
the 1886 to 1913 period. Because of the limited time available, it will be based mainly on
secondary sources. More detailed accounts of the Kingitanga’s relationships with Native
3
This material is included in the supporting documents.
MS-Papers-6373-26, ATL
5
Bronwyn Elsmore, Mana from Heaven: A Century of Maori Prophets in New Zealand, 2nd edition (Auckland:
Reed, 1999)
6
Judith Binney, Redemption Songs: A Life of Te Kooti Arikirangi Te Turuki (Auckland: Auckland University
Press, 1995)
7
David Young, Woven by Water: Histories from the Whanganui River (Wellington: Huia, 1998)
8
David McCan, Whatiwhatihoe: The Waikato Raupatu Claim (Wellington: Huia, 2001); Michael King, Te
Puea: A Biography (Auckland: Hodder and Stoughton,1977); Ann R. Parsonson, ‘Te Mana o te Kingitanga
Maori: A Study of Waikato-Ngatimaniapoto Relations during the struggle for the King Country, 1878-84’, MA
thesis, University of Canterbury, 1972
4
55
Committees, Maori Councils, Maori Land Councils, and the liquor issue, are provided in
chapters five, six and seven of this report.
Understanding these relationships requires knowledge of the prior history of the Kingitanga,
especially during the period it was based in the inquiry district. Consequently, this section
includes a brief history of the movement, particularly in relation to the Rohe Potae and its
people. Full examination of relations between Rohe Potae Maori and the Kingitanga prior to
1886 is included in the two political engagement reports for this inquiry covering the earlier
period.9
The Kingitanga was founded in 1858 with the crowning of Potatau Te Wherowhero, a
Waikato chief related to all the major waka confederations.10 Numerous hapu and iwi with
connections to the Rohe Potae inquiry district were involved in the Kingitanga from the start,
including Maniapoto and Ngati Haua.11 According to McCan, a Waikato-Maniapoto council
had general oversight.12 The elderly Potatau died just two years into his reign, and was
succeeded by his son Matutaera (probably given the name Tukaroto at birth, he was not
named Tawhiao until 1864).13 Meanwhile, warriors from the Rohe Potae and southern
Waikato had been fighting in the Taranaki War, contributing to the government’s perception
of the Kingitanga as a subversive and anti-British force.14 The movement continued to gain
supporters, and McCan states that Raukawa and Ngati Tuwharetoa joined the Kingitanga
after fighting broke out in Taranaki.15 In 1863 the Waikato was invaded by government
troops, and the King and his followers from that area were eventually driven south and their
lands confiscated. For the next two decades, the Kingitanga was based in the Rohe Potae, an
area of mostly Ngati Maniapoto land in between the confiscated lands of Waikato and
Taranaki. This entirely Maori-controlled area – larger than the Rohe Potae inquiry district –
became known to Pakeha as the King Country. Throughout Tawhiao’s exile in the Rohe
9
Vincent O’Malley, ‘Te Rohe Potae Political Engagement 1840-1863’, a report commissioned by the Waitangi
Tribunal, November 2010, Wai 898, A23. At the time of writing Cathy Marr’s report on political engagement in
the 1864 to 1885 period had not been completed.
10
For an account of the foundation of the Kingitanga, and the reasons for it, see McCan, pp 25-32.
11
O’Malley, ‘Rohe Potae Political Engagement’, pp 186, 196; McCan, p29
12
McCan, p32
13
R. T. Mahuta, 'Tawhiao, Tukaroto Matutaera Potatau Te Wherowhero - Biography', from the Dictionary of
New Zealand Biography. Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 1-Sep-10
URL: http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/biographies/2t14/1
14
O’Malley, ‘Rohe Potae Political Engagement’, pp 333-5; McCan, p37
15
McCan, p44
56
Potae, relationships between Waikato and their Maniapoto hosts seem to have been
somewhat strained, partly because Maniapoto feared that Tawhiao would try to claim their
land.16 The extent of division between Waikato and Maniapoto can be (and often has been)
exaggerated, however, and there was never any decisive ‘split’ between the two iwi.17
It should be noted that not all Rohe Potae Maori opposed the government, even during the
wars. Some Tainui Maori living in the Whaingaroa (Raglan) area supported the government
forces, and their leaders Kukutai, Te Wheoro and Wiremu Neera Te Awaitaia were all given
the rank of Major, although none of them seems to have actually fought in the wars.18 Te
Awaitaia was a long-standing opponent of the concept of a Maori King, and had spoken
forcefully against it when the idea was first widely discussed in the 1850s.19 The Ngati
Hikairo and Ngati Haua chief Hone Te One was expelled from Kawhia by Tawhiao in the
1860s because of his co-operation with the government, and subsequently lived near Aotea
harbour.20
During the wars many Maori Christians had rejected their former faith due to general
dissatisfaction with all things Pakeha, and also the support given by missionaries to the
government.21 Many turned to Te Ua Haumene, who in 1862 had founded the Pai Marire
religious movement. Te Ua ‘believed in the principle of Maori kingship and supported the
divine mandate of Tawhiao in his teachings’.22 In 1864, the King and a large group of
Maniapoto visited Te Ua, who named him King Tawhiao. Despite this, Tawhiao continued to
attend Christian services when the opportunity arose, and drew heavily from the Bible for his
views and rhetoric.23 In 1875 Tawhiao began to preach what would become the new Tariao
religion, which was a mix of Pai Marire, Christianity, and traditional Maori religion. On 5
December he issued a proclamation saying that it was time to cast away evil and embark on
the correct path of faith, love and kindness, and also of peace. Tawhiao had always advocated
peace, but his new religion gave it new moral authority which seems to have made his
message easier for his followers to accept. Elsmore argues that Tariao significantly improved
16
Parsonson, pp 12-13; McCan, pp 78-9, 83, 87
Marr, ‘Rohe Potae Political Engagement’, pp 158-9
18
See their entries in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography.
19
O’Malley, ‘Rohe Potae Political Engagement’, pp 186-9
20
McCan, p70
21
Elsmore, p235
22
Elsmore, p235
23
Elsmore, pp 235-8
17
57
relations between the Kingitanga and the government, and led in part to the opening of the
Rohe Potae.24 The Kingitanga continued to have strong links with Pai Marire into the
twentieth century, with King Te Rata opening a Pai Marire wharenui in 1913.25
Relationships between the Kingitanga and the government warmed during the 1870s,
although there was still considerable distrust and misunderstanding on both sides, and
diplomacy was complicated by Rewi Maniapoto’s simultaneous attempts to hold discussions
with the government.26 The Kingitanga’s relationships with the government-allied Maori of
the Rohe Potae harbours also improved.27 In 1881, Tawhiao and several hundred followers
went to Alexandra (Pirongia) where Tawhiao laid down his gun before Resident Magistrate
William Mair, saying that this signified peace.28 Tawhiao then began establishing a
settlement at Whatiwhatihoe, across the Puniu River from Alexandra. Over the next year and
a half, Tawhiao and the government continued their negotiations. Tawhiao wanted the return
of at least some (ideally all) of the confiscated Waikato lands and official acknowledgement
of his authority. The government was prepared to partly meet these requests in the hope that
it would lead to Tawhiao’s acknowledgement of the authority of the Queen and parliament,
and the opening up of the Rohe Potae for settlement. Meanwhile, relationships between the
Kingitanga and Maniapoto had become strained due to Maniapoto’s need to engage with the
Land Court in order to avoid losing land at Mokau.29
At a hui late in 1882, Native Minister John Bryce offered Tawhiao the return of most of the
confiscated land west of the Waipa and Waikato Rivers, a furnished house and a pension of
£400 a year. He would also be made an assessor of the Resident Magistrate’s Court and the
Native Land Court, a Justice of the Peace, and a member of the Legislative Council. In return
he had to acknowledge the Queen’s authority.30 Tawhiao refused the offer. McCan argues
that this was partly due to Maniapoto leader Wahanui’s opposition and partly because Bryce
had not given him time to present the offer to his people.31 Parsonson argues that from
24
Elsmore, pp 239-40
Korero tuku iho hui 6, Wai 898, 4.1.6, p118
26
Parsonson, pp 10-41
27
Parsonson, p16
28
McCan, p121
29
Parsonson, pp 106-9
30
Tui Adams, Ngahinaturae Te Uira and Ann Parsonson, ‘“Behold, A Kite Flies Towards You”: The
Kiingitanga and the “Opening” of the King Country’, New Zealand Journal of History, 31, 1 (1997), pp 106-7
31
McCan, pp 134-7
25
58
Tawhiao’s perspective it was not a good deal: the government were offering him his own
land and, perhaps even more insultingly, to incorporate him into their system of power rather
than recognising his own authority.32 Rather than try to renegotiate, Bryce went to Kawhia
and claimed government possession of a block of land supposedly sold to a Pakeha trader in
the 1830s, and purchased by the government in 1880.33 Kawhia was the resting place of the
Tainui waka, had been closed to Pakeha since the 1860s (except in emergencies34), and the
area was partly owned by Tawhiao himself, so it was a highly symbolic territory.35
After Tawhiao’s refusal and the Bryce’s actions in Kawhia, the government focussed on
negotiating directly with leaders of Maniapoto and other Rohe Potae iwi. According to
McCan, after Tawhiao’s rejection of his offer, Bryce saw his need to consult with his people
as a sign of weak leadership, ‘and thereafter accorded him little attention’.36 Marr argues that
the decisive moment came in 1883 when rival petitions were presented to parliament. The
‘four tribes’ Rohe Potae petition to parliament made no mention of the Kingitanga, and one
response to it was a rival petition from Waikato and Maniapoto Kingitanga supporters
repudiating the original petition and arguing that Tawhiao had rights to land within the Rohe
Potae.37 Marr states that this very visible division meant that from this time the government
paid no attention to supporters of Tawhiao, who wanted to maintain a separate district.38
Negotiations were carried out instead with other leaders such as Wahanui. The Kingitanga
seems not to have actively opposed the opening of the Rohe Potae: a 1886 hui at Poutu near
Taupo which called for Tawhiao to be recognised as the King of all Maori also passed a
resolution saying that the railway would not be actively opposed, but no co-operation was to
be offered. The hui was attended by some members of Maniapoto and Raukawa.39 The
withdrawal of the Kingitanga from active participation in Rohe Potae matters was perhaps
32
Parsonson, pp 121-2. In her article co-written with Te Uira and Adams, Parsonson also cites the lack of
opportunity for consultation as a factor. Adams, Te Uira and Parsonson, p107
33
Adams, Te Uira and Parsonson, pp 108-9
34
Such as the visit of the Luna in 1873. McCan, p73
35
Adams, Te Uira and Parsonson, p109; Parsonson, pp 153-4
36
McCan, p137
37
Marr, ‘Waimarino’, p115
38
Marr, ‘Waimarino’, p115
39
AJHR 1886 G-3, pp 1-2
59
exemplified by Waikato’s removal, in the late 1880s, of the bones of their dead from the
Rohe Potae for reburial north of the aukati.40
Rohe Potae iwi and hapu continued to be involved with the Kingitanga. One example of this
was Raukawa’s attempt, in 1888, to gift to Tawhiao 60,000 acres of the land in the Aotea
(Rohe Potae) block.41 This did not go ahead because it had been made illegal to alienate
Maori land in the Rohe Potae to anyone other than the Crown.42 Another example was the
support of Maniapoto for the Kingitanga’s Kauhanganui parliament.43 In 1893 the parliament
asserted its authority over the Rohe Potae by having notices posted around the district
warning Pakeha that they were subject to the laws of the King’s parliament.44 Possibly
because of Tawhiao’s death the following year, the parliament was relatively short lived,
however, and by 1898 the parliament house had fallen into disrepair. The parliament’s
consultative features were taken over by the poukai visits of the King to supporters’ marae.45
To the extent that the Kauhanganui continued to exist, McCan states that it mostly became a
forum for Kingmaker Tupu Taingakawa and his iwi Ngati Haua.46 Divisions remained, and
when the third King, Mahuta, took a seat in the Legislative Council in 1903, a small group of
Maniapoto sang derogatory chants outside during the induction ceremony. According to the
Auckland Star, the bulk of Maniapoto supported Mahuta’s new role, and John Ormsby
attended and spoke as their representative.47
Mahuta died in 1912, and Pepene Eketone of Maniapoto was one of the two men in charge of
arranging the tangi.48 At the tangi, James Carroll and Te Heuheu Tukino V argued that the
title of ‘King’ should be dropped in favour of ‘ariki’. The idea was rejected by Waikato
leaders, who said that if the new King Te Rata was to be King only of Waikato and its allies,
so be it. According to McCan, this led to an alliance of the core Kingitanga followers,
40
McCan, p155
‘Gift of land to Tawhiao and his people’, newspaper clipping, 25 September 1888, MA 23 2/3, ANZW. SD
vol 2, p363
42
Lewis to Daufaur, 1 October 1888, MA 23 2/3, ANZW. SD vol 2, p363
43
McCan, p161
44
McCan, p163
45
McCan, p168
46
McCan, p170
47
Auckland Star, 22 May 1903, p2
48
Angela Ballara, 'Mahuta Tawhiao Potatau Te Wherowhero - Biography', from the Dictionary of New Zealand
Biography. Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 1-Sep-10 URL:
http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/biographies/3m35/1
41
60
referred to as Te Porotaka Nama Tahi (The First Circle), comprising Waikato, Maniapoto,
Raukawa and Hauraki.49
The Kingitanga and what the government saw as the ‘progressive’ section of Rohe Potae
Maori (often represented by Ormsby) came into conflict several times in the 1886 to 1913
period. A particularly fraught area was the establishment of government-sanctioned Maori
committees. The ‘progressives’ established committees or councils under the Native
Committees Act 1883, the Maori Councils Act 1900, and the Maori Lands Administration
Act 1900. In each case there was a struggle for authority between the progressives and the
Kingitanga, which will be discussed in detail in chapters five, six and seven of this report.
The Kawhia Committee established under the 1883 Act competed and resisted mergers with
Kingitanga committees which claimed jurisdiction over some of the same area. Similar
problems befell the Maniapoto Maori Council established under the Maori Councils Act
1900, particularly when it came to collecting the dog tax which was its main source of funds
and which was also collected by the Kingitanga. After a prolonged boundary dispute with
Maniapoto and Tuwharetoa, the Kingitanga gave cautious initial approval to the Land
Councils established under the Maori Lands Administration Act, but soon resumed a policy
of disengagement. In each case a minority of Rohe Potae Maori, most of them living in the
north of the district, sided with the Kingitanga.
During the 1886 to 1913 period, relationships between the Kingitanga and Rohe Potae Maori
were tense and complicated. It appears that a section of Maori within the inquiry district,
mostly in the north, consistently sided with the Kingitanga in disputes and wished to be under
the King’s mana. The majority of Rohe Potae Maori respected the King and supported the
Kingitanga when its aims coincided with theirs, but wished to retain their authority and
autonomy as tangata whenua of the Rohe Potae. It is difficult to know the exact nature of the
divisions, but it seems that a central cause was the unwillingness of many Rohe Potae Maori
to give the King any real authority over their lands. Another issue, which will be explored in
later chapters, was that many Rohe Potae leaders seem to have been more willing than the
Kingitanga to engage with the state and with officially recognised systems such as the Native
Committees and Maori Councils.
49
McCan, p175
61
Te Mahuki
One of the higher-profile opponents to the opening of the Rohe Potae was a Ngati Maniapoto
and Ngati Kinohaku prophet named Te Mahuki, later known as Te Manukura. He had moved
to Parihaka in the late 1870s, and had been one of the ploughmen arrested and imprisoned in
Dunedin. After his release, he returned to the Rohe Potae, where he established a village at
Te Kumi, near Te Kuiti, as a replica of Parihaka. He attempted to persuade the rest of Ngati
Maniapoto to stop following Tawhiao and their own tribal chiefs and adopt Te Whiti’s
religion, without much success but, in the process, presumably making some powerful
enemies.50 According to Bronwyn Elsmore, he:
…became the representative of the Taranaki prophets in that area [the Rohe Potae]... The
notions of the new leader were not so moderate as his models, however, and those of the
Waikato district who did not agree with the more reconciliatory views of King Tawhiao
and his supporting chiefs, joined Te Mahuki.51
Wilkinson52 wrote in 1883 that Te Mahuki and his followers:
...profess to be actuated by a desire to prevent their land from passing out of their hands;
to keep themselves at a distance from the pakeha, in whom they see all that is the cause of
their deterioration and destruction, and nothing that can benefit them; to be allowed
themselves to conduct all matters that pertain to their own well-being – in fact, to make
laws for themselves, and not to be amenable to ours in any way; to be entirely their own
masters and do what they like with their own.53
These desires would have been fairly mainstream amongst Rohe Potae Maori before the
lifting of the aukati, and it is therefore not surprising that Te Mahuki achieved a following
amongst those who thought the opening of the district was a bad idea.
In 1883 Te Mahuki and a group of followers captured the surveyor Charles Hursthouse and
two companions (one of them Maori), who had been exploring potential routes for the main
trunk railway. Te Mahuki’s group held them for nearly two days before the intervention of
two separate rescue parties, one of which was led by Te Mahuki’s fellow prophet Te Kooti.54
50
AJHR 1883 G-1, p5
Elsmore, p263
52
Wilkinson and Te Mahuki’s wives were sisters, a fact apparently not mentioned by Wilkinson in any of his
official correspondence on the prophet. Marr, Alienation of Maori Land, 1840-1920, p61
53
AJHR 1883 G-1, p5
54
Paul Thomas, ‘The Crown and Maori in Mokau, 1840-1911’, a report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal
for Te Rohe Potae Inquiry, February 2011, Wai 898, A28, pp 308-9; Binney, Redemption Songs, pp 312-13
51
62
Hursthouse had been a key prosecution witness in the trials of the Parihaka prophets, and it
has been suggested that this motivated Te Mahuki’s rough treatment of the surveyor. After
Hursthouse was rescued, Te Mahuki and his followers marched, unarmed, on Alexandra,
possibly to protest against the involvement of Ngati Maniapoto leaders with the survey and
possibly to provoke an incident which would cause a rift between Maniapoto and the
government.55 They were arrested and, after a trial at which Wahanui’s brother Kahu and
Mokau chief Wetere gave evidence, were imprisoned for a year.56 The Hursthouse episode is
covered in detail in Marr’s political engagement report covering the 1860s to 1885.
Te Mahuki was released early for good behaviour,57 and Wilkinson wrote in 1884 that the
prophet and his followers, known as the Tekau-ma-rua (the Twelve58) ‘have conducted their
proceedings on a much milder and less lawless basis’.59 They were on good terms with the
railway surveyors in their area, and Wilkinson thought they did not regard the railway with
suspicion or animosity, based on the fact that they had asked only for minor re-routing to
avoid resource destruction, rather than for the line to be stopped altogether. After he was
released from his first imprisonment, Te Mahuki, like other non-Taranaki Parihaka prisoners,
had been compelled to return to his home district and forbidden from returning to Parihaka.
Before the Parihaka travel ban was lifted in 1884, Te Mahuki and others made pilgrimages
towards Taranaki but always turned back at Whitecliffs when told they could go no further.60
At this time he was associated with the Mokau chief Te Wetere and his people, who shared
Te Mahuki’s adherence to the Parihaka prophets.61
The next recorded act of resistance by Te Mahuki and his followers came in 1887. Wilkinson
wrote that the Tekau-ma-rua had opened ‘a miniature publichouse’ at Te Kumi and were
selling whisky and brandy to anyone who wanted it, in contravention of the license ban
brought about at the request of Wahanui earlier in the decade. The pub’s customers seem to
have included plain clothed police officers, and some of the Takau-ma-rua were tried and
Chris Koroheke, ‘Te Mahuki - Biography', from the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography. Te Ara - the
Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 1-Sep-10, URL: http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/2t22/1. See
also AJHR 1887 session II G-1, p6
56
Thomas, p310
57
Waikato Times, 5 Feburary 1884, p2
58
The name of the Tekau-ma-rua was a Biblical reference rather than indicative of their actual numbers.
59
AJHR 1884 session II G-1, p7
60
AJHR 1884 session II G-1, p7; Elsmore, p266
61
Taranaki Herald, 18 June 1884, p2
55
63
fined for ‘sly-grog’ selling. Wilkinson felt that the aim of the pub had been less ‘to break a
European law as to act in opposition to Wahanui and the other chiefs, who, so far, have taken
the entire management of matters pertaining to the King-country in their hands.’62 The slygrogging can therefore be seen as a political act.
In 1890, following a visit to Parihaka, Te Mahuki foretold that the millennium would occur
on the second of November and, according to Native Department Under-Secretary T.W.
Lewis, that ‘the power of money to work evil is to be taken away. There is to be no more
trouble, but a time of universal peace and plenty. Even the planting of food is to be dispensed
with.’63 Te Mahuki wrote to settlers at Puhunui saying that he had ‘made peace in this island,
and throughout the whole world, by God’s direction’.64 He also reportedly gave away land to
Pakeha settlers.65 Lewis later wrote of the millennial predictions that ‘For this particular form
of Maori lunacy the translation of the Old Testament into the Maori language is, in my
opinion, very much, if not entirely responsible’.66
An account of Te Mahuki’s subsequent actions was given at Auckland Police Court in
November by Te Kuiti storekeeper John Ellis. Ellis said that on 21 October 1890 he visited
Te Kumi and was told that he would not be allowed to return to Te Kuiti but would have to
go to Auckland.67 Te Mahuki and about 25 followers then rode to Te Kuiti, having allowed
Ellis to accompany them. On arriving at Te Kuiti in the early afternoon, Te Mahuki pointed at
the railway station and said that the Bible foretold that ‘not one stone would be left on
another’. He then posted guards at the Te Kuiti shops in order to prevent the Pakeha owners
from getting into them. Various small fights broke out as the two constables present in the
town attempted to drive away Te Mahuki’s followers, and settlers attempted to get into their
shops and houses and get the Maori intruders out of them. Te Mahuki and his people seem
initially to have tried to avoid actual violence, picking up, restraining, tying up and blocking
the settlers and constables, but generally not striking them. Ellis said in court that when he
...tried to get into his own store he found a Maori sitting there. Mahuki had asked witness
[Ellis] to hand his store over to him, saying there would be no trouble... Witness did not
62
AJHR 1887 session II G-1, p6
Lewis to Native Minister, 30 October 1890, MA 23 5/6, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 406-13
64
Auckland Star, 3 November 1890, p4
65
Elsmore, p266
66
Lewis to Native Minister, 30 October 1890, MA 23 5/6, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 406-13
67
Ellis’ testimony from Auckland Star, 3 November 1890, p4
63
64
have any bodily fear, but Te Mahuki used a word which he understood to mean plunder,
consequently he was afraid for the goods in the store.68
Another witness said that he was ‘not much alarmed by what took place at Te Kuiti’ although
he had been ‘rather scared’ at Te Kumi, where he had gone at Te Mahuki’s invitation.69 A
third witness, however, reported being beaten by a group of Maori on two occasions. He
thought Te Mahuki had kicked him at one point but also said that the prophet had told his
followers not to kill or beat him but rather tie him up.70 The highly influential Maniapoto
rangatira Taonui had also told government officials that Te Mahuki had threatened to tie him
up.71
Wilkinson quickly telegraphed the Native Department offices in Auckland, saying that the
‘fanatic Te Mahuki... has turned outrageous’ and that unless a force of constables was sent
quickly to arrest him ‘serious trouble will take place’.72 A follow-up telegram from
Wilkinson and Native Land Court Judge William Mair added that Te Mahuki was likely to
‘follow up his action of today by something more tomorrow in order to be arrested as a
martyr’ and advised the Department to organise his arrest as soon as possible.73 An account
of the ensuing raid was written by Native Department Under-Secretary T W Lewis and
telegraphed to the Premier and Native Minister.74 This was quickly passed onto the Press
Association and by that evening was beginning to appear, almost verbatim, in newspapers
across the country.75
According to Lewis, a special train arrived at Te Kuiti at 7 am on 22 October, in pouring rain.
Although there seem to have been armed militia on board, a decision was made to leave the
arrest to the police, who were armed only with batons. It was quickly discovered, however,
that Te Mahuki’s followers had all gone back to Te Kumi, leaving Te Mahuki by himself in
Te Kuiti, where he was arrested. Taonui arrived and, once Lewis had explained the situation,
approved of the arrest, as did ‘all the right minded natives of this place’. Te Mahuki’s
68
Auckland Star, 3 November 1890, p4
Auckland Star, 3 November 1890, p4
70
Auckland Star, 3 November 1890, p4
71
Lewis to Premier and Native Minister, nd, MA 23 5/6, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 376-89
72
Wilkinson to Native Department, 21 October 1890, MA 23 5/6, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 371-3
73
Wilkinson and Mair to Native Department, 21 October 1890, MA 23 5/6, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 374-5
74
Lewis to Premier and Native Minister, nd, MA 23 5/6, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 376-89
75
For example see Taranaki Herald, 22 October 1890, p2; Auckland Star, 22 October 1890, p5; Wanganui
Herald, 23 October 1890, p2; North Otago Times, 23 October 1890, p2; Grey River Argus, 23 October 1890, p2.
69
65
followers then began arriving in Te Kuiti, and all those identified as having taken part in the
previous day’s incident were arrested. Lewis thought that they ‘put themselves in a position
to be arrested and from their leader downwards desire to pose as martyrs’.76 On the request of
Taonui, and partly because some of Te Mahuki’s remaining followers were threatening Te
Kuiti settlers, four constables were left in Te Kuiti to maintain order.77 Te Mahuki meanwhile
prophesied that he would return on the clouds in three days.78
Te Mahuki’s most high profile adherent was Rewi Maniapoto, who had been associated with
him for at least five years.79 Following the prophet’s arrest, Lewis telegraphed Rewi via
Wilkinson to tell him that the Government was disappointed that ‘a distinguished chief like
yourself who moreover is in receipt of a large pension from the Government’ was supporting
Te Mahuki.80 After none-too-subtly mentioning the house given to Rewi by the Government,
Lewis advised him to ‘leave Te Kumi and the foolish people who have associated themselves
with Mahuki without delay otherwise it is possible that you may become involved in their
wrong doing and the trouble that always comes upon those who act contrary to the law’.81
Meanwhile Te Mahuki’s gaoler intercepted a letter from the short-lived radical newspaper the
Tribune, offering to get him a lawyer.82 Enclosed was a copy of the newspaper’s second
edition which contained a lengthy and laudatory article on Te Mahuki, arguing that he had
been imprisoned solely for opposing Pakeha capitalist land-thievery.83 A message
handwritten across the top of the page read ‘Whakamaori tenei korero. Tenei te kupu o tou
hoa. Kia kaha ake ake ake’. (Translation of this talk. This is the word of your friend. Stay
strong forever and ever.)
Te Mahuki and his followers were tried on 3 November 1890 for riotous assembly and two
counts of assault.84 The assault charges seem to have been dropped, and in December they
pleaded guilty to riotous assembly. Te Mahuki was sentenced to twelve months’ hard labour
while some of his followers were sentenced to six months’ hard labour and others to three.
76
Lewis to Premier and Native Minister, nd, MA 23 5/6, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 376-89
Lewis to Premier and Native Minister, nd, MA 23 5/6, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 376-89
78
Lewis to Native Minister, 30 October 1890, MA 23 5/6, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 406-13
79
Waikato Times, 28 July 1885, p3
80
Lewis to Rewi Maniapoto, 24 October 1890, MA 23 5/6, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 390-5
81
Lewis to Rewi Maniapoto, 24 October 1890, MA 23 5/6, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 390-5
82
Lewis to Native Minister, 26 October 1890, MA 23 5/6, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 402-5
83
Tribune, 25 October 1890, p4, in MA 23 5/6, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 396-401
84
Auckland Star, 3 November 1890, p4
77
66
The defence lawyer argued that Te Mahuki was deranged, and that his followers were not to
blame as they were only obeying their chief. Justice Conolly said that this was the second
time Te Mahuki had been before the Court ‘as a leader in this kind of case’ and told him that
‘You are either not responsible for your actions, or a very dangerous man for the peace of the
country’.85
On 7 October 1897, newspapers reported that Te Mahuki had burnt down several houses
belonging to members of his hapu.86 According to the Evening Post, no prosecution had taken
place because the police could not find anyone willing to give information.87 Because of this,
it has not been possible to work out what Te Mahuki’s motives were in this case. The next
day he made a midnight ‘raid’ on Te Kuiti, mounted on a white horse and accompanied by
seven followers. They smashed the windows of the Maori Co-operative Store and that of
Green & Colebrook, and apparently set fire to the latter shop. Colebrook then emerged, put
out the fire, subdued Te Mahuki, giving him two black eyes, and had him delivered to the
lock-up.88
At his Police Court appearance on 8 October, Te Mahuki was described as ‘an elderly man
with hair just turning to grey. He is well built and by no means bad looking; and in Court he
bore himself with the dignity befitting a great tohunga’.89 At his Supreme Court appearance
the following month he spoke in Biblical terms, telling that jury that ‘You are the guardians
of the covenant. It was written by God on two slabs of stone and recorded in Exodus.’90 His
statement later in the trial makes the political aspects of his actions clearer. As reported by
the Auckland Star:
Mahuki elected to make a statement on oath. On going into the box, he said:- “My first
offence was in connection with Mr. Hursthouse. I went to Te Kuiti for the purpose of
overturning the tables of the money-changers – of the land purchasers – hence my
offence. These (pointing to the witnesses) were my masters. There were four hundred of
them. They struck me, and put me into your hands. I have another name now. I am Te
Whiti. My father is within me.”
His Honour said he did not see what this had to do with the case.
85
Auckland Star, 9 December 1890, p8
Auckland Star, 7 October 1897, p4
87
Evening Post, 7 October 1897, p5
88
Evening Post, 8 October 1897, p5; Auckland Star, 8 October 1897, p4; Auckland Star, 24 November 1897, p8
89
Auckland Star, 9 October 1897, p4
90
Auckland Star, 24 November 1897, p8
86
67
The prophet then proceeded to prophecy with a loud voice. He said: “God will destroy the
people of this country, because you have been violating the laws of Jehovah. I have
suffered imprisonment in the different prisons of New Zealand, including Dunedin, on
account of my land.”91
His gaoler testified that although he considered Te Mahuki a ‘religious fanatic’ he had
generally behaved rationally in jail. Te Mahuki was then found guilty of attempted arson and
sentenced to seven years hard labour. Justice Connoly, who had presided over Te Mahuki’s
previous trial, took into account his previous history and said he ‘seemed to be capable of
almost any act of violence’.92 Although considered sane at his trial, Te Mahuki was at some
point transferred to Auckland Lunatic Asylum, where he fell ill and died in 1899.93
Like many Maori prophets, Te Mahuki’s actions and words had political as well as religious
elements. His capture of Hursthouse was clearly an act of opposition to the railway, while his
takeover of the Te Kuiti shops can be seen as a protest against Pakeha settlement and possibly
the introduction to the Rohe Potae of a settler cash-based economy likely to lead to debt and
land loss amongst Maori. His establishment of a pub seems to have been motivated by
opposition to the opening of the district, and was perhaps intended to suggest to Rohe Potae
leaders that they could not invite the Pakeha in and then pick and choose which elements of
Pakeha culture came in with them. Wilkinson and Mair may have been correct to believe that
Te Mahuki wanted to be a martyr: a role which has great power in both religious and political
terms. However the Tribune was probably going too far in seeing him purely as a land
reformer and a protester against capitalism. Many of his statements and actions can be
properly understood only in the light of theology. His court speech in 1897 reflects this,
comparing the land purchasers to the Biblical money-lenders in the temple, and predicting a
divine reckoning for the taking of Maori land.
Te Kere
Another prophet who disagreed with the opening of the Rohe Potae was Te Kere Ngatai-erua, also known as Te Kere Te Huaki. Te Kere’s greatest influence seems to have been in the
Whanganui area, but he had strong connections with Maori in and around the Rohe Potae
inquiry district. A warrior in his youth, Te Kere had witnessed the battle of Moutoa in 1864,
91
Auckland Star, 24 November 1897, p8
Auckland Star, 24 November 1897, p8
93
Koroheke, ‘Te Mahuki’, DNZB
92
68
involving his relatives, and from then on became committed to peace.94 He was on good
terms with Tawhiao, and in the 1880s was, along with Te Whiti, called one of the King’s 12
pou, or supports.95 He was also known as a faith healer.96
According to David Young, the height of Te Kere’s political influence came in 1886, when
he was involved in a large inter-tribal hui at Poutu near Taupo, attended by some members of
Ngati Maniapoto and Ngati Raukawa as well as representatives of the Kingitanga.97 The first
few days were dedicated to religion, and Te Kere apparently achieved numerous converts to
his Paetiuihou religion. During the subsequent political debates, Te Kere co-represented
Tawhiao, who was absent due to the recent death of Manuhiri.98 The hui adopted the
following resolutions:
All the tribes to unite as one people;
Tawhiao to be acknowledged as the King of all Maori, acknowledging the
Queen’s authority but not that of the Colonial Government;
Adjudication of all Maori land to be withdrawn from Native Land Court;
No surveys, sales or leases of Maori land;
No spirits to be sold, or shops for sale of Pakeha goods to be kept within King
Country boundaries as defined in a recent Gazette notice on licensing;
No active opposition to the railway construction, but it should be passively
opposed, for example by declining to work on it and by charging exorbitant
prices for timber;
To test at some future date whether the Colonial Government had broken the
provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi.99
Although Te Kere is not recorded as having spoken at this hui, the resolutions corresponded
with his beliefs.100 He and his followers boycotted the Native Land Court when it held
hearings on land in which they had an interest and, like other boycotters of the Court, found
94
Korero Tuku Iho hui 4, Wai 898 4.1.4, pp 185-6
David Young, 'Te Kere Ngatai-e-rua - Biography', from the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography. Te Ara the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 1-Sep-10 URL: http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/biographies/2t21/1
96
Young, Woven by Water, p125
97
Young, Woven by Water, p139
98
AJHR 1886 G-3, p2
99
AJHR 1886 G-3, p1
100
Young writes that his deputy, Hori Rohipa, did the talking. Young, Woven by Water, p139
95
69
that this meant that they lost their rights to their land, most notably the Waimarino block.101
After the block was sold, Te Kere petitioned parliament, saying that it was alienated without
his knowledge or consent.102 He also wrote to the Native Minister about the block, claiming
that he had been unaware of the Court sittings and saying that he wanted to work peacefully
with the Government to make better laws.103 He took part in the hearings for the Pungahauru
block (outside of the inquiry district) in 1888, but his claim was dismissed on the grounds
that his occupation had been temporary.104 Te Kere’s followers were eventually granted some
land by the government, but not until some time after his death.105
After his disappointing experience with the Land Court, Te Kere seems to have restarted his
policy of disengagement. In 1892 he turned back a group of photographers on the Whanganui
River, telling them that if they continued on he would throw them in the river and confiscate
their belongings. He said Pakeha would see their photographs of the land and want to take
it.106 On being told that the river was the Queen’s highway, Te Kere replied, ‘No, the Queen’s
highway ends at Pipiriki’. The group were then compelled to turn and go back down the river.
The Wanganui Chronicle described the incident as ‘of a most serious nature’ and demanded
Government intervention.107 However the local police inspector refused to act, since no
violence or serious threats had been involved.108 Four years later, Te Kere led opposition to
the clearing of a stream, with the Wanganui Herald claiming that ‘the reason, as usual, [is]
pure cussedness’. It also demanded state intervention, saying that ‘there has been too much of
this nonsense in the past on the river’, but again no official action appears to have resulted.109
Te Kere also seems to have encouraged his followers to occupy Crown land in the
Whanganui district in 1901.110 The same year a group of his followers refused to vote on the
boundaries of the new Maori Land Councils.111 Te Kere died around this time, but his
memory lived on in the Rohe Potae and elsewhere.
101
Young, ‘Te Kere’. See also Marr, ‘Waimarino’, p298
AJHR 1888 I-3, p30
103
Marr, ‘Waimarino’, p541
104
Young, ‘Te Kere’
105
Marr, ‘Waimarino’, p591
106
Young, Woven by Water, p144
107
Wanganui Chronicle, 1 December 1892, p2
108
Young, Woven by Water, p145
109
Wanganui Herald, 12 December 1896, p2
110
Marr, ‘Waimarino’, p538
111
Grace to Premier, 26 July 1901, MA 19 6/9, ANZW. SD vol 1, pp 300-7
102
70
Te Kere’s policy of disengagement means that his beliefs and actions are not particularly well
documented, at least in English-language sources. According to Young, ‘He so consistently
avoided official contact that it was only in the last twenty years of his life that he seems even
to have been noted on the record’.112 The only time he appears to have attracted significant
Pakeha attention was the Whanganui River incident in 1892, and this was fairly brief. From
the limited information that could be found, it appears that Te Kere wished, like Te Mahuki,
to keep some areas free of Pakeha settlement and the Land Court. According to Marr, by the
1890s he had become ‘an important focus of continued resistance to government policies’ in
the Whanganui area, and probably further afield.113 Young states that he had thousands of
followers and was ‘second only to Te Whiti in his influence’.114 It is difficult to know how
much influence he had in the Rohe Potae inquiry district, but he was spoken of at the korero
tuku iho hui at Taumarunui in April 2010, and seems to have had followers in the south of the
district.115 His influence may also have been felt further afield.
Te Kooti
Te Kooti is probably the best known of the prophets examined in this chapter, although
perhaps more for his military activities than for his later calling as a religious leader.116 After
several years of fighting against government forces and their allies, Te Kooti took refuge in
the Rohe Potae from 1872 until his pardon in 1883. During that time he was based at Te
Kuiti, where he developed his Ringatu faith, in particular its main rituals. After being
pardoned he established a religious community at Otewa, south-east of Otorohanga.
Te Kooti’s political influence seems to have been fairly minor during his time in the Rohe
Potae. In 1887 Wilkinson claimed that ‘Te Kooti is very little thought about by Natives or
Europeans in this district. Here no one troubles themselves about him. It is only amongst
Natives in out-districts that he has any notoriety or is sought after’.117 He later described Te
Kooti as one of several ‘more or less disturbing elements’ in the Rohe Potae, but it is difficult
112
Young, Woven by Water, p143
Marr, ‘Waimarino’, p544
114
Young, Woven by Water, p142
115
Korero Tuku Iho hui 4, Wai 898, 4.1.4.
116
All information in this section derives from Binney, Redemption Songs, and her entry on Te Kooti in the
Dictionary of New Zealand Biography unless otherwise stated. Judith Binney, 'Te Kooti Arikirangi Te Turuki Biography', from the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography. Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand,
updated 1-Sep-10, URL: http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/biographies/1t45/1
117
AJHR 1887 session II G-1, p7
113
71
to see what this was based on.118 Te Kooti’s pardon came as the government was negotiating
with Rohe Potae Maori for the opening of the district, suggesting his relationship with his
hosts was good enough for the pardon to be a bargaining chip for the government. His
relationship with the Kingitanga was always somewhat difficult; they had initially refused to
admit him into the Rohe Potae and, even when he was allowed in, Tawhiao at first wanted
nothing to do with him. According to Judith Binney, by 1891 he had rejected both the
Kingitanga and Te Whiti. After his pardon his relationship with the government seems to
have been relatively good, except on one occasion when he attempted to return to Poverty
Bay and was convicted and briefly imprisoned for unlawful assembly. As we have seen, he
led one of the parties which rescued Hursthouse and his companions when they were
captured by Te Mahuki in 1883. This occurred just a few weeks after Te Kooti’s pardon was
issued, and Binney argues that his rescue of Hursthouse was motivated by his desire to
demonstrate his gratitude or sense of obligation to the government.119
Pao Miere
Pao Miere was a religious movement founded at Tiroa, near the eastern boundary of the
inquiry district.120 Its beliefs were based on the worship of Io Matua-Kore-o-te-Runga-Rawa
(Fatherless Io of the Highest), and its core practices included faith healing and the combating
of makutu. Tawhiao was a frequent visitor to Tiroa, and had a house there reserved for his
use. There seems to be little available information about Pao Miere, but Elsmore states that in
the early 1880s the movement was involved in resistance to settlement. After the deaths of its
two tohunga in the 1890s the movement seems to have faded, although its meeting house at
Tiroa was used by similar movements into the twentieth century.
The Kotahitanga
The Kotahitanga parliament was founded as the result of several years of hui and discussion,
mostly but not entirely amongst those iwi which had been allied with the government during
the New Zealand Wars. In the words of John Williams, ‘they were victims not of the
Pakehas’ war but of the Pakehas’ peace’.121 Like Rohe Potae Maori, in the last two decades
118
AJHR 1891 G-5, p2
Binney, Redemption Songs, p312
120
All information in this section is derived from Elsmore, pp 185-92
121
John Williams, Politics of the New Zealand Maori: Protest and Cooperation (Seattle: University of
Washington Press, 1969), p48
119
72
of the nineteenth century they were losing their land and autonomy through the Native Land
Court and the encroachment of the Crown’s power structures. From the mid 1880s, hui were
held in which chiefs from around the country came together to work out how best to preserve
or regain Maori autonomy, and it was decided that unity was essential. Requests were made
for the Queen or parliament to establish a national Maori council and, when these were
ignored, steps were taken to establish a Maori parliament.122 A hui at Waitangi in April 1892
established a bicameral parliament made up of a lower house of 96 elected members and a
fifty-member upper house of paramount chiefs nominated by the lower house.123 It held its
first session at Waipatu, near Hastings, in June 1892. Successive annual meetings were held
at Pakirikiri on the East Coast, Rotorua, Tokaanu on Lake Taupo, Papawai in the Wairarapa
(two years running), Waitangi, Rotorua again in 1900 and 1901, and finally at Waiomatatini
on the East Coast in 1902.124 The Maori members of the Crown’s parliament continued to
seek official sanction for the Kotahitanga, but empowering bills were not even debated in the
Wellington parliament.125
Some Rohe Potae Maori were involved in the Kotahitanga parliament. At the first sitting in
June 1892, Maniapoto were represented by Wiari Te Kuri and Hamapiri Te Arahori; Ngati
Awa of Mokau and Waitotara were represented by Wi Te Kakakura; and Ngati Raukawa of
Waikato and nearby areas were represented by Te Aohau Pungarehu.126 However the Rohe
Potae was not represented in the upper house, suggesting that no leading chiefs from the area
were involved.127 None of the members named above seem to have spoken during the sitting.
The electorates were reorganised at the 1895 Rotorua hui, and this time none appear to have
included the Rohe Potae.128 However the list of iwi stated to have joined the Kotahitanga
122
Williams, Politics of the New Zealand Maori, pp 51-2
Williams, Politics of the New Zealand Maori, p53; Angela Ballara, 'Mangakahia, Hamiora - Biography', from
the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography. Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 1-Sep-10
URL: http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/biographies/2m29/1
124
Williams, Politics of the New Zealand Maori, pp 53-5
125
Williams, Politics of the New Zealand Maori, pp 55-6
126
‘Paremata Maori o Niu Tireni: Nohanga Tuatahi’, p4, MS-Papers-6373-26, ATL. SD vol 1, pp 6-65
127
‘Paremata Maori o Niu Tireni: Nohanga Tuatahi’, pp 6-7, MS-Papers-6373-26, ATL. SD vol 1, pp 6-65
128
‘Fourth sitting of the Kotahitanga Parliament of the Maori People in New Zealand, 1 March, 1895’, pp 1122, translation by Jane McRae, MS-Papers-6373-26, ATL. SD vol 1, pp 66-204
123
73
included Maniapoto and Ngati Hikairo.129 Successive Western Maori MPs Hoani Taipua and
Ropata Te Ao were supporters of the Kotahitanga parliament.130
The Kingitanga were one of only two major groups of Maori who refused to join the
Kotahitanga, the other being the followers of Te Whiti.131 In 1895 Kotahitanga delegates
brought deeds outlining the aims of their movement to Mahuta and tried to persuade him to
sign them. Mahuta, sharing the Kotahitanga belief that Maori could put more pressure on the
government if they were united, agreed to a joint Kingitanga-Kotahitanga committee to
explore the prospect of unity. However Kingmaker Tupu Taingakawa opposed the idea and
set up a rival deed in Mahuta’s name for Kingitanga followers to sign, effectively vetoing a
united movement.132 Despite this, the two movements sometimes worked together when they
shared goals, such as opposition to particular land bills.133 In addition, 20 Kingitanga
delegates attended the Tokaanu sitting of the Kotahitanga parliament in 1898.134
Two of the main concerns of the Kotahitanga, as with most other Maori at this time, were the
Native Land Court and land sales. One of the hui leading to the establishment of the
parliament agreed not to sell land or put it through the Court.135 The Kotahitanga boycott of
the Court was granted Mahuta’s support in 1895 and, as a result, Maniapoto and Whanganui
cases were withdrawn from the Court. McCan argues that ‘the boycott was widely adhered to,
[but] the overall policy eventually failed because much land had already passed through the
court and individuals continued to put lands up for sale’.136
The final Kotahitanga parliament was a joint hui of Kotahitanga and representatives of Maori
Councils established under the Maori Councils Act 1900. Apirana Ngata, acting as the
Councils’ official Organizing Inspector, asked whether Kotahitanga should be ‘revived or put
to rest’.137 Wi Pere argued that Kotahitanga’s aims had mostly been achieved: land sales had
been stopped and the Maori Councils Act had established a means of Maori self-government.
129
‘Fourth sitting’, pp 38-9. SD vol 1, pp 66-204
Williams, Politics of the New Zealand Maori, p57
131
Williams, Politics of the New Zealand Maori, p63
132
Ballara, ‘Mahuta Tawhiao Potatau Te Wherowhero’, Dictionary of New Zealand Biography
133
Angela Ballara, 'Te Waharoa, Tupu Atanatiu Taingakawa - Biography', from the Dictionary of New Zealand
Biography. Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 1-Sep-10
URL: http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/biographies/3t22/1
134
McCan, p167
135
Williams, Politics of the New Zealand Maori, p51
136
McCan, p167
137
Ranginui Walker, He Tipua: The Life and Times of Sir Apirana Ngata, (Auckland: Viking, 2001), p98
130
74
Ru Rewiti also felt that the Councils’ annual conference was an adequate replacement for the
Kotahitanga parliament, the meetings of which had become a serious burden for the hosts.138
Amongst other reasons for the Kotahitanga’s disestablishment, Ranginui Walker cites the
rejection of its Maori Rights Bill by the Wellington parliament, the failure to unite with the
Kingitanga, and alleged misuse of funds.139 Some Kotahitanga leaders felt that the parliament
had been adequately replaced by the Conference of Maori Councils discussed in chapter
seven of this report. The end of Kotahitanga was probably a blow for Maori generally, but
less so for Rohe Potae Maori, whose involvement had never been strong.
Conclusions
The agreements reached in the early and mid 1880s on the opening of the Rohe Potae were
made with the involvement, or at least the acceptance, of most of the major chiefs of the
district and surrounding areas. After the failure of negotiations between Tawhiao and the
government, the Kingitanga was sidelined from involvement in the affairs of the Rohe Potae,
but remained an important enough influence to prevent Rohe Potae Maori from having an
strong involvement in the Kotahitanga movement which developed in the 1890s.
Resistance to the opening of the Rohe Potae tended to gather around prophetic leaders and
religious movements such as those discussed in this chapter. Resistance took varying forms,
from Te Mahuki’s Biblically-inspired direct action to Te Kere’s policy of disengagement.
Some prophets, such as Te Kooti, were on relatively good terms with the government, but in
general there seems to have been an association between prophets and opposition to the
settlement of the Rohe Potae. This association perhaps reflects a widespread realisation that
resistance to Pakeha encroachment by earthly means, certainly by force of arms, would be
very difficult and maybe impossible. In 1883, Wilkinson summarised this position when he
wrote of Te Mahuki and his people that:
They say that they cannot keep us [Pakeha] back by force, neither is their position tenable
by argument, so, as a sort of forlorn hope, they fall back upon the Old Testament
Scriptures, out of which they profess to see signs and get inspirations, which they declare
138
139
Walker, He Tipua, p98
Walker, He Tipua, p98
75
will, if steadfastly believed in and faithfully carried out, enable them to overcome all who
are opposed to them.140
While much of this report focuses on Maori who were part of what this report’s commission
describes as ‘Te Rohe Potae alliance’, Rohe Potae Maori were not unified. There was
opposition to the opening of the district, much of which was led by prophets such as Te
Mahuki. The government’s negotiations with Wahanui and his allies also sidelined the
Kingitanga, although it generally does not seem to have been actively opposed to Wahanui’s
plans.
140
AJHR 1883 G-1, p5
76
Chapter 4: Maori Representation in Parliament
from 1885
At their February 1885 meetings with Native Minister John Ballance, Rohe Potae
representatives asked for fairer Maori representation in parliament. They argued that Maori
deserved a greater share of seats in the House of Representatives given the relative size of the
Maori population. Ballance promised to advocate for Maori to be represented in Parliament in
proportion to their numbers in the population. This chapter deals with this and other issues
relating to Maori representation in parliament.
The issue of Maori parliamentary representation is an important one with respect to political
engagement. Some claimants in this inquiry assert that the Crown’s refusal to use section 71
of the Constitution Act 1852 to create a self-governing territory within Te Rohe Potae
usurped Tino Rangatiratanga.1 In its 2008 report, the Central North Island Tribunal found the
following in relation to this issue:
Governments refused to accept the necessity of section 71, partly on grounds that Maori
had representation in Parliament, but also refused to make that representation a
reasonable or meaningful one. These two things together were in violation of the
constitutional rights of Maori under the Constitution Act, and also of their Article 2 and
Article 3 rights under the Treaty of Waitangi. Keeping Maori powerless at the central
government level, while continuing to deny or repress their autonomy at the regional and
community levels, compounded this breach of Treaty principles.2
The Tribunal came to this finding after concluding that neither Ballance ‘nor his successors’
acted on the reasonable requests made by Rohe Potae Maori in 1885. Thus, ‘Maori
representation remained at a relatively powerless and token level, much lower (per capita)
than in the European electorates’.3
Background
New Zealand’s first general election was held in 1853, and this fledgling democracy provided
little scope for Maori political representation over the next decade. Indeed, a legal opinion
issued in 1859 concluded that, under the country’s property-based franchise, Maori land
1
See, for example, Wai 1132, 1133, 1136, 1137, 1138, 1139, 1360, 1389, 2118.
Waitangi Tribunal, Maunga Rongo, pp 338-9
3
Waitangi Tribunal, Maunga Rongo, p 338
2
77
could not confer voting rights unless it was held on a title derived from the Crown. The great
majority of Maori were therefore effectively disenfranchised.4 Efforts to grant Maori better
representation were thwarted until 1867, when four Maori electoral districts were established.
The earlier granting of special representation to gold miners provided a model.5 All Maori
males aged over 21 within these four districts, with minor exceptions, were able to elect
representatives, who could be either Maori or Pakeha.6 The Act was intended as a temporary
measure, as some considered that individualisation of Maori land tenure would eventually
enable significant numbers of Maori to qualify to vote in general electorates. However, the
individualisation process proved slow, and the ‘temporary’ 1867 measure was extended in
1872. In 1876 the Maori seats were made permanent.7 Maori representation was further
enhanced by the regular appointment of Maori representatives to the upper house from 1872.8
However, as Maori pointed out from time to time, they remained greatly under-represented in
parliament given the size of the Maori population.9
Because the establishment of Maori seats was initially a temporary measure, those Maori who
qualified retained their right to vote in general electorates. A few could therefore vote in both
a Maori and a general seat. The number able to exercise this ‘dual vote’ became significant
over time, reaching 2,115 by 1879.10 To put this figure in perspective, a total of 6,611 votes
were recorded across all four Maori seats in the 1890 general election.11 The existence of the
dual vote provided a ready-made argument against occasional efforts to increase the number
of Maori seats.12 But it also had political implications at a national level. By the 1870s, New
Zealand had fallen behind the Australian colonies in terms of the liberality of the European
franchise, but efforts to extend it were regularly thwarted. It was commonly argued that less
stringent property criteria would lead, in many electorates, to a ‘swamping’ of the vote by
4
Neill Atkinson, Adventures in Democracy: A History of the Vote in New Zealand (Dunedin: University of
Otago, 2003), p 44
5
M P K Sorrenson, ’A History of Maori Representation in Parliament’, Appendix B, Report of the Royal
Commission on the Electoral System, 1986, pp 18-21, Atkinson, pp 45-47. New seats were created in the 1860s
in areas with significant populations of miners, and franchise restrictions were waived for those holding mining
licenses.
6
Maori Representation Act 1867
7
Atkinson, pp 59-60
8
Atkinson, p 59
9
Sorrenson, p 24, Atkinson, p 59
10
Atkinson, p 70. This was the number of Maori voters on the general rolls at that time.
11
Sorrenson, p 68. According to Sorrenson, the voting figures for Maori electorates were not available before
1890.
12
Sorrenson, p 24
78
Maori electors. The resulting continued delays in reform meant that, while Maori had
universal manhood suffrage from 1867, many Pakeha males could not vote. One solution, to
continue to impose strict property qualifications on Maori, was opposed by those who
objected to such discriminatory measures. Instead the vote was extended on a piecemeal basis
to special interest groups such as white collar urban lodgers.13 As Atkinson notes, by 1876
‘there were different franchises for freeholders, leaseholder, urban and rural householders,
lodgers, ratepayers, holders of goldfield miner’s rights and business licences, and Maori’.14
Women were disenfranchised altogether.
Compounding the issue of disenfranchised voters was the varying size of electorates. In a
country with a rapidly-growing population, it was difficult for occasional electoral boundary
changes to keep pace with shifts in population distribution. There was no independent body
to redraw electoral boundaries, and MHRs understandably resisted proposed changes that
might affect their election prospects. On the rare occasions that electoral boundaries were
redrawn, this invariably resulted in new parliamentary seats being created rather than existing
ones being eliminated. The lack of action on this issue meant that, by 1879, the smallest
single-member general electorate had a population of 2,000, and the largest over 7,000.15
Maori were not the only ones facing problems of under-representation.
The Qualification of Electors Act 1879 radically reformed New Zealand’s electoral system.
The Act provided for universal manhood suffrage subject to age and residency. The Act
continued to allow multiple votes to those owning property in more than one electorate.16 The
Maori dual vote, on the other hand, was seriously proscribed by tightening up the property
qualification. Maori were thus specifically excluded from the enhanced voting rights
extended to the rest of the population.17 As a result, at the next election in 1881, the number
of Maori registered to vote in general electorates fell to under 1000. It was only the protests
of the four Maori MHRs that prevented the dual vote being abolished altogether.18
13
Atkinson, pp 61-63
Atkinson, p 63
15
Atkinson, pp 57-59. There were also multi-member urban electorates.
16
Qualification of Electors Act 1879, ss 2(1) and 2(2)
17
Qualification of Electors Act 1879, s 2(3)
18
Atkinson, pp 69-70
14
79
An electoral reform in 1881 dealt temporarily with the problem of widely varying electorate
sizes. Twenty-two extra general electorates were created, with electorates made, as much as
possible, of equal population based on the census of that year. Multi-member constituencies
were abolished, so the actual number of members of the House of Representatives increased
from 88 to 95. Although the reform did much to reduce the previous inequalities, the
existence of a ‘country quota’ meant the largest urban seat had twice the population of the
smallest rural seat.19 It was recognised that the Representation Act 1881 provided only a
temporary solution to uneven electorate sizes, and it contained an expiry clause of 1
December 1887. The intention was that a new Representation Act would be passed after the
1886 census.20
Thus, by the early 1880s, three measures had been enacted which both highlighted and added
to Maori electoral inequality. After the introduction of universal manhood suffrage in 1879,
women and Maori remained the only significant groups to suffer discrimination under
electoral law, with Maori ability to vote in general seats being further curtailed. The enlarging
of the House of Representatives from 88 to 95 members added to the disparity of just four
Maori seats representing a large population. In addition, the reduction in disparities between
electoral districts further highlighted the fact that Maori members, on average, represented
more constituents than any European member. These inequities led to further pressure for
more Maori seats. However, as will be seen, they also led some Maori to call for the abolition
of Maori seats altogether, in exchange for equal voting rights in general electorates.
Bills to try and improve Maori representation in parliament were invariably defeated,
although at times by narrow margins.21 One such Bill was introduced by Southern Maori
member Hori Taiaroa in September 1884.22 John Bryce opposed the measure, in part because
of the dual Maori vote, but it was supported by Waitaki member Thomas Duncan and by
Native Minister John Ballance. Ballance told the House that there ‘can hardly be any doubt
that the Natives, in proportion to the Europeans, are not fairly represented in this House’.23
However, he also indicated that the Government was considering a general measure to deal
with the electoral laws of the colony, which were ‘in a very unsatisfactory position’. Ballance
19
Atkinson, pp 72-74, 244
Representation Act 1881, s 9
21
Atkinson, p 59
22
NZPD 1884, vol 48, p 298
23
NZPD 1884, vol 48, p 299
20
80
said a Bill would be introduced, probably in 1885, providing an opportunity ‘for the Maori
representation, and the general representation of the colony, to be considered and discussed
fully’.24
Ballance’s undertaking to Te Rohe Potae Maori
In 1884, Tawhiao led a delegation to England which included Western Maori MHR Wiremu
Te Wheoro. The delegation petitioned the British Government, protesting about a variety of
matters including Maori representation. ‘Maori representatives were established by the
Government, but a prohibitive rule was made, by which the number of members was limited
to four, and though the Maoris demanded a representation proportionate to their numbers, this
has been refused by the Government.’25 A similar point was put to Native Minister John
Ballance when he met with representatives of the ‘Four Tribes’ at Kihikihi on 5 February
1885. The main spokesman, John Ormsby, requested that the number of Maori seats in
parliament be determined by population. Ormsby said there was one European member for
every five thousand Europeans in the population, ‘but, when we come to appoint the Maori
members, you only allow a Native member for every ten thousand.’26 In response, Ballance
said that he had called for a ‘fair and just share of representation’ for Maori in the last
parliamentary session, and undertook to continue to advocate this. ‘I shall propose that they
shall have the same number of members in proportion to population as the Europeans’.27
Ormsby also called for the right of those Maori with individual land holdings to vote in
general seats to be abolished, but Ballance disagreed. ‘That is a privilege which they enjoy
when they own land in their own right; and I hold that it is only right that they should enjoy
the same privileges as Europeans.’28
The issue of Maori representation was raised again the following day, when Ballance visited
Tawhiao and some of his supporters at Whatiwhatihoe. Tawhiao, Te Wheoro, Paora Tuhaere,
and Te Ngakau all called for a degree of self-government for Maori. But they also asked for
better Maori representation in parliament. Tuhaere asked Ballance whether Maori
representation would be increased ‘to make it equal in numbers to that of the Europeans in
24
NZPD 1884, vol 48, p 299
British Parliamentary Papers, Papers Relating to New Zealand 1883-96, volume 17, p 7
26
AJHR 1885, G1, p 15
27
AJHR 1885, G1, p 18
28
AJHR 1885, G1, pp 15, 18
25
81
the House’. Ballance asked Tuahaere if he meant that Maori ‘were entitled to the same
representation in proportion to their numbers’, to which Tuahaere replied ‘yes’. Ballance
responded that ‘I am prepared to advocate that in Parliament’.29 With respect to the matter of
self-government, Ballance said ‘there can only be one supreme authority in New Zealand’,
but, subject to that ‘we are prepared to extend to the Native people large powers of selfgovernment by means of their Native Committees’.30 The issue of representation in the House
of Representatives does not appear to have been raised at any of the other meetings convened
on Ballance’s 1885 tour of Maori districts.31
At times the speakers at Kihikihi and Whatiwhatihoe spoke as if an increase in the number of
Maori members was the same as representation in parliament in proportion to population. For
example, Ormsby said there should be eight Maori members instead of four on the basis of
the 1881 census. However, as will be seen, proportionate representation could be achieved
without any increase in the number of Maori seats.
Developments after Ballance’s 1885 tour
A Representation Bill was considered by parliament just four months after Ballance’s tour.
However, this Bill dealt with a single issue – a proposed return to multi-member urban
electorates, in part to try and reduce plural voting by property owners. The Bill failed to
proceed beyond its second reading.32 When the Native Land Disposition Bill, a theme of
Ballance’s 1885 tour, was debated in the House in August, some members referred to various
undertakings the Native Minister had made in his discussions at Kihikihi. Prime Minister
Robert Stout supported his Native Minister with respect to representation. ‘I have not
hesitated to state that if we are to give the Maoris equal rights with ourselves they ought to
have equal representation with ourselves in Parliament.’33
However, the impact of the ongoing economic depression on government finances made
political support for more Maori seats unlikely. In September 1885, when debating supply,
29
AJHR 1885, G1, p 28
AJHR 1885, G1, p 27
31
However, at Tauranga, Ballance was asked if the Government could appoint a member of Ngaiterangi to the
Upper House, increasing the number of Maori representatives there to three. Ballance responded that another
Maori member was not justified, and would anyway be of little consequence given the limited powers of the
Legislative Chamber (AJHR 1885, G1, pp 59, 63).
32
NZPD 1885, vol 53, p 104
33
NZPD 1885, vol 53, p 408
30
82
Frederick Moss, member for Parnell, was concerned that ‘the country is plunged into
difficulties that are too serious to allow any mere paltering to afford the hope of adequate
relief’. He therefore unsuccessfully proposed several retrenchment measures, including ‘to
reduce materially the number of members in both Houses of the Legislature, with a
corresponding reduction in the number of Ministers, and in the departmental expenditure of
the colony’.34 Prime Minister Stout agreed that a reduction in members was desirable, but
pointed out that the House had scuppered his Representation Bill earlier that year, in part
because it would have reduced representation for some districts.35
It would have been clear to Ballance, as a senior member of the Government, that the
economic situation meant there would be no increase in the number of Maori seats in the
foreseeable future. In January 1886, he attended a large hui near Hastings ‘comprising
representative chiefs from the principal tribes of the Island, excepting that of Waikato’.36 The
meeting had been called to consider the proposed Native Land Administration Bill, and none
of the early speakers raised the issue of Maori representation. However, Ballance took it upon
himself to announce that, in his opinion, ‘Parliament will not add to the number of Maori
members in the House’. Instead, he exhorted those present to try and use the property
qualification to increase their voting influence in the general seats.37 Ballance had, within a
year, pulled back from his promise to Rohe Potae representatives.
When the meeting resumed the following day, Ballance’s announcement attracted little
comment, and those who did comment expressed no concerns about the number of Maori
seats. They instead directed their complaints against the discriminatory provisions of the
Qualification of Electors Act 1879. As outlined earlier, that Act granted universal suffrage to
European males, but further tightened the property provisions that prevented Maori voting in
general seats. Airini Tonore wanted that discrimination removed:
The Natives all had a great stake in the colony, and many Europeans voted whose only
possessions in the colony were the clothes they wore and what they carried about with
them: the only condition was that they should have lived in the colony for six months.
34
NZPD 1885, vol 53, p 553
NZPD 1885, vol 53, p 555
36
AJHR 1886, G2, p 1
37
AJHR 1886, G2, p 7
35
83
These vagrant Europeans were allowed to elect members to Parliament, who go there and
make laws which are a burden upon the Natives.38
‘Mr Harris’ likewise complained that a European could vote after just six months in the
country even if he had no property. ‘Put us in the same position, and do away with special
representation’.39 In response, Ballance said that ‘whenever you are ready to ask for
representation the same as the Europeans, and to do away with your own members, I shall
consider it my duty to support your wishes in that respect’.40 In the following year, two of the
four Maori MHRs advocated abolishing the Maori seats.
Stout put forward another Representation Bill in the 1886 session of parliament. It aimed to
set up an independent representation commission to redraw electoral boundaries, on the basis
of population, after each five-yearly census.41 The Bill remained silent on the number of
members of the House of Representatives, but Stout pointed out that the Legislative
Expenditure Committee favoured reducing the number of members.42 The Bill endorsed the
status quo with respect to Maori representation, and William Russell, who in the past had
called for equality for Maori voters, objected that ‘the sooner we abolish the special Maori
representation, and place them on the same electoral rolls as ourselves, the better it will be for
the representation of the country’.43 Stout’s 1886 Representation Bill was thrown out because
of the way in which it dealt with the ‘country quota’, but reform was clearly needed.44
Returns from the 1886 census showed that three general electoral districts each contained
more than 10,000 people, while 13 districts each contained fewer than 5,000 people.45 A new
version of the Stout’s Bill came before the House in 1887, and was passed just in time to
replace the Representation Act 1881, which was due to expire in December.46
The Representation Act 1887 was an important milestone in New Zealand’s electoral history.
As with Stout’s 1886 Bill, it provided for a permanent Representation Commission to operate
after each census. The Act established the principles that electoral districts should be based
38
AJHR 1886, G2, pp 15-16
AJHR 1886, G2, p 15
40
AJHR 1886, G2, p 16
41
NZPD 1886, vol 56, p 567
42
NZPD 1886, vol 56, p 568
43
NZPD 1886, vol 56, p 577
44
NZPD 1887, vol 57, p 30
45
AJHR 1886, H31B
46
NZPD 1887, vol 57, p 30
39
84
on population, rather than, for example, on the number of registered voters, and that boundary
changes to electoral districts should be determined independently, rather than by parliament.
This last principle was particularly important for subsequent events. The four Maori seats
were exempted from the Act, so it did not provide a mechanism for ensuring proportional
representation for Maori.47 The 1887 Act left the number of seats in the House untouched at
95.48
Maori get fairer representation
The 1887 general election saw many candidates campaigning for a retrenchment in
government spending in response to the long depression. Common proposals were reducing
honorarium payments to members of both houses, and reducing the size of the House of
Representatives by up to 50 percent.49 Prime Minister Robert Stout came out against reducing
the number of members.50 His government was thrown out after the September general
election, to be replaced by a conservative Ministry headed by Harry Atkinson. The press
predicted that the new Government would pursue retrenchment policies, including cutting the
number of members and their pay. The Prime Minister soon indicated that this was indeed his
intention.51
The Atkinson Government soon put forward a Bill to cut the allowances paid to members of
both houses.52 But of more relevance to the present discussion is Atkinson’s Bill to amend the
Representation Act. The Bill proposed cutting the size of the House of Representatives by
abolishing 25 seats. Only one seat was specifically mentioned in the Bill, namely Southern
Maori, which was to be incorporated into the Western Maori electoral district. The task of
eliminating a further 24 seats was to fall to the Representation Commission established under
Stout’s Representation Act 1887.53 There can be few Bills in New Zealand’s parliamentary
47
Representation Act 1887, s 12
Representation Act 1887, s 3(1)
49
For examples, see Poverty Bay Herald, 16 August 1887, p 2, Taranaki Herald, 15 August 1887, p 3, Timaru
Herald, 8 September 1887, p 3, Grey River Argus, 5 August 1887, p 4, North Otago Times, 5 August 1887, p 2,
Star, 1 September 1887, p 3, Mataura Ensign, 2 August 1887, p 3
50
Wanganui Chronicle, 1 September 1887, p 2
51
Evening Post, 10 October 1887, p 2, Bay of Plenty Times, 21 October 1887, p 2, Tuapeka Times, 22 October
1887, p 3
52
NZPD 1887, vol 54, p 192. The measure was eventually passed as the Parliamentary Honorarium and
Privileges Amendment Act 1887.
53
Southland Times, 1 December 1887, p 2
48
85
history on which so many members spoke. A notable exception was John Ballance, who
barely attended the first session due to ill health and financial difficulties.54
When the Representation Acts Amendment Bill had its second reading in December 1887, all
four Maori members spoke against it, due to its proposed abolition of the Southern Maori
seat. Western Maori member Hoani Taipua described special Maori representation as a
‘delusion’, and said it would be better to abolish it altogether rather than remove one
representative at a time.55 The new representative for Eastern Maori, James Carroll, put a
similar view:
I shall decidedly object to any reduction in the Maori members, on the simple ground that
for a long time we have been under-represented upon the basis of population; and now we
would be deprived of even some of that representation which we are entitled to if our
numbers are reduced to three. If you are going to meddle with the special representation
at all, I should be in favour of doing away with it altogether. Let all the Maoris have the
same electoral privileges as Europeans - place them on one roll.56
In fact Carroll switched his candidacy to a general seat after his second term as a Maori
representative.57 He also continued to advocate for the abolition of the Maori seats in favour
of non-discriminatory voting rights in general seats.58 Other speakers in December 1887,
including Sir George Grey, also proposed equal voting rights for Maori.59
New Southern Maori member Tama Parata understandably objected to the proposed abolition
of his seat. He admitted that few votes were cast there, but pointed out the huge size of the
electorate and the logistical difficulties of travelling around it. He was particularly concerned
that his constituents would no longer have someone to advocate for them after the many
injustices they had suffered at the hands of the government.60 A similar view was put by other
members, including Richard Seddon. ‘It is bad enough, in all truth, to have taken away from
them the whole of their land, to have given them a mere pittance for it, to have made only a
few paltry reserves; but it is far worse, having done that, to now take away from them their
54
Tim McIvor, 'Ballance, John', from the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of
New Zealand, updated 1-Sep-10, www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/biographies/2b5/1
55
NZPD 1887, vol 54, p 308
56
NZPD 1887, vol 54, p 308
57
Alan Ward, 'Carroll, James - Biography', from the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, Te Ara - the
Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 1-Sep-10, www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/biographies/2c10/1
58
See, for example, NZPD 1887, vol 54, pp 409-410 and NZPD 1905, vol 134, p 37
59
NZPD 1887, vol 54, pp 314-315
60
NZPD 1887, vol 54, pp 336-337
86
right of representation in this House.’61 Bay of Islands member Richard Hobbs supported the
Bill, but signalled his intention to move an amendment at the committee stage to ensure four
Maori members were retained.62 Before the Bill was sent to committee, Taipua pointed out
that the proposal to include the entire South Island in his Western Maori electorate was
impractical.63
Before the Bill went before the House again, it appears that some behind-the-scenes
negotiations took place between the Prime Minister and the Maori members. When the Bill
was next debated, Atkinson implied that he had done a deal with them by which the four
Maori seats would be retained, but that his government would subsequently put forward a
measure to abolish Maori voting rights in general seats.64 However, Carroll denied a deal had
been done, saying he supported equal Maori voting rights in general seats, not the abolition of
all such rights.65 The Bill returned to the House on 8 December 1887 with a number of
amendments, including a return to four Maori seats and the proposed number of general seats
increased from 67 to 70. Seddon sensed a conspiracy:
The proposal by [the Prime Minister] was that there should be three Maori members; but,
for reasons best known to himself, an arrangement has been come to with the Maori
members, the effect of which we saw at the caucus held yesterday – the whole of the
Native members attended that caucus and gave in their allegiance to the Government.
Then, in every division taken last night, the whole of the Maori members voted with the
Government.66
Carroll again denied that a deal had been done with the Government.67 Parata also denied it,
saying the reason for the change of heart by the Maori members was obvious:
I based my objection to the Bill on the proposal to take away one of the Native members,
and also the proposal to include the South Island in one of the North Island Native
districts. On account of the opposition made by the Native members, and the support
accorded to them by members of both sides of the House, the Government thought fit to
change their minds with regard to that proposal.68
61
NZPD 1887, vol 54, p 310
NZPD 1887, vol 54, p 327
63
NZPD 1887, vol 54, pp 373-374
64
NZPD 1887, vol 54, pp 383, 396-397
65
NZPD 1887, vol 54, pp 409-410
66
NZPD 1887, vol 54, p 480
67
NZPD 1887, vol 54, p 499
68
NZPD 1887, vol 54, p 502
62
87
In the event, the Bill was comfortably passed by the House.69 The votes of the four Maori
members made no difference to the outcome, although a number of other members may well
have opposed the measure without the retention of four Maori seats. The Bill had an easy
passage through the Legislative Council, which was unaffected by the proposals.70
The effects of the 1887 reforms
The main provisions of the Representation Acts Amendment Act 1887 came into effect at the
next dissolution of parliament, which in the event took place in 1890. In the meantime the
Representation Commission, established earlier in 1887, set about determining the new
electorate boundaries.71 The number of general seats was reduced from 91 to 70, making a
total of 74 seats in the House of Representatives. This was the lowest number of members
since the establishment of the four Maori seats. The number of parliamentary seats did not
reach 95 again until the 1984 general election.72 The effect on relative Maori representation
was dramatic. Graph 1 below shows the estimated number of Maori per Maori seat compared
with the number of non-Maori per European seat at general elections from 1890 to 1943. The
graph shows that, from 1890 to 1938, the population per seat was consistently similar.
Indeed, for much of this period there appear to have been fewer Maori per Maori seat than
there were non-Maori per European seat. This fact that did not escape the occasional attention
of MHRs.73
Graph 2 below shows changes in the number of ‘European’ seats in general elections from
1868 to 1925. Graph 3 shows changes in the Maori population, as a percentage of the total
New Zealand population, as recorded in the censuses during this period. The most significant
demographic change took place between 1874 and 1886, due to a falling Maori population
and a growing number of Pakeha. A much more gradual relative decline continued between
1886 and 1921. This indicates that demographic change made only a small impact on the
relative improvement in Maori political representation from 1890. The significant reduction
in the number of European members from 1890 had a much greater effect.
69
NZPD 1887, vol 54, p 509-510. Turkeys, it seems, do sometimes vote for Christmas.
NZPD 1887, vol 54, pp 597-602, 632
71
Representation Acts Amendment Act 1887, s 3, Atkinson, Adventures in Democracy, p 82
72
Atkinson, Adventures in Democracy, pp 244-245
73
See, for example, NZPD 1905, vol 154, p 18
70
88
Graph 1: Average population per seat (000s), General Elections 1890 - 1943
Source: Sorrenson, pp 65-66
Graph 2: ‘European’ Members of the House of Representatives, elections 1868 – 1925
Source: Atkinson, pp 244-5
89
Graph 3: Maori census population as percentage of total population, 1874 – 1926
Source: Statistics New Zealand
In 1894, Seddon was able to tell a Maori gathering at Galatea, with at least some degree of
accuracy, ‘there are only four Native members in the House, but you have the same, if not a
greater, proportion of representatives in the House than have the pakehas’.74 As well as
achieving proportionate representation, Sorrenson notes that effective and influential
candidates were elected to the Maori seats from the late 1880s – particularly James Carroll in
1887, Apirana Ngata in 1905, Pita Te Rangihiroa (Peter Buck) in 1911, and Maui Pomare,
also in 1911.75 Pomare held the Western Maori seat, which included the Rohe Potae, until his
death in 1930.76
74
AJHR 1895, G1, p 62
Sorrenson, pp 29-31
76
Sorrenson, p 32
75
90
As a result of the 1887 reforms, Maori had more-or-less proportionate representation in
parliament for 50 years. However, during the 1940s a significant gap opened up, and by 1949
the population per Maori seat was 4,000 more than the population per European seat. The
imbalance became greater each general election, as the Maori population continued to grow,
and was further exacerbated when the number of seats in parliament was increased to 84 in
1969. The number of parliamentary seats continued to increase in subsequent elections,
reaching 99 by 1993.77 The numbers increased further under MMP, and since 1996 have
ranged between 120 and 122. An additional Maori seat was added in 1996 and a further two
in 2002.
Although it was the Atkinson Government that pushed through the radical down-sizing of
parliament in 1887, it was the Stout-Vogel Ministry that laid the groundwork that made it
possible. Without the independent Representation Commission established by Stout’s
Representation Act 1887, the task of eliminating 21 parliamentary seats would have been
impossible. Any such reform would have been bogged down over in-fighting over which
seats were to be abolished. This was shown by the way in which the only seat specifically
named in Atkinson’s 1887 Bill, Southern Maori, was saved from oblivion by the rebellion of
members on both sides of the House. Thus the Stout-Vogel Government can rightfully share
credit for the 1887 reforms.
Electoral changes 1887 to 1913
Despite Premier Atkinson’s hint during the 1887 debates that the Maori dual vote might be
abolished, no action was taken by his Government. However, as the right of multiple property
owners to vote in more than one general electorate was abolished in 1889, the days of the
Maori dual vote were numbered.78 The Electoral Act 1893 consolidated all electoral law and
made specific amendments, such as enfranchising women. Under the Act, Maori were no
longer permitted to vote or stand for election in general seats. An exception was made for
‘half-castes’, who, along with those Maori who met the property qualifications, could choose
to vote and stand in either a Maori or a European seat, but not both.79 Non-Maori could no
77
Atkinson, p 245
Representation Act Amendment Act 1889, s 4. Owners of several properties could still choose which
electorate to enrol in, until this right was abolished in 1893.
79
Electoral Act 1893, ss 7, 9, 156(11)
78
91
longer stand for election to Maori seats.80 In 1896, parliament abolished all property
qualifications in the Electoral Act.81 This meant that that only ‘half-castes’ retained the option
of enrolling or standing in either a European or Maori electorate. As a result, New Zealand
had an almost completely racially segregated electoral system until Maori were again
permitted to stand for election in general seats in 1969.82
The Representation Act 1900 increased the number of European seats from 70 to 76 with
effect from the 1902 election, thus increasing the size of parliament to 80 seats. As Graph 1
shows, the change had little effect on the relativity between the Maori and European seats,
due to a growing Pakeha population. Remarkably, the number of parliamentary seats did not
increase again until 1969.83
By the end of the nineteenth century, New Zealand’s electoral system had been radically
reformed. The various forms of special representation granted in earlier decades, for the likes
of miners and boarders, had long since gone, and multiple voting by property owners was
abolished. Age and residency were almost the only qualifications for the franchise. As a
result, some argued that the special representation granted to Maori seemed increasingly out
of place. In 1905, for example, radical Liberal Tommy Taylor argued that both special Maori
representation and the country quota were anachronisms that should be eliminated.84 During
debates over Electoral Bills in 1902 and 1905, some members claimed it was detrimental to
Maori interests to have all their votes tied up in four seats. Frederick Pirani, another radical
Liberal, said that special representation ‘prevents the pakeha members of the House from
taking that interest in Maori matters that they ought to take’.85 James Carroll said that he had
always believed that ‘the sooner Maoris throughout the colony are given equal rights as
electors and voters as Europeans on the one roll – the more comprehensive and effective will
be the representation they enjoy’.86 Others put similar views, but Northern Maori member
Hone Heke argued that special representation was justified because ‘Maori interests in a good
80
Electoral Act 1893, ss 148, 151
Electoral Amendment Act 1896, s 3
82
Electoral Amendment Act 1967, s 2. Non-Maori were also permitted to stand in Maori seats under the Act,
which took effect from the 1969 general election.
83
Atkinson, Adventures in Democracy, pp 106, 244-245
84
NZPD 1905, vol 134, pp 28-29
85
NZPD 1902, vol 122, p 189, Steven Oliver, 'Pirani, Frederick - Biography', from the Dictionary of New
Zealand Biography, Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 1-Sep-10,
www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/biographies/2p19/1
86
NZPD 1905, vol 134, p38
81
92
many cases are entirely and distinctly different from the interests of Europeans’. 87 The
consistent support of the four Maori members for the Liberal government meant it was
unlikely to abolish these seats.88 In addition, Sorrenson notes that the quality of candidates
elected to the Maori seats, and their mana both within and outside parliament, helped ensure
‘that the system of Maori representation in Parliament became firmly fixed in the New
Zealand political system’.89
It was only after MMP was established by the Electoral Act 1993 that Maori voters could
potentially influence electoral outcomes in direct proportion to their presence in the
population. Under MMP, Maori were entitled to vote for lists of party candidates, in common
with all other voters. Previously, under the Electoral Amendment Act 1975, Maori could
choose whether to register on the Maori or general roll. As the 1986 Royal Commission on
the Electoral System noted, this system made Maori even more of a minority by splitting their
ranks between two separate rolls.90 Improved Maori voting power under the 1993 reforms at
times encouraged political parties to place Maori candidates in reasonably prominent
positions on their lists, and to pay greater heed to specific Maori concerns.91
Other electoral issues
One effect of the limited number, and thus large size, of Maori electoral districts, was that
Maori voters sometimes had trouble accessing the officially-designated polling places. This
was a particular issue for the Rohe Potae, where polling places staffed by government
officials were almost non-existent for over a decade because of the aukati. In 1879, polling
places for the district were almost exclusively on the outskirts – at Kihikihi, Alexandra,
Whatawhata, Raglan, Aotea Harbour, and Mokau.92 The situation was largely unchanged by
the 1881 general election.93 However, several polling places were established well inside Te
87
NZPD 1902, vol 122, p 217
Atkinson, p 108
89
Sorrenson, p 36
90
Report of the Royal Commission on the Electoral System 1986, para 3.66, p 98, available at
http://www.elections.org.nz/voting/mmp/royal-commission-report-1986.html
91
Kim Summersby, ‘Does Maori Representation Matter?: An Analysis of the Relationship Between Maori
Descriptive and Substantive Political Representation in Parliament and Local Government’, PhD thesis in Maori
Studies, University of Auckland, 2009, p 64
92
Thames Star, 1 September 1879, p 4
93
Waikato Times, 17 November 1881, p 3
88
93
Rohe Potae for the Western Maori by-election in 1886, including at Otorohanga, Te Kuiti,
and Kawhia.94
George Wilkinson, the returning officer, considered that the establishment of five polling
places within the King Country for the 1886 by-election showed ‘the change that has come
over this district’ – referring to its gradual opening to European institutions.95 However, in
1889, Tawhiao issued a ‘manifesto’, widely supported at a meeting at Maungakawa in
December, which called among other things for a separate Maori parliament and an abolition
of the Maori seats in the ‘European’ parliament.96 According to press reports, his proposals
were less well received at a further meeting in May 1890.97 The proposal to abolish the Maori
seats does not seem to have resulted in further resistance to the stationing of additional
returning officers in the district. New polling places were established within the Rohe Potae
during the 1890s, including at Te Kopua, Taumarunui, Waimiha, and Taharoa.98 By 1902
there were further polling places at Parawera, Mangaorongo, Oparure, Mahoenui, Te Kopani,
and Mania (Kawhia South).99
The disparities in the size of the Maori electorates, in terms of the populations they served,
was also an on-going issue. In the 1905 debates over the Electoral Amendment Bill,
opposition leader William Massey claimed that the member for Western Maori served a
population of 17,000, while the member for Southern Maori served a population of just
2,000.100 It was noted that only 606 votes had been cast in the Southern Maori seat in the
1902 election.101 Solutions proposed by members included re-aligning the boundaries of the
four Maori districts to even up the populations represented, or abolishing the Southern Maori
seat altogether and allowing South Island Maori to enrol as voters in general electorates.102
94
Hawera and Normanby Star, 27 November 1886, p 3
AJHR 1887, session 2, G1, p 5
96
Auckland Star, 5 December 1889, p 5; Evening Post, 6 December 1889, p 2
97
Evening Post, 7 May 1890, p 2
98
New Zealand Gazette 1890, 8 October, p 1085, NZG 1893, 13 November, p 1635, NZG 1896, 20 November,
p 1935, NZG 1899, 22 November, p 2157
99
New Zealand Gazette 1902, 11 November, p 2465
100
NZPD 1905, vol 134, p 16
101
NZPD 1905, vol 134, p 16, Sorrenson, p 69
102
NZPD 1905, vol 134, pp 16, 18, 22
95
94
Despite the geographical size of the Southern Maori electorate, it was eventually further
enlarged in the 1950s to incorporate part of the North Island.103
Other issues for the Maori seats were the lack of registration for voters, and the absence of a
secret ballot. Instead, voters had to first declare they had not already voted, then tell the
returning officer which candidate they supported. A Maori witness then initialled the voting
form filled out by the returning officer.104 Until 1910, voting could be by show of hands
unless a poll was called for.105 There is little evidence of concern being expressed by Maori
about this system in the period covered by this study, but others did raise doubts. The 1905
Electoral Bill, introduced by Joseph Ward, initially provided for registration of Maori voters.
However, on consultation Ward changed his mind, as ‘many of them are without
education’.106 Not all agreed. Napier member Alfred Fraser considered the lack of a roll
encouraged fraud, for ‘a Maori can ride from kainga to kainga and record his vote’.107 Fraser
proposed the establishment of a Maori roll, with Maori given the option of going onto either
the general or Maori roll. Although a 1914 Act provided for the preparation of Maori rolls,
nothing was done to this end until 1949.108 Maori registration was made compulsory, as it had
long been for non-Maori, in 1956, and Maori were given a choice of roll in 1975.109 The
secret ballot was introduced for Maori in 1938.110
Conclusions
At their February 1885 meetings with Ballance, Te Rohe Potae representatives argued that
Maori deserved a greater share of seats in the House of Representatives given the relative size
of the Maori population. Ballance promised to advocate for Maori to be represented in
parliament in proportion to their numbers. However, it was not Ballance, but his political
opponents, who inadvertently made good his promise. After taking power in 1887, the
Atkinson Ministry pushed an Act through parliament that abolished 21 European seats in the
House of Representatives, with effect from the 1890 general election. This reform was made
possible by the establishment of an independent Representation Commission by the Stout103
Sorrenson, p 47
Electoral Act 1905, s177(m)-(o)
105
Sorrenson, p 37
106
NZPD 1905, vol 154, p 13
107
NZPD 1905, vol 154, p 31
108
Atkinson, pp 160-161, Sorrenson, p 37
109
Electoral Act 1956, s43, Electoral Amendment Act 1975, s17
110
Atkinson, p 149
104
95
Vogel government in 1887. The number of Maori seats remained at four, so their proportion
of the total seats in the House increased significantly. As a result, from 1890 to 1938 Maori
were represented in parliament in proportion to their numbers in the New Zealand population.
This was no less than Rohe Potae Maori had asked for. However, the four Maori seats were
still greatly outnumbered within a House of 80 or more seats. It was only after MMP was
established by the Electoral Act 1993 that Maori voters could potentially influence electoral
outcomes in direct proportion to their presence in the population.
96
Chapter 5: The Kawhia Committee
The Kawhia Committee, which covered most of the Rohe Potae inquiry district, was formed
under the Native Committees Act 1883. It played an important role in interactions between
Rohe Potae Maori and the Government in the 1880s, particularly in terms of resource
management. The Committee was theoretically enabled to exercise some land management
functions, but these were ineffectual, and the authority which it did wield was not always
acknowledged or respected by Pakeha. Rohe Potae Maori made numerous requests to have
the Committee’s powers expanded, but although Native Minister John Ballance expressed his
support for this, no such changes were made. This chapter responds to topic B of the report’s
commission, on Maori committees such as the Kawhia Committee.
This chapter will discuss the Committee and its work in general terms. It is anticipated that
the Committee’s relationship with the Native Land Court, and its land title work more
generally, will be covered in detail in Paul Husbands and James Mitchell’s report for this
inquiry. The time available for this report was insufficient to carry out research into these
subjects, and no official draft of the Husbands and Mitchell report was available before this
report’s filing date. This was also the case for the second part of Cathy Marr’s pre-1886
political engagement report for this inquiry, which is expected to cover the foundation and
early years of the Kawhia Committee. When these reports become available it may be
necessary to alter some of the conclusions of this chapter, particularly those regarding land
issues.
Primary sources on the Kawhia Committee are somewhat limited. Its minute book has
survived, as has chairman John Ormsby’s letterbook, but they are in te reo Maori and at the
time of writing no translation was available. Rough translations have been provided to the
authors to get a sense of content.521 In one case (the 1 December 1885 meeting) the minutes
were translated and printed in full; unfortunately this appears to have been the only meeting
that this was done for.522 Several other meetings were reported on by the Waikato Times or
mentioned by Native Department agent George Wilkinson in his official reports. However in
521
Te reo sources for which no translation was available will be included in the supporting documents for this
report.
522
Waikato Times, 7 January 1886, p3
97
both cases these reports provide only an outsiders’ view of what happened. The Times was
often quite negative about the Committee; for example in October 1884 it claimed that it
‘wastes a great deal of time in considering the most trivial affairs of Maori everyday life’.523
Wilkinson’s reports, meanwhile, may have been skewed for political reasons or to present
himself and his work in a favourable light. We will see below, for example, that the Times
and Wilkinson presented different views of the Committee’s election.
Even if the reports of the Committee’s meetings were fuller, it would still be difficult to know
what effect its decisions and actions had. Contemporary accounts of Maori life in the Rohe
Potae in the 1880s are not very detailed, and tend to have been written by and for Pakeha.
Nor was the Kawhia Committee mentioned at the korero tuku iho hui held in 2010 for this
inquiry. Archives New Zealand holds some material relating to the Kawhia Committee and to
the Native Committees system generally, but this does not provide a great deal of
information.524 It is likely that the Native Land Court records contain some information about
the Committee, but in the time available for this report it was not possible to examine these. It
is expected that any relevant documents will be provided as an appendix to the Husbands and
Mitchell report. When these become available it may be necessary to alter some of the
content of this chapter, particularly regarding the Committee’s relationship with the Land
Court.
Perhaps because of the scarcity of readily available information on the Kawhia Committee, it
and the Native Committees system generally have not been prominent in existing statements
of claim for this inquiry. However the self-government and resource management which
Rohe Potae Maori hoped they would achieve through the committees are clear themes of
many statements of claim.
Background to the Native Committees Act 1883
From about the early 1880s, Maori living within the Rohe Potae began to increase their
engagement with the government. The government for its part wanted access to the land in
the Rohe Potae, to assert its sovereignty over the territory, and to build a railway line from
Auckland to Wellington via the Rohe Potae. Attempts to ‘open up’ the district in the 1870s
523
Waikato Times, 14 October 1884, p3
The only directly relevant files seem to be the Native Affairs files MA 23 9/13a and MA 23 10/13b. Only the
second file contains material relating to the Kawhia Committee.
524
98
had failed, and so the government was conscious of the need to proceed cautiously and
diplomatically. The story of the opening of the Rohe Potae has been covered in chapter one,
and will also be covered in detail in Cathy Marr’s 1860s to 1886 political engagement report
for this inquiry.
When negotiating with the government, the main concern of Rohe Potae Maori leaders seems
to have been to keep control and ownership of their land. This was the focus of the 1883
petition from Maniapoto, Raukawa, Tuwharetoa and Whanganui, which stated that: ‘We are
not oblivious to the advantages to be derived from roads, railways and other desirable works
of the Europeans. We are fully alive to these advantages, but our lands are preferable to them
all.’525 The petition therefore requested that ‘we may ourselves be allowed to fix the
boundaries of the four tribes before mentioned, the hapu boundaries in each tribe, and the
proportionate claim of each individual’ within the Rohe Potae boundaries specified in the
petition.526 This should not, they felt, be the exclusive preserve of the Native Land Court.
This was not a desire unique to the Rohe Potae: as Vincent O’Malley shows in his book
Agents of Autonomy, Maori all over the country wanted to transfer at least some of the power
to determine Maori land title from the Native Land Court to Maori committees or councils.527
There was widespread dissatisfaction with the Court, and by the late 1870s unofficial Maori
committees were emerging in many parts of the country and attempting to determine title
themselves.528 Because these had no legal standing, however, their findings on land disputes
could be, and often were, ignored by the Court. From 1880 several attempts were made to
gain official recognition for Maori committees. That year Northern Maori MHR Henare Mohi
Tawhai, with the support of the Members for Western and Eastern Maori, presented the
Native Minister with a Bill providing for the election of such committees, which were to have
the power to inquire into Maori land disputes.529 A watered-down version of this Bill was
printed the following year as the Native Committees Empowering Bill. It was treated with
obvious disinterest by the government and was not debated until the middle of 1882, after
525
AJHR 1883 J-1, p1
AJHR 1883 J-1, p2
527
Vincent O’Malley, Agents of Autonomy: Maori Committees in the Nineteenth Century (Wellington: Crown
Forestry Rental Trust, 1997), pp 91-108
528
O’Malley, Agents of Autonomy, pp 94-7
529
O’Malley, Agents of Autonomy, p97
526
99
which it narrowly failed its second reading.530 O’Malley considers the Native Committees
Act passed the following year to be a ‘much-modified’ version of this Bill.531
The Native Committees Act 1883
O’Malley argues that there were several factors contributing to the government’s support for
the Native Committees Bill. One was the fact that the Native Committees Empowering Bill
had only narrowly failed to pass its second reading.532 Another was the negative attention
drawn to the government’s race relations policies by the destruction of Parihaka in 1881,
Hirini Taiwhanga’s mission to England in 1882 and the four Maori MHRs’ appeal to the
Aborigines Protection Society the following year.533 A third factor was that many Maori were
clearly willing and able to form and run committees more or less along Pakeha lines, as long
as they were Maori-controlled. Several such committees had been formed in anticipation of
the earlier committees Bill, and provided evidence that Maori could govern themselves and
their land using Pakeha systems.534 The final and, for the purposes of this report, most
important reason for the Native Committees Bill being passed was ‘the delicate state of
negotiations’ over the construction of the main trunk railway, and the general opening up of
the Rohe Potae.535
The Bill does not appear to have been debated in the House of Representatives, indicating
widespread support or, possibly, apathy. The MHRs for Northern and Eastern Maori both told
Native Minister John Bryce they supported it.536 During its second reading in the Legislative
Council, several councillors placed the Bill in the context of the Rohe Potae negotiations,
making various pronouncements on whether or not Maniapoto and the Kingitanga would
support it.537 Premier Frederick Whitaker responded that:
Whether it would be taken up by Wahanui and the Ngatimaniapoto he could not say, but
there was nothing at present to indicate that either one or the other would not do so. At all
events it was not passed specifically for them, but was intended also for other Natives
who had desired to have the same thing from time to time; and he hoped the Council
530
O’Malley, Agents of Autonomy, pp 98-102
O’Malley, Agents of Autonomy, p106
532
O’Malley, Agents of Autonomy, p102
533
O’Malley, Agents of Autonomy, pp 102-5
534
O’Malley, Agents of Autonomy, p106
535
O’Malley, Agents of Autonomy, p106
536
O’Malley, Agents of Autonomy, p108
537
NZPD, 1883, vol 46, pp 341-5
531
100
would gratify the Natives to this extent: that if they desired it they might have it, and if
they did not they could leave it alone.538
No public statement on the Bill by Wahanui or any other Rohe Potae chief has been located,
and so it is not clear how they felt about it. However Whitaker’s statement makes it clear that
the government did not consult with them on the Bill. The powers it gave to the Native
Committees, outlined below, were much weaker than Maori in the Rohe Potae and elsewhere
seem to have wanted or hoped for.
The Act provided for the creation of districts and the election in each district of a Native
Committee of up to twelve men, and set basic rules for the conduct of committee meetings.539
The committees were given two powers. Firstly, they were able to act as courts of arbitration
in disputes between Maori over matters not exceeding £20 in value, and the decision was to
be binding as if it were a judgment in a Resident Magistrate’s Court. However, the
committees could arbitrate only if both parties had agreed that the case would be determined
by the committee, and that they would abide by its decision. The committees’ other power
was to inquire into the ownership, succession or boundaries of Maori land and to report their
decision to the Chief Judge of the Native Land Court. The Court was not obliged to take any
notice of committees’ decisions. Anyone qualified to vote in a Maori parliamentary
constituency could vote and be elected to the committees. On taking office committee
members were required to swear allegiance to the Queen.
Both of the committees’ powers were gestures towards requests made by Maori at various
times, but both were essentially empty. The arbitration powers were undermined by the
requirement that both parties agree to submit to the committee’s decision, and the land
investigation function was rendered somewhat meaningless by the fact that the Land Court
could simply ignore the committee. As O’Malley shows, the judgement of historians
examining the Native Committees system has been that it was powerless and doomed to
failure.540 It was also seen in this light by contemporary Pakeha politicians.541 This is despite
the real efforts made by Maori communities in various parts of the country to make the
system work. O’Malley details some of these efforts, showing that committees were formed
538
NZPD, 1883, vol 46, p345
Native Committees Act 1883
540
O’Malley, Agents of Autonomy, p113
541
O’Malley, Agents of Autonomy, p114
539
101
in several areas and tried to exert power before being stymied by lack of authority and lack of
support from officials.542 The one exception was the Kawhia Committee, which O’Malley
describes as ‘one of the most active in the country, partly because of the government’s
continuing anxiety to ensure the success of the North Island main trunk railway project and
the convenience of having a recognised body with which to conduct continuing
negotiations’.543 The extent to which this judgement is valid will be discussed in the next
section of this chapter.
Rohe Potae Maori were keen for the Native Committees to be given more power, particularly
relating to land. Speaking before the Legislative Council in November 1884, Wahanui said
that his Native Committee ‘should be empowered, so that all dealings and transactions...
should be left in the hands of that Committee’.544 The following year he made similar
statements to the Native Affairs Select Committee.545 At a meeting with Ballance in February
1885, Kawhia Committee chairman John Ormsby acknowledged that the Native Committees
Act was a response to Maori requests for committees with officially recognised power.
However, he said ‘that was not carried out to such an extent as we wished. It was only a
shadow when we came to take hold of it to work it – it was not substantial.’546 He requested
that Native Committees be empowered to hear cases whether or not both sides consented, and
‘that the Committee should be placed in the position of the Native Land Court’.547 However
he also argued that it was impractical for the full 12-man committee to travel around the large
committee district to hear criminal cases, and that a Maori magistrate might work better in
regard to such matters.548
Ballance responded that the Land Court was not perfect, but asked whether a Native
Committee would be any better.
Might it not also make errors? Might it not be partial in its decisions, and fail to do
justice? Might not the majority of the Committee be entirely on one side, and might not
that majority favour the people of its own tribe to the injury of the people of the other
tribes? I am not disparaging at the present time a Native Committee, but I am pointing out
542
O’Malley, Agents of Autonomy, pp 114-36
O’Malley, Agents of Autonomy, p118
544
NZPD, 1884, vol 50, p427
545
AJHR 1885 I-2B, pp 6, 9
546
AJHR 1885 G-1, p15
547
AJHR 1885 G-1, p15
548
AJHR 1885 G-1, p20
543
102
that no institution is altogether perfect. All require to be hedged in with sufficient
safeguards.549
However he did say that he planned to amend the Native Committees Act so that all cases
would go to a Native Committee before they went to the Land Court. He had also given
instructions that when a survey application was made, a copy should be sent to the chairman
of the local Native Committee and also to ‘the principal chiefs, so that all may know what is
going on.’550 With regard to the committees acting on civil cases, he said that because he
believed that they could ‘render great service in administering the laws among the Native
people’, he wanted to amend the Native Committees Act to allow them to hear all Maori
cases ‘up to a certain amount’ whether or not both sides consented. Ballance also recognised
that the committees required a source of funds, and said that he was thinking about delegating
the dog tax to them. In a meeting with Tawhiao two days later, Ballance repeated his
statement that he wanted to enlarge the powers of the Native Committees, and also said that
he wanted to ‘make them really represent the people’.551
Throughout the mid 1880s, Ballance repeatedly stated that he wanted to increase the power of
the Native Committees. In 1884 he said in parliament that the committees ‘might act as a
Court of first instance, allowing the Native Land Court to act as a Court of Appeal. That, I
think, is the direction in which our legislation should point’.552 A few days later, the
Legislative Council proposed amendments to the Native Land Alienation Restriction Bill
giving greater powers to the Native Committees.553 These were opposed by a majority of the
House of Representatives, despite three of the Maori MHRs (including the Member for
Western Maori) speaking in their favour. Ballance did not speak on the issue. The Legislative
Council then voted 18 to 12 against insisting on the amendments, despite Daniel Pollen’s
concern that Maniapoto would not make lands available unless they were given control over
them, and Wi Tako Ngatata’s statement the Wahanui had given his explicit support for the
amendments.554
549
AJHR 1885 G-1, p17
AJHR 1885 G-1, p17
551
AJHR 1885 G-1, p27
552
NZPD, 1884, vol 50, p316
553
O’Malley, Agents of Autonomy, p144
554
NZPD, 1884, vol 50, pp 478-89
550
103
The following year Ballance visited the Rohe Potae and the Waikato and spoke again in
favour of empowering the Native Committees, as related above. In 1886 he visited Kopua
and said that he would ‘do all he could’ to give more power to the Native Committees.555 It
must be noted that at no point on record did he promise that the committees would be given
more power; he simply said that he ‘proposed’ to grant it. In other words, he had a plan but
could not say whether it would succeed. The realities of the New Zealand parliamentary
system meant that Ministers could not necessarily get parliament to pass the things they
supported. Having said this, no evidence has been found that Ballance made any real attempt
to increase the powers of Native Committees.
Some attempts were made to give the Native Committees funding. In 1885 Ballance
approved an annual payment of £50 to all Native Committee chairmen, but did not specify
whether this was a payment for the chairman or intended to cover all members’ costs.
Confusion resulted, and the situation was not clarified before the payment was abolished as
part of general cost-cutting in 1887.556 As O’Malley points out, £50 a year, whether for the
chairman or split between the 12 members, was a tiny amount compared to the £600 a year
salary of a Native Land Court judge.557 It is not clear whether the money was actually
distributed. An attempt was made to allow the Committees to charge fees, and in June 1886 a
fees schedule was gazetted, enabling them to charge for summons, hearings, decisions, copies
of decisions, and arbitration awards.558 Amounts ranged from 1/6 for affixing the
Committee’s seal to eight shillings for an arbitration award of between £15 and £20. Three
years later, the Native Department realised that the governing Act did not actually allow the
Committees to charge fees, and had to tell them that they should therefore not do so.559
The Kawhia Committee in operation
The Kawhia District was proclaimed under the Native Committees Act in January 1884. It
encompassed quite a large area going east as far as Lake Taupo and Mount Ruapehu, south as
far as White Cliffs in Taranaki, and north as far as the Waikato confiscation line.560 Although
it is difficult to work out the exact boundaries of the district, it appears to have encompassed
555
Waikato Times, 15 April 1886, p2
O’Malley, Agents of Autonomy, p123
557
O’Malley, Agents of Autonomy, p124
558
New Zealand Gazette, 3 June 1886, p705
559
‘Circular to Chairmen of Native Committees’, 5 July 1889, MA 23 10/13b, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 349-50
560
New Zealand Gazette, 24 January 1884, p111
556
104
most of the Rohe Potae inquiry district, with the likely exception of the area to the north of
Aotea Harbour, and to have included other land to the south and east of the inquiry district.
The large size of the district may have caused problems for the Kawhia Committee, given
that there were few roads in the area, and Wilkinson later mentioned the size of the district as
one of the reasons for the Committee’s failure to thrive.561
Elections for the Kawhia and Waikato Native Committees took place in March 1884. Native
Department officer George Wilkinson, who acted as returning officer for both, wrote nothing
about the Waikato election in his official report except that twelve men had been elected. He
also wrote that:
The Ngatimaniapoto Natives in this district profess to take a great interest in the working
of the Act, and nearly all the members that were elected for the Kawhia District were
nominated by them; and, although they took the precaution to choose members from
different districts within the boundaries, still the fact that the Waikatos neither nominated,
voted, nor in any way took part in the election will, I think, militate against its being a
success at present. However, those who have been elected are anxious to be called
together (as provided by the Act) and to commence work. Their great wish is to be
allowed to decide upon, or rather hold, a preliminary investigation of their own claims to
the large block that is now being surveyed, upon which they would make a
recommendation to the Native Land Court; but I am very dubious as to their being the
proper tribunal to adjudicate, even in a preliminary form, on that block, especially as their
opponents and counter-claimants, Waikato and Ngatihaua, would not be represented on
the Committee.562
The Waikato Times report on the election, which took place at Alexandra, was much less
favourable:
It really was a most important affair had the election been carried out in a proper manner.
The district itself is a very large one, and the election was, or is rather supposed to give
the various tribes residing in it, to a great extent, local self-government, but as the election
was conducted, the whole was simply a farce, comparatively few of the natives interested
knowing anything of the matter, through the insufficient notice and publicity not having
been made. The idea of one polling place only, the nomination and election of the
candidates on the same day, held at one end of the district, was an absurdity, and so the
natives regard it.563
The Times was also critical of Wilkinson acting as returning officer, polling clerk and
scrutineer, and his failure to post a tally of votes for each candidate. A few months later the
561
AJHR 1888 G-5, pp 4-5
AJHR 1884 session II G-1, p11
563
Waikato Times, 8 March 1884, p2
562
105
newspaper claimed that ‘considerable dissatisfaction’ was still being expressed amongst
Maori at the short notice for the election and the resulting Committee membership.564 Eight
of the twelve members were said to belong to ‘Wahanui’s party’, while only one represented
Ngati Raukawa, and he was ‘a young man, upon whom his people do not care entirely to
depend’. The Times stated that Raukawa believed that ‘Wahanui and his followers are at
present under the thumb of the Government’ and could therefore not be trusted to uphold the
interests of Maori in general and Raukawa in particular. It is not clear whether the
discrepancy between the reports of the Times and Wilkinson were due entirely to Wilkinson
wanting to present his work in the best possible light, or whether the Times had an agenda of
its own.
The Committee’s first meeting took place on 10 June 1884. The attendees, who were
presumably the members, were listed as:
Hone (John) Ormsby
Hone Te One
Whaaro
Karaka Tarawhiti
Hone Wetere
Te Aroa
Ngakuru
Te Para
Kiekie
Matakitaki
Te Paitai
Taniora
Ormsby was elected chair.565 In 1905 the Observer gave a short biography which stated of
Ormsby that:
His father was one of the oldest Pakeha Maoris in the Upper Waipa country, and did a
large amount of good as a schoolmaster... John Ormsby’s mother was a high-caste woman
564
565
Waikato Times, 10 June 1884, p2
Kawhia Committee Minute Book, p7, Ormsby Family Papers, MSY-5008, ATL. SD vol 3, pp 619-85
106
of the Maniapoto tribe, of which John is now the virtual chief or, at any rate, spokesman.
He exhibits the stronger characteristics of both races, doubling a keen business instinct
with remarkable powers of oratory.566
Several other committee members were also well known leaders. Hone Te One was a Aoteabased chief who had been allied with the government during the New Zealand Wars and had
since built connections with the Kingitanga. Hone Wetere was probably the Kawhia chief of
that name, who had also been a government ally. Whaaro was based near Otorohanga, was a
Kingitanga supporter, and had been involved in freeing Hursthouse from Te Mahuki the
previous year.
Also present at the first meeting was ‘Te Apiha’, or ‘the officer’, who appears to have been a
government official of some description.567 He seems to have attended in order to explain the
rules regarding voting and the general running of the committee, and may have been
Wilkinson, given his involvement in the Committee’s formation.568 It was fairly common for
officials to attend the Committee’s meetings in order to provide advice or information. For
example, one of the Grace brothers attended the 7 October 1884 meeting to explain the
Rating Act and other matters, and a government railway engineer attended a meeting in
December 1885 to give information on timber royalties.569
Even at its first meeting, the Kawhia Committee recognised that its powers were small, and
resolved to ask the Government to enlarge them. In particular, it was felt that the £20 limit on
arbitration disputes was too low, and that there should be a requirement for all land claims to
come to the Committee first, rather than the Land Court.570 At the Committee’s second
meeting on 5 August, Ormsby continued on this theme, arguing that the upper limit for
disputes should be £100, and that the Committee’s authority should be equivalent to that of a
‘kaiwhakawa tuturu’ (possibly a sitting judge).571 The Committee also condemned the
Crown’s pre-emption policy.572 At the fourth meeting on 7 October, the Committee resolved
566
Observer, 15 July 1905, p4
Kawhia Committee Minute Book, p1, Ormsby Family Papers, MSY-5008, ATL. SD vol 3, pp 619-85
568
Kawhia Committee Minute Book, p3, Ormsby Family Papers, MSY-5008, ATL. SD vol 3, pp 619-85
569
‘Meeting of the Native Committee at Otorohanga’, Waikato Times, 14 October 1884, p3; Waikato Times, 7
January 1886, p3
570
Kawhia Committee Minute Book, pp 2, 8, Ormsby Family Papers, MSY-5008, ATL. SD vol 3, pp 619-85
571
Kawhia Committee Minute Book, p13, Ormsby Family Papers, MSY-5008, ATL. SD vol 3, pp 619-85
572
Kawhia Committee Minute Book, p14, Ormsby Family Papers, MSY-5008, ATL. SD vol 3, pp 619-85
567
107
to write to Wahanui in Wellington to ensure the Rohe Potae was properly discussed with the
government, although exactly what they wanted him to say or do is unclear.573
The Committee began using its arbitration powers during the second day of its second
meeting, on 6 August, when it heard evidence about a fight. A fine of two pounds was
imposed.574 The Committee seems to have then had difficulty ensuring that its fines were
paid.575 Despite this, it was still issuing summons for matters such as adultery and false
accusation in late 1888 and early 1889, warning defendants that if they did not appear then
the Committee might assume they were guilty.576 This indicates that the Committee was
ignoring the legislative provision that both parties had to agree to its arbitration for any ruling
to be valid. In another case, in which one man had impersonated another in order to take his
watch from a watchmaker, the Committee simply wrote to warn him to return the watch or
the matter would go to the police.577
The Committee seems to have taken on a substantial resource management role, even though
this was not part of its official duties. Its sixth meeting, in December 1885, covered timber,
gold prospecting, coal mining, limestone and gravel.578 Prices were set for timber used in
connection with the railway, reaching up to three pounds for a totara tree. Similar issues,
including timber milling and gravel mining were also covered at the 6 April 1886 meeting.579
Ormsby was also involved in settling disputes over resources, for example one, in 1887,
involving a contractor who had purchased the right to take gravel from a Maori woman who
had no rights to the land in question.580 However it is not clear whether Ormsby was acting as
chairman of the Kawhia Committee in this case or simply as a community leader with
experience solving conflicts between Maori and Pakeha.
573
Kawhia Committee Minute Book, p18, Ormsby Family Papers, MSY-5008, ATL. SD vol 3, pp 619-85
Kawhia Committee Minute Book, p16, Ormsby Family Papers, MSY-5008, ATL. SD vol 3, pp 619-85
575
Kawhia Committee Minute Book, p20, Ormsby Family Papers, MSY-5008, ATL. SD vol 3, pp 619-85. See
also Omipi to Huihi, 3 Tihemi 1884, Ormsby letterbook, Box 1492, University of Waikato library, translated by
Jane Luiten. SD vol 2, pp 606-7
576
Omipi to Kaimaha, 3 Noema 1888 and Omipi to Taiepa, 21 Hanuere 1889, Ormsby letterbook, Box 1492,
University of Waikato library, translated by Jane Luiten. SD vol 2, pp 612-13, 616-17
577
Omipi to Te Puna, 5 Tihema 1888, Ormsby letterbook, Box 1492, University of Waikato library, translated
by Jane Luiten. SD vol 2, pp 614-15
578
Waikato Times, 7 January 1886, p3
579
Kawhia Committee Minute Book, pp 38-43, Ormsby Family Papers, MSY-5008, ATL. SD vol 3, pp 619-85
580
Cleaver and Sarich, p106
574
108
The Committee also attempted to facilitate land use, although with less success. The
December 1885 meeting saw a discussion of the possibility of leasing land at the Poro o
Tarao tunnel, with Ormsby pointing out that land could not be leased until title had been
determined, and so another means had to be found to authorise Pakeha to stay there.581
Committee member Ngakuru said that in addition to land taken for works in the area, the
works had led to damage to cultivations and so the Government should be asked to help the
Committee value the lands which had been taken or damaged.582 This was agreed to. The
Committee also agreed to the erection of stores and butcheries inside the Rohe Potae,
conditional on payment of five pounds a year. A toll gate at Mangokewa Bridge was also
discussed, and the proprietor asked to remove it if he had received enough money from it to
cover the cost of erecting the bridge.
The Committee had no statutory powers over resource management, and so sometimes found
it difficult to implement its decisions. In 1886 it gave permission for the erection of stores in
Otorohanga, with the rent money to be held in trust until the Native Land Court determined
the land’s ownership.583 However Wetere Te Kerenga and other Mokau Maori objected to
this, arguing that the land was theirs and the Committee had no right to rent it out. The
Committee, and Rohe Potae Maori generally, were also criticised for setting resource prices
which settlers regarded as excessive.584 In November 1885 the Waikato Times reported that
Ballance ‘has arranged with the native committee that the ordinary market rates shall be
charged for all timber used... in future these things are to be decided by arbitration between
the native committee and the Government’.585 According to Cleaver and Sarich, there is no
evidence that this arbitration actually occurred, and the Kawhia Committee continued to
negotiate directly with contractors over charges for timber and other resources.586 They also
write that settler criticism over the rates charged ‘seems to have reflected an intolerance of
Maori managing and profiting from resources, but may also have been due to the charges
being out of step with standard rates’.587 In October 1884 the Waikato Times reported that the
Kawhia Committee (minus Ormsby, who was in Wellington) had decided to charge 15
581
Waikato Times, 7 January 1886, p3
It is not clear from the report what works are referred to.
583
Waikato Times, 29 July 1886, p2
584
Cleaver and Sarich, p104
585
Waikato Times, 7 November 1885, p2
586
Cleaver and Sarich, p104
587
Cleaver and Sarich, p104
582
109
shillings a foot for land which was to be taken for the railway, ‘alleging as a reason that as the
railway brought in such a lot of money the pakehas would not stick at that price’.588 By
comparison, in 1889 Wilkinson was instructed to pay no more than five shillings an acre for
land in the Rohe Potae. This price seems to have been lower than market rates, but probably
closer to the standard than the Committee’s suggested price.589 The Committee was advised
by Grace that the payment would be determined by an official valuation, but this episode
suggests that the Committee was willing to try to for the highest possible prices, even if they
were out of step with standard prices.
In the time available for this report it has not been possible to discover the extent to which the
Kawhia Committee investigated land titles. In December 1885 it voted against allowing the
Native Land Court to deal with the Rohe Potae block, and for the Committee to deal with all
claims inside the block boundary. A public meeting was called ‘for the purpose of having
bona fide claims sent in for the consideration of the committee’. The Committee then noted
that if people did not send in their claims, ‘the committee can see no other legitimate way of
preventing the Native Lands Court from dealing with the lands inside the Rohe Potae’.590
Several land claims were submitted to the Committee and considered at its meeting in April
1886. However it appears that by this time the Rohe Potae block’s progress into the Native
Land Court was regarded as inevitable, as the Committee deferred all claims pending the
Court’s judgement on the Rohe Potae block.591 Hearings began in July that year.
The only evidence that has been found of the Committee dealing with land disputes comes
from Wilkinson’s 1886 official report, in which he stated that he had persuaded two Maori to
allow a land dispute to be settled by the Kawhia Committee, since one of the disputants, a
Tawhiao supporter, would not agree to go to the Land Court.592 O’Malley credits the
Committee with avoiding ‘some of the worst excesses’ of Native Land Court sittings, and
with helping to define iwi and hapu interests.593 However it is not clear how much
information this conclusion is based on, and the data found in research for this report is
588
Waikato Times, 14 October 1884, p3
Boulton, p223.
590
Waikato Times, 7 January 1886, p3
591
Kawhia Committee Minute Book, p45, Ormsby Family Papers, MSY-5008, ATL. SD vol 3, pp 619-85
592
AJHR 1886 G-1, p6
593
O’Malley, p133
589
110
insufficient to draw any conclusions. It is expected that Paul Husbands and James Mitchell’s
Land Court report for this inquiry will uncover more information on this subject.
In June 1888 Wilkinson reported that the Kawhia Committee and other committees
constituted under the 1883 Act ‘have very much languished, and it is thought that they will
collapse altogether’. He explained that there were several reasons for this.
One reason, I think, for their not being a success was because the Committee districts
were altogether too large, some of the members having to travel over fifty miles to attend
a meeting of Committee. Another reason is that they are not properly supported by the
tino rangatiras, or principal chiefs, the reason, perhaps, being that the Committee
appeared to usurp the power that principal chiefs think should rest only in them – viz., the
power of saying what shall or shall not be done with regard to matters that concern the
whole tribe. Another reason, possibly, was the very limited powers given to the
Committees, as they can only act where both parties to a suit are agreeable to put the
matter into their hands. But I think the most important reason – that is, so far as this
district is concerned – is the fact that, now that the land is being passed through the Court,
and settlement is commencing to take place, the owners of the land see that property in
land means money and social position, and they prefer each one to look after his own
rather than trust their affairs to the hands of a Committee, some of the members of which
may be, or have been, in opposition to them regarding claims to land, &c. 594
The Committee had not yet ceased its activity since, as we have seen, it continued to issue
summons into 1889. However the last recorded meeting in Ormsby’s letterbook took place in
February 1887, and it did nothing other than confirm the minutes of the previous meeting. 595
Judging by the evidence examined in research for this chapter, it seems likely that the Kawhia
Committee ceased to function by 1890, and that a key problem was its lack of authority and
inability to enforce its decisions. It does not seem to have taken much action on land title
determination, probably because from 1886 it was competing with the better recognised and
more powerful Native Land Court. It had difficulty enforcing its fines, and its resource
management decisions were sometimes disputed. Another difficulty was that its authority was
not recognised by the Kingitanga, a problem which will be explored more fully below.
Despite these problems, however, the Kawhia Committee was able to perform some useful
tasks, the best documented of which was the negotiation of an agreement on gold
prospecting.
594
595
AJHR 1888 G-5, pp 4-5
Kawhia Committee Minute Book, p63, Ormsby Family Papers, MSY-5008, ATL. SD vol 3, pp 619-85
111
Gold prospecting
The first reference to a Kawhia Committee discussion of gold prospecting comes from a
translation of the minutes of the December 1885 meeting, published in the Waikato Times.596
This records Ormsby as saying that despite opposition from landowners to gold prospecting,
various Pakeha were continuing to come into the Rohe Potae to secretly search for gold. In
some cases they had done this with the covert agreement of some local Maori. Ormsby
argued that prospectors would become even harder to stop once the land was opened up, and
so gold prospecting should now be allowed in a managed way. He moved that members of
the Rohe Potae tribes should search for gold, accompanied by honest, reliable and
experienced men appointed by the Government, and that if any gold was found the
Committee should have full control over it. The Committee discussed the plan at length
before approving it.597 It was subsequently asked by Taonui not to make any decision until
the five main Rohe Potae iwi had fully discussed the matter.598 This seems to have happened
by early January 1886, and on 4 January the Committee agreed unanimously to a plan
involving six groups of Maori guides and Pakeha prospectors.599
In his official report to the Native Department, Wilkinson wrote that ‘having received
instructions from you [the Native Department Under-Secretary] to carry out the matter at my
own discretion’, he immediately began negotiating the details with Ormsby.600 He undertook
to find the Committee ‘twelve men who were bona fide and qualified prospectors, and who
were sober and respectable withal’. He did this with the aid of the Warden of Thames
Goldfield, who also came to the Rohe Potae and explained goldfield law and regulations to
the Committee. As per the Committee’s plan, the area from Otorohanga to Taumarunui and
from the Rangitoto, Maraeroa and Tuhua ranges to the sea was divided into six areas, each of
which was assigned to two Pakeha prospectors with two Maori guides.601 At some point in
this process Wilkinson asked the Committee to allow another Pakeha group; this was
unanimously opposed and the Committee’s plan went ahead unchanged.602 The prospectors
596
Waikato Times, 7 January 1886, p3
Waikato Times, 7 January 1886, p3
598
Kawhia Committee Minute Book, p35, Ormsby Family Papers, MSY-5008, ATL. SD vol 3, pp 619-85
599
Kawhia Committee Minute Book, p37, Ormsby Family Papers, MSY-5008, ATL. SD vol 3, pp 619-85
600
AJHR 1886 G-1, p4
601
AJHR 1886 G-1, p5
602
Kawhia Committee Minute Book, p43, Ormsby Family Papers, MSY-5008, ATL. SD vol 3, pp 619-85
597
112
began work on 16 January, just 12 days after the Committee’s final decision to allow them
in.603
The prospectors’ work did not run smoothly, however. On 2 February the Waikato Times
reported that one of the groups, working near the Tuhua range, had ‘met with considerable
opposition from the natives, and were turned back’. The Times was scathing about the
situation, writing that:
All the trouble with the natives shows how utterly incompetent the Government is to deal
with them... It is too bad that a handful of Maoris should be allowed to retract their
agreements whenever they like and by so doing put men to great inconvenience and
expense. They, however, are not so much to blame as an incompetent Government for
allowing it.604
The newspaper seems not to have been aware that the ‘handful’ of Maori stopping the
prospectors were not the same group who had agreed to them being there; that was essentially
the problem. In the middle of February a meeting was held at Mokau between Ormsby,
Wahanui, some of the prospectors, and the ‘native obstructionists to the gold prospecting’.605
The ‘obstructionists’ criticised the Committee, saying that they had not been informed of the
prospecting arrangement. Ormsby then read the terms of the agreement, and Wahanui spoke
in its favour, telling the obstructionists that they would benefit if gold was discovered on their
land. ‘After considerable discussion the obstructionists agreed to withdraw their opposition,
and to allow the prospectors free access to any portion of their lands.’606
In May 1886 Wilkinson wrote that no gold had been found and most of the prospectors had
left the region.607 Nevertheless, other prospectors continued to want access to the Rohe Potae.
Some of them seem to have gone to the Kawhia Committee for permission. In February 1888
Ormsby wrote to Hauauru saying that it was up to him whether to let a prospector work in his
area, but that Rohe Potae Maori were obliged to be peaceful.608 The next month he wrote to
Te Wheoro on behalf of a Pakeha prospector who had asked for permission to prospect in the
603
AJHR 1886 G-1, p5
Waikato Times, 2 February 1886, p2
605
Waikato Times, 18 February 1886, p2
606
Waikato Times, 18 February 1886, p2
607
AJHR 1886 G-1, p5
608
Omipi to Hauauru, 29 Pepuere 1888, Ormsby letterbook, Box 1492, University of Waikato library, translated
by Jane Luiten. SD vol 2, pp 608-9
604
113
Maungatautari district. Ormsby was supportive but seems to have left the matter to Te
Wheoro to decide.609
The gold prospecting issue provides an interesting case study of the Kawhia Committee’s
operations and its interactions with the Government. In this case the immediate interests of
both groups coincided: the Committee realised that prospecting could not be kept out of the
Rohe Potae and wished to allow it in a controlled manner. The Government meanwhile
wanted to open up the region, would have been delighted if gold were discovered, and may
also have wanted prospecting to occur in a controlled and monitored way. In 1884 Wilkinson
had stressed the importance of moving carefully and respectfully on the issue, arguing that
the Pakeha who occasionally snuck into the Rohe Potae to look for gold were delaying the
opening of the region by making Rohe Potae Maori suspicious of Pakeha generally.610 When
the Committee decided to allow controlled prospecting, therefore, Wilkinson made every
effort to assist it. When he wanted to change the Committee’s plan he made a request to the
Committee, and accepted its decision when the request was declined. When the prospecting
was opposed, Ormsby (along with Wahanui) helped persuade its opponents to allow it to go
ahead. The amicable relationship between Committee and Government was never strongly
tested on this issue since the opposition was overcome and no gold was discovered, but this
case study shows that Government and Committee were capable of working together for
mutual benefit and with apparent mutual respect, even in the face of opposition from other
Maori groups. Moreover, it shows that this opposition could be overcome through
negotiation; it is likely that the degree of autonomy exercised by the Committee in arranging
the prospecting agreement was important in persuading Maori initially opposed to
prospecting to allow it in their area. The precedent set in the 1886 agreement seems to have
encouraged other prospectors to work with and through the Kawhia Committee, which in
some cases encouraged Maori landowners to allow prospecting while leaving the final
decision to them.
609
Omipi to Te Wheoro, 16 Maehe 1888, Ormsby letterbook, Box 1492, University of Waikato library,
translated by Jane Luiten. SD vol 2, pp 610-11
610
AJHR 1884 session II G-1, p10
114
The Kawhia Committee, the Government, and the Kingitanga
The Kingitanga were not supportive of the Kawhia Committee or of the Native Committees
Act generally. In 1886, Tawhiao wrote to the Governor questioning his statement that the
committees had the power to ascertain native land title. ‘Seeing that the said Native
Committees Act confers no power, as you know that there is no such power in it, as it was
you yourself who assented to that inoperative Act’.611 By this stage, and apparently in
response to the Kawhia Committee, the Kingitanga had formed its own committees,
nominated from amongst the King’s followers.612 This caused considerable friction between
the Kingitanga and Maniapoto. According to Wilkinson,
In one case [the Kingitanga committee at Whatiwhatihoe] went so far as to arrest and
forcibly bring before them a half-caste of Ngatimaniapoto, living at Kopua, who refused
to acknowledge their jurisdiction. They only acted in that way once, however, and
refrained from doing so any more, as they were given to understand that Ngatimaniapoto
would look upon any further action of that sort on their part as a menace against the
whole tribe, and would treat it accordingly.613
Wilkinson added that the King’s committees had also attempted to stop all public works on
Maori land which had not been through the Land Court.614
In April 1886 Ballance visited Alexandra and met with Wilkinson and Te Wheoro. Te
Wheoro proposed that the Kawhia Committee merge with the Kingitanga’s Whatiwhatihoe
Committee, and that the resulting body be recognised under the Native Committees Act.615
Ballance suggested instead that mutually acceptable boundaries between the two Committees
should be worked out, and Te Wheoro suggested a boundary line which Wilkinson marked
out on a map of the King Country.616 Wilkinson then wanted to take the proposal to the
Kawhia Committee for their opinion. Te Wheoro did not support this, preferring (in
Wilkinson’s words) ‘that the matter should be laid before the Native Minister with the hope
that he would order that the proposed alteration of the district be made without consulting the
Kawhia Native Committee or the Ngatimaniapoto people.’617 Wilkinson noted that Te
611
Tawhiao to Governor, 7 July 1886, MA 23 2/4a, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 365-9
AJHR 1886 G-1, p4
613
AJHR 1886 G-1, p4
614
AJHR 1886 G-1, p5
615
Waikato Times, 17 April 1886, p2
616
Wilkinson to Under Secretary, Native Department, 1 May 1886, MA 23 10/13b, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 341-3
617
Wilkinson to Under Secretary, Native Department, 1 May 1886, MA 23 10/13b, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 341-3
612
115
Wheoro’s proposed Kingitanga committee area included large areas of land claimed by
Maniapoto and Ngati Hikairo. He concluded that:
…any alteration of the boundaries of the present Kawhia Native Committee District,
made without Ngatimaniapoto being consulted in the matter, would be very distasteful to
them, and would be likely to endanger the good feeling that has been for some time past,
and is now in existence between them and the Government.618
Wilkinson wrote to Ormsby for the Kawhia Committee’s view on a merger or sharing of
territory with any King’s committee. Ormsby responded that his Committee would not
consent to dividing its territory, nor would it dissolve itself to allow any new committee to be
formed.619 The Native Department accordingly let the matter rest, leaving the King’s
committees officially unrecognised.620 O’Malley writes that
An opportunity for rapprochement with the King movement had been sacrificed in favour
of cementing ties with Ngati Maniapoto, who were, after all, the recognised customary
owners of a vast tract of land which the Crown was anxious to see opened up to European
settlement.621
The decision respected the autonomy and mana of the Kawhia Committee while ignoring the
concerns of the Kingitanga.
Relations between the two committees seem to have been somewhat better than all this
suggests, since in late April 1886 one of the King’s committees had attended a meeting of the
Kawhia Committee at Ormsby’s invitation.622 This seems to have been a special one-off
meeting, judging by the attendance of an estimated 200 Maori. It resulted in a commitment to
put the Rohe Potae through the Native Land Court, so the King’s committee may have been
invited in order to get as many people as possible involved in the decision.
The King’s committees seem to have outlasted the Kawhia Committee despite (or possibly
because of) their lack of official recognition. In 1890 Wilkinson wrote that the King
committees were acting as Resident Magistrates’ Courts, and Native Constables were seizing
618
Wilkinson to Under Secretary, Native Department, 1 May 1886, MA 23 10/13b, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 341-3
Ormsby to Government Agent at Alexandra, 30 June 1886 (translation), MA 23 10/13b, ANZW. SD vol 2,
pp 344-7
620
Note on cover sheet of 86/1966, 15 July 1886, MA 23 10/13b, ANZW. SD vol 2, p348
621
O’Malley, Agents of Autonomy, p133
622
Waikato Times, 27 April 1886, p2
619
116
property from losing parties.623 Wilkinson seems to have been relaxed about this when all
those involved were Kingitanga followers. However when non-Kingitanga were involved he
thought it was a serious problem, especially since the official courts had little practical power
to do anything about it.
Conclusions
Vincent O’Malley writes that the Kawhia Committee ‘achieved some short-term success
largely because of the geopolitical importance attached to the “opening up” of the King
Country at the time’.624 He contrasts it with other committees, which received little in the
way of official support and interest. The Government’s support for the Kawhia Committee
was also fairly limited; it received no funding and very little power. However the
Government’s representative George Wilkinson frequently co-operated and negotiated with
it, with the gold prospecting issue being a particularly good example. The government also
supported the Committee in its territorial dispute with the Kingitanga, refusing to change the
boundaries to suit the latter group. It is clear that, at a time when it was working carefully to
open up the region for settlement, the Government found it useful to have an official Maori
body willing and able to work with it. Through the Committee, the Government was able to
overcome Maori opposition to things such as gold prospecting with much more success than
it might have had on its own. Rohe Potae Maori may also have benefitted from the
Committee, as the gold prospecting agreement was acceptable even to those Maori who
initially opposed prospecting in their territory. Although the Committee’s powers were
limited, it does seem to have been a vehicle for some degree of Maori autonomy.
Despite showing some promise, the Committee seems to have faded out of existence by the
1890s. It is not clear whether this happened because the Government no longer needed it after
the region was ‘opened’, because of its inherent problems of powerlessness and conflict with
the Kingitanga, or for other reasons. In any case, it is clear that lack of official support,
particularly the failure to give the Committee more power despite Ballance’s frequent
statements that he supported such change, was one major factor for its short lifespan. It
appears that the Government could and did support the Committee, at least to some extent,
when the interests of the two bodies coincided. This is shown most clearly with regards to
623
624
AJHR 1890 G-2, p6
O’Malley, Agents of Autonomy, p134
117
gold prospecting. Where the interests of the Committee and the Government were opposed,
for example with the Committee’s attempts to charge high prices for timber, the Government
does not seem to have given the Committee any real support.
118
Chapter 6: Maori Land Councils and Boards
Throughout the 1886 to 1913 period, one of the main concerns of Rohe Potae Maori was that
they maintain control and ownership of as much of their land as possible. In general they
were wary of the Native Land Court, seeing how its operations had led to Maori land loss in
other parts of the country. We have seen that the Kawhia Committee, under the Native
Committees Act 1883, was regarded as a possible alternative to the Land Court and a means
by which Rohe Potae Maori could retain autonomy over their land. However the Committee’s
lack of authority meant it was able to achieve little in relation to land and, from the evidence
available at the time of writing, seems to have faded out of existence by about 1890.
Meanwhile the Native Land Court became active in the inquiry district, as did government
land agents. By the turn out the century, 35% of Maori land in the inquiry district had been
sold.1
By 1900 both Maori and the government were deeply dissatisfied with the legal and
administrative systems surrounding Maori land. Maori found it difficult to retain their land
and freely use what remained. The underdevelopment of Maori land was also a major source
of annoyance to Pakeha, who believed that land ownership carried a duty to use it as
productively as possible. In the late 1890s numerous bills were drafted attempting to create a
new system of Maori land management which would allow Maori to put their land to better
use, either by developing it or by lease. The eventual result of this was the Maori Lands
Administration Act 1900, which created a system of Maori land councils. These councils,
which were partly Maori controlled, were intended to take over some duties from the Native
Land Court and facilitate the leasing and development of Maori land.
The land councils had more power and were given more official support than the Native
Committees had under the 1883 Act. However they did not lead to large scale development of
Maori land, nor did they ease the pressure on the government for more Maori land for
settlement. This led to Pakeha and government dissatisfaction with the system, and in 1905
the land councils were transformed into Maori land boards with Pakeha majorities. By 1913
1
Tutahanga Douglas, Craig Innes and James Mitchell, ‘Alienation of Maori Land within Te Rohe Potae inquiry
district 1840-2010: A quantitative study’, a report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, September 2010,
Wai 898, A21, p129.
119
the boards had become entirely state-controlled entities with no Maori membership. The clear
preferences of Rohe Potae Maori to retain control of their land, and for leasing rather than
sale, were ignored as legislative change allowed compulsory vesting and the resumption of
land purchases, and Rohe Potae Maori saw their lands again slipping out of their control and
ownership.
The operations of the land councils and boards will be explored in more depth by Terry
Hearn in the final version of his draft report commissioned by the Crown Forestry Rental
Trust (CFRT) and entitled ‘Maori, Land and the Crown in Te Rohe Potae c1900 to c1935’.2
The operation of the Waikato-Maniapoto Maori Land Board has also been covered in a short
report by John Hutton, also commissioned by CFRT.3 Because of this research, this chapter
will pay little attention to the day-to-day operations of the councils and boards, but rather will
focus on the degree of autonomy which they allowed Rohe Potae Maori to exercise over their
lands, and the extent to which Rohe Potae Maori wishes and concerns about them were
heeded by the Government.
The land councils and boards system has been analysed in the most depth by Donald
Loveridge, in his Waitangi Tribunal Rangahau Whanui report.4 As mentioned above, John
Hutton has also explored the operation of the Waikato-Maniapoto Maori Land Board,
providing insight into that Board and also the board system in general. Numerous other
writers, including Richard Hill, Richard Boast, John Williams, Bryan Gilling and Vincent
O’Malley, have also examined the council and board systems from various perspectives and
in varying amounts of depth, and the Stout-Ngata Report also included some analysis of the
system. The Maori land board system is seen in a universally negative light, with writers
seeing it as a Pakeha and government-dominated system which allowed Maori no real scope
for autonomy.5 There is more of a range of views on the preceding land council system,
although no writer sees it as ideal. Loveridge in particular regarded the system as a great
improvement on the Native Land Court, and one which held great potential for Maori
2
T J Hearn, ‘Maori, Land and the Crown in Te Rohe Potae c1900 to c1935’, a report commissioned by Crown
Forestry Rental Trust, draft, April 2011, Wai 898. At the time of writing, this report was due to be finalised and
filed by 31 August 2011.
3
John L Hutton, ‘The Operation of the Waikato-Maniapoto District Maori Land Board’, a report written for the
Crown Forestry Rental Trust, May 1996
4
Donald M. Loveridge, Maori Land Councils and Maori Land Boards: A Historical Overview, 1900 to 1952,
Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui National Theme K (Wellington: Waitangi Tribunal, 1996)
5
Boast, p221; Loveridge, Maori Land Councils, p153
120
autonomy. Most other writers are less positive, but generally regard it as an improvement on
what had gone before.6
Maori Land Councils and Boards in statements of claim
Maori land boards are mentioned in numerous statements of claim for this inquiry. They
seem to be mentioned exclusively as land boards rather than land councils; this may indicate
that most of their problematic actions were taken after they were transformed into boards, but
may also simply reflect that for most of their history they were ‘boards’ rather than
‘councils’.
Some claims specifically mention the Waikato-Maniapoto District Maori Land Board, with
some of these stating in general terms that the Board was responsible for loss of ownership or
control of land or the income it produced. A few go into more detail. The Waikowhitiwhiti
Block Claim (Wai 472) states that the Waikato-Maniapoto District Maori Land Board sold
the block in question acting as agent for the owner, but that no evidence has been found that
the owner actually consented to the sale.7 No date is given for when the sale took place. The
Te Whakataute Interests Claim (Wai 1593) and Ngati Paretekawa Non-Raupatu Claim (Wai
2014) both state that the Crown transferred hapu lands into the control and management of
the same land board ‘and progressively from around 1905 removed any remaining tribal
leadership and control over those lands’.8 The Board then failed to consult or obtain consent
from the landowners before alienating these lands, and also failed to adequately check
whether the owners had sufficient other lands for their contemporary and future needs.
Background to the Maori Lands Administration Act 1900
Throughout the second half of the nineteenth century, there was widespread Maori
dissatisfaction with the Native Land Court and other Crown systems for dealing with Maori
land. By the early 1890s, Pakeha politicians also generally felt that the system of Maori land
law was not functioning properly. In 1891 the Lees-Carroll parliamentary commission on the
subject reported that:
6
David V. Williams, ‘Te Kooti Tango Whenua’: The Native Land Court 1864-1909 (Wellington: Huia, 1999),
p225; Boast, p246; Hill, State Authority, Indigenous Autonomy, pp 73-7; Loveridge, Maori Land Councils, p153
7
Wai 472, 1.1, narrative
8
Wai 1593, 1.1.1, p18; Wai 2014, 1.1.1, section 3.1.14
121
So complete has the confusion been both in law and practice that lawyers of high standing
and extensive practice have testified on oath that if the Legislature had desired to create a
state of confusion and anarchy in land titles it could not have hoped to be more successful
than it has been.9
For Pakeha, the most serious result of this confusion was that a lot of Maori land was not
being developed. At this time a fundamental principle behind virtually all Maori land law,
and New Zealand land law in general, was the Pakeha belief that, in Tom Brooking’s words,
‘no one, whatever their race or class, had a moral right to own land unless they used it
productively.’10 Those who owned land without developing it, whether they were Maori,
absentee landlords or speculators, were immoral and should be made to give up their land to
those who were willing to put it to use.11 Under-utilised Maori land would ideally be
alienated through sale, either to the Crown or to settlers, but if Maori persistently refused to
sell then leasing was an acceptable alternative, particularly if the leases were long term.
According to Brooking, Maori development of their own land was preferable to the land
going unused, but was not actually supported in any meaningful way, suggesting that land
development by Pakeha was preferred to the same development carried out by Maori.12
As a preliminary to trying to fix Maori land law, the MHRs William Rees, James Carroll and
Thomas Mackay were commissioned to investigate how the system worked in practice. The
Commission’s report, presented in 1891, argued that the policy of individualising Maori land
had been a disaster and, ‘having established the principle of individual title where no such
title by nature existed’, was responsible for virtually all of the confusion and injustice
concerning land title in the previous two decades.13 Even where land was still communally
owned, the law still impeded its effective use. Before the arrival of Pakeha law, the ‘influence
of the chiefs and the common customs of the tribe’ made it possible for a community to use
their land effectively. But the power of the chiefs and custom had been undermined, the
Commission argued, and the law regarded every co-owner of a piece of land as equal. The
chiefs had no legal power to order the land to be developed, and anyone who took the
9
AJHR, 1891 session II, G-1, pxi
Brooking, ‘Use it or Lose it: Unravelling the Land Debate in late Nineteenth Century New Zealand’, New
Zealand Journal of History, 30, 2 (1996), p145
11
Brooking, ‘Use it or Lose it’, pp 160-2; Boast, p185
12
Tom Brooking, ‘“Busting up” the Greatest Estate of All: Liberal Maori Land Policy, 1891-1911’ New
Zealand Journal of History, 26, 1 (1992), p94
13
AJHR, 1891 session II, G-1, pviii
10
122
initiative to grow crops or pasture might find the other owners demanding a share.14 Land
tenure tended to become more and more fragmented due to succession, which itself required
the involvement of the Land Court. The solution, it felt, was to reintroduce a proper and
effective system of communal ownership, with blocks managed by committees.15
There was considerable diversity in Maori opinion as to the future of land law. We will see
below that some felt that only compulsory vesting in a management body would overcome
problems of multiple ownership, while others refused to consider any scheme which could be
used to take control from the owners. Some wanted a permanent end to all Maori land sales
while others had no objection to land sales as long as all the owners freely consented. Some
insisted that any land councils or committees overseeing Maori land should be entirely Maori,
while others were prepared to accept Pakeha members. Overall, the unifying theme was that
Maori wanted to retain at least some degree of autonomy over their lands. The issue of land
councils and land law in general can therefore be seen as one which is broader than simple
property rights.
From 1898 parliament sought a new solution to the problems of Maori land. Throughout the
1890s many Maori had been calling for some form of Maori committees or councils with
power to manage communally owned land.16 As we have seen, a committee system had also
been one of the main recommendations of the Rees-Carroll Commission.17 From 1898 the
government drafted and redrafted legislation to enact such a system, and various Maori
groups responded with petitions, appearances before the Native Affairs Select Committee,
proposed amendments, and alternative bills. It is extremely difficult to work out the order in
which bills were drafted, and which were simply new versions of other earlier bills, and if so
which ones. The secondary sources are contradictory on this matter.18 The plethora of bills
14
AJHR, 1891 session II, G-1, pxi
AJHR, 1891 session II, G-1, pxxi
16
O’Malley, Agents of Autonomy, p181; Hill, p48; AJHR, 1891 session II, G-1, pp xvi, xix
17
AJHR, 1891 session II, G-1, pxxi
18
Two Bills (or two versions of the same Bill) were reproduced in the 1898 AJHR (I-3A, pp 94-112): the Native
Lands Settlement and Administration Bill and the Native Lands Protection and Administration Bill. The second
Bill is an amendment by the Kotahitanga of an earlier Bill. Loveridge (Maori Land Councils, p12) writes that
the Protection Bill ‘emerged’ in early 1898 (presumably from the government) and that the version reproduced
in the AJHR was a later version of this. Loveridge then says on p13 that the Settlement Bill was laid before the
House in August 1898 and had been drafted with little regard to the earlier Bill. Gilling and O’Malley, on the
other hand, claim that the Protection Bill in AJHR was an amended and renamed version of the Settlement Bill
(Bryan Gilling, The Mana of their own Lands: Rangatiratanga and the origins and operation of the Maori Land
15
123
and versions of bills seems to have caused confusion even at the time.19 Fortunately the
details of the drafting and redrafting need not concern us; general positions and philosophies
are usually clear, and it is these which will now be discussed. The following summary will
concentrate on the issue of autonomy, and focus somewhat on the views expressed by
representatives of Maori with connections to the Rohe Potae.
Judging from submissions to the Native Affairs select committee, virtually all Maori wanted
government purchases of Maori land to cease, although in practice many were prepared to
accept alienation by lease or sale under some circumstances.20 Several people argued that
Maori should not have unrestricted autonomy even over their own land, with Hamiora
Mangakahia advocating a complete halt to all Maori land sales even if the owners wanted to
sell.21 New Zealand governments did not have a history of listening to Maori pleas to stop
land purchases, but by the late 1890s the Liberal government had already purchased nearly
three million acres of Maori land and were starting to realise that it was not a limitless
resource.22 Worried that a large population of landless Maori would become a drain on public
finances, the government passed the Native Land Laws Amendment Act 1899, preventing the
Crown from entering into new negotiations for the purchase of Maori land.23
One of the major debates over the proposed land administration legislation concerned
compulsion. The government’s Native Lands Settlement and Administration Bill established
districts within which the legislation would apply if a majority of Maori residents voted for
it.24 Once this happened, all Maori land in the district was to become vested in a local Native
land board ‘for an estate in fee-simple in possession’; in other words the board would
automatically own the land. The land could then be leased, taken for public works, or ceded
to the Crown for mining purposes, but not sold. There was a certain degree of autonomy in
this, in that the legislation would only apply to an area if the majority wanted it. However,
this perpetuated problems of majority rule which had already caused numerous difficulties
Councils regime 1900-1905 (Wellington: Victoria University of Wellington, 2004), p10; O’Malley, Agents of
Autonomy, p182). It is not clear which, if either, of these accounts is correct.
19
AJHR, 1898, I-3A, p11; NZPD, 1900, vol 114, p501
20
Loveridge, Maori Land Councils, p14
21
‘AJHR, 1898, I-3A, p2; Gilling, Mana of their own Land, p23
22
Brooking, ‘Busting up’, p81
23
O’Malley, Agents of Autonomy, p182. According to Brooking this fear that landless Maori would be a
financial drain on the state was fairly widespread. Brooking, ‘Busting up’, p95
24
AJHR, 1898, I-3A, pp 94-109
124
with blocks of communally owned land. Those who wanted to continue managing their own
land would lose control of it if a majority of their neighbours voted for the board to be set up.
This was especially problematic because the franchise was granted to all adults rather than to
property-holders only, and so a landless majority could easily deprive a landholding minority
of control of their own property.
A few Maori had advocated a compulsory system, feeling that Maori landowners would
never vest their land in the boards otherwise, and that a board or committee system was the
only way that communally owned Maori land would be developed, and therefore retained.
Speaking before the Native Affairs Select Committee in 1899, Wi Pere was prepared to
accept compulsory vesting of undeveloped land.25 Most Maori, however, simply opposed
compulsion. Tureiti Te Heuheu Tukino felt that the majority vote provision would provide no
protection because an educated and intelligent minority might be outvoted by the ignorant
majority.26 True Maori control of Maori affairs, he argued, was a right under the Treaty of
Waitangi.
Section 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi assures to the Natives all their rights, title and
management of their own affairs… this Native Board Bill provides for the absolute
wiping-out of all the rights that are assured and confirmed to the Natives under the Treaty
of Waitangi.27
A petition from Hamiora Mangakahia and six others put forward seven principal reasons for
opposition to a proposed Bill, most of which were objections to control being taken out of
Maori hands and given to boards which ‘will be entirely controlled by the Government’.28
Like Te Heuheu, the petitioners felt that the proposed law was ‘contrary to the letter and
spirit of the Treaty of Waitangi, and to the rights of the Natives as British subjects’. The
Kotahitanga parliament meanwhile drafted an alternative Bill which removed the compulsory
element.29 Although it would automatically apply to all Maori land, the individual blocks
would be controlled only on the wishes of a majority of the owners. We can therefore see that
autonomy was a crucial issue in discussions of the future of land administration.
25
Gilling, Mana of their own Land, p24
AJHR, 1898, I-3A, p6
27
AJHR, 1898, I-3A, p7
28
AJHR, 1898, I-3A, p2
29
AJHR, 1898, I-3A, pp 110-12
26
125
This was also clear in discussion of what role owners would play in the management of their
lands. Some Maori felt that regardless of whether it was compulsory to vest land in the
boards, owners must still have a say over what the board did with their lands. This was seen
as particularly important because many feared that the boards would be governmentcontrolled. Te Heuheu told the Native Affairs Select Committee that under the government’s
proposed Bill, a land board would probably use money from leases for roads and public
works without reference to the owners, who would receive little or no money from their
property.30 The Kotahitanga wanted the land to be controlled by block committees elected by
the owners rather than broader land boards, whether appointed or elected, which covered a
large area.31 This perhaps reflects a fear that control by Maori from another iwi could be as
bad or worse than control by the government. Northern Maori MHR Hone Heke Ngapua, on
the other hand, accepted regional boards and did not mind how they were appointed as long
as they were required to formally consider the owners’ views.32
Another major point of contention was the composition of the boards, councils or
committees. The government’s 1898 Bill proposed boards consisting of five members: the
local Commissioner of Crown Lands, two Pakeha members appointed by the Governor, and
two Maori members elected by Maori in the district. By contrast, Western Maori MHR
Henare Kaihau’s Maori Council Constitution Bill envisaged a sort of national Maori Council
of 56 members under the mana of the Maori King, with local committees under it. As well as
meeting the usual Pakeha opposition to substantial Maori autonomy, the Bill was also
opposed by the other Maori MHRs because of the power it gave to the King and his
successors. It was discharged before its second reading.33 Later Kaihau, speaking about
Maori councils in general, said that he had no objection to a Pakeha being appointed to a
council ‘to instruct the Maori members’.34 However his preference was that Europeans
should be kept out of it. ‘What would be the object of bringing in a pakeha that did not
30
AJHR, 1898, I-3A, p8
AJHR, 1898, I-3A, pp 110-12; Walker, He Tipua, p89
32
Gilling, Mana of their own Land, p22
33
'Kaihau, Henare - Biography', from the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography. Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of
New Zealand, updated 1-Sep-10, URL: http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/biographies/2k3/1
34
AJHR, 1899, I-3A, p3
31
126
understand the position, and giving him an opportunity to hamper and get in the way of what
the Maoris would like to do?’35
The Kotahitanga’s Native Lands Protection and Administration Bill appears to be an attempt
to forge a compromise between what Maori wanted and what Pakeha were prepared to
accept. The Commissioner retained his position as chairman, but other members would be
Maori appointed by the Governor.36 Advocating a similar system, Paratene Ngata told the
Native Affairs Select Committee that the chairman would guide the Maori members through
the Pakeha system and reassure Pakeha investors who might not want to lend money on lands
controlled exclusively by Maori.37 The appointment rather than election of the Maori
members addressed the concerns of some people, both Maori and Pakeha, that the most
effective and competent members were not necessarily those who would win a popular
election. Perhaps it was also a concession to the state, allowing it complete control over board
membership in exchange for a four to one Maori majority.38 Other Maori specifically wanted
elected board members.39 A Kotahitanga parliamentary committee, led by Apirana Ngata and
Ngapua, drafted a new Bill in early 1900 which would have set up Maori land boards,
papatupu committees and block committees. All these groups would be supervised by an
officer of the Crown and audited regularly, but the block committees would work under the
direction of the block owners.40 The block committees were probably inspired by those
organised by Ngata’s iwi Ngati Porou, which according to Paratene Ngata were ‘managing all
these lands very well’.41 John Williams argues that the Kotahitanga’s new Bill ‘gave the
Maoris real autonomy but preserved legal control and governmental supervision’.42 Virtually
all Maori wanted any committees to have Maori majorities, but there was a range of opinion
as to how membership should be chosen.
The question of what powers any boards or councils would have was not debated as
vigorously as other issues, but there was still considerable diversity. The government’s
Native Lands Settlement and Administration Bill limited the land boards’ role to management
35
AJHR, 1899, I-3A, p5
AJHR, 1898, I-3A, p110
37
Gilling, Mana of their own Land, p19
38
AJHR, 1898, I-3A, p110
39
AJHR, 1899, I-3A, p1
40
Walker, He Tipua, p89; Williams, Politics of the New Zealand Maori, pp 107-8
41
Gilling, Mana of their own Land, p17
42
Williams, Politics of the New Zealand Maori, p108
36
127
of blocks vested in it.43 Bills proposed and amended by Maori tended to give them much
wider powers. The Kotahitanga’s Bill dispensed with the Native Land Court, although not its
staff, and gave the boards many of the Court’s powers, such as ascertaining title and adding
names to titles where they had been unjustly left off. Local committees were to investigate
and determine partitions and relative interests, appoint successors and trustees, and adjudicate
and ascertain titles to land which had not come before the land court.44 Kaihau’s Bill replaced
the Land Court with a 56-member Maori Council but also gave local councils numerous local
government powers such as liquor and dog licensing, as well as authority in land disputes.45
Later he argued that Maori councils should have:
…power to manage and deal with all matters in regard to land questions affecting the
people. Matters of social economy and the regulation of all matters; in fact, in connection
with everything – money, crops, land negotiations, and transactions of every kind which
affect the welfare of the people.46
In general, there was widespread Maori support for the abolition of the Land Court, or at least
the transfer of at least some of its power to Maori committees.47
In the 1890s Maori and Pakeha were both highly dissatisfied with the contemporary system
of Maori land law, although for somewhat different reasons. There was a strong will towards
cooperation and compromise on both sides. Maori generally realised that government support
would be necessary to change the system, and the government realised that any new system
would be much more effective if Maori were prepared to fully engage with it. As a result, the
government spent a considerable amount of time seeking Maori viewpoints and trying to find
a system which most Maori would support, and many Maori were keen to have their voices
heard. One theme which comes through very clearly is that Maori wanted as much autonomy
over their land as possible.
The Maori Lands Administration Act
According to its preamble, the Maori Lands Administration Act 1900 had four purposes: to
reserve the five million acres remaining in Maori ownership for Maori use and benefit in a
43
AJHR, 1898, I-3A, pp 94-109
AJHR, 1898, I-3A, pp 110-12
45
Williams, Politics of the New Zealand Maori, p103
46
AJHR, 1899, I-3A, p3
47
Gilling, Mana of their own Land, p21; Walker, He Tipua, p89; Williams, Politics of the New Zealand Maori,
pp 107-8; AJHR, 1898, I-3A, p27; AJHR, 1899, I-3A, p1
44
128
way which would protect them from landlessness; to provide for the better settlement and use
of unproductive Maori land; to encourage Maori efforts of ‘industry and self-help’; and to
improve the administration of Maori land, in particular preventing ‘useless and expensive
dissensions and litigation’. The Act required the Governor to define and gazette six or more
Maori land districts in the North Island, each to have a Maori Land Council. Each land
council was to have five to seven members: a president and two or three other people
appointed by the Governor, one of whom had to be Maori; and two or three Maori to be
elected by the Maori of the district. This meant that there would either be a Maori majority or
equal numbers of Maori and Pakeha. There was potential for the council to be entirely Maori,
since there was no requirement that any of the members had to be non-Maori. However the
president had both a deliberative and casting vote, and only one Maori member was required
to constitute a quorum as long as a majority of the total council was present.
The land councils had numerous duties. One was to take over the Native Land Court’s duties
in ascertaining ownership, partition and succession, defining interests, and appointing
trustees. However they could only do this if directed to by the Chief Judge of the Native Land
Court. Another was to determine how much (if any) land each Maori in its district had rights
to and could be supported by. Every Maori man, woman and child was to be issued with a
papakainga certificate linked to a specific piece of land sufficient to support him or her. This
land was to be absolutely inalienable and no Maori could sell land without producing a
papakainga certificate declaring that he or she had land elsewhere. The only exception was if
their land was unsuitable for occupation, in which case it could be sold and the proceeds
spent on suitable land, chosen by the council. Pakeha were banned from acquiring Maori land
unless they formally declared that the land was for their own use and that they did not hold or
own more than 640 acres of first class or 2000 acres of second class land, including the land
to be acquired. The only exception was if the land to be acquired was of very poor quality, in
which case the Governor in Council could increase the maximum landholding.
Individual and collective owners of Maori land could vest it to their land council on mutually
agreed terms regarding leasing, subdividing and development. The council had the power to
declare such land inalienable, if this was requested by the owners, and also to lease and
borrow money upon the land, but not to sell it. Proceeds of leases were to be spent first on
meeting the land councils’ administration costs, then on repaying all mortgages and other
129
debts affecting the land, then distributed to the owners in shares proportionate to their
interests. Owners, if there were more than ten of a block, could also request land councils to
administer their land for them. As with vested land, administered land could not be sold.
At the time when the Act was passed, there was a moratorium on all alienation of Maori land
whether by purchase or lease. Everyone other than the Crown was barred from acquiring
Maori land under section 117 of the Native Land Court Act 1894, and the Crown had barred
itself from acquitting more Maori land under the Native Land Laws Amendment Act 1899.
Nevertheless, Section 22 of the Maori Lands Administration Act dealt with sales and leases,
presumably in the event of the alienation restrictions being revoked.
Section 22 stated that all leases of Maori land had to be approved by the local land council.
However the procedure for sales was completely different. Sales of land owned by three or
more people had to be approved by the Governor in Council, not the land council. If it was
owned by one or two people, its sale required no approval from anyone. Maori land with only
one or two owners, then, was theoretically easier to sell than to lease, and blocks owned by
more than two people could be sold but not leased without the assent of the wider
community, even as imperfectly represented by the land council. Parliament’s attention was
repeatedly drawn to this anomaly by Wellington MHR Arthur Atkinson, who argued that it
must have been the result of a drafting error.48 Despite Atkinson’s best efforts the clause went
unchanged, although there was some debate about whether the council’s approval should be
required to sell blocks owned by more than two people.49 Section 22 reads as an attempt to
make Maori land, especially if it was not communally owned, easier to sell than to lease. As
sales and leases were both illegal at this point, this was of limited relevance. The Act was
amended in 1903 to allow the Governor, on the recommendation of a Maori land council, to
remove any restriction on the alienation of Maori land, thereby allowing sales and leases with
council approval.50
Section 22 was replaced in a 1901 amendment. The new Section 22 stated that no alienation,
whether by sale or lease, of Maori land owned by one or two people would be affected by the
48
NZPD, 1900, vol 115, p199; NZPD, 1900, vol 115, p500
NZPD, 1900, vol 115, p368
50
Maori Land Laws Amendment Act 1903, s14
49
130
Act.51 This meant that neither the land councils nor the Governor in Council had any veto
over alienation of individually or dually owned Maori land. However, Maori land with one or
two owners could now be leased as easily as it could be sold, notwithstanding other
contemporary legal requirements. The requirement for Governor in Council rather than land
council approval for sales of communally owned land remained. The various section 22s are
somewhat confusing, particularly in conjunction with contemporary restrictions on alienation.
This chapter will show that by 1903 the land councils were allowing leases but not sales of
Maori land.
The Act also allowed the establishment of Papatupu Block Committees, made up of
representatives of those claiming to be owners of any block of papatupu land, that is, land
which had not undergone a title investigation or determination. Committees could report to
the local land council on the ownership of the block and the relative shares of each owner.
The council, having given ‘all parties concerned’ the opportunity to be heard, could confirm
the report, with whatever modifications it saw fit. As of 1904, the only papatupu land in the
Rohe Potae inquiry district seems to have been the Moerangi block east of Aotea Harbour,
and, as we will see, its ownership was not determined under the land council system.52
Many of the features of the Act seem to have had their origins in suggestions made by the
MHRs Kaihau, Pere, and Ngapua in 1899. Kaihau had proposed that no Maori land should be
alienable by sale or lease without the consent of the local Maori land council, and that the
councils should allocate land for the support of every Maori and issue them with papakainga
certificates.53 Pere had suggested the appointment of block committees and the voluntary,
rather than compulsory, vesting of land in the boards.54 He had also proposed that the board
have powers along the lines of those which the district Maori councils ended up with under
the Maori Councils Act 1900, ‘to take charge of sanitary matters connected with the Maoris’
and to urge children to attend school.55 Ngapua had argued for papatupu committees to define
boundaries and ownership, and elected block committees.56 Although numerous other
suggestions – the abolition of the Native Land Court, for example – were not taken up, the
51
Maori Lands Administration Amendment Act 1901, s 4
AJHR 1904 C-1 (North Island, New Zealand, showing the land-tenure, 1903-4)
53
AJHR, 1899, I-3A, p24
54
AJHR, 1899, I-3A, p25
55
AJHR, 1899, I-3A, p26
56
AJHR, 1899, I-3A, pp 26-7
52
131
Act can nonetheless be seen as a granting of some Maori requests, albeit those made with an
eye to what would be acceptable to Pakeha. As Gilling points out, the creation of Maori
committees or councils to take over the functions of the Land Court was something for which
numerous Maori had been campaigning for several years.57
Introducing the Bill to parliament, Seddon argued that it would solve the problem of Maori
lands lying idle because of fragmented or communal ownership. It would also allay the fears
of ‘many of the older chiefs’ who refused to have their land surveyed or developed because
of concerns that this would lead to its sale. While dealing with these problems, Seddon
argued, the legislation would avoid the two evils concerning Maori land: on one hand, the
land remaining uncultivated and, on the other, Maori becoming landless and destitute.58
Seddon summarised his argument for the Bill – and indeed for his Liberal Party’s Maori land
policy in general – by saying that:
We do not wish to see the Maoris disappear, nor do we wish to see them a burden upon
the ratepayers. We do not wish to see them landless, but we do desire and we do insist
that the land owned by them shall be made productive, and that this keeping back from
settlement valuable lands in the colony, which has been the case for so many years, must
be put a stop to. And it is for the well-being of the Maoris themselves as well as the
Europeans.59
Auckland City MHR William Napier supported these goals, saying that ‘the two objects
which ought be attempted by every Native Land Bill are: First, the preservation of the Native
race; and, secondly, the promotion of settlement.’60 However some of Napier’s other
comments suggest that his objects had been stated in the wrong order. For example he argued
that if Maori were unwilling to sell their land it should be leased to Pakeha under ‘the eternal
lease of the Land Act… based on its present capital value’.61 The option presented by the Bill
of allowing the land councils to lease lands was unsatisfactory, Napier argued, because they
would tend to lease only small areas of land and the costs of doing so would render the lands
virtually unprofitable to the owners.
57
Gilling, The Mana of their own Land, p27
NZPD, 1900, vol 115, p167
59
NZPD, 1900, vol 115, p168
60
NZPD, 1900, vol 115, p172
61
NZPD, 1900, vol 115, p173
58
132
Other MHRs doubted that Maori had the capacity to be land councillors. For example, Napier
MHR Alfred Fraser asked Seddon to ‘tell us where he is going to find a body of Natives in
the North Island to whom he would intrust the administration of his lands. I know of none to
whom I would give such responsible powers’. He then quoted mid-nineteenth century lands
commissioner H Hanson Turton as arguing that any system of Maori councils would be
unworkable unless placed under English supervision.62 Atkinson supported this, although
claiming that this was not a slur upon Maori. ‘I would not trust a pakeha elected in the
manner proposed in this Bill to perform anything approaching the functions mentioned in the
Bill; and it is no insult to the Maori race, therefore, to say I would not trust them under the
same kind of election’.63 We have seen that Maori universally saw Maori autonomy as
essential to a good system of Maori land administration, but many Pakeha refused to believe
that they could exercise this properly.
Maori Land Council districts and membership
The Maori land districts were created in the period from 1900 to 1902, with the Waikato
district the last to be gazetted. Unfortunately no maps of the districts at the time of their
creation were located at the time of writing, but most of the Rohe Potae inquiry district was
within the Hikairo-Maniapoto-Tuwharetoa district (called Maniapoto-Tuwharetoa from
190264), which seems to have encompassed most of the Rohe Potae and the area to the east of
it.65 The northern part of the Rohe Potae was in the Waikato district. These areas seem to
have been the most difficult to define, essentially because of conflicts involving the
Kingitanga.
It appears that the government initially considered including the Maniapoto, Tuwharetoa and
Waikato rohe in the same land council district. This provoked protests from several
Maniapoto and Tuwharetoa leaders, who objected to being in the same district as Waikato.66
Hui were held in which Maniapoto, Whanganui and Taupo Maori agreed that they did not
want to share a district with Waikato. Several Rohe Potae Maori also attended a Waikato
62
NZPD, 1900, vol 115, p176
NZPD, 1900, vol 115, p195
64
New Zealand Gazette, 30 October 1902, p2401. The shorter name will be used for the sake of consistency and
brevity even in periods in which the old name still applied.
65
New Zealand Gazette, 19 December 1901, no 106, p2413
66
Te Heuheu Tukino and others to Seddon, 24 October 1900, Taonui and others to Sheridan, 27 November
1900, and Taonui Hikaka and others to Minister for Public Works, 30 November 1900, MA-MLA 1/1, ANZW.
SD vol 2, pp 491, 498-504
63
133
meeting to discuss the issue.67 In early 1901 Wiremu Te Huihi and 54 others petitioned
Seddon asking for the districts to remain separate. In support of this, Huihi cited the ‘perfect
Confederation’ formed in 1883 between Maniapoto, Raukawa, Tuwharetoa, Whanganui and
Hikairo.68 He argued that ‘Our Rohe Potae is an entirely separate and distinct District known
to be such by all outside tribes and the boundaries thereof are well defined.’ Huihi regarded
the creation of the Kawhia Native Committee district, and Bryce’s refusal to accede to
Waikato’s request for some of its territory, as acknowledgment of the separate Rohe Potae
district. This suggests that Huihi and others may have regarded a merging of the land council
districts as a violation of an agreement to keep the Rohe Potae separate and distinct. Huihi’s
objections, and probably those of the others opposing the merged districts, centred on the fear
that Waikato, who were numerous and relatively land-poor, would use the land council to
gain control of the lands of other iwi.
Waikato and their supporters in the Rohe Potae also lobbied the government, although it
seems less vigorously. In February 1901 Miri Rangitoheriri of Ngati Raukawa wrote to
Seddon saying the he and his hapu wanted to be under ‘Mahuta’s Council’.69 Mahuta also
wanted more of his supporters’ land in the Waikato council district, and according to
Loveridge withdrew his support for the land council system in protest at the proposed
boundaries.70
In order to solve the conflict, W H Grace called a meeting at Otorohanga on 29 March 1901.
This was attended by ‘a large number of leading Chiefs, representing both parties’, and a
decision was made to hold a referendum on the issue, with votes held throughout both
proposed districts. In the ‘Rohe Potae’ (probably the Rohe Potae of the 1883 petition) there
was a majority of 158 (from 1400 votes) for separate Maniapoto and Waikato districts, but
this came about only because of the preference of minors’ trustees for that option. If the vote
had been restricted to adult landowners, the vote would have been 380 to 323 in favour of a
united district. In the Waikato, with no minors represented, the vote for the united district was
universal, with 633 votes. Grace also sought out the votes of 234 Tuwharetoa temporarily at
67
Wiremu Te Huihi and 54 others to Seddon (translation), 18 January 1901, MA-MLA 1/1, ANZW. SD vol 2,
pp 505-18; Auckland Star, 21 May 1902, p2
68
Wiremu Te Huihi and 54 others to Seddon (translation), 18 January 1901, MA-MLA 1/1, ANZW. SD vol 2,
pp 505-18
69
Miri Rangitoheriri to Premier, 16 February 1901, MA-MLA 1/1, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 519-20
70
Loveridge, Maori Land Councils, p30
134
Rotorua, all of whom voted for separate districts. This resulted in a final 133-vote majority
for a unified district. He noted that there were about three or four hundred landless Waikato
Maori who supported a unified district but were not allowed to vote, plus various followers of
Te Whiti and Te Kere, whose religious beliefs forbade them from voting. There were also 40
adults and 78 minors at Taumarunui who wanted to be included in the Aotea district rather
than either of those suggested. Meanwhile Tauranga and Tuwharetoa wanted their own
districts, although Tuwharetoa told Grace that if this was not an option they preferred to join
with Maniapoto and be separate from Waikato. Of ‘Rohe Potae’ Maori landowners, Grace
wrote that those in favour of a separate district owned much more land within the proposed
Maniapoto-Tuwharetoa district than those in favour of a unified district.71 This landholding
majority seems to have been the decisive factor, and Waikato and Maniapoto-Tuwharetoa
were constituted as separate districts.
Mahuta was not ready to concede defeat, and attempted to persuade Maniapoto not to support
the land councils until the boundary issue had been resolved to his satisfaction. He travelled
to Otorohanga in February 1902 to meet with representatives of Maniapoto and Tuwharetoa
and urge them not to nominate anyone until the boundaries had been changed.72 However
representatives of Ngati Maniapoto, Ngati Tuwharetoa, Ngati Rangitahi, Ngati Hikairo and
Ngati Mahuta had already met in January and agreed on who to nominate. According to
George Wilkinson this had been done so that the nominees would be ‘satisfactory to all
parties’.73 They now wanted to persuade Waikato to ‘join with them in accepting the Act and
making it a success’, and so Te Heuheu Tukino and Henare Hetet asked Wilkinson to delay
nominations while they and other iwi representatives met with Mahuta.74 According to
Wilkinson, they offered to let Mahuta nominate candidates for the council, knowing that he
would feel obliged to nominate the men already chosen. Mahuta’s supporters were opposed
to this and the party withdrew.75 However at the nomination meeting convened by Wilkinson,
Hone Kaora of Ngati Hikairo, Kereheka Huiarangi of Ngati Raukawa, Tuteao Kiwi and
71
Grace to Premier, 26 July 1901, MA 19 6/9, ANZW. SD vol 1, pp 300-7
Wilkinson to Superintendant, Maori Lands Administration Office, 12 February 1902, and Wilkinson to Under
Secretary of Justice, 17 February 1902, MA-MLA 1/2, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 522-6
73
Wilkinson, memo on back of list of Maniapoto polling places, 28 December 1901, MA-MLA 4/1, ANZW. SD
vol 2, p542
74
Wilkinson to Superintendant, Maori Lands Administration Office, 12 February 1902, MA-MLA 1/2, ANZW.
SD vol 2, pp 522-4
75
Wilkinson to Under Secretary of Justice, 17 February 1902, MA-MLA 1/2, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 525-6
72
135
Wharerangi of Ngati Tahu all requested that the lands of their iwi and hapu, and of Ngati
Whakatere, Ngati Rereahu, and part of Ngati Maniapoto, be withdrawn from the ManiapotoTuwharetoa district. Wilkinson responded by saying that the district boundaries had already
been fixed by the Governor and gazetted, and he could not discuss the matter at a nomination
meeting.76
Later in 1902 Carroll agreed to transfer the Wharepuhanga block in the eastern Rohe Potae
and some land around Kawhia into the Waikato Land Council District.77 Mahuta continued to
press for more boundary changes, but these were not forthcoming.78 In May 1902 a large hui
on the issue was held at Huntly, at which several Maniapoto chiefs spoke in favour of a
united district.79 As with Grace’s poll, however, those who supported a united district
controlled much less Rohe Potae land than did those who wanted separate districts.
According to the Auckland Star, ‘The large land-owners do not want Waikato helping to
administer the Rohepotae territory’.80
The boundaries of the Waikato district were gazetted in July 1902 and nominations for its
land council called.81 According to Wilkinson, Kingitanga representatives again tried to stop
any candidates from being nominated until the district boundaries had been further modified,
but Mataitaua of Ngati Maru nominated candidates in order to force the Kingitanga to
participate. The Kingitanga was compelled to nominate its own candidates, whereupon
Mataitaua withdrew his nominations.82 The Kingitanga’s candidates were now unopposed,
and were declared elected.83 Wilkinson wrote to his superiors that in future nominations
should take place in public in a European settlement rather than in a Maori kainga:
...so that Natives who may not have the same political views as those of the King party
may be able to attend without restraint, and where they will not be subject to influence of
76
Wilkinson to Superintendant, Maori Lands Administration Office, 12 February 1902, MA-MLA 1/2, ANZW.
SD vol 2, pp 522-4
77
‘Memorandum of the understanding arrived at between Mahuta Tawhiao and the Hon the Native Minister (Mr
Carroll) in relation to the boundaries of the Tuwharetoa-Hikairo-Maniapoto and Waikato Districts under the
Maori Land Administration Act’, 25 May 1902, MA 19 6/10, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 328-9
78
Carroll (unsigned) to Mahuta, 31 May 1902, MA 19 6/10, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 330-1
79
Auckland Star, 22 May 1902, p3
80
Auckland Star, 22 May 1902, p3
81
New Zealand Gazette, 10 July 1902, p1472
82
Wilkinson to Land Administration Officer, 15 August 1902, MA-MLA 1/2, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 527-8
83
New Zealand Gazette, 21 August 1902, no 66, p1738
136
any kind. In this instance, had Mataitaua been a timid, or irresolute person and easily
influenced, no nomination of candidates would have taken place.’84
This episode, and the one preceding nominations for the Maniapoto-Tuwharetoa Land
Council, reveal that in some cases the elected members were chosen more according to
consensus, inter-tribal negotiation, and possibly Maori custom, than by European-style
election. However elections were contested in most other districts.85
Every land council had three elected Maori members and, apart from the president, either two
or three appointed members, at least one of whom had to be Maori. This meant that appointed
members could have a majority, and in at least some cases they were chosen on the
recommendation of the president, which may have meant he had allies in the council.86
However it also meant that Maori always had a majority. In practice, four councils (Tokerau,
Waiariki, Maniapoto-Tuwharetoa and Waikato) had a four to two Maori majority, Te Ikaroa a
five to one majority, Aotea a five to two majority, and Tairawhiti a four to three Maori
majority.87 The president was paid a salary by the Government, and the other members were
paid ten shillings plus expenses for every day they were on land council business. The
members’ money came out of the council’s funds, which derived from its fees and any
revenue from vested lands.88
In 1902, an amendment allowed land council presidents to be authorised to act as Native
Land Court judges.89 Several presidents, including those of Maniapoto-Tuwharetoa and
Waikato, were given this power, but it is not known how this impacted on their work.90
Appearing before the Native Affairs select committee in 1905, Maniapoto-Tuwharetoa Land
Council member Pepene Eketone complained that in his district ‘the Government go and take
our President away and make him a Judge of the Native Land Court, and nearly all his time is
occupied in doing Native Land Court work, and the immense amount of council work that
should be done is simply left undone’.91 Rather than facilitating the land councils’ work,
84
Wilkinson to Land Administration Officer, 15 August 1902, MA-MLA 1/2, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 527-8
Loveridge, Maori Land Councils, pp 32-33. The elections were also uncontested in Te Ikaroa.
86
Marr, Alienation of Maori Land 1840-1920, p147
87
Loveridge, Maori Land Councils, pp 32-4. In each case it has been assumed that members with European
names were Pakeha, with the exception of John Ormsby.
88
Maori Lands Administration Act 1900, s7 (12)
89
Native and Maori Land Laws Amendment Act 1902, s5
90
New Zealand Gazette, 19 March 1903, no 20, p811
91
AJHR, 1905, I-3B, p10
85
137
giving presidents the powers of judges appears to have taken them away from their councils.
However more research needs to be done to uncover the relationship between the councils
and the Court.
The initial Maniapoto-Tuwharetoa Land Council consisted of:
President:
George T. Wilkinson
Crown appointees:
John Elliot
John Ormsby
Elected members:
Pepene Eketone
Eruiti Arani
Te Papanui Tamahiki92
Elliot seems to have lasted only a few months before being replaced by William McCardle,
who was later a Member of the Legislative Council.93 McCardle in turn resigned late in 1903,
and was replaced by James Seymour, who went on to occupy several minor positions of
authority such as Justice of the Peace.94 McCardle had stated that his place of residence
(apparently Kawhia) was too far from the Council’s place of meeting to ‘do justice’ to the
work.95 This has implications for the ability of the Council to be geographically
representative.
Wilkinson was previously Native Agent at Alexandra and then Otorohanga in the 1880s. He
was also the Government’s land purchase officer in the Rohe Potae in the 1890s. He was
married to a Maori woman and according to Cathy Marr ‘obviously knowledgeable in Maori
language and customs’, but ‘expected and welcomed the assimilation of Maori into European
society and culture.’96 He died in 1905 and was replaced by Alfred Puckey, previously a
member of the Waiariki District Maori Land Council.97 Ormsby had been chairman of the
Kawhia Committee, and a Maniapoto spokesman since the 1880s. At other times he was a
92
New Zealand Gazette, 13 March 1902, no 22, p636; New Zealand Gazette, 24 July 1902, no 59, p1558. The
elected members were those chosen at the meeting in February. Wilkinson to Superintendant, Maori Lands
Administration Office, 12 February 1902, MA-MLA 1/2, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 522-4
93
New Zealand Gazette, 8 January 1903, no 1, p56; New Zealand Gazette, 31 January 1907, no 10, p331. No
record of Elliot’s resignation, dismissal or death could be found in the Gazette.
94
New Zealand Gazette, 12 November 1903, no 86, p2386; New Zealand Gazette, 18 July 1907, no 63, pp 2141,
2148
95
McCardle to Carroll, 3 August 1903, MA-MLA 1/2, ANZW. SD vol 2, p532
96
Marr, Alienation of Maori Land 1840-1920, pp 60-1
97
New Zealand Gazette, 17 August 1905, no 76, p1993
138
Land Court assessor, the first advisory counsellor for the Maniapoto Maori Council, and a
successful farmer.98 He also became a fairly important figure in Otorohanga, representing the
town in a deputation to the Minister of Works in 1912.99 In 1905 he became clerk and
returning officer for Waitomo County Council.100 Eketone was also a Land Court assessor,
took on the Maniapoto Maori Councillor advisory counsellor role in 1906, and in 1901 was
already known for successfully guiding Maori through the Land Court.101 He later became
one of the founding members of the Te Kuiti Borough Council.102 No information on Elliot,
Arani or Tamahiki could be found in the time available, except that Arani was from
Moawhango and Tamahiki was from Taupo.103 If we assume that Elliot was Pakeha, the
Council had a four to two Maori majority, including at least two men skilled and experienced
in the law and politics of Maori land, both of whom would go onto careers in local
government.
The initial members of the Waikato Maori Land Council were:
President:
William Gilbert Mair
Crown appointees:
William Duncan
Henare Kaihau
Elected members:
Mare Teretiu
Hare Teimana
Wirihana te Aoterangi104
Mair was a brother of Maori Councils superintendant Gilbert Mair and had commanded an
Arawa contingent in the Waikato War before becoming a Native Land Court judge.105 While
this would not appear to be an ideal background, he was on good terms with the Kingitanga
in the 1870s, and they had protested when he had been dismissed from his official posts in
98
M. J. Ormsby, 'Ormsby, John - Biography', from the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography. Te Ara - the
Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 1-Sep-10, URL: http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/biographies/2o8/1
99
Evening Post, 1 August 1912, p8
100
Jane Luiten, ‘Local Government in Te Rohe Potae’, a report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal,
January 2011, Wai 898, A24, p89
101
Angela Ballara, 'Eketone, Pepene - Biography', from the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography. Te Ara - the
Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 1-Sep-10, URL: http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/biographies/3e3/1
102
Luiten, p84
103
Wilkinson to Superintendant, Maori Lands Administration Office, 12 February 1902, MA-MLA 1/2, ANZW.
SD vol 2, pp 522-4
104
New Zealand Gazette, 21 August 1902, no 66, p1738; New Zealand Gazette, 30 October 1902, no 86, p2401
105
‘William Gilbert Mair’, A Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, edited by G.H. Scholefield, 2 vols
(Wellington: Department of Internal Affairs, 1940), vol 2, pp 46-7
139
1878.106 Henare Kaihau was the MHR for Western Maori, and although other MHRs argued
that he should not hold both positions, he did not resign from the Council until 1905.107 In the
early 1910s he was accused of financial impropriety by both parliament and the Kingitanga
and subsequently lost the support of the Kingitanga and his seat in parliament.108 Teimana
also aspired to parliament, and stood against Kaihau in Western Maori in 1905, coming last
with only 122 votes to Kaihau’s 3003.109 Te Aoterangi was a Te Akau rangatira who had
been a government ally during the Waikato War.110 He had spoken in favour of a united
Waikato-Maniapoto district at a major hui on the issue.111 No information could be found on
Teretiu in the time available, except that he was from Thames and had been the defendant in
a 1894 test case on whether it was compulsory for Maori to pay dog tax.112 Like ManiapotoTuwharetoa, the Waikato Council had a four to two Maori majority, which in this case
included an established parliamentarian.113
William Duncan was a chief land valuator, and may also have been the William Duncan JP
who chaired a mostly Maori community meeting at Kawhia in 1884.114 He was said to be
fluent in the Maori language, which may have been an unofficial requirement for all Maori
Land councillors.115 In 1904 George Wilkinson was appointed to the Council, probably as a
replacement for Duncan, although no record of Duncan’s resignation, dismissal or death
could be located at the time of writing.116 Wilkinson was later replaced by James Wakelin
Browne, a registrar of the Native Land Court and President of the Tokerau Maori Land
Council, who had been present at the Waikato Land Council’s first meeting.117
106
Parsonson, pp 58-9
Gilling, Mana of their own Land, p43
108
Michael King, Te Puea: A Life, 4th ed (Auckland: Reed, 2003), pp 58-63; ‘Kaihau, Henare’, Dictionary of New Zealand
107
Biography
109
Wanganui Herald, 23 December 1905, p5
Wanganui Chronicle, 27 November 1907, p5
111
Auckland Star, 22 May 1902, p3. In this report he is called Te Ao-o-terangi.
112
Auckland Star, 15 August 1902, p4; Thames Star, 19 February 1894, p2
113
Assuming that Duncan was Pakeha.
114
Waikato Times, 7 October 1884, p3; New Zealand Herald, 22 April 1903, clipping, MA-MLA 1/2, ANZW.
SD vol 2, p531
115
New Zealand Herald, 22 April 1903, clipping, MA-MLA 1/2, ANZW. SD vol 2, p531
116
New Zealand Gazette, 3 November 1904, p2655
117
New Zealand Herald, 22 April 1903, clipping, MA-MLA 1/2, ANZW. SD vol 2, p531; New Zealand
Gazette, 9 February 1905, no 10, p317; New Zealand Gazette, 17 August 1905, no 76, p1993. The 17 August
1905 Gazette records on p1993 that Browne was simultaneously a member of the Waikato Council and
President of the Tokerau Council.
110
140
It has been noted that many land council presidents, including both Wilkinson and Mair, had
careers involving Maori land and its acquisition by the State.118 As Marr points out, ‘such
appointments could hardly have inspired Maori confidence in the new councils or in the
wisdom of voluntarily vesting land in them.’119 Gilling writes that such men ‘seemed unable
to divest themselves of their former roles and methodologies.’120 While Land Council
President, Wilkinson completed land purchases organised before the state purchase
moratorium, spending some time tracking down owners for signatures.121
There is some debate over whether the land councils were controlled by Maori or the
government. Loveridge argues that most ‘were in fact not far removed from being Maori
bodies with a European judge as president.’122 Hill, by contrast, sees the councils as
government-controlled and claims that ‘Crown-appointed Maori had “loyalist” backgrounds’.
As his only example he refers to Ormsby, although not by name, as having ‘served a long
apprenticeship on official “native committees”.’123 In the context of Hill’s wider argument
that the land councils could never have been a vehicle for Maori autonomy, this clearly
implies that the loyalty of Ormsby and other Crown appointees was to the Crown rather than
to Maori. Other Crown appointees included Kaihau on the Waikato council and Ihaia Hutana
of Te Ikaroa. Hutana had fought on the government side during the New Zealand Wars, but
was later involved in both the Repudiation movement and the Kotahitanga.124 Kaihau was
essentially a Kingitanga appointee to parliament and spent much of his time opposing the
government. It is therefore difficult to see how he could be described as ‘loyalist’. A better
description of Ormsby, Kaihau, Hutana, and possibly the other Maori Crown appointees,
would probably be that they were men who were familiar with Pakeha systems and could
work within them for their own and their people’s ends. In their examination of the
Maniapoto-Tuwharetoa Land Council’s dealings with native townships, Heather Bassett and
118
Marr, Alienation of Maori Land 1900-1960, p8
Marr, Alienation of Maori Land, 1900-1960, p8
120
Gilling, The Mana of their own Land, p45
121
Marr, Alienation of Maori Land 1840-1920, p146
122
Loveridge, Maori Land Councils, p34
123
Hill, State Authority, Indigenous Autonomy, p73
124
Angela Ballara and Don Hutana, 'Hutana, Ihaia - Biography', from the Dictionary of New Zealand
Biography. Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 1-Sep-10, URL:
http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/biographies/2h58/1
119
141
Richard Kay show that Wilkinson tended to concede to majority decisions and that most
resolutions were made or seconded by either Ormsby or Eketone.125
According to Loveridge, Kaihau’s appointment to the Waikato Maori Land Council was one
of the conditions under which the Kingitanga initially supported the land council system.126
Speaking at the Council’s first meeting, Kaihau said that:
…he had consistently opposed the Maori Land Administration Act in its present form, as
he did not consider it to be calculated to advance the interests of the Maori people. The
Government had been unceasingly urging on Mahuta and himself to consent to the Act
being brought into operation. Many offers were made and promises held out to them, but
they withheld their consent until they found the Act was in force throughout the
remainder of the colony. He then considered it advisable to have it put into force in this
district. He, however, was not satisfied with respect to the boundaries of the district as
proclaimed, and pointed out that Mr. Carroll, the Native Minister, had not fulfilled the
promise he had made about the readjustment of them. He had accepted a seat in the
council at the request of the Government, because he wished to become personally
acquainted with the working of the Act, and be able to suggested beneficial amendments
in his place in Parliament. Meanwhile he would carefully watch over the interests of the
Maori people and assist in carrying out the new Act.127
The Kingitanga’s cautious cooperation with the Act was also shown by Mahuta being the first
applicant before the Waikato Council, requesting a removal of restrictions on alienation of
land owned by himself and his wife at Kawhia. The Council satisfied itself that Mahuta
owned other land and unanimously agreed to the removal.128 It was also reported that Mahuta
offered the 47,000 acre Moerangi block to the Council for administration, but it seems more
likely that he only put the block forward for title investigation.129
In his report on the Maori land boards which succeeded the land councils, Hutton notes the
heavy commercial and political involvement of some of the members, and raises the question
of conflict of interest. He cites Ormsby’s resignation from the Land Board in 1906 as
evidence that members were required to forego their private business in order to avoid
conflicts of interest.130 According to his resignation letter, Ormsby quit because ‘the
125
Heather Bassett and Richard Kay, ‘The Impact of the Native Townships Acts in the Rohe Potae: Te Kuiti,
Otorohanga, Karewa, Te Puia and Parawai Native Townships’, a report for Crown Forestry Rental Trust,
November 2009, p82
126
Loveridge, Maori Land Councils, p30
127
New Zealand Herald, 22 April 1903, clipping, MA-MLA 1/2, ANZW. SD vol 2, p531
128
New Zealand Herald, 22 April 1903, clipping, MA-MLA 1/2, ANZW. SD vol 2, p531
129
Waikato Times, 18 April 1903, clipping, MA-MLA 1/2, ANZW. SD vol 2, p530; Hearn, p63n
130
Hutton, pp 7-8
142
remuneration being inadequate and the responsibilities so great in connection with the
position which hampers one very much in regards to my private business, I am unable to
continue’.131 Members were banned from voting on any matter in which they had a beneficial
interest.132 However it is not clear that Ormsby resigned due to conflict of interest. Another
way of understanding his resignation letter is that he felt the Land Council took too much
time from his extensive commercial activities. Given his heavy and apparently profitable
involvement in Otorohanga, which was turned into a native township during Ormsby’s land
council tenure, this seems more likely than a concern over conflicts of interest.133 This is
reinforced by allegations made in 1904 by a group of Kawhia settlers that he was using his
position on the Council to interfere with the land dealings of his commercial competitors.134
In addition, councillors frequently dealt with applications from members of their own
families, and there is no evidence that they withdrew in these cases.135 Native Department
Under-Secretary Thomas Fisher wrote in 1909 that he understood that Ormsby had resigned
because of his personal interest in much of the Council’s business, but if this was so it is
interesting that he was a member for five years before he felt the need to resign. 136
Maori Land Councils in operation
In the previous section we saw that it was not until 1902 that the area and membership of the
final land council (Waikato) were established. The life of the land councils, especially in the
Rohe Potae inquiry district, can be taken to begin in this year. From the Stout-Ngata report of
1907 onwards, the land councils have often been seen as a failure because Maori were
reluctant to engage with them, especially in terms of vesting their land. This section will
examine the extent of Maori involvement with the land council system, especially in the
Rohe Potae, and reasons why this may have been limited.
Very little Rohe Potae land was vested in the land councils under the 1900 Act. By 1903,
50,528 acres had been vested nationwide, but 90% of this was in the Aotea district, to the
131
Ormsby to President, Maniapoto-Tuwharetoa Maori Land Administration Board, 20 September 1906, MA 19
6/9, ANZW. SD vol 1, p315
132
New Zealand Gazette, 26 February 1903, no 15, p618
133
See section below on native townships for information on this.
134
MacKenzie and two others to Native Minister, 25 February 1904, MA-MLA 1/3, ANZW. SD vol 2, p540
135
Bassett and Kay, pp 81-2
136
Fisher to Native Minister, 9 July 1909, note on back of Ormsby to Carroll, 2 July 1909, MA 19 6/9, ANZW.
SD vol 1, p320
143
south of the Rohe Potae.137 The amount of land vested in the Maniapoto-Tuwharetoa Council
soon increased: 693 acres was vested in 1903, 18,065 in 1904 (the Tapapa block) and 49,656
in 1905 (the Wharetoto block).138 As we will see, the Tapapa and Wharetoto blocks appear to
have been compulsorily vested. The only vested land in the Rohe Potae inquiry district was
the townships of Te Kuiti and Otorohanga, and the 1,800 acre Maraetaua block. The Tapapa
and Wharetoto blocks, vested in 1904 and 1905, lay outside the inquiry district.139 It was
much more popular to hand land to the Council for administration: by the end of August
1906, 114,226 acres had been transferred in this way.140 This included 25,607 acres of the
Rangitoto-Tuhua block, in the south-east of the inquiry district, transferred in 1904.141 No
land had been vested in the Waikato Maori Land Council at this stage, or handed over for
administration.142
According to Wilkinson, Rohe Potae Maori found the Land Council most useful for
approving private leases, which were now legal. In reference to the recently partitioned
Rangitoto A block, he explained that:
The Natives are willing to dispose of some of their land for settlement purposes, and as a
source of revenue for themselves, but I do not think they intend to transfer them to the
Council. I believe they made the partitions with a view to making their own arrangements
with European lessees, and then coming to the Council for Recommendations for
Removal of Restrictions and for Consent to the proposed leases. This is the most popular
way amongst the Natives (and Europeans also) of this district of making use of the local
land Council (one hundred and twenty cases of this sort have already been before the
Council)… By this process the Natives are not put to any expense, the Pakeha lessees
generally paying all the costs attached to coming before the Council. By this course the
Natives get out of paying a yearly percentage of their rents for cost of management, etc.
which they would have to pay were the land transferred to the Council. Whether they get
as much rent for their land by the first named process of dealing as they would be the
second does not seem to trouble them. They look however to the Council to see that the
137
Gilling, The Mana of their own Land, p46
Loveridge, Maori Land Councils, p37. The statistics cited by Loveridge combine the Maniapoto-Tuwharetoa
and Waikato districts, but a memo from 1906 states that no land had yet been vested in Waikato. Clerk of
Waikato Maori Land Board to Under Secretary for Native Affairs, 25 May 1906, MA 19 6/10, ANZW. SD vol
2, pp 332-3
139
Hearn, p58
140
Hearn, p61
141
Hearn, pp 61-2
142
Clerk of Waikato Maori Land Board to Under Secretary for Native Affairs, 25 May 1906, MA 19 6/10,
ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 332-3
138
144
rent the European lessee proposes to pay them is a fair and reasonable one, and to protect
their interests generally.143
This summary was backed up by Wilkinson’s successor, A F Puckey, who wrote that Maori
in the district preferred to lease directly to Pakeha rather than vest in the Council. He also
noted that the land which the Council controlled was generally of poor quality and ‘hardly
worth offering for lease... the natives have kept back their good lands, and transferred to the
Council those blocks only, which they could not deal with themselves.144 It appears from
these reports that Rohe Potae Maori were able to use the land councils to approve their own
arrangements, avoiding costs while gaining some protection from unfair lease agreements,
and transferring only land which they had little use for. In addition, the legalisation of private
leases returned to Maori a key means of profiting from their land while still maintaining
ownership of it. Despite this, Wilkinson wrote that he would try his hardest to get landowners
to transfer some of their land to the Council.145
By 1906 Maori land councils and their successor land boards had approved 139,441 leases
across the North Island.146 In the Maniapoto-Tuwharetoa district, 33 leases involving 16,819
acres had been consented to by August 1904, and township leases in Te Kuiti and Otorohanga
had been auctioned.147 In the Waikato Land Council district, consent had been granted for
leases of 44 blocks totalling more than 7000 acres by 1906.148 By this time a total of 41,055
acres had been leased in the Rohe Potae block, including 7,751 acres under timber leases and
4,850 under coal-prospecting leases.149 We can see that in terms of acreage the amount of
land leased was considerably less than that handed to the Council for administration; however
it seems likely that the leased land was of significantly better quality.
Councils in some areas also worked hard to establish title over blocks which had not been
before the Land Court.150 By the start of the twentieth century, however, the only such block
in the Rohe Potae inquiry district appears to have been Moerangi, in the Waikato Land
143
Wilkinson to Sheridan, 2 April 1904, MA-MLP 1 70 1904/28, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 544-5
Puckey to Native Department, 22 June 1906, MA 19 6/9, ANZW. SD vol 1, pp 308-14
145
Wilkinson to Sheridan, 2 April 1904, MA-MLP 1 70 1904/28, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 544-5
146
Gilling, The Mana of their own Land, p47
147
Hearn, p47. For examples of native township lease auctions, see New Zealand Gazettes in 1903 and 1904.
148
The lease consents concerned a total of 7004 acres, 3 roods and 18.4 perches. Clerk of Waikato Maori Land
Board to Under Secretary for Native Affairs, 25 May 1906, MA 19 6/10, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 332-3
149
AJHR, 1907, G-1B, p8
150
Loveridge, Maori Land Councils, p39
144
145
Council district.151 In 1903 a papatupu block committee was nominated to determine
ownership, but in 1906 Holland wrote that there was widespread Maori ‘disapproval’ of the
papatupu system in the district, and as a result there had been no title determinations there.152
Moerangi came before the Native Land Court in 1909, when its ownership was contested by
seven parties.153
Wilkinson’s reports indicate that the Maniapoto-Tuwharetoa Land Council was very busy.
This was especially so after Mahuta’s acceptance of an Executive Council seat, which
Wilkinson wrote had ‘made a great change in the attitude of those natives in this district who
in the past have been opposed to the Maori Land Administration Act and the councils
appointed under it.’154 By December 1903, Wilkinson was busy enough to ask for a clerk,
preferably one fluent in Maori, to assist him in his land council work.155 He was offered a
Native Land Court trainee; this was in sharp contrast to the lack of governmental support for
the Maori Councils.156 By 1905 his Council had collected £157/18/4 in fees, second only to
Tokerau (£257/4/0) and Aotea (£182/18/0).157
The Waikato Maori Land Council did not hold its first meeting until April 1903, after which
Mair reported that ‘very good progress has been made and Kaihau has helped in every
way.’158 By July the Council had received three applications to set up block committees, and
‘eighty applications for papakainga certificates, leave to lease etc. Other cases may come on
when the Council opens’.159 However the Kingitanga quickly resumed its antagonism
towards the land council system. In response to the introduction of compulsory vesting
discussed below, Kaihau told parliament that ‘I cannot agree to the land being handed over to
the Council, even though I am myself a member of a Council.’160 By 1905 the Waikato Maori
Land Council had collected £29/10/6 in fees; the second lowest total out of the land councils
151
AJHR 1904 C-1 (North Island, New Zealand, showing the land-tenure, 1903-4)
Thames Star, 15 July 1903, p4; Clerk of Waikato Maori Land Board to Under Secretary for Native Affairs,
25 May 1906, MA 19 6/10, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 332-3
153
Paula Berghan, ‘Block Research Narratives: CFRT 1508: Te Rohe Potae District Research Assistance
Project’, 2009, pp 533-5
154
Wilkinson to Sheridan, 14 July 1903, MA-MLA 1/3, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 535-7
155
Wilkinson to Sheridan, 12 December 1903, MA-MLA 1/3, ANZW. SD vol 2, p538
156
Sheridan to Wilkinson, 18 December 1903, MA-MLA 1/3, ANZW. SD vol 2, p539
157
AJHR, 1905, G-8, p1
158
Mair to Sheridan, 16 April 1903, MA-MLA 1/2, ANZW. SD vol 2, p529
159
Mair to Sheridan, 13 July 1903, MA-MLA 1/3, ANZW. SD vol 2, p534
160
NZPD, 1903, vol 127, p535
152
146
after Ikaroa, which had collected just £20.161 In 1906 the clerk wrote that the Waikato
Council had dealt only with ‘matters of a formal nature’ such as applications for removal of
restrictions, consent to lease, and leave to complete purchase. Maori in the district were
‘disinclined’ to vest land in the Council for administration, and the clerk doubted that this
would change. They were also unenthusiastic about investigating title via block committees,
and as a result only nine papatupu applications had been received.162 As was mentioned
earlier, the land councils never successfully determined title in the Waikato Land Council
district.
The extent to which Maori refused to engage with the Maori land council system has been
debated by historians. The Stout-Ngata Commission argued that it was always ‘doomed to
fail’ because Maori did not want to entrust the councils with their lands.163 Ngata had been
critical of the land council system from its beginning. In December 1900 he had said that the
Maori Lands Administration Act was ‘a compromise and not a very good one.’164 The
administrative machinery it set up was ‘heavy and cumbrous, and unless considerably
improved and simplified next session, he doubted whether any body of Maories would entrust
their lands to the “Maori Land Council” to be administered.’165 The Stout-Ngata viewpoint
has been adopted by some historians, although mostly those who have not studied the land
council system in detail.166 Historians who have examined the system tend to view it in a
more favourable light. In his draft lands report for this inquiry, for example, Terry Hearn
argues that the Maori Lands Administration Act ‘provided for a good measure of Maori
control over the lands remaining in their ownership and for the leasing rather than sale of
such lands’.167 Loveridge argues that Maori engagement was increasing steadily before the
transformation of the land councils into Pakeha-controlled land boards. He emphasises, for
example, the increased amount of land vested in the councils up until 1905. The evidence
provided above seems to support the argument for Maori engagement, especially in relation
to Maniapoto-Tuwharetoa. Although by all accounts Rohe Potae Maori preferred to lease
161
AJHR, 1905, G-8, p1
Clerk to Waikato District Maori Land Council to Under Secretary for Native Affairs, 25 May 1906, MA 19
6/10, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 332-3
163
AJHR, 1907, G-1c, p6
164
Report of the Fifth Conference of the Te Aute College Students’ Association, December 1900, p7
165
Report of the Fifth Conference of the Te Aute College Students’ Association, December 1900, p8
166
Williams, Politics of the New Zealand Maori, p120; O’Malley, Agents of Autonomy, p184; Boast, p220
167
Hearn, p43
162
147
their land than transfer it to the councils, a considerable acreage was handed over for
administration in the Maniapoto-Tuwharetoa district. In both that district and in the Waikato
district, the councils seem to have provided a valuable service by scrutinising and approving
leases.
A key part of Loveridge’s argument is that the 1900 legislation had not made Maori land any
less complicated to deal with. Much still lay under multiple or disputed ownership. Many
blocks were partly owned by the Crown but had not been partitioned, meaning that no-one
knew who owned which parts.168 The land councils legislation did nothing to fix this; it
simply transferred the problem to the councils. The Stout-Ngata Commission argued that one
of the reasons for the apparent Maori non-engagement with the system was that much
remaining ‘idle’ Maori land had by 1900 ‘reached that stage when the struggle in the Native
Land Courts was or anticipated to be most acute’.169 Moving this struggle to the land councils
did not necessary make its resolution any quicker, even if the participants were fully
supportive of the council system. The Commission also found that leases approved by
councils were frequently held up by the need for surveys, succession orders or partitions,
something which had been a problem under the old system.170 The new system also resulted
in new delays, for example the need for many council decisions to be officially approved. In
1905 Te Heuheu Tukino complained that Maori Land Administration Department
superintendant Patrick Sheridan was delaying approval for months without explanation.171
There were also administrative delays to the distribution of rent money in native townships,
which would have put off potential vestors.172
Financial constraints also caused serious problems. Eketone told the Native Affairs Select
Committee in 1905 that his Council controlled 40,000 acres of land but lacked the money to
do anything with it. Consequently Maori in the area were reluctant to hand over any more
land.173 Seddon had admitted the previous year that the councils required more money to
work effectively, but none seems to have been forthcoming.174
168
Marr, Alienation of Maori Land 1900-1960, p3
AJHR, 1907, G-1c, p6
170
AJHR, 1907, G-1B, p8; Marr, Alienation of Maori Land 1900-1960, p3
171
AJHR, 1905, I-3b, p16
172
Bassett and Kay, p112
173
AJHR, 1905, I-3B, p6
174
AJHR, 1904, B-6, pxvii
169
148
As a percentage of land owned by Maori in the Rohe Potae district, the acres dealt with by
the Maori land councils were few. However, this does not necessarily indicate that Maori
were opposed to the land council system or reluctant to engage with it. There is evidence that
there was a backlog of land to be dealt with, and that Maori may have used the system less
than they would have liked. In addition, numerous pre-existing features of the Maori land
tenure system continued to make Maori land very difficult and time-consuming to deal with,
regardless of what system was being used. Many Maori certainly had reservations about the
land councils and wanted changes made to their operation, and the Kingitanga was generally
opposed to the system and avoided involvement with it. However within the ManiapotoTuwharetoa Land Council District there was still significant engagement.
Maori Land Councils and Native Townships
According to the Stout-Ngata Commission, in 1907 the only vested land belonging to
Maniapoto was in various native township lands.175 This land had been vested under the
Native and Maori Land Laws Amendment Act 1902, which allowed compulsory vesting and
subsequent management by the land council ‘for the benefit of the owners’. The council
could have townships surveyed and subdivided, and was also responsible for sorting out
disputes between owners, selling or leasing allotments, and distributing rent money to the
owners after deducting costs.176 The consent of land owners was not required for the
establishment of a native township, although they could object via the Native Land Court. 177
Regulations gazetted in 1903 gave lessees right of renewal, providing for what was described
by officials as ‘practically a perpetual lease’.178
Otorohanga and Te Kuiti were both well established by 1900. According to Luiten, ‘Land
sale revenue had been invested in modern buildings, and by the mid-1890s both were said to
have the semblance of Pakeha villages’.179 The Pakeha population seems to have mostly been
leasing the lands they occupied and, according to Suzanne Woodley, a key factor behind the
proclamation of native townships was the settler desire for more certain title.180 The
175
AJHR, 1907, G-1B, p7
Native and Maori Land Laws Amendment Act 1902, s 8-11
177
Suzanne Woodley, The Native Townships Act 1895, Rangahaua Whanui National Theme S (Wellington:
Waitangi Tribunal, 1996), p7
178
New Zealand Gazette, 26 February 1903, no 15, p619; Marr, Alienation of Maori Land 1840-1920, p147
179
Luiten, p81
180
Woodley, p15; Marr, Alienation of Maori Land 1840-1920, p139
176
149
government had been attempting to convert Otorohanga into a native township since passing
the Native Townships Act 1895, but the owners had objected because they had been
developing their land and did not want to lose control of it to the Crown.181 Civil service
opinion in Wellington was that ‘a township will be formed whether they like it or not’, but
the owners’ opposition was supported by Wilkinson.182 In a letter to Sheridan, he asked if:
…the Act was ever intended to be exercised in places like Otorohanga or Te Kuiti where
the Native owners have spent hundreds of pounds mostly the proceeds of land sales to
Govt, in building houses and improving their property and, as in the case of Otorohanga,
where the land proposed to be taken under the Act consists of some 50 or more separate
Blocks. Many of small areas (from 1 to 5 acres) some of which are fenced in, built upon,
and improved... in the occupation of the owners?183
Plans continued to be made for the taking of land, but were postponed in 1900 on Ormsby’s
request, pending consultation with local hapu.184 The money spent by the owners on
improving their land appears to have been an important factor.185 A few native townships
were proclaimed around Kawhia in the first years of the 1900s, without the involvement of
the land councils, none of which proved successful.186
The Maori land councils’ increased powers of administration over native townships, granted
in 1902, appear to have made Maori more open to the proclamation of such townships.187
Certainly Maori land council members were now enthusiastic, and in 1902 Eketone and
others were asking the government to take land in Te Kuiti and Otorohanga.188 On 22 January
1903 both towns were proclaimed as Native Townships and all Maori land in them vested in
the Council.189 Eketone, Ormsby and Wilkinson put together a plan for the subdivision of Te
Kuiti, designed to fit around existing reserves. The Lands Department was somewhat
reluctant to put this into action as they felt their own plan was better, but concluded that ‘we
are bound to allow the [Land] Council a free hand in this matter’.190 Te Kuiti seems to have
attracted official attention as it was the first township to be dealt with under the Maori Lands
181
Bassett and Kay, p36
Bassett and Kay, p36
183
Wilkinson to Sheridan, 18 March 1896, quoted in Bassett and Kay, p37
184
Minister of Lands to Lang, 17 September 1901, LS 1 471 42821, ANZW. SD vol 1, p266
185
Hursthouse to Barron, note on Ormsby to Premier, 18 September 1900, LS 1 471 42821, ANZW SD vol 1,
p265
186
Marr, Alienation of Maori Land 1900-1960, p13
187
Bassett and Kay, p84
188
Surveyor General to Under Secretary of Lands, 3 December 1902, LS 1 471 42821, ANZW SD vol 1, p267
189
New Zealand Gazette, 29 January 1903, p254
190
Assistant Surveyor to District Surveyor, 20 March 1903, LS 1 471 42821, ANZW SD vol 1, pp 268-9
182
150
Administration Act, and the precedents set in its establishment may have been influential.191
According to the Stout-Ngata Commission report, the Maniapoto experience with the town
was positive enough for some owners to request that the Land Board act as agent for future
leases.192 Less is known about Otorohanga, but John Ormsby became chairman of the Town
Board, and he and his family managed a range of businesses in the town, including a hotel,
quarry, butcher, baker and land insurance company.193
Owners of township land could apply to have their land reserved if they intended to live on it,
and in most cases these applications seem to have been granted. Those who wished to lease
the land themselves, rather than through the land council, generally had their reserve
applications declined, or withdrew them on assurance that they would be compensated for
improvements.194 Some of the rents set by the Maniapoto-Tuwharetoa Land Council for
township lands were high enough to provoke complaints in parliament, suggesting owners
were getting a good return.195
Once native townships had been established, the provisions for Maori to be involved in their
running were minimal. The Native Townships Act 1895 stated that the local government of
native townships ‘shall be such as the Governor in Council prescribes’.196 There is no
evidence of the Governor establishing any form of local government in either Otorohanga or
Te Kuiti. The Native Townships Local Government Act 1905 set up a standard form for
native township governance, although the Act did not automatically apply to native
townships but had to be made subject to it by the Governor. Otorohanga and Te Kuiti were
brought under the Act in 1908.197 Native township councils were to have five members, with
the first council consisting of four elected members and one Maori member nominated by the
Governor.198 The nomination would probably have been done on the recommendation of the
Maori land council president, who organised the elections. Subsequent councils were to be
elected, with no requirement for Maori representation.199 Suffrage was based on residency,
191
Chief Draftsman to Government Printer, 30 October 1903, LS 1 471 42821, ANZW SD vol 1, p270
AJHR, 1907, G-1B, p7
193
Ormsby, ‘Ormsby, John’, Dictionary of New Zealand Biography
194
Bassett and Kay, pp 98-104
195
Wanganui Chronicle, 9 July 1904, p7
196
Native Townships Act 1895, s 24
197
New Zealand Gazette, 24 September 1908, no 73, p2506
198
Native Townships Local Government Act 1905, s
199
Native Townships Local Government Act 1905, s 4(c)
192
151
rather than property ownership as was generally the case with county councils, with no
weighted or plural voting.200 The initial Te Kuiti Council included at least two Maori
members: Pepene Eketone and J T Hetet, at least one of whom must have been elected.201
John Ormsby was chair of the first Otorohanga Council.202 In her study of local government
in the Rohe Potae, Jane Luiten concludes that the minimal provisions for local government in
native townships suggests that ‘the whole native townships legislation was a short-term
expedient to force a Pakeha toehold of settlement into areas of strong Maori control.’203 The
lack of provision for ongoing Maori representation supports this.
Legislative change and the demise of the Land Councils
As detailed earlier in this chapter, the Maori Lands Administration Act was brought about,
after several years of consultation and debate, because of widely acknowledged difficulties
with the prior system of Maori land administration. Given the scale of the problems, it would
have been unrealistic to expect their immediate resolution. However the history of the Act
seems primarily to demonstrate parliament’s impatience. Parliament began chipping away at
the voluntary principle almost immediately, introducing provisions for compulsory vesting
from 1902. Then in 1905 the entire system was radically overhauled, with the land councils
replaced with Pakeha-dominated Maori land boards. From this point on it is clear that
whatever scope the land councils had as a vehicle for Maori autonomy was gone.
Parliament began legislating for the compulsory vesting of Maori land in the land councils
from 1902, with the native townships legislation discussed above. Two years later, two
amendments were introduced, allowing Maori land councils to take over land with rates or
some kinds of mortgage debt owing on it, such as that accrued through survey costs,
primarily in order to avoid the land being sold for debt recovery.204 The 1904 Acts took
autonomy away from Maori landowners, but could at least prevent land from being lost
through these kinds of debt. There was not, however, any provision for the land to be
returned once the debt had been repaid.205 By June 1906, Puckey could write that:
200
For a summary of standard local government franchise arrangements, see Luiten, pp 31-5.
Luiten, p84
202
Luiten, p85
203
Luiten, p81
204
Native Land Rating Act 1904, s 9 and Maori Land Claims Adjustment and Laws Amendment Act 1904, s 3
205
Loveridge, Maori Land Councils and Boards, p43n
201
152
…considerable areas have been vested in the [Maniapoto-Tuwharetoa] Council for
administration, not however by conveyance from the Native owners, but owing to moneys
becoming due for survey costs, the surveyors or their representatives pressing for
payment.206
This however seems to have involved only two blocks, Wharetoto and Tapapa No. 3, both of
which were outside what is now the inquiry district.207
Having diluted the principle of Maori autonomy by introducing compulsory vesting,
parliament virtually removed it with the Maori Land Settlement Act 1905. This replaced the
land councils with Maori land boards consisting of three members, only one of whom was
required to be Maori, and all of whom were to be nominated by the Governor.208 During
debates on the Bill, Ngapua’s proposal that two of the three members should have to be
Maori was defeated in parliament by 48 to 14.209 The removal of the elected component was
the only substantial way in which the councils themselves (as opposed to their powers) were
altered. Loveridge argues that:
It seems obvious from this that the Government had only one substantial objection to the
existing land council system: the presence of elected representatives of the landowners in
the decision-making process. No major changes in the way the basic system worked were
deemed to be necessary at this time.210
In the Maniapoto-Tuwharetoa district, the Board members were Alfred Puckey (President),
John Ormsby and James Seymour, all of whom had been appointed members of the
Council.211 As mentioned above, Ormsby resigned in 1906, and was replaced by Hare
Hemara Wahanui, about whom no information could be found.212 Puckey was removed in
September 1906, and replaced with Native Land Court Judge Robert Campbell Sim, who in
turn was soon transferred to another area and replaced by James Wakelin Browne, who had
recently been made a Land Court judge.213 In 1909 Browne resigned and was replaced by
Albert George Holland.214 Unlike his two immediate predecessors, Holland does not seem to
206
Puckey to Native Department, 22 June 1906, MA 19 6/9, ANZW SD vol 1, pp 308-14
Puckey to Native Department, 22 June 1906, MA 19 6/9, ANZW SD vol 1, pp 308-14
208
Maori Land Settlement Act 1905, ss 2, 3
209
Loveridge, Maori Land Councils, p63
210
Loveridge, Maori Land Councils, p63
211
New Zealand Gazette, 8 March 1906, no 34, p745
212
New Zealand Gazette, 4 October 1906, p2606
213
‘New Zealand Gazette, 27 September 1906, p2522; New Zealand Gazette, 6 December 1906, p3115
214
New Zealand Gazette, 5 August 1909, no 62, p2041
207
153
have been a Land Court Judge, but was instead a Land Court Registrar in Auckland and a
former member of the Tokerau District Maori Land Council.215 Browne was also the first
president of the Waikato District Maori Land Board, the other members being James Mackay
and Mare Teretiu. Teretiu had been an elected member of the land council, and Mackay may
have been the land agent and former civil servant and judge of that name who was living in
Paeroa from 1896.216 Browne resigned from the Waikato Council in 1909 and was replaced
by Cholwell Dean Pitt, who had also replaced Browne as President of the Tokerau Maori
Land Board, while James Mackey seems to have been replaced by David Stewart.217 Stewart
died soon after and was replaced by James Donaldson Steedman, a Ranger of Crown
Lands.218
As well as removing the elected membership from the land councils and turning them into
boards, the 1905 Act provided that Maori land in the Tokerau and Tairawhiti districts could
be compulsorily vested in the land boards if, in the opinion of the Native Minister, it was ‘not
required or not suitable for occupation by the Maori owners’. The board could then survey
and subdivide it, and lease the resulting blocks for up to fifty years.219 Meanwhile, Crown
purchasing of Maori lands was resumed everywhere except in those two districts. The Act
also removed all previously existing restrictions and limitations on the leasing of Maori land
throughout the country, although the board still had to approve leases, and could not do so
unless the rent proposed was at least five percent of the land’s capital value; the owner had
sufficient other land or income for his or her own support; and the lease was for his or her
benefit and for no longer than fifty years. Leases were to be by public auction.220 The boards
were also enabled to borrow money using vested land as security, with interest to be paid
from the land’s income.221
The 1905 legislation meant that the land boards, as they now were, were no longer under
Maori control, and also undid the work of previous decades in protecting Maori land from
215
New Zealand Gazette, 6 September 1906, no 76, p2331; New Zealand Gazette, 17 August 1905, no 76,
p1993
216
New Zealand Gazette, issue 82, 27 September 1906, p2523; Harry C. Evison, 'Mackay, James - Biography',
from the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography. Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 1-Sep-10
URL: http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/biographies/1m29/1
217
New Zealand Gazette, 2 July 1908, no 52, p1787; New Zealand Gazette, 7 October 1909, no 84, p2542
218
New Zealand Gazette, 18 April 1907, no 35, p1248; New Zealand Gazette, 20 January 1910, no 4, p196
219
Maori Land Settlement Act 1905, s8
220
Maori Land Settlement Act 1905, ss 9, 16-17
221
Maori Land Settlement Act 1905, ss 10-12
154
alienation. The amount of Maori land under lease increased dramatically.222 Although the
amount of land which could be compulsorily vested was fairly limited outside the Tokerau
and Tairawhiti districts, there were still several ways in which land could end up under the
now Pakeha-controlled boards. Subsequent legislation, which will be outlined below, added
to these.
On a nationwide basis, Maori attitudes towards the changes were mixed. There was a
surprising amount of support for the compulsory vesting provisions. Ngapua and Wi Pere
both supported its application to their areas, perhaps because of the concurrent exemption
from Crown purchasing, and Ngapua claimed that the only reason that it was not more widely
applied was that Pakeha MHRs had objected.223 Appearing before the Native Affairs select
committee earlier in the year, Eketone had said that having the council manage unused lands
would be preferable to an open market in Maori land, which would ‘obliterate the Maori
people’.224 Like Te Wherowhero Tawhiao, who with 276 others petitioned parliament around
this time, Eketone expressed general support for the councils system but felt that it needed
more power and money to work properly.225 If it had this, he argued, ‘I have no doubt that
quite a million acres or more will be handed over to the [Maniapoto-Tuwharetoa] Council
during the first year’.226 However this would only happen if it was fully recognised that the
Council was the trustee of the land and not its owner; he adamantly opposed the section in the
Maori Land Settlement Bill which made the council the land’s owner in fee simple.227 He and
Te Wherowhero also felt that it was vital for there to be a Maori majority on the councils and
for Maori members to be elected so that people could recall them if they failed to carry out
their wishes.228 It is safe to assume that neither man supported the legislation passed in 1905.
During parliamentary debate on the Maori Land Settlement Bill in 1905, Kaihau said that ‘it
means an attempt to take from the Maoris the balance of their lands now remaining to them
and hand it over to the Europeans.’229 He called for Maori landowners to be given ‘the right
to deal with and dispose of their land in the manner that seems best to them’, and argued that
222
Loveridge, Maori Land Councils, p64
NZPD, 1905, vol 135, pp 719-20
224
AJHR, 1905, I-3B, pp 3-4
225
AJHR, 1905, I-3B, pp 2, 3
226
AJHR, 1905, I-3B, p6
227
AJHR, 1905, I-3B, p4
228
AJHR, 1905, I-3B, pp 2, 6
229
NZPD, 1905, vol 135, p717
223
155
if this was done then large areas of land would be made available for settlement.230 He also
opposed the provision for all members of the land boards to be appointed, although he had no
objection to there being one Pakeha member. Kaihau argued that Maori in his electorate were
extremely wary of having their lands managed by any state body, mostly because of the
negative experiences of some iwi with the Public Trustee.231
The combination of compulsory vesting and removal of the land boards’ Maori majority
meant the end of the Maori land councils as a vehicle for Maori autonomy. The new boards
may or may not have conducted their affairs according to the wishes of Maori landowners,
but the crucial point is that the owners no longer had a say in the matter. Nor could Maori
simply refuse to participate in the system, since there were now a variety of reasons for which
their land could be compulsorily vested in the boards. They might receive rent money –
although even this was not guaranteed – but they no longer had control over their own
property.
Change continued after 1905. The Native Department was reconstituted in 1906, with a focus
on bringing Maori land into ‘more profitable use’.232 It took over the administration of the
land boards, which Loveridge argues shifted the focus of decision making from the individual
boards to the civil service and politicians in Wellington.233 It also increased the consistency
of the boards’ actions, with guidelines for standard procedures such as the approval of leases
being introduced for the first time; whether this was good or bad for Maori landowners is
unclear.234 That year also saw the passage of the Maori Land Settlement Act Amendment
Act, which added infestation with noxious weeds to the reasons for which Maori land could
be compulsorily vested.235
Despite the ongoing debates about Maori land and what should be done with it, and the huge
amount of legislation on this topic, until 1907 no real attempt had been made ‘to acquire
some reliable data on the actual state of Maori land ownership, instead of relying on anecdote
and prejudice’.236 In that year Chief Justice Sir Robert Stout and Eastern Maori MHR
230
NZPD, 1905, vol 135, p717
NZPD, 1905, vol 135, p718
232
Hearn, pp 135-6
233
Loveridge, Maori Land Councils, p64
234
Loveridge, Maori Land Councils, p64
235
Boast, p225
236
Boast, p227
231
156
Apirana Ngata were commissioned to investigate how much unoccupied or unused Maori
land there actually was, how these lands could best be used and settled ‘in the interests of the
Native owners and the public good’, and how the existing machinery for dealing with Maori
land could be improved.237 The Commission was officially called the Royal Commission on
Native Lands and Native Land Tenure but is usually known as the Stout-Ngata
Commission.238
The Commission sat at Te Kuiti, Otorohanga and Taumarunui in May and June 1907.239 It
viewed Maori in the Rohe Potae and elsewhere as being either ‘progressives’ who wanted to
develop their lands and were willing to sell or lease those which they could not use
themselves, and ‘objectors’, many of whom ‘merely desired to be left alone and to live in the
old style’.240 The Commissioners were unsympathetic to the latter group, telling a group of
Ngati Raukawa ‘objectors’ that ‘the settlement of the country cannot be delayed by either
Maori or European, and if the Ngati-Raukawas will not utilise their land other people must be
found who will utilise it.’241 Taonui and other ‘progressives’ put together a memorandum for
the Commission and had it delivered by John Ormsby, ‘one of the most prominent leaders of
the progressive party’.242 This memorandum argued that ‘the laws affecting Native lands
have proved harassing, and entirely against progressive settlement’, and while the
Maniapoto-Tuwharetoa Board had done good work, this had been limited ‘by the many
defects in the Act’ and the failure of the government to adequately fund it.243 The
memorandum made ten recommendations ‘for the protection and effective settlement of our
lands’:
All lands to be administered by a Board with extended powers, and under conditions to
the provisions of section 17 of “The Maori Lands Settlement Act, 1905.” The members of
such Board shall be men having special knowledge of land-settlement. The President to
reside in the district.
237
AJHR, 1907, G-1c, pp 1-2
Boast, p226
239
AJHR, 1907, G-1B, p6
240
AJHR, 1907, G-1B, p6
241
AJHR, 1907, G-1B, p6
242
This Taonui was not the well-known Taonui Hikaka, who had died in 1892. It is not clear who this other
Taonui was.
243
AJHR, 1907, G-1B, p6
238
157
Practical farmers to be appointed as instructors, and paid by the State. They shall travel
through the district, giving advice in practical farming, and where necessary supervise the
expenditure of loans.
Loans under the Advances to Settlers Act be granted to Natives with the approval of the
Board, and when necessary expanded under its direction. Where Native proves incapable,
the Board may take and lease the land.
Papakainga to be inalienable.
Land in suitable areas to be set apart for farming by the owners, also reserves for minors.
Surplus lands to be leased or sold by auction.
The Board to have discretionary powers either to withhold or to direct the expenditure of
rents and the proceeds of land-sales, so as to prevent squandering.
Exchanges of land to be simplified.
Sales of land to the Crown to be discontinued.
All restrictions to be removed from lands of capable Natives.244
In summary, ‘capable’ Maori were to be allowed to do what they liked, with the help of
Advances to Settlers loans, less capable Maori were to be taught how to farm and have their
financial activities monitored by the land boards, and Maori in general were to be protected
by the ending of Crown purchase, the inalienability of papakainga and the establishment of
reserves. ‘Surplus’ lands could be leased or sold, but only through public auction.
Taonui’s suggestions were strongly objected to by another group of Maniapoto, led by Wehi
Ringitanga. Their much shorter memorandum stated that ‘we wish to deal with our lands, by
sale or lease, direct with the purchaser or lessee without the interference of any Native land
board or council, always reserving for each Native sufficient land for a papakainga.’245
According to Hearn this group was allied with the Kingitanga.246 The Commissioners stated
that Rohe Potae Maori, ‘though divided in opinion as to the best method of opening their
lands to settlement, are anxious and eager to have those lands made productive as soon as
244
AJHR, 1907, G-1B, p6
AJHR, 1907, G-1B, p7
246
Hearn, p110
245
158
possible’. It was also claimed that only defects in law, and difficulty with land title, had
prevented ‘a much larger area’ from being brought into ‘profitable occupation’.247 This
summary is essentially accurate, but misses the vital point that Rohe Potae Maori wanted
most of all to retain as much autonomy over their land as possible. Taonui’s ‘progressive’
group were prepared to sacrifice the autonomy of Maori it saw as ‘incapable’, but only so that
they did not waste their inheritance.
The Stout-Ngata Commission’s interim report was published in the 1907 AJHR, and made
several recommendations.248 There included the proposals that:
Crown purchase of Native land under the existing system be discontinued.
Pending dealings to be completed, but three-fourths of the purchase money to
be held in trust for the owners and either invested by the Public Trustee or
used for improvement of their other lands.
Alienation by direct negotiation between owners and private individuals be
prohibited.
All further alienations to occur only through the land boards as agents for the
owners.
Land boards be enabled to sell land if the owners so desire; in order to raise
money for roads, surveys, opening of land for settlement, or to discharge liens
or encumbrances; in order to raise money for owners to farm; or to the Crown
for forest reserves, parks and similar.
Land boards to be enabled to lease land or borrow money on it.
All sales and leases to be by auction to the highest bidder, with three quarters
of the money to be paid to the Public Trustee for investment.
Land Boards to be enabled to reserve burial places, village sites, and
papakainga, and to grant leases and certificates of partnership to Maori
tenants.
With regard to the Rohe Potae, the Commission also recommended that the ManiapotoTuwharetoa Maori Land Board be given the power to sell nearly 35,000 acres of land and to
247
248
AJHR, 1907, G-1B, p7
AJHR 1907, G-1C, pp 16-19
159
lease a further 164,000 acres.249 These recommendations fulfilled some of the requests of
made by the Rohe Potae ‘progressives’. However they failed to recommend any system of
advancing money to Maori landowners, whether via the Advances to Settlers Act or other
means. Perhaps more importantly, the Commission also made little allowance for the
autonomy desired by the progressives for ‘capable’ Maori, and by the Taonui group for
Maori generally.
The Native Land Settlement Act 1907 was intended to give effect to the Stout-Ngata
Commission’s recommendations, but took even more autonomy from Maori than the
Commission had suggested. The Act stipulated that any Maori land deemed by the
Commission to be not required by its owners and available for settlement could be placed
under land board control without the owners’ consent.250 In the Rohe Potae inquiry district,
1,037,710 acres were categorised in this way: more than five times more than the acreage
suggested by the Commission.251 Under section 11 of the Act, such land was to be split into
two equal parts: one for sale and one for lease by public auction.252 For the first time,
compulsorily vested land could be sold. Hearn argues that Rohe Potae Maori were neither
consulted about this measure nor told which or how much land would be affected.253 This
judgement is supported by at least one contemporary newspaper report.254 In 1909 a Ngati
Maniapoto petition to James Carroll specifically requested section 11 be repealed.255
More changes were made in 1908. The boards were enabled to run vested land owned by 10
or more people as a farm, with the profits to be distributed to the owners in the same way as
rent money. The board was to appoint a manager, and the owners could elect a Committee of
Management, of which the manager was to be chairman.256 Perhaps most importantly, the
land boards became responsible for approving all alienations of Maori land, whether by sale
or lease, to the Crown and to private buyers, regardless of the number of owners.257 These
amendments substantially increased the boards’ work and advanced the process by which
249
AJHR G-1C, p20.
Native Land Settlement Act 1907, part 1
251
Hearn, p96
252
Native Land Settlement Act 1907, part 1
253
Hearn, pp 120-1
254
Evening Post, 8 November 1907, p8
255
Hearn, p140
256
Maori Land Laws Amendment Act 1908, s12
257
Maori Land Laws Amendment Act 1908, s4
250
160
Maori land board presidents were able, by the 1930s, to preside over what Richard Boast
calls ‘complex commercial and land-management empires’.258
For most of the second half of the nineteenth century, parliament had passed so many Maori
land laws and other laws touching on the subject – more than 10 per year on average – that
Maori land law as a whole had become impossibly complicated and contradictory.259 This
meant that producing certainty and clarity required more than a consolidating act, but for
decisions to be made on which of the many contradictory provisions in the existing law to
keep and which to remove.260 This resulted in the Native Land Act 1909, which sought not
only clarification of the law but according to Hearn also ‘the widening of the avenue and the
facilitating the alienation and settlement of Native Lands’.261 It made several changes to the
operation of the Maori land boards. Maori land owned by more than ten people could now
only be alienated following a resolution of a meeting of the owners, called by the local Maori
land board and chaired by its President. Owners’ resolutions had to be confirmed by the
board, and were deemed to have been carried by whichever side controlled the most land,
rather than by a majority of individuals.262 The boards could also survey, subdivide, lease or
sell vested land, although compulsorily vested land could not be sold unless it had been
vested under the 1907 Act.263
The Act also removed all existing restrictions on the alienation of Maori freehold land,
replacing them with a standard and fairly straightforward set of restrictions. Apart from basic
stipulations relating to general validity of contract (the payment for sale had to be secured,
the alienation could not result in the breach of any trust, and so forth), the alienation could
not be contrary to the interests of the owners, who could not be left landless; the payment had
to be adequate; and there were restrictions on how much total land the purchaser or
leaseholder could own. The land boards were responsible for ensuring that these conditions
were met.264 They were not required to validate sales of land to the Crown from fewer than
10 owners, although the Crown did have to abide by a similar set of restrictions to those
258
Boast, p224
Loveridge, Maori Land Councils, pp 75-6
260
Loveridge, Maori Land Councils, p77
261
Hearn, p144
262
Loveridge, Maori Land Councils, p84
263
Boast, pp 230-1; Loveridge, Maori Land Councils, p81. As mentioned earlier, half of each block vested
under the 1907 Act had to be sold and half leased. This provision was maintained under the 1909 Act.
264
Loveridge, Maori Land Councils, p83
259
161
imposed on other purchasers.265 According to Loveridge, the removal of pre-existing
restrictions helped ‘pave the way for the sale and lease of more than four million acres of
Maori freehold land over the next 20 years.’266
More changes were made following the replacement of the Liberal government with Reform
in 1912. The Native Land Amendment Act 1912 provided that when a Maori land board had
done nothing with a block of land, the owners could apply to the Governor in council to have
it returned.267 A less positive change came the following year, when the Maori representative
was removed from the land boards, which now consisted of the local Judge and Registrar of
the Native Land Court. The Maori land board districts were also altered to become the same
as the Native Land Court districts.268 The originator of this change, Native Minister W H
Herries, said in parliament that he had ‘practically made the Native Land Court and the Maori
Land Board the same’.269 To a certain extent the appointment of the Judge and Registrar to
the board simply formalised and extended the existing practice by which Presidents tended to
be Native Land Court Judges or sometimes Registrars. However the removal of the position
of Maori member was much more significant. Having begun as Maori land councils with
Maori majorities, in which Maori could voluntarily vest their land for lease, the land boards
were now purely Pakeha entities in which land could be compulsorily vested and then
alienated. It also meant that ‘a single individual held complete judicial and administrative
control over the Maori lands in each district’.270
Maori Land Boards in the Rohe Potae
After the land councils were transformed into entirely government-appointed land boards,
their potential to be vehicles for Rohe Potae Maori autonomy declined dramatically. Nor
could evidence be found in the time available that, except in the course of the Stout-Ngata
Commission, the government actively consulted with Rohe Potae Maori on the composition
or activities of the board. Because of this, and the extensive coverage of the land boards in
Hearn’s report, this section will only be a brief overview of the land boards which covered
265
Loveridge, Maori Land Councils, p85
Loveridge, Maori Land Councils, p82
267
Loveridge, Maori Land Councils, p126
268
Native Land Amendment Act 1913
269
NZPD, quoted in Loveridge, Maori Land Councils, p126
270
Loveridge, Maori Land Councils, p127
266
162
most of the Rohe Potae inquiry district. These were the Maniapoto-Tuwharetoa Board until
1910 and the Waikato-Maniapoto Board thereafter.
The Maniapoto-Tuwharetoa Maori Land Council and, initially, its successor Board, were
based in Otorohanga.271 In 1907, however, a group of Maniapoto complained to the StoutNgata Commission that the President of the Board did not live in the district, nor did it have
an office there.272 When the Presidency was granted to Browne (also the President of the
Waikato Board) in 1906, the Board’s base seems to have moved to Auckland, probably to the
Native Land Court offices there.273 Correspondence from Browne’s tenure and subsequently
generally came from Auckland, and Gazette notices also gave the Board’s location as
Auckland. The Board did travel to the Rohe Potae on a regular basis, however, as did the
Waikato-Maniapoto Board which replaced it.274 It is not clear whether Board members were
able to keep in touch with the concerns of Rohe Potae Maori while based in Auckland and, if
not, the extent to which this affected their work.
Although the government does not seem to have systematically consulted with Rohe Potae
Maori or to have sought the opinion of leading rangatira, it did sometimes receive advice
from Rohe Potae Maori leaders. One such was John Ormsby, who continued to involve
himself in the land board’s business after his resignation. In 1909 he met with Apirana Ngata
and later with Native Minister James Carroll, criticising the government’s decisions about
Board membership and suggesting alternatives.275 He was able to facilitate the resignation of
Hare Hemara Wahanui, who Ormsby wrote ‘has intimated to me that he does not feel equal
to the duties of a member of the Board’, in favour of former Land Council elected member
Pepene Eketone.276 Fisher initially advised against Eketone’s appointment on the grounds that
he was likely to ‘be interested personally in many of the matters which may come before the
271
Gazette notices give the Council’s location as Otorohanga, and the Board’s location was the same until some
point in 1906. Archival correspondence matches this.
272
AJHR, 1907, G-1B, p7
273
This caused accommodation problems which will be discussed below.
274
The New Zealand Gazette frequently carried notices of Board meetings in Te Kuiti and occasionally
Otorohanga.
275
Ngata to Native Minister, 16 March 1909, and Ormsby to Carroll, 2 July 1909, MA 19 6/9, ANZW SD vol 1,
pp 316-19
276
Ormsby to Carroll, 2 July 1909, MA 19 6/9, ANZW SD vol 1, pp 317-19
163
Board’, but seems to have changed his mind.277 Browne supported Eketone’s appointment on
the grounds that:
…he is clever and sensible – has a great influence with the Ngatimaniapotos, and as a
consequence, by his presence on the Board, very many of the difficulties which I
anticipate will be raised by the Natives in connection with the administration of their
lands... would be obviated.
Browne however specified that if appointed, Eketone would have to give up his ‘agency
work’, by which he presumably meant acting as agent for applicants to the Board.278 Eketone
accepted the position but did not immediately give up his agency work; in February 1910, six
months after his appointment to the Board was gazetted, he appeared before it as an agent for
six different clients, and he appeared for another in May.279
In June 1910 an Order in Council was issued abolishing the Maniapoto-Tuwharetoa Maori
Land Board and incorporating most of its area into the Waikato district, with the remainder
going to the Aotea and Waiariki Boards.280 No information could be found in the time
available for this report on the reason for this merger, nor could evidence be found that Rohe
Potae Maori were consulted about it, despite the strong opposition of many to a combined
council district the previous decade. In April 1910 Holland and Pitt resigned as Presidents of
the Maniapoto-Tuwharetoa and Waikato Boards, and Walter Harry Bowler, formerly a
Native Land Court clerk, was appointed to replace them both.281 Bowler suggested that both
Maori members of the old Boards be appointed to the new Board, because of the demands
that Waikato Board member Steedman’s duties as Crown ranger made on his time. He was
particularly keen to have Eketone on the Board, as it would be ‘calculated to retain the
confidence of the Maniapoto Natives. Most of the lands vested in the Board are
Ngatimaniapoto lands.’282 This was ignored, and the appointees for the Waikato-Maniapoto
277
Fisher to Native Minister, 9 July 1909, note on back of Ormsby to Carroll, 2 July 1909, and Under Secretary
to President, 10 July 1909, MA 19 6/9, ANZW SD vol 1, pp 320-1
278
Judge Browne to Under-Secretary, Native Department, 22 July 1909, MA 19 6/9, ANZW SD vol 1, pp 3223. For an example of Eketone acting as agent, see the list of applications in New Zealand Gazette, 10 December
1908, p3125.
279
New Zealand Gazette, 12 August 1909, no 65, p2087; New Zealand Gazette, 10 February 1910, no 13, pp
550-2; New Zealand Gazette, 12 May 1910, no 46, p1506.
280
New Zealand Gazette, 13 June 1910, no 58, p1713
281
New Zealand Gazette, 14 April 1910, no 33, p1156
282
Bowler to Under-Secretary, Native Department, 23 June 1910, MA 19 6/11, ANZW. SD vol 2, p335
164
Board were Steedman and Teretiu from the Waikato Board. Steedman was soon replaced by
James Seymour, who had been the Pakeha member of the Maniapoto-Tuwharetoa Board.283
Both the old Maniapoto-Tuwharetoa Board and the new Waikato-Maniapoto Board
experienced ongoing logistical problems. In August 1909 Holland, newly appointed to the
Maniapoto-Tuwharetoa Board, wrote that its paperwork and accounts were badly in arrears,
with a backlog of about 200 lease agreements needing to be finalised.284 Little had improved
by October, and he requested additional clerical aid as well as an accountant ‘to unravel the
position of the accounts’.285 Matters do not seen to have improved much with the board
merger. In February 1911 Bowler wrote to the Native Department that ‘the necessity again
arises for me to bring under your notice the urgent need for the appointment of further
clerical assistance to deal with the very-increasing arrears of work.’286 The Board also lacked
a permanent office, with Bowler writing that:
At the present moment there are some ten or twelve Maoris sitting on my table (and
papers) in the office which I at times occupy and which is at present being used for a
sitting of the Native Land Court, a purpose for which it is ill adapted and badly
situated.287
Another clerk was assigned almost immediately, but this made the accommodation problem
worse.288 The next year Bowler requested a typist to help ‘keep abreast of the work, which of
late has increased to a phenomenal extent’.289 He and his staff were working lunchtimes and
evenings in order to cope, were receiving about 50 letters a day, and sent out 1200 letters
between the start of January and the middle of April.290 Hutton argues that the underresourcing of the Board undermined its ability to protect Maori landowners, even to the
somewhat limited extent required under law. ‘Indeed, it appears that had the Waikato-
283
New Zealand Gazette, 13 October 1910, no 91, p3676
Holland to Under-Secretary, Native Department, 2 August 1909, MA 19 6/9, ANZW. SD vol 1, p324
285
Holland to Under-Secretary, Native Department, 12 October 1909, MA 19 6/9, ANZW. SD vol 1, pp 325-6.
See also Hutton, pp 12-13.
286
Bowler to Native Department, 24 February 1911, MA 19 6/11, ANZW. SD vol 2, p336
287
Bowler to Native Department, 24 February 1911, MA 19 6/11, ANZW. SD vol 2, p336
288
Bowler to Under Secretary, Native Department, 25 February 1911, MA 19 6/11, ANZW. SD vol 2, p338
289
Bowler to Under Secretary, Native Department, 19 April 1912, MA 19 6/11, ANZW. SD vol 2, p339
290
Bowler to Under Secretary, Native Department, 19 April 1912, MA 19 6/11, ANZW. SD vol 2, p339
284
165
Maniapoto District Maori Land Board actually desired to carefully assess every application
for the confirmation of an alienation of Maori land it would have been unable to do so.’291
Detail of the operation of the Maori land boards in the Rohe Potae is beyond the scope of this
report. In his report for CFRT, Hutton argued that although the Waikato-Maniapoto Board
was required by law to approve alienations only if they conformed to the regulations listed in
the previous section, it declined very few applications, and asked few questions, particularly
about matters other than landlessness.292 Even here, it did not make sure that the vendors’
other lands were actually capable of supporting them, and it sometimes approved alienations
even when they left the owners landless, particularly when the owners did not live on or
otherwise use the land in question.293 The most common reason for declining an application
was under-valuation, but even here government valuations were not questioned by the Board
unless they were substantially out of date.294 Because of the amount of work done by the
Board and its apparently perpetual shortage of staff, most of the paper work in organising
land alienations seems to have been organised by lawyers, often those employed by
purchasers. According to Hutton, ‘the Board was not able to do its own cross-checking’ and
was generally reliant on information provided to them by the lawyers.295
The legislative changes of 1905 seem to have led directly to an increase in sales of Maori
land in the Rohe Potae inquiry district. Douglas, Innes and Mitchell show that land sales fell
off dramatically after 1901, when the last purchases begun in the nineteenth century were
completed. There was a huge increase in 1907 to nearly 50,000 acres sold, and again in 1908,
when more than 100,000 acres were sold.296 The small lag between the legislative change in
1905 and the increase in sales was caused by the time consuming nature of purchasing
individual shares in land blocks.297 After 1908 the rate of land sales dropped again before
rising above 30,000 acres in 1913 and to about 45,000 acres in 1914.298 Meanwhile, private
purchasing made up an increased percentage of land sales. In the 1905 to 1909 period, Crown
purchases (not counting public works purchases) made up more than 96% of all purchases in
291
Hutton, p15
Hutton, pp 16-17
293
Hutton, pp 23-6
294
Hutton, p17
295
Hutton, p26
296
Douglas, Innes and Mitchell, p45.
297
Douglas, Innes and Mitchell, pp 45-6.
298
Douglas, Innes and Mitchell, p47.
292
166
the inquiry district. In the 1910 to 1914 period, by contrast, Crown purchases made up only
23% of total purchasing in the district.299 The increase in purchasing was made possible first
by the Crown’s resumption of Maori land purchasing, and then by the end of Crown preemption. The rise in Maori land sales, therefore, would probably have happened regardless of
how the land board system worked. However it should be reiterated that every one of the
350,000 acres of Rohe Potae Maori land sold between 1905 and 1914 was sold with the
express consent of the Maori land boards.
As well as approving the sales of Maori land, the boards continued to manage vested land. It
is somewhat difficult to work out how much land was controlled by the boards at any one
time, due to the merger and, within the time available for this report, it has been impossible to
find out how much of it lay within the Rohe Potae inquiry district. In 1911 67,892 acres were
recorded as having been vested in the Maniapoto-Tuwharetoa Board under Part XV of the
1909 Act, meaning that they had been vested before 1907 and could not be sold. These lands
do not appear in statistics on the Waikato-Maniapoto Board’s land holdings, and so were
probably transferred to another board when the Waikato and Maniapoto-Tuwharetoa boards
were merged.300 This suggests that they lay outside of the inquiry district. Another set of
statistics from 1911 shows that the Waikato-Maniapoto Maori Land Board held 205,180
acres of land, which amounted to 26.64% of all land vested in the boards nationwide. Of the
acres vested in Waikato-Maniapoto, more than 99 per cent came under Part XIV of the 1909
Act, meaning that it had been compulsorily vested on the recommendation of the Stout-Ngata
Commission, and the Board was supposed to sell half of it.301 The remainder seems to have
been native township land.302 According to Hearn, ‘practically all of the lands vested in the
Waikato-Maniapoto District Maori Land Board lay within Te Rohe Potae inquiry district’.303
By 1915, the Board had leased nearly 37,000 acres, or 18%, of the Part XIV land in its
district.304 From 1913 the Board began to sell an increasing amount of vested land, and by
1922 more than 70,000 acres had been sold.305 Although the boards were required to split this
land 50/50 between leasing and vesting, and Rohe Potae landowners had consistently shown
299
Douglas, Innes and Mitchell, p127.
Loveridge, Maori Land Councils, pp 93-4
301
Loveridge, , p93
302
AJHR, 1907, G-1B, p7
303
Hearn, p239.
304
Hearn, p239.
305
Hearn, p239.
300
167
a preference for leasing, Hearn shows that at least twice as much Part XIV land was sold than
leased.306 Loveridge examines the national statistics for Part XIV vested land but, since
Waikato-Maniapoto held 62% of all Part XIV land, these reflect Waikato-Maniapoto more
than other boards.307 Loveridge shows that the percentage of vested lands sold by the boards
between 1910 and 1927 was about the same as the percentage of Maori land sold overall.
‘This being the case, one must conclude that under the 1909 system the “protection” afforded
by vesting turned out to be only marginally better than none at all.’308
As with the Maniapoto-Tuwharetoa Land Council, the land boards’ most useful role for Rohe
Potae Maori seems to have been the approval of leases. Between the creation of the boards
and July 1907, the Maniapoto-Tuwharetoa Board consented to 281 leases, making up
139,806 acres. A further 33 leases, comprising 21,930 acres, were declined.309 Hearn states
that in 1907, 108,545 acres of the present-day inquiry district had already been leased, while
owners proposed to the Stout-Ngata Commission that they lease another 204,250 acres. By
contrast they wished to sell only 60,685 acres, although of course many more acres had
already been sold. As Hearn points out ‘their preference for leasing is readily apparent’. 310 He
also shows that, generally speaking, private leases arranged between Maori landowners and
Pakeha leases tended to benefit the owners more than leases of vested Maori land arranged by
the Board, although he does acknowledge that comparison is difficult.311
Conclusions
The Maori Land Council system was created in 1900 as a result of widespread dissatisfaction
with the contemporary system of Maori land law and administration, which was generally
seen as an impediment to the development of Maori lands. As well as a reduction in
bureaucracy, most Maori wanted more autonomy over their lands, a reduction in the powers
of the Native Land Court, and a legally recognised means by which to manage communally
owned land. They generally welcomed the end of Crown and private land purchasing, but
may have wanted to retain the ability to lease their lands.
306
Hearn, pp 241-3.
Loveridge, Maori Land Councils, p95
308
Loveridge, Maori Land Councils, p109
309
Hearn, p66
310
Hearn, p113
311
Hearn, p247.
307
168
When the Maori land councils were created, many Rohe Potae Maori were cautiously
optimistic. Although they were led by a government-appointed Pakeha President, the two
land councils covering the Rohe Potae both had a four-to-two Maori majority, including three
elected Maori councillors. These councils did not replace the Native Land Court as many had
hoped, but unlike the native committees of the 1880s, they did take over some of the Court’s
duties and had some real powers and funding. They were also able to approve private leases.
The Kingitanga continued to be wary, but even they were prepared to give the land councils a
chance and see how they worked.
When creating the land council system, the government had hoped that Maori would quickly
vest many acres of good-quality unused land to the councils, which would then lease them to
Pakeha settlers. On the whole this did not happen. In the Rohe Potae, as with every other land
council district except Aotea, Maori voluntarily vested very little land, and even less of good
quality. Maori in the Maniapoto-Tuwharetoa district did hand some land over for
administration, although again this was probably not of high quality, while Maori in the
Waikato Land Council district neither vested land nor transferred it for administration. Nor
did Rohe Potae Maori trust the councils or their papatupu sub-committees to determine land
title, although this was only an issue for one block in the inquiry district. The land councils
were probably most useful for facilitating private leases, and according to some sources
Maori in the Maniapoto-Tuwharetoa district were satisfied with the results of this. Some
sources also indicate satisfaction with the outcome of township vesting and leasing, although
the compulsory nature of the vesting meant that some must have resented losing autonomy
over their land.
Dissatisfied at the slow rate at which Maori were vesting their lands in the councils,
parliament quickly introduced amendments to compel Maori to do so when land was
burdened with debt or noxious weeds. The principle that Maori should have autonomy over
their own lands was further eroded in 1905, when the land councils were transformed into
Maori land boards and the elected Maori member positions removed. Between 1905 and
1913, several other changes were made. In 1907, large acreages in the Rohe Potae and
elsewhere were compulsorily transferred to the land boards on the recommendation of the
Stout-Ngata Commission, and the board required to sell half. Finally, in 1913 the Maori
membership of the boards was removed as membership was restricted to the local Native
169
Land Court judge and registrar. Throughout this period there is no evidence outside the StoutNgata Commission that the government actively consulted with Rohe Potae Maori on the
nature, activities or membership of the Maori land councils or boards. Some of the
Commission’s recommendations were broadly in line with the requests of ‘progressive’ Rohe
Potae Maori, but subsequent legislation did not allow the level of autonomy desired by Rohe
Potae Maori, ‘progressive’ or otherwise.
The Maori land councils created in the early 1900s were never ideal vehicles for Maori
autonomy over their lands. However, in devolving some power from the Native Land Court
to councils with Maori majorities, they did represent a transfer of some autonomy from the
state to Maori. The initially voluntary nature of vesting and administrative control also
allowed Maori to opt out of the system, as most did. These positive aspects were soon eroded,
however. Elements of compulsion were quickly introduced, and in 1905 the Maori majority
was removed from the councils when they were turned into boards, as was the provision for
elected members. The Maori land board system became more and more coercive, and in 1913
the last remnant of Maori representation was removed.
170
Chapter 7: Maori Councils
Like the committees formed under the Native Committees Act 1883, councils formed under
the Maori Councils Act 1900 were intended to provide a degree of officially recognised selfgovernment to Maori communities. Probably the most important difference between the two
was that Maori councils had no jurisdiction over land, with that role being taken by the
entirely separate Maori land councils formed under the Maori Land Administration Act 1900.
The machinery surrounding the Maori councils was somewhat more detailed and robust than
that of the Native Committees. However, like the Committees, the Maori councils were
lacking in real power and had very little funding. Some Maori in the Rohe Potae and
elsewhere were enthusiastic about the councils and attempted to make the system work into
the 1910s. There were also initial claims that the councils had brought about a dramatic
improvement in Maori standards of living. However, it was not possible to find any
significant evidence of their achievements within the inquiry district. It appears that by 1913
the councils had virtually ceased to exist in the Rohe Potae and elsewhere. Meanwhile,
Kingitanga opposition prevented the establishment of a Waikato Maori Council which would
have covered the northern part of the inquiry district. This chapter responds to topic D of the
report commission, which refers to ‘the fate of the Maori Councils system and Annual
General Conferences’.
Sources on the Maori councils are limited, especially for the Rohe Potae. The Maniapoto
Maori Council, which covered most of the inquiry district, does not seem to have generated
much paperwork. In contrast to the Maori land councils, Maori council membership was
usually not gazetted, and the minutes of the Maniapoto Maori Council could not be found at
Archives New Zealand. Many accounts of the Maori councils’ activities were written by
Pakeha such as civil servants and newspaper reporters, and those which were written by
Maori were generally directed to Pakeha officials and may therefore have excluded sensitive
information. The contemporary news media do not seem to have taken much of an interest in
the Maori councils, and their habit of referring to the contemporary Maori land councils as
‘Maori councils’ makes text searches for the actual Maori councils difficult. The newspaper
articles which do appear are generally short and lacking in context.
171
There are some sources on the Maori councils, including what appear to be the minutes of
early meetings of the Maniapoto Maori Council, which exist only in te reo Maori. Other such
sources include the minutes for several years of the General Conference of Maori Councils,
and some of the correspondence of the Maori Councils Office. At the time of writing there
were no available resources for translation.1 Should translation become available after the
filing of this report, the translations of these papers will be examined and the content and
conclusions of this report altered if necessary. Any such amendments will be filed as an
appendix to this report.
The Maori Councils Act
The preamble to the Maori Councils Act 1900 noted that Maori had repeatedly appealed for
the ‘establishment within [Maori] districts of some simple machinery of local selfgovernment’ by which they would be able to enact by-laws. It then stated that ‘it would
conduce to the higher civilisation and contentment of the Maoris themselves if they were
authorised and encouraged in such laudable desires’. It is likely that the Act originated out of
the 1890s discussions leading up to the Maori Lands Settlement Act 1900, discussed in the
previous chapter, since Kaihau and some other Maori had wanted councils which looked after
general matters of local government as well as land.2 It is not clear why the decision was
made to have two separate council systems rather than one.
The Act enabled the Governor to proclaim Maori districts and to appoint a returning officer
to conduct elections for Maori councils. There was to be one council per district, consisting
of an official member, appointed by the Governor, and six to twelve elected Maori members.
There was also the option of appointing a chief as advisory counsellor, who was to ‘advise
the Council or the Governor, whether so requested or not, upon all or any matters pertaining
to the administration of this Act’.3 The duty of councils was to formulate a plan ‘for
ascertaining, providing, and prescribing for the observance and enforcement of the rights,
duties, and liabilities, amongst themselves, of tribes, communities, or individuals of the
1
Te reo sources for which no translation was available will be included in the supporting documents for this
report.
2
Williams, Politics of the New Zealand Maori, p103; Gilling, p17; AJHR 1899 I-3A, pp 3, 112; Report of the
Fourth Conference of the Te Aute College Students’ Association, December 1899, p19
3
Maori Councils Act 1900, s 9 (7)
172
Maori race, in relation to all social and domestic matters.’4 Councils were also to suppress
‘injurious Maori customs’, promote education and instruction, generally promote the health
and welfare of Maori in their districts, and make reports to the Governor on the health of
local Maori, their numbers and the extent of their cultivated land, and any other information
they felt the Governor should know.
The councils were enabled to make by-laws concerning a range of matters. These included
health and hygiene; preventing drunkenness and sly-grog selling; protecting meeting houses
and burial grounds; registering dogs; marking cattle; protecting and regulating eel-weirs;
managing shellfish beds and fishing grounds; controlling recreation grounds; regulating the
sale of goods by ‘Indian, Assyrian and other hawkers’; preventing children from smoking;
and preventing gambling. Councils were enabled to impose a tenement tax on houses in
Maori villages and impose fines upon Maori who broke by-laws, and were to be considered a
‘local authority’ under the Dog Registration Act 1880, allowing them to register dogs, collect
registration fees, and fine owners of unregistered dogs. Councils could bring Maori who
refused to pay fines before the Magistrate’s Court. They could also record Maori births,
deaths and marriages, and pass this information on to the nearest European Registrar. A
clause added by the Legislative Council allowed the councils to regulate tohunga and punish
‘those (whether European or Maori) who practise upon the superstition or credulity of any
Maori in connection with the treatment of any disease’.5 Councils were also enabled to
appoint Village Committees (Komiti Marae) for specific Maori settlements. The Committees
could deal with local sanitation matters such as destruction of rubbish and the repair or
removal of unsanitary buildings. As well as these various optional powers, councils were
required to control and prevent the spread of noxious weeds, and compel the fathers of
illegitimate children to pay support.
For Pakeha, a major selling-point of the Act seems to have been that it dealt with a number of
issues which local and central government had been unable to address satisfactorily.
Speaking on the Bill, Carroll pointed out that ‘there was no statistical information at all so far
as regards the Maoris. It had to be collected from imperfect sources’.6 He did not add that the
Maori councils were unlikely to provide comprehensive statistical information, given that
4
Maori Councils Act 1900, s 15
Maori Councils Act 1900, s 16 (5)
6
NZPD, 1900, vol 115, p201
5
173
their recording of births and deaths was optional. Provision of other information was
compulsory, but without an established bureaucracy or any funding, its potential to be more
accurate than that provided by Pakeha officials was limited. Carroll also pointed out the dog
tax provisions, reminding fellow MHRs of the recent ‘Dog Tax War’ in Northland and
claiming that such conflicts would henceforth be prevented.7 The Bill’s clause on the
regulation of hawkers, who were described as ‘parasitical’, was highlighted, and Carroll also
argued that the councils would help solve the noxious weeds problem.8 In a letter to Seddon
in support of the Bill, Rataua Ngahino and other chiefs made similar points, arguing that it
‘ought to satisfy the European public, who deplore the present condition of the Maori people
and their obnoxious customs, since the system of administration will tend to improve the
conditions of the people and to oppress such obnoxious customs’.9 As promoted by Carroll
and Ngahino, then, the main purpose of the Maori councils was to supplement the work of
other government bodies, carry out actions which Pakeha-dominated government had been
unable to do, and raise Maori to what was conventionally regarded as a higher level of
civilization. Presenting the council system in this way would have made it more appealing to
Pakeha than if it had been presented as a vehicle for Maori autonomy.
The Bill’s supporters suggested that the autonomy granted to Maori would be limited and
therefore no threat to existing Pakeha-dominated government bodies. Northern Maori MHR
Hone Heke Ngapua told parliament that Maori already formed committees and established
rules for matters such as the conduct of hui and tangi, and merely wanted the ability to
enforce these rules and to deal with conflicts without recourse to the courts.10 Ngahino
suggested that another point which ‘should receive the favourable consideration of our
pakeha friends’ was that all the powers granted to the new councils were already being
exercised either by informal Maori committees or by European local councils.11 The Bill
would give Maori an opportunity to administer their own affairs ‘in a simple way’, a phrase
which indicated the limits of autonomy.12
7
NZPD, 1900, vol 115, p201
NZPD, 1900, vol 115, p202
9
Rataua Ngahino and other chiefs to Premier and Minister of Native Affairs, 4 September 1900, MA-MLA 1/1,
ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 485-90
10
NZPD, 1900, vol 115, p203
11
Ngahino to Premier, MA-MLA 1/1 1901/1-231, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 485-90
12
Ngahino to Premier, MA-MLA 1/1 1901/1-231, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 485-90
8
174
Some Pakeha felt that the best feature of the Bill was that it would introduce Maori to the
concept of European-style self-government, allowing them to manage their own affairs along
European lines on a scale small enough to minimise any problems caused by inexperience or
incompetence. The Wanganui Chronicle and the Evening Post applauded it for this reason.13
To Legislative Council members Alfred Cadman and James Bonar, the Maori councils were
similar to Pakeha local government. Like Carroll and Ngahino, they implied the councils
would not only benefit Maori directly, but raise them to a higher level of civilisation at which
more Maori could participate in government in the same manner as Pakeha.14 However some
MHRs argued against the Bill by saying that Maori were already as civilised as Pakeha and
therefore did not need a set of separate institutions.15 In response, Carroll pointed out that
although he agreed with the abolition of special treatment for Maori in principle, the reality
was that Maori were unrepresented in local government and in parliament only on sufferance.
The choice, therefore, was between the Maori councils and Maori having no power at all.16
Carroll’s point that Maori lacked power in European-dominated systems of government was
reinforced by the Legislative Council, which struck out a clause allowing for the appointment
of Maori Justices of the Peace. Cadman argued that they ‘would hardly be competent men to
sit on a bench to interpret and administer European laws’.17 Other members seemed to
suggest that the Maori councils would only be effective if led by Pakeha. John Rigg asked
why the official member was not given the position of chairman, arguing that ‘he would be
better left out altogether if he is not given some standing which will command the respect and
the obedience to some extent of those with whom he will be associated’.18
The Maori Councils Act 1900 was amended twice in its early years, in 1901 and 1903. The
1901 amendment gave the councils the power to pass by-laws for the regulation of hui and
other Maori meetings, and allowed marae committees to oversee more than one village. It
also explicitly empowered councils to carry out and enforce their own by-laws; this appears
to be a technical requirement inadvertently left out of the original Act. The 1903 amendment
gave the Governor the power to replace any council member; gave the councils power to
13
Wanganui Chronicle, 12 September 1900, p2; Evening Post, 2 October 1900, p4
NZPD, 1900, vol 115, pp266-8
15
NZPD, 1900, vol 115, pp 202-3
16
NZPD, 1900, vol 115, p204
17
NZPD, 1900, vol 115, p367
18
NZPD, 1900, vol 115, p269
14
175
have water supply facilities constructed; allowed councils to fine non-Maori and take them to
the Magistrate’s Court if they refused to pay; allowed the Governor to reserve shellfish beds
and fishing grounds for Maori on the recommendation of a Maori council or at his own
discretion; set out the duties and powers of marae committees; gave Maori councils the
exclusive power to register Maori-owned dogs; allowed the Native Minister to amend and
revoke by-laws on the recommendation of the General Conference; and made the desecration
of Maori burial grounds subject to a fine of up to £25 or three months imprisonment or both.
This last provision was the result of the 1903 Conference of Maori Councils, at which
delegates had called for some powers to stop Pakeha from desecrating Maori cemeteries and
burial caves. Mair’s annual report had also included an appalled denunciation of Pakeha who
disturbed the dead in this way.19
Another significant amendment was section 3, which stated that in addition to any fine
imposed by the councils, anyone whether Maori or otherwise taking liquor into a ‘Maori
kainga, village or pa’ became liable on conviction before a Stipendiary Magistrate for a fine
of up to £10 for a first offence and up to £20 for subsequent offences, or a month’s
imprisonment for any offence.20 This was a somewhat odd addition to the Maori councils
legislation since it did not actually involve the councils in any way. According to Carroll it
was introduced to rectify a situation in which Maori were banned from bringing liquor into a
Maori settlement but other people were not. The result of this, according to Carroll, was that
alcohol had been ‘carried into the Maori kaingas in a wholesale and flagrant manner on the
occasion of any [Maori] public festivals.’21 MHRs generally approved of putting a stop to
this, with one suggesting that it be applied to the entire King Country to prevent alcohol
being taken into the region.22 Henare Tomoana of the Legislative Council also wanted the
Bill to go further and ban Maori from buying alcohol in European settlements, although how
a Maori councils Bill would do this is uncertain.23 In most of the Rohe Potae inquiry district,
it was already illegal to supply Maori with alcohol, as will be covered in the following
chapter.
19
AJHR, 1903, G-1, pp 2, 4
Maori Councils Amendment Act 1903, s3
21
NZPD, 1903, vol 127, p513
22
NZPD, 1903, vol 127, p518
23
NZPD, 1903, vol 127, p844
20
176
Council apparatus and membership
The Maori council apparatus was set up between 1901 and 1903. It involved two Wellingtonbased staff members – a Superintendent and an Organising Inspector – and 25 districts, each
with its own council. As well as the six to twelve elected Maori members (in practice, always
twelve), the councils each had a government-appointed official member, usually a Pakeha
experienced in working with Maori, and often also an advisory counsellor. Representatives of
each council periodically met for General Conferences.
The official in charge of Maori councils was initially Patrick Sheridan of the Justice
Department, a former land purchase officer.24 In 1903 Gilbert Mair became responsible for
them, as the first Superintendent of Maori Councils. Mair had been an officer leading Maori
troops in the New Zealand Wars, and later a parliamentary interpreter. He also claimed to
‘personally know almost every Maori in the North Island… [and] have the very strongest
affection for the Race.’25 He seems to have been reasonably devoted to his work, despite the
virtual absence of government support.26 In 1904 he had still not been allocated an office,
despite repeated requests.27 He also seems to have been required to work on Maori land
purchases.28 As a result, he found it impossible to properly maintain council records or keep
new councillors advised of their duties, and at one point attempted to resign in frustration.29
Another offer of resignation was accepted in 1907, and the job was made part of the duties of
the Record Clerk of the Native Department, J B Hackworth.30 Although Hackworth was
reasonably conscientious, the demands of his broader job meant he was unable to give the
councils adequate attention.31 When Apirana Ngata took him away from Wellington to visit
some of the councils, his Under-Secretary complained to the Native Minister and asked that,
if Hackworth was going to do ‘outside work’ on the councils, the Department should be
24
Raeburn Lange, A Limited Measure of Local Self-Government: Maori Councils 1900-1920 (Wellington:
Treaty of Waitangi Research Unit, 2004), p27
25
Mair to Edgar, 1 August 1906, MA23 11/14, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 355-9
26
Lange, May the People Live, p191
27
Mair to Carroll, 18 February 1904, MA-MC, 2/1, ANZW. SD vol 2, p432. See also Ron Crosby, Gilbert
Mair: Te Kooti’s Nemesis (Auckland: Reed, 2004), p285
28
Mair to Edgar, 11 June 1906, MA23 11/14, ANZW. SD vol 2, p354
29
Mair to Edgar, 1 August 1906, MA23 11/14, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 355-9
30
Lange, May the People Live, p195; Carroll to Hackworth, 17 January 1907, MA 23 11/14, ANZW. SD vol 2,
p360
31
Lange, May the People Live, p191
177
provided with another record clerk.32 In 1915 he was
unable to provide information on many of the councils to
interested MHRs, telling Maui Pomare that ‘Being tied
down to the Native Office I have not been afforded an
opportunity of seeing for myself how the Councils run
their business. I am dependant on hearsay or
correspondence’.33 His lack of fluency in Maori was also
a problem.34
From 1902 to 1907 there was also an Organising
Inspector for the councils, a position initially held by
Apirana Ngata. Ngata had been unofficially advising the
councils since 1901 and was a member of the Horouta
Maori Council, which drew up the first set of by-laws.35
As Organising Inspector he carried out his work with
characteristic energy, but resigned in 1904 due to work
and family pressures.36 The position remained vacant for
more than a year and a half, despite parliament voting
₤150 for its continuance. Mair reluctantly recommended
Pirimi Mataiawhea, a Native Land Court assessor and
leading chief of Te Arawa, to fill it.37 He wrote that:
the office requires someone with a
better knowledge of English than he
possesses, but I can think of no one
else and he might be given a trial. He is
well known through his work as a
Native Assessor, and is, I believe,
Figure 1: Designs for the seals of Waikato and
Taranaki Maori Councils, the latter of which
was adapted to be used by all Maori Councils.
The resulting stamp is shown at bottom.
‘Design of Seals for Maori Land and Rat Bill Councils
submitted for consideration’, 23 November 1900, MAMLA 1/1, ANZW; Waeroa to Director of Maori Hygiene,
20 May 1929, H1 1937 121/18, ANZW
32
Native Department Under-Secretary to Native Minister, 8 March 1909, MA W1369 22 1b, ANZW. SD vol 2,
p577
33
Hackworth to Pomare, 6 August 1915, MA W1369 22 1b, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 590-4
34
Hackworth to Best, 19 October 1908, MA-MC 2/1, ANZW. SD vol 2, p434
35
Lange, Limited Measure of Local Self-Government, p28
36
In A Limited Measure of Local Self-Government (p30) Lange states that Ngata resigned to stand for
parliament. However a letter from Ngata to Mair states that the resignation was prompted by the demands of
other work and his wife’s illness. Ngata to Mair, 16 May 1904, MA W1369 23 1d, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 596-9
37
For brief obituaries, see Otago Witness, 13 February 1907, p33 and New Zealand Tablet, 28 February 1907,
p24
178
highly esteemed by the Natives generally.38
Mataiawhea’s limitations combined with his poor health meant he was much less effective
than Ngata had been, and his pay was half that of his predecessor.39 After Mataiawhea’s
death in 1907 the position was discontinued.40 In 1909 Ngata was given a minor Cabinet post
as Minister in Charge of Maori councils, and gave them some much-needed attention, touring
newly elected councils with Hackworth.41 After the defeat of the Liberals in 1912, Maui
Pomare, who had worked with the councils as a Maori Health Officer, took over
responsibility for them.42
The first Maori council boundaries were drawn up in 1901, with others added the following
year. There were 25 districts in total.43 Most of the Rohe Potae inquiry district was in the
Maniapoto Maori Council district, except for the northern part, which was in the Waikato
district. The Waikato district was a huge area covering the entire Waikato north to
Coromandel and Manukau, and south past Kawhia Harbour (see map 2). The boundaries
seem to have been drawn up with some sensitivity to tribal districts, with large iwi getting a
district to themselves and smaller iwi being grouped together under the names of common
waka or ancestors.44 The districts were significantly smaller and more numerous than the
Maori Land council districts, perhaps because they had much less government funding and so
there was less official desire to limit their numbers. Raeburn Lange argues that because the
Maori council boundaries corresponded roughly to iwi boundaries, ‘most councils seem to
have been made up of men who were the acknowledged leaders of their own hapu and
district.’45 However they may have still been too large for the committees to function
effectively, given the lack of reliable roads in many areas.
38
Mair to Native Minister, 3 October 1905, MA W1369 23 1d, ANZW. SD vol 2, p600
Mair to Edgar, 1 August 1906, MA23 11/14, ANZW. SD vol 2, p354; NZPD, 1904, vol 129, p581
40
Lange, May the People Live, pp 191-2
41
Native Department Under-Secretary to Native Minister, 8 March 1909, MA W1369 22 1b, ANZW. SD vol 2,
p577; Lange, May the People Live, p194
42
Graham Butterworth. 'Pomare, Maui Wiremu Piti Naera - Biography', from the Dictionary of New Zealand
Biography. Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 1-Sep-10, URL:
http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/biographies/3p30/1
43
Lange, Limited Measure of Local Self-Government, p25
44
Angela Ballara, Iwi: The Dynamics of Maori Tribal Organisation from c.1769 to c.1945 (Wellington: Victoria
University Press, 1998), pp 330-1
45
Lange, May the People Live, p199
39
179
The first election for the Maniapoto Maori Council was held in March 1901,46 but no record
of membership could be found until 1906, when it consisted of:
Wetere Eketone of Otorohanga
Te Watikana Herewini of Mangawhero
Te Ahipu Tukorehu of Puniu
Patupatu Keepa of Otorohanga
Te Moerua Natanahira of Hangatiki (Chairman)
Hori Ngatai Hetete of Te Kuiti
Tamehana te Huirau of Oparure
Ngatokowha Renata te Rangi of Ongarue
Hari Hemara of Otorohanga
Poututerangi Ngahianga of Mangaorongo
Pairama Keepa of Paemako
Wiremu Tuapokai Huihi of Kopua47
Very little information could be found on Te Moerua in the time available, other than that he
was a Rohe Potae representative in liquor debates (see chapter 8). This suggests a fairly
traditional leader, active mostly within his community, in contrast to leaders such as John
Ormsby who was active in te ao Pakeha and therefore appears frequently in the historical
record. Another election took place six years later, and the membership remained the same,
minus Te Ahipu Tokurehu and Poututerangi Ngahianga, and plus Te Whiwhi Mokau of
Piopio and Poututerangi Te Tomo of Rangiatea.48
46
Maori Councils cover paper, ‘Voting papers of the Maniapoto election’, 12 March 1901, MA-MC 1/1,
ANZW. SD vol 2, p415
47
Kahiti o Niu Tireni, 9 Maehe 1906, in MA 23 11/14, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 352-3
48
Kahiti o Niu Tireni, 28 Maehe 1912, in MA W1369 22 1b, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 583-4. It has been assumed
that the two Poututerangis were different people, but that Hari Hemara is the same person as Hari Hemara
Wahanui listed in 1912. Both Hari Hemaras were listed as living in Otorohanga.
180
Map 2: Maori Council Districts
Source: Raeburn Lange, May the People Live, p 190
181
The election process seems to have been somewhat problematic. The 1908 Maori Councils
Conference resolved that the membership of each council should be reduced to seven and the
councillors be appointed by the Governor rather than elected.49 Hackworth also advocated a
reduction in council membership to seven and the abolition of elections, writing in 1915 that:
We can only have one polling place in each District, and although that is usually fixed for
the Head Quarters of the Council and the most populous part of each district, the expense
of getting there prevents quite a large number from recording their votes. Many of the
Councils themselves would prefer the Governor to appoint the Members as he does in the
case of dissolved Councils or in the filling of vacancies.50
After the 1908 conference he had also written that the reduction in numbers was necessary to
lessen expenses and make it easier to get a quorum, while the abolition of elections was
needed to reduce expense and meet ‘the danger of unsuitable men being elected through their
mana or popularity irrespective of ability’.51 It is notable that having only one polling place
had also been a problem with the Kawhia Committee’s election.
Maori council formation ran more or less smoothly in every district except Waikato. This was
the only area with a significant Maori population in which no Maori council ever existed in
practice. Mair found that King Mahuta was ‘bitterly hostile’ to the 1900 legislation, although
the councils were endorsed by him in 1902, and his brother (who was temporary King while
Mahuta sat on the Legislative Council52) became the Advisory Counsellor for the Maniapoto
Maori Council around this time.53 No Waikato representative was listed for any of the
General Conferences of Maori Councils, the council did not receive the financial subsidies
handed out in the mid 1900s, and no by-laws seem to have been gazetted.54 In 1909 Carroll
and Pomare made another attempt to have a Waikato Maori Council formed, and in 1910
Carroll announced that a new council would be elected, presenting it as being authorised by
49
1908 Conference of Maori Councils, Minutes of Proceedings, MA W1369 22 1b, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 59969
50
Hackworth to Pomare, 6 August 1915, MA W1369 22 1b, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 590-4
51
Hackworth to Native Minister, 22 July 1908, MA W1369 22 1b, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 570-5
52
McCan, p171
53
Lange, Limited Measure of Local Self-Government, p42; Walker, He Tipua, p95; New Zealand Gazette, 6
October 1904, p2354
54
Minutes of the General Conference of Maori Councils, 1903, 1904, 1905 and 1906, MA-MC 3/2, ANZW. SD
vol 3, pp 695-828 [in Maori]; AJHR, 1911, G-3, p1; ‘Subsidies to Maori Councils 1904/05’ and ‘Subsidies to
Maori Councils 1905/06’, MA W1369 22 1b, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 547-8
182
the Kingitanga rather than parliament.55 An election was held the following year, resulting in
the election of:
Wehi Te Ringitanga of Mangapehi
Tame Kawe of Te Kuiti
Hiriwetere Kereti of Te Kuiti
Hoeta Mangere of Maangatoatoa, Kihikihi
Tohi Kuri of Tamaki
Hohua Haimona of Te Akau
Pouaka Kiwi of Kawhia
Tihitapu Te Moananui of Paeroa
Po Kingi of Whatawhata
Te Ewe Hohua of Port Waikato
Mete Raukawa of Tauranga
Te Awatapu Paraone of Miranda56
If the Council existed in any meaningful form, however, it had no contact with Wellington
and sent no representative to the 1911 conference.57 Subsequently Hackworth wrote to Ngata
that he had talked with Maniapoto Council chair Te Moerua Natanahira ‘who feels trouble
brewing – he points out that the three first named on the Waikato list are his people & have
got themselves elected because they prefer to be under the Mana of Mahuta.’58 Since they
seemed to live in the Maniapoto Council district, this rendered their election void. Hackworth
was also concerned that the Waikato Maori Council would interfere with the Maniapoto
Council’s work and since ‘there’s no doubt Moerua has a hard row to hoe’, Maori should be
reminded that they had to obey the local council regardless of their hapu or where they
usually lived.59 A notice to this effect was subsequently sent out.60
55
Lange, Limited Measure of Local Self-Government, pp 42-3
Kahiti of Niu Tireni, 3 Akuhata 1911, in MA W1369 23 1f, ANZW. SD vol 2, p604
57
Lange, Limited Measure of Local Self-Government, p43
58
Hackworth to Ngata, 5 September 1911, MA W1369 23 1f, ANZW. SD vol 2, p602
59
Hackworth to Ngata, 5 September 1911, MA W1369 23 1f, ANZW. SD vol 2, p602
60
Native Minister, Panuitanga, 7 September 1911, MA W1369 23 1f, ANZW. SD vol 2, p603
56
183
In his letter to Ngata, Hackworth reported that the Waikato Maori Council had already
approved a chairman and ‘is hard at work framing elaborate by-laws’.61 However in 1914
district nurse Amelia Bagley found the council without a chairman.62 Hackworth had no idea
what it was now doing, writing that ‘being very much under the influence of the King
movement [it] is a law unto itself and I have no information beyond the names of the elected
Council’.63 He also thought that the Kingitanga was in conflict with the Whanganui Maori
Council around Taumarunui, as were local Pakeha. He added that ‘Both influences [are]
rather damaging to our good work, however the Chairman is doing his best even there.’64
Each council included a government-appointed official member, usually a Pakeha with some
experience of dealing with Maori. Maniapoto’s official member was George Wilkinson, who
was also the President of the Maniapoto-Tuwharetoa Maori Land Council and had held
various official posts in the area since the 1880s. After Wilkinson’s death the position was
held by Alfred Puckey and then by George M. Cardno, a Native Land Court clerk based in
Auckland.65 Cardno was removed in 1909 after Ngata told Hackworth that the official
member should actually live in the district, and replaced by Charles Johnson, an Otorohanga
Justice of the Peace.66 In many areas the official member was a local police officer,
magistrate or Native Land Court official, although in Matatua it was ethnologist Elsdon
Best.67 The duties of the official member were generally seen in very minimal terms.
Wilkinson was told that after the first council meeting he ‘need only attend on very special
occasions until you are relieved of the duties of Official member altogether’68 Hackworth’s
instructions to Johnson in 1909 were similar: he was told that ‘the duties will entail little or
61
Hackworth to Ngata, 5 September 1911, MA W1369 23 1f, ANZW. SD vol 2, p602
Bagley to Hackworth, 22 January 1914, MA W1369 22 1b, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 587-9
63
Superintendant to Bagley, 6 January 1914, MA W1369 22 1b, ANZW. SD vol 2, p586
64
Superintendant to Bagley, 6 January 1914, MA W1369 22 1b, ANZW. SD vol 2, p586
65
New Zealand Gazette, 1 March 1906, no 17, p726; ‘Maori Councils – List of Official Members’, nd, MA
W1369 22 1b, ANZW. SD vol 2, p578
66
Ngata to Hackworth, 23 April 1909, MA W1369 22 1b, ANZW. SD vol 2, p579; New Zealand Gazette, 13
May 1909, no 39, p1307
67
Mair to Best, 27 October 1903, MA/MC 2/1, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 430-1; Native Minister to Governor, 22
February 1907, and ‘Maori Councils – List of Official Members’, nd, MA W1369 22 1b, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp
549, 578
68
Superintendent to Wilkinson, 7 August 1900 [sic, actually 1901], MA-MC 2/1, ANZW. SD vol 2, p429. All
other official members received the same message.
62
184
no loss of time’ and would only involve countersigning cheques, making sure that all
payments were legitimate, and occasionally giving advice.69
The work of the chiefs appointed as advisory counsellors was mixed. In some areas they did
good work, but in others they vetoed their councils’ decisions or refused to be bound by their
by-laws.70 The Maniapoto Maori Council’s first advisory counsellor was John Ormsby, who
as we have seen was heavily involved in most forms of Maori local government in the
northern Rohe Potae. He had been appointed at the recommendation of Wilkinson; this was
probably the standard procedure.71 Wilkinson defended his recommendation against criticism
over Ormsby’s multiple sly-grogging convictions,72 writing that ‘I recommended John
Ormsby for advisory councillor because he is recognised by Ngatimaniapoto as their leading
man & because [of] his intelligence & desire for the welfare of his people’.73 The following
year Ormsby resigned and was replaced by Hari Hemara, who would later become an
ordinary council member.74 By 1906 he had been replaced by Pepene Eketone.75
The councils’ by-laws had to be approved by the Governor and gazetted before coming into
operation.76 They could cover a range of matters, mostly concerning public health and order,
but also control of dogs and livestock, and protection of wahi tapu, meeting houses, and
fishing-grounds. A set of model by-laws were drawn up by the Te Aute College Students’
Association (TACSA) and further developed by Ngata’s Horouta Maori Council. These were
adopted, with amendments, by most other Maori councils.77 The Maniapoto Council added
sections on tohunga, dog registration, stray cattle, smoking and gambling, and replaced
Horouta’s ban on billiard halls with a licensing system.78
Councils could also establish marae committees. The regulations concerning these were
gazetted early in 1901 but their actual powers were not set out until amending legislation was
69
Hackworth to Johnson, 5 May 1909, MA-MC 2/1, ANZW. SD vol 2, p435
Lange, Limited Measure of Local Self-Government, p26
71
Wilkinson to Sheridan, 6 November 1901, MA-MC 1/1, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 417-18
72
Sheridan to Wilkinson, 5 November 1901, MA-MC 1/1, ANZW. SD vol 2, p416
73
Wilkinson to Sheridan, 6 November 1901, MA-MC 1/1, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 417-18
74
Minister for Native Affairs to Governor, 18 July 1902, MA-MC 1/2, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 420-1
75
New Zealand Gazette, 1 March 1906, no 17, p726
76
Maori Councils Act 1900, s 16
77
Lange, May the People Live, p191
78
New Zealand Gazette, 5 December 1901, pp 2320-2; New Zealand Gazette, 11 September 1902, pp 1927-9
70
185
passed in 1903.79 Under the amendment, councils could delegate the enforcement of by-laws
and levying of fines to marae committees.80 In Maniapoto, at least, there is evidence of
particular enthusiasm for these committees; by early April 1901 they had already been
formed in Otorohanga, Kouraputaroa, and Kawhia South.81
An important part of the Maori Councils Act was the provision for national council
conferences.82 Expectations of these were so high that many members of the Kotahitanga
parliament saw them as an adequate replacement for their own assembly.83 The conferences
were enabled (although not compelled) to take place annually, and were held every year from
1903 to 1906, and again in 1908 and 1911.84 In most years all the names on the list of
attendees were Maori, showing that those who attended the conferences were Maori leaders
rather than the Pakeha official members. The conferences would therefore have been a useful
forum for Maori leaders from around the country to share ideas and create inter-tribal
networks. They also created a unified Maori voice which could advise and make requests of
the government, and were sometimes used as a means by which Maori and various officials
and politicians could communicate with each other. This was especially so in the field of
health, judging by the attendance at the 1908 conference not only of Maui Pomare and Peter
Buck but also of Health Minister George Fowlds.85 Ministers who did not attend conferences,
however, had limited opportunities to know what had been said. The conference minutes
were printed in the AJHR in 1903 and 1911, but not in the other four years that conferences
were held. The minutes for 1904 to 1906 were archived but not translated from the Maori,
making it extremely difficult for most Pakeha politicians to understand them.86 Even in the
years that the minutes were published, they did not include the debates, differences of opinion
or reasons behind particular decisions. All of this indicates a lack of state support for the
councils. The more serious problem, however, was that governments were not compelled in
79
New Zealand Gazette, 7 January 1901, no 1, pp 11-12
Maori Councils Amendment Act 1903, s 5
81
Te Moerua Natanahira to Native Minister, 4 April 1901, MA-MC 1/3 1902/52-122, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp
425-7
82
Maori Councils Act 1900, s 29
83
Walker, He Tipua, p98
84
In He Tipua (p95), Walker mentions a ‘general assembly of Maori Councils’ in February 1902. However this
does not seem to have been an official conference. The conference recorded in the 1903 AJHR is described
therein as the first conference. AJHR, 1903, G-1, pp 3-8
85
General Conference of Maori Councils, 14 July 1908, p270, MA-MC 3/2, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 438-64
86
AJHR, 1903, G-1, pp 3-8; General Conference Records, 1903-1911, MA-MC 3/2, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 43883, vol 3, pp 695-828; AJHR, 1911, G-3, pp 1-4
80
186
any way to listen to the conferences, let alone carry out their wishes. The general conferences
did provide a means by which Maori, or at least their representatives, could speak to the
government with a unified voice, although not necessarily in a language the government
understood. But they did not provide any means to ensure that this voice was heard, let alone
acted on.
The Maori Council system in action
The Maori councils system appeared to have the greatest potential for the expression of
Maori autonomy in its early years, when many Maori were enthusiastic about the councils
and there was some financial support from the government. The councils’ work was praised
by both Maori and Pakeha, and widely credited with improvements in Maori health and
standards of living. Disillusionment quickly set in, however, as it became clear that the
councils had little in the way of either power or funding. Local bodies and Pakeha politicians
began criticising the Maori councils for failing to control dogs and for imposing their by-laws
on Pakeha. Faith in the councils seems to have declined quickly, as did provision of funds,
and by the beginning of their second decade the councils had become inactive in many areas.
Council leaders such as Te Moerua continued to advocate for the councils, and council
conferences continued to be held until 1911. However this could not compensate for the
councils’ fundamental lack of power and official support.
Perceptions of the council system were initially positive. The Kotahitanga was so enthusiastic
about it that its members actually put their movement into recess, partly on the grounds that
its goals had been achieved by the 1900 legislation.87 Richard Hill argues that the temporary
end of the Kotahitanga was, from the Crown’s point of view, the legislation’s greatest
achievement.88 Walker agrees that the Maori council system had this effect but points out that
most of the agency in replacing Kotahitanga with the councils system lay with Maori leaders
such as Carroll and Ngata. The Kotahitanga had been struggling for reasons unconnected to
Crown actions, but Carroll and Ngata had ‘unwittingly… served the Government’s purpose
of laying to rest an authentic Maori political movement’.89
87
Ranginui Walker, Ka Whawhai Tonu Matou: Struggle without End, 2nd edn (Auckland: Penguin, 2004), p175
Hill, ‘Maori and State Policy’, p522
89
Walker, He Tipua, pp 97-9
88
187
The councils were initially seen as having directly positive effects. Mair reported in 1903
that:
I can state emphatically that great good has already resulted from the establishment of the
Councils. Some of the Native villages are now models of cleanliness and neatness. The
unsightly unsanitary old whares are gradually being replaced by wooden buildings.
Greater attention is bestowed on the water-supply, sleeping-apartments, fencing-out pigs
and other animals from the villages, the disposal of ordure and dead animals, payment of
the dog-tax, a stricter supervision over the supplying of spirits in the kaingas or tobacco to
children, the interment of the dead within a reasonable time and the consequent saving of
waste and impoverishment through prolonged tangis, the discontinuance of eating putrid
food, and a better attendance at the schools.90
In a series of debates from 1903 to 1908, Maori and Pakeha MHRs stated that the condition
of Maori villages had improved since the passing of the Act.91 Pomare also felt that some
good work had been started in the area of health and hygiene. He saw marae committees in
particular as playing a crucial role in the improvement of Maori health and living standards,
and urged sanitary inspectors to work with them.92 As will be shown, the improvement in
Maori living standards was arguably the councils’ only real achievement.
Before 1903, when the Maori Councils Act was substantially amended, the councils had
faced the major difficulty that they had no powers over Pakeha living in Maori settlements.
Mair reported to Carroll that many Pakeha living in Maori areas refused to pay the ‘very
nominal’ dog tax or stop their livestock from wandering. That Maori were fined for these
acts, but Pakeha were not, generated serious resentment, some of which was presumably
directed against the Maori councils.93 The very idea that Maori could impose any kind of
rules on Pakeha also generated resentment. In the debate on the 1903 amendment, William
Herries, later Native Minister under Massey, suggested that in Maori villages with a
significant Pakeha population, some areas should be designated Maori and some areas
Pakeha so as to avoid any ‘oppression’ of Pakeha. Maori coming under Pakeha law was not
oppression at all but, he suggested, something to strive for. Herries felt that something should
be done
90
AJHR, 1903, G-1, p1
NZPD, 1903, vol 125, pp 380-1; NZPD, 1903, vol 127, pp 513-14, 519, 520; NZPD, 1904, vol 129, p580;
NZPD, 1908, vol 144, p275
92
AJHR, 1903, H-31, p66
93
AJHR, 1903, G-1, p2
91
188
…to bring the two races together – to make them live like Europeans, to give them the
same laws and not separate laws, to get them to intermarry and become one New Zealand
race… [I would] like to see legislation brought in to put an end to the kainga and the pa,
to make the Maoris live the same as the Europeans.94
Similar points, although less extreme, were made by other MHRs.95 We can see that some
Pakeha seem to have regarded the councils positively only if they made Maori live more like
Pakeha. The disconnection between what Pakeha wanted from the councils and what Maori
wanted can be seen in the relative effectiveness of various parts of the Maori Councils Act.
The Maori Councils Act seems to have got the most traction when the state was able to use it
for its own purposes. Liquor is one example of this. Over the course of 1904 several people
were prosecuted under section 3 of the Maori Councils Amendment Act 1903, without the
apparent involvement of any Maori council. A widely reported case in April at the Te
Awamutu Magistrate’s Court involved a lengthy discussion of the relative jurisdictions of the
Magistrate and Maori council, but unfortunately the outcome was not reported.96 At the
Oponake Magistrate’s Court in July, Mare Horo defended himself against a charge of
introducing liquor into a Maori kainga by arguing that the case had to be dealt with by the
Maori council.97 He was found guilty and fined one pound by the Magistrate, who argued that
‘the enactments of the Legislature do not wait upon the caprice of a Maori Council’.98 In
addition, Rohe Potae magistrates seem to have decided that ‘all settlements within the Rohe
Potae must be deemed to be Maori kaingas under the [Maori Councils] Act’.99 The Act was
then used to enforce the King Country liquor ban even in cases involving only Pakeha.100 In
1914, Maniapoto Maori Council chairman Te Moerua told a prohibitionist conference that the
establishment of the councils had led him and other Rohe Potae Maori to whole-heartedly
support prohibition in the district.101 Since no evidence could be found that his Council
played any significant role in enforcing prohibition, it is not clear what this claim was based
on. It is possible, however, that the Council was able to discourage sly-grogging and alcohol
consumption in a way which did not enter the written historical record. In terms of legal
94
NZPD, 1903, vol 127, pp 514-15
NZPD, 1903, vol 127, pp 516-18
96
Nelson Evening Mail, 8 April 1904, p4
97
Hawera & Normanby Star, 26 July 1904, p2
98
Hawera & Normanby Star, 30 July 1904, pp 2, 4
99
Bruce Herald, 30 August 1904, p4
100
NZPD, 1904, vol 129, p580; Bruce Herald, 30 August 1904, p4
101
Evening Post, 26 June 1914, p2.
95
189
action, the available evidence suggests that it was Pakeha magistrates, rather than Maori
councils, who used the Maori Councils Act to enforce the liquor ban.
Tohunga were another issue which illustrate the gap between what the government wanted
from the councils and what the councils wanted to do. The Maori Councils Act made
provision for the regulation of tohunga, reflecting the distinction made by many Maori
between those who they saw as genuine tohunga, and who treated their patients effectively
and according to tradition, and charlatans.102 Most councils therefore passed by-laws
providing for the licensing of genuine practitioners, and fining only those who were causing
problems.103 However, most Pakeha and some influential Maori considered all tohunga to be
dangerous charlatans and therefore opposed any tolerance of them.104 No evidence has been
found of the relationship between the Maniapoto Maori Council and tohunga. A man was
charged with ‘tohungaism’ under the Maori Councils Act in Ngaruawahia in 1904, but
convicted only of being idle and disorderly without visible means of support. His activities
had previously been opposed by Mahuta.105
The inability or unwillingness of Maori councils to seriously restrict tohunga, and to a lesser
extent other factors such as the emergence of spiritual leader Rua Kenana, led to the Tohunga
Suppression Act 1907. This did not ban those traditional healers who worked mostly with
herbs and were approved of by the councils, but rather anyone who claimed to heal the sick
or foretell the future by supernatural means.106 It also repealed the section of the Maori
Councils Act which allowed the licensing of tohunga. The Act certainly did nothing to
change council members’ minds about tohunga. One council issued a tohunga license after
the passage of the Suppression Act, but this was withdrawn on Hackworth’s advice. The
chairman of another council also visited Hackworth in Wellington to try and convince him of
the tohungas’ effectiveness.107 At the 1908 conference some delegates argued for the
reinstatement of tohunga licenses, but they seem to have been in the minority.108 Mamari
Stephens has shown that the Tohunga Suppression Act was fairly ineffective, and that in
102
Lange, Limited Measure of Local Self-Government, pp 60-1
New Zealand Gazette, 6 March 1902, no 18, p541
104
For example see NZPD, 1904, vol 129, pp 581, 582
105
Wanganui Herald, 22 September 1904, p5
106
Tohunga Suppression Act 1907, s2.
107
Hackworth to Carroll, 13 July 1908, MA W1369 22 1b, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 554-8
108
Hackworth to Native Minister, 22 July 1908, MA W1369 22 1b, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 570-5
103
190
practice most complaints were laid by Maori, often for political or personal reasons.109 She
also argues that successful prosecutions under the Act were dependent on the co-operation of
the local Maori council, so the Act did not completely remove their power in this area.110
The tohunga debate illustrates the point that what the government wanted the councils to do
was often not quite what the councils themselves wanted. Mair reported in 1903 that many
councils had ‘an over-eagerness to combat every form of evil-doing by the Maoris without
due consideration of the council’s ability to carry their by-laws into effect’. He felt it would
be ‘far better were the Councils to devote more of their energy and undoubted intelligence to
matters of sanitation, upon which the welfare of the Maoris so greatly depends.’111
Conversely, Peter Buck reported in 1906 that the councils were less effective in health and
hygiene matters than they could have been, ‘owing to their not fully realising the amount of
power conferred upon them by the [Maori Councils] Act’.112 This reveals the different desires
that the government one hand, and many Maori on the other, had for the councils. The
government saw the councils primarily as tools which Maori could use to raise themselves to
a more civilised, or at least a cleaner, state. Many Maori, however, saw them as tools of
autonomy and self-government and tried to use them as such. Earlier in 1903 the Te Aute
College Students’ Association (TACSA) conference had noted that ‘it is amusing to note how
much is expected by the Maories from the Maori Councils. They think that these Councils
will accomplish universal reform’.113
The limited nature of the councils’ power quickly became obvious, with the 1903 Conference
calling for the councils and marae committees to be given more power ‘in order that they may
better carry out the intentions of Parliament’.114 Southern Maori MHR Tame Parata made a
similar plea in parliament later that year.115 Wilkinson also complained that his council’s
powers were inadequate. For example it could not set up a pound for wandering livestock, as
Sheridan had suggested, because the Council was not a ‘local authority’ as defined by the
Impounding Act 1884. In addition, the councils could only make by-laws for prevention of
109
Mamari Stephens, ‘A Return to the Tohunga Suppression Act 1907’, Victoria University of Wellington Law
Review, 32, 2 (2001), pp 454-8
110
Stephens, p461
111
AJHR, 1903, G-1, p1
112
AJHR, 1906, H-31, p73
113
Report of the Seventh Conference of the Te Aute College Students’ Association, January 1903, p3
114
AJHR, 1903, G-1, p3
115
NZPD, 1904, vol 128, p798
191
animal trespass; not for dealing with it once it had happened.116 Although the Act was
amended in 1903, and the councils thereby given more power, Wilkinson’s concerns were not
addressed, and lack of power continued to be a problem. In 1906 the General Conference
resolved that Maori councils should have ‘full power, subject to proper regulations, to deal
with minor offences committed by one Maori against another, such as assault, theft, false
accusation, slander or cursing.’ This resolution was repeated ‘with emphasis’ in 1908.117 Mair
also advocated similar changes.118 The matter was discussed again at the 1911 Conference,
but as the previous recommendation was still before the government it was not taken further,
perhaps an indication that most delegates thought it hopeless.119
The councils had a range of powers which do not seem to have been used, for example to
pass by-laws on the management of shellfish beds and fishing grounds.120 No such by-laws
seem to have been passed. The 1908 Conference raised the issue of whether councils could
declare fishing reserves, and was told by Hackworth that any such reserves would have to be
approved by the Marine Department.121 It is not known why the councils failed to use their
by-laws to help manage seafood resources. It is possible that their powers were too vague to
achieve anything which could not already be done through community pressure, hence the
desire to have reserves proclaimed.
By 1905 the report of the ninth annual TACSA conference was claiming it was widely felt
‘that the [Maori] Councils are inoperative. They investigate, judge and impose fines, but have
no means whereby they can summarily enforce their decisions. The people are thus coming to
look upon the Councils as bodies having no real power.’122 The waning of initial enthusiasm
can be seen in Maniapoto. In May 1904 the Council was told that kainga boundaries for
Otorohanga, Te Kuiti and Taumaranui had not been gazetted because the chairman had failed
to supply them, ‘though frequently urged to do so since November’.123 Several Council
116
Official Member, Maniapoto Maori Council to Sheridan, 26 July 1902, MA-MC 1/2, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp
422-3
117
General Conference of Maori Councils, 14 July 1908, pp 290, 293, MA-MC 3/2, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 43864
118
Mair to Edgar, 1 August 1906, MA23 11/14, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 355-9
119
AJHR, 1911, G-3, p3
120
Maori Councils Act, s16 (10)
121
General Conference of Maori Councils, 14 July 1908, p286, MA-MC 3/2, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 438-64
122
Te Aute College Students’ Association, Report of the Ninth Conference, January 1905, p12
123
Mair, telegram, 25 May 1904, MA-MC 2/1, ANZW. SD vol 2, p433
192
members complained to Mair that they were being held back by ‘lazy’ colleagues.124 In 1906
Moerua wrote to Carroll saying that ‘this is the fourth year that my Council has been at work,
and it has not as yet attained to the actual foundation of its operations’.125 Although he did not
explain the nature or reasons of this problem, he seemed to regard it as one of government
inaction; for example he did not realize that his Council’s by-laws had been gazetted.
The marae committee system seems to have worked reasonably effectively, although very
little information is available on this. In 1908 Hackworth reported that the system ‘works
very well and saves the expense of holding more meetings of the Councils themselves’. This
was despite some committees refusing to hand over dog tax money they had collected for fear
it would be spent on other settlements.126 Some committees were clearly inactive, however.
At the 1911 conference Hamiora Hei of the Takitimu Maori Council asked for a legal opinion
about what councils could do if it had delegated powers to a marae committee which was
neglecting or refusing to enforce by-laws.127 Crown Law responded that councils could
simply withdraw the delegated power if necessary.128
Council funding
Apart from their limited powers, the councils’ main problem was lack of funds. By 1903
Maori had donated over a thousand pounds to the various councils,129 but as their limitations
became clear, donations slowed. No Maori council member was paid by the government; all
salaries and expenses had to come out of the councils’ limited funds.130 Nor did the councils
have anything equivalent to local authorities’ ratepayer base. In around 1907 a summary of
council finances showed that most had about £50 to £120 in their bank accounts, although
Kahungunu and Matatua had each managed to accumulate more than £250. Maniapoto had
slightly more than most, with £126/8/2.131 Three years later most had less than £100 although
Kahungunu had increased its balance to nearly £400, making it by far the richest council.
Maniapoto’s bank balance had declined to £58/6/11.132 The 1908 Conference unanimously
124
Lange, Limited Measure of Local Self-Government, p39
Te Moerua to Carroll, 4 July 1906 [translation], MA 1 884 1906/536, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 296-8
126
Hackworth to Carroll, 13 July 1908, MA W1369 22 1b, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 554-8
127
AJHR, 1911, G-3, p1
128
Assistant Law Officer to Ngata, 30 August 1911, MA W1369 22 1b, ANZW. SD vol 2, p582
129
‘Superintendent to Native Minister’, p1
130
Maori Councils Act 1900, s 13
131
‘Maori Councils revenue’, nd, MA W1369 22 1b, ANZW. SD vol 2, p576
132
‘Maori Councils – Bank Balances’, 30 September 1910, MA W1369 22 1b, ANZW. SD vol 2, p581
125
193
resolved that it was time councils used section 24 of the Maori Councils Act, which enabled
them to impose a tenement tax on houses and whare on Maori land.133 The conference
discussed the general issue of funds, proposing amongst other things taxes on wheels,
livestock brands, and sheep; licenses to religious sects; a poll tax; licenses for fishing,
storekeeping and gum digging; entertainments; and voluntary subscriptions. Most of these
were dismissed as impractical, and Hackworth urged delegates ‘to impress upon their
Councils the advisability of voluntary contributions by the people’.134 By 1911 the suggested
fundraising options had been reduced to tenement taxes, voluntary donations of a portion of
rent money, and a tax on stock. All were approved by the Conference.135 As Walker points
out, the fundamental problem was that most Maori communities were too poor to contribute
much to their councils, whether by way of donation, tax or fines.136
Fees charged for hawkers’ licenses were a potential source of funds, but in many cases the
hawkers avoided paying them.137 The legislation stated that the fees applied to sales inside
kainga, and so many hawkers simply operated just outside kainga boundaries or, in one case,
from a boat near some seaside villages.138 The councils were more successful with one-off
fees such as five shillings a day or one pound for a hui, presumably because of the advantage
to hawkers of actually being at the hui.139 Many hawkers were probably also somewhat
impoverished, and asking them to pay a two pound annual fee (as charged by Maniapoto), on
top of fees charged by borough councils, may not have been realistic.140 Billiard-hall license
fees of five or ten pounds were also charged by Maniapoto and some other councils, but
Hackworth reported in 1908 that most had trouble collecting the fees, ‘owing to some doubt
having arisen as to the power to enforce payment’.141 About half of the councils simply
banned billiard halls in their areas.142 This discouraged gambling but also cut off a potential
source of revenue. County councils and other local authorities also questioned the Maori
133
General Conference of Maori Councils, 14 July 1908, pp 280, 282, MA-MC 3/2, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 438-
64
134
General Conference of Maori Councils, 14 July 1908, pp 282, 284, MA-MC 3/2, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 438-
64
135
AJHR, 1911, G-3, p3
Walker, He Tipua, p96
137
General Conference of Maori Councils, 14 July 1908, p294, MA-MC 3/2, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 438-64
138
Hackworth to Native Minister, 22 July 1908, MA W1369 22 1b, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 570-5
139
Hackworth to Carroll, 13 July 1908, MA W1369 22 1b, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 554-8
140
New Zealand Gazette, 6 March 1902, no 18, p541
141
Hackworth to Carroll, 13 July 1908, MA W1369 22 1b, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 554-8
142
Hackworth to Native Minister, 22 July 1908, MA W1369 22 1b, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 570-5
136
194
councils’ jurisdiction, and the 1908 conference sought a legal opinion on this.143 Local
authorities generally resented the Maori councils, regularly questioning their authority and
attempting to have their powers removed. As the paragraph below on the dog tax indicates,
this was especially the case when money was involved. A Conference of County Council
representatives, for example, complained that the Maori councils did not use their dog tax or
billiard license money to assist the local bodies in repairing roads even though Maori used
them and very few were ratepayers.144
The dog tax was one of the councils’ few real sources of money. However there were
persistent complaints from local authorities that the Maori councils were neglecting their
duties, either by setting the tax so low that it did not discourage the breeding of semi-feral
dogs, or by failing to collect the tax at all.145 The amount taxed was in fact set by law, and
was higher than some Maori councils wanted it to be.146 It is probably true that some councils
neglected to collect the tax; it was unpopular and its collection time-consuming, and there is
evidence that some councils had given up on it.147 Hackworth argued, however, that the
complaints of local authorities were disingenuous. He told Pomare in 1912 that ‘I notice that
the loudest cries come from districts where sheep are scarce or where the Maori Council is
most active.’148 Two years later he wrote that although some councils were ‘lax’ in imposing
dog taxes, local council complaints were not necessarily justified.
Where anything approaching a definite case has been put forward I have found the Maoris
quite able to prove that it was the Pakeha and not the Maori dogs which had done the
damage. I have also found that the Local Bodies are keenest to get control of the tax
where the Maori Council is making the biggest income out of it.149 Some Maori councils
had been very successful in taxing their dogs; in 1904 it was said that the Arawa Council
had taxed 1,200 dogs in three years and successfully taken non-payers to court.150
In Maniapoto and other council areas, the dog tax seems to have caused conflict within Maori
communities. In November 1904, Te Ratutono Tauamai, described as the Maniapoto Maori
143
Hall-Jones to Native Minister, 30 June 1908, MA W1369 22 1b, ANZW. SD vol 2, p552; General
Conference of Maori Councils, 14 July 1908, pp 280, MA-MC 3/2, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 438-64
144
Hall-Jones to Native Minister, 30 June 1908, MA W1369 22 1b, ANZW. SD vol 2, p552
145
NZPD, 1904, vol 129, pp 580-1; General Conference of Maori Councils, 14 July 1908, pp 278, 280, MA-MC
3/2, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 438-64; NZPD, 1908, vol 144, p275
146
Native Minister to Houston, 7 July 1908, MA W1369 22 1b, ANZW. SD vol 2, p553; Hackworth to Native
Minister, 22 July 1908, MA W1369 22 1b, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 570-5
147
Lange, May the People Live, p195
148
Hackworth to Pomare, 29 July 1912, MA W1369 22 1b, ANZW. SD vol 2, p585
149
Superintendent to Pomare, nd, probably 1914, MA-MC, 2/1, ANZW. SD vol 2, p436
150
NZPD, 1904, vol 129, p582
195
Council’s ranger, brought 16 Maori before the Te Kuiti Magistrate’s Court on 28 cases of
unpaid dog tax.151 In each case the resulting fines and costs also went unpaid and distress
warrants were issued in 1905, but in 1908 11 of the 16 still owed money. Warrants of
commitment were issued for the defaulters. Two of them were arrested on 13 June 1908 and
jailed in Te Kuiti. Their fine and costs were then paid by MHR Henare Kaihau, and they were
released.152 Four days later, Te Whare Tiemi and Te Tiriana Te Omeka, who had been
charged with owning five unregistered dogs between them, were also arrested and locked up.
Te Kuiti Constable and Clerk of the Court J A Mathew, the arresting officer, wrote that:
About 1 a.m. on the 18th instant, a messenger stated that [Prime Minister] Sir Joseph
Ward wished to see me. He stated he well remembered an arrangement being made that
the Native Department would pay fines, etc. That the natives had no right to be arrested
and I had better let him go. I said, ‘How will that stand with my department?’ He replied,
‘You do as I tell you and I will deal with your department if the matter crops up.’ I
liberated prisoner[s] without the fine etc. being paid.153
Following the original case in 1904, then Prime Minister Richard Seddon appears to have
promised that the Native Department would pay the dog tax in this instance, although not for
any subsequent cases. According to Ward, this was ‘to prevent the disturbance in connection
with the 1904 Dog Tax from spreading among the Maoris’.154 He seemed to be under the
impression that this was a well-known arrangement, writing that ‘it seems to me
extraordinary that these two Maoris should have been arrested & imprisoned in connection
with the 1904 trouble’.155 Local magistrate H.W. Northcroft subsequently telegrammed that
‘Natives wont pay believing govt will’.156 The Native Department then paid the outstanding
money, totalling £48/19/3.157
The meaning of this somewhat peculiar episode is difficult to determine. If the situation was
serious enough to warrant the intervention of the Prime Minister at one in the morning, it is
odd that the fines were not actually paid in 1904, as per the apparent agreement. Nor is it
clear what the original ‘disturbance’ was, although it is possible that conflict with the
151
Clerk of Te Kuiti Court, Dog Tax Report, 23 June 1908, MA 1 371 19/1/361, ANZW. SD vol 1, pp 280-9
Clerk of Te Kuiti Court, Dog Tax Report, 23 June 1908, MA 1 371 19/1/361, ANZW. SD vol 1, pp 280-9
153
Clerk of Te Kuiti Court, Dog Tax Report, 23 June 1908, MA 1 371 19/1/361, ANZW. SD vol 1, pp 280-9
154
Ward to McGowan, nd, MA 1 371 19/1/361, ANZW. SD vol 1, p274
155
Ward to McGowan, nd, MA 1 371 19/1/361, ANZW. SD vol 1, p274
156
Northcroft to Under Secretary of Justice, 22 June 1908, MA 1 371 19/1/361, ANZW. SD vol 1, pp 277-9
157
Under Secretary to Clerk of the Court, Te Kuiti, 30 July 1908, MA 1 371 19/1/361, ANZW. SD vol 1, p290
152
196
Kingitanga was involved. The Kingitanga had been collecting its own dog tax since 1894.158
When the Maori councils were formed and given the power to collect the tax, Mahuta
apparently told his supporters not to acknowledge the new councils by paying their taxes.
Maori in several parts of the country obeyed, and several were charged at the Te Awamutu
court.159 If there was a similar issue in the Rohe Potae, it may have led to Seddon and
Carroll’s promise that the government would pay the fines. While this shows some respect
for the autonomy of the Kingitanga, it did nothing to resolve the conflict between the
Kingitanga and the councils over the dog tax, and may have seriously undermined the
revenue-gathering ability and general authority of the Maniapoto Maori Council.
The councils did receive some government funding, especially in their early years, but this
was always very limited. Over the eight years from 1901 to 1909 just under £5400 was spent
on the councils.160 Nearly half of the council money was the salaries of the staff in
Wellington, and a further £1078 was spent on contingencies such as travelling expenses,
leaving only £1800 in subsidies for the councils themselves. The councils were allocated
£475 in subsidies in the 1901-02 financial year, £104 the next year, just £21 the year after
that, and £400 a year from 1904-05 to 1906-07. Ngata claimed that after 1903 this money was
not actually distributed, and certainly after 1907 the money was not even theoretically
available.161 Even if they were paid, these amounts were extremely meagre when divided
between each council. In 1904-05, for example, each council received just £20/6/8 except for
Arawa, which for some reason got £25.162 On Mair’s advice, Raukawa, Takitimu and
Wharekauri were declared ineligible for the 1906-07 funds until they provided evidence of
their continued existence.163
It was sometimes argued that the councils could not receive more funding because their bookkeeping was inadequate.164 While this was almost certainly an excuse rather than a reason,
158
Bay of Plenty Times, 11 July 1894, p5
Wanganui Chronicle, 28 November 1904, p4; Wanganui Herald, 10 December 1904, p7
160
‘Return of expenditure on account of Maori Councils’, nd but probably 1909, MA W1369 22 1b, ANZW. SD
vol 2, p580. The return of expenditure appears to have left out a ₤400 subsidy for the 1906-07 financial year,
discussed in ‘Distribution of ₤400 – Vote 27 item 2: Subsidies for Maori Councils’, 21 March 1907, MA
W1369 22 1b, ANZW. SD vol 2, p551. This amount has been added to the relevant totals in the text above.
161
NZPD, 1908, vol 144, p275
162
Subsidies to Maori Councils, 1904/05, MA W1369 22 1b, ANZW. SD vol 2, p547
163
Mair to Native Minister, 10 March 1907, MA W1369 22 1b, ANZW. SD vol 2, p550; ‘Distribution of ₤400 –
Vote 27 item 2: Subsidies for Maori Councils’, 21 March 1907, MA W1369 22 1b, ANZW. SD vol 2, p551
164
For example Carroll in NZPD, 1908, vol 144, p275
159
197
there do seem to have been real problems. Mair alleged that several council chairmen had
embezzled funds, and claimed that ‘with some honourable exceptions, it has been plainly
demonstrated that Maories cannot be trusted with the control of the council funds’.165 Most
councils, including some which otherwise did ‘fairly good work’, were also failing to provide
him with their quarterly returns.166 The day before the 1908 conference, Hackworth reported
that only three councils had supplied him with up-to-date financial returns, and some were
‘far behind’.167 Some time was spent at the conference on the requirements of the law and the
importance of receipts, and it was found that many councils were keeping good accounts, but
had simply neglected to forward them to Wellington.168 The Takitimu Maori Council, which
had had its funds withheld the previous year because it had lost contact with Wellington, was
found to have especially well kept records.169 Book-keeping problems led to criticism of the
composition of many councils. Parata wanted council membership to be open only to those
with literacy in English, to ensure that the councils were made up of those who were educated
and familiar with administrative procedures.170 To a similar end, the 1908 General
Conference resolved that council members should be selected by the Governor rather than
elected.171 Raeburn Lange suggests that despite these concerns, council chairmen generally
had at least ‘practical intelligence’ and that there was actually a fairly high proportion of
educated young men on the councils.172
The councils fade out
A census was held in 1911, and the enumerators of the Maori returns noted a significant
improvement in the health of the population and the sanitary conditions of their settlements.
In the Rohe Potae and elsewhere, this was attributed at least partially to the work of the Maori
councils.173 Despite this, many council chairmen felt that the council system was under
serious threat. One of the first actions of that year’s General Conference was to form a sub-
165
Mair to Edgar, 1 August 1906, MA23 11/14, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 355-9
Mair to Native Minister, 10 March 1907, MA W1369 22 1b, ANZW. SD vol 2, p550
167
Hackworth to Carroll, 13 July 1908, MA W1369 22 1b, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 554-8
168
General Conference of Maori Councils, 14 July 1908, pp 276, 278, MA-MC 3/2, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 53864; Hackworth to Native Minister, 22 July 1908, MA W1369 22 1b, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 570-5
169
Hackworth to Native Minister, 22 July 1908, MA W1369 22 1b, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 570-5
170
Lange, May the People Live, p199
171
General Conference of Maori Councils, 14 July 1908, p294, MA-MC 3/2, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 438-64;
Hackworth to Native Minister, 22 July 1908, MA W1369 22 1b, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 570-5
172
Lange, May the People Live, pp 199-200
173
AJHR, 1911, H-14A, pp 2, 8
166
198
committee to draw up reasons for the councils’ continued existence.174 The sub-committee
reported that, due to the work of the Maori councils and marae committees, ‘all of the old
Maori whares have been done away with’ and replaced by wooden buildings; all the marae
and residences had generally been improved and drinking water had been ‘made good’;
alcohol, gambling and tohungaism had been prohibited; and petty crime had declined. The
councils could also take credit for the rise in the Maori population, increased attendance of
children at school, and the increasing industry of the Maori people.175 This was probably true
in some areas, but the picture of universally improved Maori life was clearly an exaggeration.
In 1915 Hackworth agreed that some of the councils were doing ‘most excellent work’, but
said that many were inactive and some had ceased to exist.176 He had little or no information
on many councils, indicating both the demands on his time and the councils’ inactivity.
Regarding Maniapoto Maori Council, he wrote that ‘I believe they attend to some of their
business but have no reports. I don’t think much effort is made to collect the dog tax owing
mainly to the King Movement. The Bank balance [£78/13/5] has remained the same for two
or three years.’177 In Waikato, there was still uncertainty as to whether the Maori Council
even existed. Hackworth wrote that it had no chairman and no bank balance. ‘Although this
Council was duly elected it has never conformed to the regulations and has remained a law
unto itself from the start. I cannot make any report as to what they are doing.’178
The Liberal Government was defeated in a vote of confidence in 1912 and, with Carroll no
longer Native Minister, the new government’s Native Affairs policy focussed almost entirely
on land. According to Lange, ‘the administrators in the Native Department completely lost
interest in the councils, and Fisher, the departmental head, wanted to hand them over to the
Health Department.’179 Although Pomare was put in charge of the councils, he was later
accused of letting them die out.180
Although the Maori councils had virtually ceased to function by 1913, they had a later lease
of life. Following the influenza epidemic of 1918, New Zealand’s health administration was
174
AJHR, 1911, G-3, p1
AJHR, 1911, G-3, p2
176
Hackworth to Pomare, 6 August 1915, MA W1369 22 1b, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 590-4
177
Hackworth to Pomare, 6 August 1915, MA W1369 22 1b, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 590-4
178
Hackworth to Pomare, 6 August 1915, MA W1369 22 1b, ANZW. SD vol 2, pp 590-4
179
Lange, May the People Live, pp 196-7
180
Raeburn Lange, In an Advisory Capacity: Maori Councils, 1919-1945 (Wellington: Stout Centre, 2005), p9
175
199
restructured and the councils revived as appointed (rather than elected) Maori Health
Councils. These have been examined in Helen Robinson’s health report and, in more detail,
Jonathan Sarich’s 1914 to 1939 political engagement report for this inquiry.181 Robinson
argues that the Maniapoto Council was one of the more active Maori health councils under
this system, although it continued to grapple with problems of funding and authority. Sarich
recognises that the revived council system was geared towards health issues rather than
political engagement, but shows that Maniapoto Maori Council members ‘consistently
attempted to manipulate the council system to their advantage, enthusiastically using the
faulty scheme for what benefit it could provide’.182 In this respect, Rohe Potae Maori seem to
have made more and better use of the system in its later incarnation, even though there was
theoretically less scope for autonomy and political activity at that stage.
Conclusions
During the first phase of the Maori councils’ existence, Maori and Pakeha alike claimed that
they had brought about significant improvements to Maori living standards. Despite their
apparently positive impact on Maori health, the available evidence suggests that the councils
were continually frustrated by their lack of power, funding, and official support. Part of the
problem seems to have been a disconnection between what Maori wanted from the councils –
primarily some form of autonomous Maori-controlled local government – and the much more
limited aims of the government, primarily a solution to problems such as liquor, tohunga,
poor sanitation, and uncontrolled Maori dogs. Maori generally wanted their councils to do
more than this, but the power and support necessary was not provided.
In the Rohe Potae an additional problem was the general opposition of the Kingitanga to the
councils. This prevented the establishment of a council in the Waikato Maori Council
District, at least in any meaningful sense, and also caused some difficulties for the Maniapoto
Maori Council. The Maori councils had some limited scope for the exercise of Maori
autonomy but, until their resurrection as health councils, it is not clear that they were able to
achieve much of significance.
181
Helen Robinson, ‘Te Taha Tinana: Maori Health and the Crown in Te Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 18401990’, a report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, March 2011, Wai 898, A31; Jonathan Sarich, ‘An
Overview of Political Engagement between Hapu and Iwi of the Te Rohe Potae inquiry district and the Crown,
1914-c.1939’, a report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, March 2011, Wai 898, A29
182
Sarich, p69
200
Chapter 8: Rohe Potae Maori and the Liquor Laws
A proclamation issued in 1884 outlawed liquor sales throughout most of the Rohe Potae
inquiry district. In subsequent decades this prohibition became a significant political issue.
The liquor ban became central to claims that a ‘sacred compact’ was made whereby no liquor
sales would be allowed within the proclaimed area, generally referred to as ‘the King
Country’ or ‘Rohe Potae’, in exchange for the railway being allowed to proceed through the
district. This topic is therefore relevant to that part of the commission for this report referring
to ‘continuing understandings of Te Rohe Potae pact during this period and what this might
mean for continuing political relations with the Crown in its administration of the district’.
Several claims to this inquiry allege that the Crown breached the sacred compact when it
allowed liquor licenses in the King Country in the 1950s.1 For example, the Ngati Rora Land
Claims Committee refers to a ‘breach by the Crown of the sacred agreement known as Te
Rohe Potae Pact in relation to the continuation of the Crown’s main trunk railway, and no
liquor being allowed into the King Country Region of New Zealand’.2 At the oral traditions
hui for this inquiry at Te Kuiti, Roy Matengaro Haar of Ngati Rora spoke of the Rohe Potae
compact under which Premier Robert Stout agreed that liquor and the Native Land Court
would be excluded providing that the railway could go through the district.3
Two official inquiries have rejected the existence of a liquor-railway compact.4 More
recently, Cathy Marr came to a different view, writing that banning liquor in exchange for
rail access was a minor aspect of a broad compact between Rohe Potae representatives and
the government. She thus argues that to claim that the railway was sanctioned in return for no
liquor licensing was ‘a distorted version of the Rohe Potae compact’. However, she also put
the view that more research is required into the whole issue of the compact.5 With this in
mind, research for this chapter has drawn heavily on primary sources, including the Justice
Department files at Archives New Zealand, records of the Alliance for the Abolition of the
Liquor Traffic held at the Alexander Turnbull Library, and newspapers. Only written sources
1
See, for example, Wai 616, Wai 753, Wai 928, Wai 1113, Wai 1377, Wai 1585, Wai 1593, Wai 2014
Wai 616
3
Transcript of 6th Oral Traditions Hui held at Te Tokanganui-ā-Noho Marae, Te Kuiti, 9-11 June 2010, p 29
4
Justice Smith, Appendix C, Royal Commission in Licensing, AJHR 1946, H38, pp 363- 380, and A H
McLintock, ‘Liquor and the King Country’, AJHR 1953, H25.
5
Marr, Alienation of Maori Land 1900-1960, pp 152, 154
2
201
in English were referred to. Translations of Maori sources, in particular the letter books of
John Ormsby containing minutes from various committees, were not available in time to be
included.
Background
Although restrictions on access to alcohol in New Zealand were comparatively light until the
1890s, special protective measures for Maori were commonly seen as necessary. This attitude
was exemplified by Prime Minister Robert Stout at the ‘sod-turning’ ceremony for the main
trunk line in 1885. Stout told the assembled crowd that ‘although many Europeans can take
liquor without injuring themselves to any appreciable extent, if what is called firewater gets
among any aboriginal race like the Maoris, it is condemning them to destruction’.6 The result
of such views was special restrictive laws that applied only to Maori, particularly the Sale of
Spirits to Natives Ordinance 1847. This law was little-enforced, and later measures - the
Outlying Districts Sale of Spirits Act 1870 and the Native Licensing Act 1878 - attempted to
give Maori some say in liquor restrictions that applied to them. In this vein, the Licensing
Act 1881, the first comprehensive national Act to regulate the sale of liquor, contained a
clause that allowed for direct Maori input into the process. Section 25 of the Act specified:
The Governor, on the application of the owners of any block or area of Native land on
which no publican’s licence has hitherto been granted, may, by Proclamation in the
Gazette, declare that no license shall be granted within such block or area, and it shall not
be lawful for the Licensing Committee to issue any licence to that effect within any block
or area so proclaimed.
No similar provision was available to Pakeha at the time, despite prohibition and temperance
campaigners already being active throughout the country. By the early 1880s, the Gospel
Temperance Mission and an associated body, the Blue Ribbon Army, were preaching
temperance within the Rohe Potae. The Blue Ribbon Army aimed to recruit signatories to its
temperance pledge, and the district Native Agent, George Wilkinson, reported in May 1884
that a number of Rohe Potae Maori had signed up.7 The previous month the New Zealand
Herald reported that King Tawhiao, when meeting the Governor, was wearing the blue
ribbon and was accompanied by two members of the Gospel Temperance Mission.8 However,
6
New Zealand Herald, 16 April 1885, p 5, quoted by Skerman, p 24
Skerman, ‘The Dry Era’, p 16
8
New Zealand Herald, 2 April 1884, p 6, cited by Skerman, p 21, footnote 52.
7
202
as Skerman notes, interest in temperance in the Waikato pre-dated the activities of
temperance missionaries. According to John Gorst, who was the Civil Commissioner for the
Waikato district under Governor Grey in the early 1860s, Ngati Haua chief Wiremu
Tamihana wrote to Grey seeking a ban on liquor sales in their district. A similar plea was
made at a hui in Ngaruawahia attended by Gorst in 1861.9 As a result, Grey issued
regulations under the Native Districts Regulations Act 1858 prohibiting the sale of ‘spirituous
or fermented liquors’ within the Upper Waikato District.10 Similar regulations were issued for
the Bay of Islands in 1863.11 In June 1883, a major petition was presented to parliament
signed by Wahanui, Taonui, Rewi Maniapoto and 412 others on behalf of Ngati Maniapoto,
Ngati Raukawa, Ngati Tuwharetoa, and Whanganui (‘the Four Tribes’). Among its over
1,000 words, the petition asked for relief ‘from the entanglements incidental to employing the
Native Land Court to determine our titles to the land, also to prevent fraud, drunkenness,
demoralization, and all other objectionable results attending sittings of the Land Court’. 12
In addition to signing up recruits within the Rohe Potae, the Blue Ribbon Army circulated a
petition calling for a ban on the sale of intoxicating liquors. In late April and early May 1884,
its missionaries visited Alexandra, Kihikihi, Mohaonui, Waitomo, Kopua, Hikurangi and
Kawhia, obtaining a claimed 800 signatures for its petition. Signatories included Wahanui,
Rewi Maniapoto, Taonui and other prominent chiefs (Tawhiao was absent on his way to
England, but signed a copy of the petition on his return).13 The petition was presented to the
Governor on 8 September 1884, by then claiming 1,400 signatures. It called for the Governor
to use his powers under section 25 of the Licensing Act to ban publican’s licences
‘throughout our district extending to Waipa, Kawhia, Mokau and all it boundaries’. A
supporting letter was attached, signed by the president and secretary of the Gospel
Temperance Mission, outlining the role of the mission in collecting and authenticating
signatures for the petition.14
9
Skerman, pp 161-162
New Zealand Gazette no 53, 19 December 1861, pp 325-326
11
Marten Hutt, Maori and Alcohol: A History (Wellington: Health Services Research Centre, 1999), p 29
12
AJHR 1883, J1, pp 1-4
13
Skerman, pp 18-19, 21
14
Petition and covering letter forwarded to Premier, 8 September 1884, ‘King Country Licensing’, J1, 1522,
18/25/8, ANZW, SD vol 1, pp 209-212
10
203
At its meeting of 25 September 1884, Cabinet agreed to advise the Governor to assent to the
petition.15 This was a clear case in which the wishes of Rohe Potae Maori coincided with
those of the Government, which had temperance inclinations. The tricky task of determining
the boundaries of the district to which the proclamation was to apply was left up to the Native
Department. As will be seen, the department made more than one error in its task.
At the time of the Cabinet decision, Wahanui was in Wellington. He had been there since 9
June 1884 representing the ‘Four Tribes’ alliance that had been negotiating with the
Government. On 17 September, Wahanui appeared before the select committee appointed to
decide on the best route for the North Island main trunk railway.16 On 9 October, the
committee recommended the route through the King Country between Marton and Te
Awamutu.17 Between 25 September and 9 October 1884 (the date is uncertain), Wahanui met
with Native Minister Ballance. At that meeting, Ballance informed Wahanui that the
Government intended to issue a proclamation against liquor sales in the Rohe Potae, as had
been requested in the recent petition.18
On 1 November 1884, Wahanui addressed the House of Representatives. His speech finished
with a reference to the liquor issue, asking that ‘the sale of spirits within our district shall be
stopped immediately’.19 This provided a convenient opening for Ballance to announce the
impending proclamation when he addressed the house immediately after Wahanui.20 Ballance
told the House that, because of the September petition, ‘instructions have been given to bring
the prohibitive clauses of the Licensing Act into force throughout the King Country’.21
The prohibition proclamation was gazetted on 11 December 1884, six weeks after Wahanui’s
speech. It outlined that, under section 25 of the Licensing Act (quoted earlier), ‘I...the
Governor...hereby proclaim and declare that no license shall be granted within the area of
Native land described in the said Schedule.’ There then followed a detailed description of the
15
McLintock, p 7
AJHR 1884, I6, p 16
17
Sarich and Cleaver, p 61
18
Waikato Times, 27 November 1884, p 2. The report does not give the date of the meeting, but from other
evidence it must have been after Cabinet agreed to the liquor ban on 25 September, and before 9 October, when
Ballance indicated he had already met with Wahanui.
19
NZPD 1884, vol 50, p 556
20
Ballance was moving the second reading of his Native Lands Settlement Bill.
21
NZPD 1884, vol 50, p 312
16
204
‘Kawhia Licensing Area’, which included most of the Rohe Potae inquiry district.22 The
‘King Country’ (to use Ballance’s description) was thus the first area in New Zealand to
become a ‘dry’ district.
The press did not appear to take much notice of the proclamation at the time, perhaps because
of the lack of Pakeha in the district and the significant legal restrictions already in place on
Maori access to alcohol. The Native Licensing Act 1878 was still in force. In addition, the
Licensing Act 1881 contained provisions that in theory made it difficult for Maori to access
alcohol or for licenses to be granted in ‘Native Districts’.23 An exception to the lack of press
enthusiasm was the Otago Daily Times, which on 4 February 1885 commended the
government for its liquor ban, stating that it ‘is undoubtedly a matter of great importance in
the history of the Colony’.24 Two weeks earlier, the paper had published a speech by local
MHR, Prime Minister Robert Stout, which referred to the King Country proclamation. Its
effect, said Stout, was ‘that not one drop of drink can be bought there or sold there except a
special Act of Parliament allowing it to be done is passed hereafter’.25 Stout’s reference to the
fact that the proclamation could be undone by legislative means was interesting, given later
events.
When Ballance visited Kihikihi in February 1885 as part of his tour of native districts, John
Ormsby, chair of the Kawhia Native Committee, drew attention to a gap in the description of
the proclaimed area; ‘the portion we were most anxious about was left out’.26 Ballance
undertook to fix up this error.27 The Native Office reported on Ormsby’s concerns,
acknowledging that some boundary adjustments were desirable.28 A new proclamation was
therefore gazetted on 9 April 1885 that revised the description of the Kawhia Licensing Area
to clear up ambiguities and slightly extend the district.29 Further proclamations adjusting the
boundaries of the district were issued in subsequent years.30 The last of these came in 1894,
when it was discovered that the 1884 proclamation was ultra vires because the defined
22
New Zealand Gazette, 11 December 1884, p 1685. For a map of the proclaimed area, see Map 2 later in this
chapter.
23
Licensing Act 1881, ss 17-24
24
Otago Daily Times, 4 February 1885, p 2
25
Otago Daily Times, 22 January 1885, p 2
26
AJHR 1885, G1, p 15
27
AJHR 1885, G1, p 18
28
Native Office to Native Minister, 10 March 1885, J1, 1522, 18/25/8, SD vol 1, pp 213-214
29
New Zealand Gazette, 9 April 1885, no 21, pp 404-405, and AJHR 1946, H38, p 369
30
McLintock, p 8
205
district included Tokaanu, where there was already a licensed hotel in 1884.31 A new
proclamation was issued to ensure Tokaanu was not included.32 Officially, then the final
boundaries of the prohibition district were not proclaimed until 1894.33 This led to a
misconception by some in later decades that the Kawhia Licensing District proclamation had
first been issued in 1894 rather than 10 years earlier.34
On the morning of 15 April 1885, Stout met with Rohe Potae representatives outside
Wahanui’s house before the sod-turning ceremony that signalled the start of construction of
the railway extension through the district. It was later claimed that prohibition of liquor was
mentioned in these discussions. However, the only mention of liquor in the official account of
the meeting by George Wilkinson (or the account published in the New Zealand Herald) was
when Stout lectured the assembled group on the benefits of well-ventilated dwellings, healthy
food, and abstaining from alcohol.35 Stout’s speech at the sod-turning ceremony, held that
same afternoon, was a long one. In relation to liquor, he said that those present were
‘standing here on soil on which there has been a Proclamation that no liquor shall be sold’.36
Half of Wahanui’s short speech was about liquor.
I shall not make a very long speech, after what Mr Stout has said. The part of his speech I
took particular notice of is that referring to the restrictions on spirituous liquors in this
district. I consider we could not have a better boundary with which to keep back the
liquor than this stream of fresh water running down below us [pointing to the Puniu]. I
have seen, in one map that has been published, a certain boundary defining this licensing
district; but that I did not agree to. I myself consider the proper boundary by which to
keep back the liquor is a river of fresh water like the Puniu.37
Stout’s reference to the proclamation ‘that no liquor shall be sold’ was not included in the
section of his speech that was interpreted for the Maori in the audience. Wahanui’s speech,
on the other hand, was in Maori. He appeared to be speaking allegorically with his reference
to a river of fresh water keeping back liquor. But later events indicate that his words may
have been taken more literally - that there was an agreement with the government was that no
31
Wanganui Herald, 10 May 1894, p 2. The Licensing Act 1881 (quoted earlier) specified that a proclamation
could only be issued for an area where no publican’s licenses were already in existence.
32
New Zealand Gazette, 10 May 1894, no 34, p 712
33
Sarich, p 127
34
See, for example, Evening Post, 22 October 1909, p 9, Observer, 29 May 1909, p 2, Evening Post, 12 July
1923, p 8, Skerman, p 55
35
AJHR 1885, D6, p 1
36
AJHR 1885, D6, p 3, quoting from a report in the New Zealand Herald.
37
AJHR 1885, D6, p 4, quoting from a report in the New Zealand Herald.
206
liquor would be able to cross the Puniu Stream. However, Wahanui’s earlier requests quoted
above - that ‘no liquor licences be granted within certain boundaries’ and that ‘the sale of
spirits within our district shall be stopped immediately’ - along with his signing of the 1884
petition to ban publican’s licences, would seem to indicate that he was well aware that the
liquor ban would not stop liquor from entering the district, but would only prevent its sale.
The Wanganui Proclamation
The proclaimed dry district was later expanded through a second proclamation in 1887. When
Ballance met the Whanganui representatives at Ranana in January 1885, he encouraged them
to follow the example of iwi and hapu to the north.38 He stated that the 1884 petition had
been ‘immediately answered by the Government, and a Proclamation was issued in
accordance with the petition prohibiting the sale of drink throughout the whole length and
breadth of the King Country. You will see, therefore, that the laws of the colony are sufficient
in most instances if they are only applied and asked for’.39 This is consistent with the general
pattern over several years, in which government representatives attempted to gain the
confidence of Maori in the laws and institutions of the colony. Ballance made similar
statements a week later when he met with Tawhiao and supporters at Whatiwhatihoe.40 A
further two weeks later, on 18 February at Mokoia (near Rotorua), Ballance again stressed
Maori ability to ban liquor in their districts. He told the meeting that ‘if you ask the
Government for assistance, it will not be denied’.41 Again, Ballance was using the example of
the King Country liquor ban to try and promote confidence in government institutions.
Government representatives soon had reasons, other than currying favour with Maori, for
advocating a ban on liquor sales in the upper-Whanganui district. The steam boat which
travelled regularly between Wanganui and Pipiriki had a ‘packet licence’, which permitted it
to sell alcohol to passengers. Illegal sales from the steamer were, according to reports,
leading to much drunkenness among Maori in the district. For example, in September 1886,
Rini Heomoata from Wanganui wrote to Ballance about Maori drunkenness he had observed
at Pipiriki. The same month Robert Ward, the Resident Magistrate, expressed similar
38
The spelling ‘Wanganui’ has been used to refer to the name of the town and the officially proclaimed
prohibition district in line with contemporary usage. However, the spelling ‘Whanganui’ is used for the tribe and
district.
39
AJHR 1885, G1, p 8
40
AJHR 1885, G1, p 27
41
AJHR 1885, G1, pp 45-46
207
concerns to TW Lewis, the Under-secretary of the Native Department. Lewis in turn sent a
memo to Ballance, who contacted the Police Commissioner asking for ‘suppression of this
traffic’. Inspector James from Wanganui was sent to Pipiriki to investigate the situation. He
appears to have found evidence that illegal liquor sales were taking place, but struggled to get
enough evidence to prosecute individual offenders due to lack of willing informers.42 An
alternative approach was therefore tried. In late December 1886, Lewis accompanied Native
Land Purchase Officer Butler into the upper Whanganui district with the intention of
persuading local Maori to petition for a no-license proclamation. No record appears to exist
of his subsequent discussions with local iwi, but Lewis seems to have been persuasive. Just
weeks later, on 10 January 1887, Ballance received a petition signed by Rini Hemoata, Paora
Poutini and 78 others, requesting that waipiro and other intoxicating drinks ‘be not introduced
within Wanganui and all its boundaries’.
The government acted quickly, and a proclamation, largely identical to the one issued earlier
for the Kawhia Licensing Area, was gazetted on 7 April 1887 for the ‘Upper Wanganui
Licensing Area’.43 These two adjacent areas combined to form a contiguous no-license area
that accounted for a substantial part of the North Island. As can be seen from Map 3 below,
the Upper Wanganui Licensing Area was entirely outside of the Rohe Potae inquiry district.
However, in common usage the two areas combined came to be invariably referred to as
either the King Country or Rohe Potae. Map 3 shows that liquor sales were still allowed
under these proclamations in a small part of the inquiry district to the north and east of Aotea
Harbour.
Policing prohibition
Some historians have criticised the prohibition provisions within the Rohe Potae as
inadequate.44 Only liquor sales within the district were banned. There were no provisions
preventing liquor being brought into the King Country for personal use, and a brewer was
allowed to operate in Te Kuiti for five years.45 Policing of sly-grogging was often lax.
However, such criticisms need to be placed in the context of the history of prohibition in New
Zealand and internationally. Prohibition laws were enacted in the United States, Canada and
42
Skerman, pp 28-29
New Zealand Gazette, 7 April 1887, issue 23, pp 436-437
44
See, for example, Skerman, pp 32-33, 62-96, and Marr, Alienation of Maori Land 1900-1960, p 149
45
Marr, Alienation of Maori Land 1900-1960, p 149
43
208
Map 3: The areas in which liquor sales were prohibited through proclamations issued in
1884 (as amended in 1894) and in 1887
209
New Zealand at various times. None of these laws ever prohibited private individuals from
possessing alcohol for their own use. For example, section 62 of the Licensing Amendment
Act 1918 specified that possession of alcohol ‘for the purposes of sale’ would be illegal under
national prohibition, but not possession for other uses.
In fact prohibitionists, at least in the Anglophone world, generally upheld the right of
individuals to possess liquor for private use. They recognised that prohibition needed to be
supported in order to work, and that they were operating in societies with traditions of
democracy and individual rights. Thus, prohibition could only be imposed by ‘the direct vote
of the people’, according to the 1886 founding constitution of the New Zealand Alliance for
the Abolition of the Liquor Traffic (generally called ‘the Alliance’).46 Ironically,
prohibitionists objected when a 1903 Bill proposed to ban the possession, as well as sale, of
alcohol in dry districts.47 One speaker told a Wanganui temperance meeting that ‘the
Legislature had no right to interfere with the personal and private habits of the people, and
had no right to say what they could eat and drink in their own houses’.48 Although
prohibitionists generally considered that prohibition should not be forced on people, an
exception was made for Maori, who were seen as being particularly vulnerable to alcohol and
in need of special protection. As a temperance supporter told a public meeting in 1900,
allowing Maori a vote on a matter of drink was ‘on a par with a man asking his children to
decide what kind of gunpowder they should play with’.49
The Alcoholic Liquors Sales Control Act 1893 enabled Pakeha voters to ban liquor sales in
their electorates. By 1908, 12 of the 76 European electorates had voted to go dry, and at
various times up to 20 percent of the New Zealand population lived in dry districts.50 Parts of
these electorates remained dry for over 90 years, but their residents were never prohibited
from possessing liquor.51 For example, in the first year after Mataura went dry in 1903, the
Railways Department recorded some 38,000 gallons of beer and 7,000 gallons of spirits being
46
John Daniels, ‘Prohibition’, An Encyclopaedia of New Zealand 1966,
http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/1966/prohibition/3, accessed 24 March 2011. The original name, the Alliance for
the Suppression of the Liquor Traffic, was later changed.
47
The 1903 Bill is discussed later in this chapter.
48
Wanganui Herald, 23 October 1903, p 2
49
George Fowlds MHR in Evening Post, 24 July 1900, p 2
50
Christoffel, p 207
51
Only parts of the electorates remained dry because of anomalies resulting from electoral boundary changes
before 1945 – see Christoffel, pp 79-82.
210
legally sent into the electorate.52 These figures did not, of course, include undeclared imports.
These shipments were allowed under the Alcoholic Liquors Sales Control Amendment Act
1895 and later licensing Acts, as discussed below. In addition, the law allowed brewers to
operate in dry districts, so there was nothing anomalous about the King Country situation in
this regard.53 A brewer operated in Invercargill for the 38 years that liquor sales were
outlawed there, from 1906 to 1944.54 New brewers licenses in dry districts were outlawed in
1910, but brewers already licensed were permitted to continue operating.55
Policing of sly-grogging was difficult in all of New Zealand’s dry districts, as shown, for
example, by the Police annual reports in the early twentieth century.56 If, as is likely, the
situation was worse in the King Country, the sheer geographical size of the district and
paucity of police would account for much of that. Between 1900 and 1930 there appear to
have never been more than seven police officers stationed within the district at any one time,
with a few more in bordering areas.57 In addition, however, the King Country at times
operated under different laws than other dry districts. The district was not included in the
Alcohol Liquors Sales Control Amendment Act 1895, which specified that packages of liquor
could be sent into a district that had voted no-licence provided they were labelled as
containing liquor.58 The amendment Act also clarified what actions constituted a breach of
the main Act, and the penalties involved.59 As no-license in the King Country was imposed
by proclamation rather than public vote, the 1895 provisions did not apply. In fact the
provisions applied only to Clutha, the only other dry district at the time. This situation was
rectified by section 18 of the Licensing Acts Amendment Act 1904, which imposed the 1895
requirements on the King Country. In addition, the Act made it illegal, within certain
‘proclaimed districts’, to sell liquor to Maori for off-premises consumption.60 By November
1906, almost the entire North Island had been proclaimed such a district through five separate
52
AJHR 1905, H29A. Mataura residents voted for prohibition in 1902, but under the legislation, licences
remained in force until the following July.
53
Alcoholic Liquors Sales Control Amendment Act 1895, s 33(6)
54
Alan De La Mare, Drink or Drought: Liquor Licensing and the Prohibition Movement (Invercargill, 1981), pp
73-74
55
Licensing Amendment Act 1910, s 47
56
Christoffel, pp 210-211
57
Figures cited by Robinson, p 106
58
Alcoholic Liquors Sales Control Amendment Act 1895, Section 33(1)(d)
59
Alcoholic Liquors Sales Control Amendment Act 1895, Section 33
60
Licensing Acts Amendment Act 1904, s 46
211
proclamations.61 It thus became illegal for Maori within the King Country to have liquor sent
into the district for their own use, or to purchase liquor in order to bring it in themselves. One
result was that Rohe Potae Maori occasionally adopted European pseudonyms when ordering
deliveries of liquor.62
Although almost complete prohibition was imposed on Maori within the King Country, the
restrictions on Pakeha residing there were less severe. The Licensing Acts Amendment Act
1904 further tightened up the restrictions that applied to other no-license districts, including
limiting the daily amounts of alcohol that individuals could bring into the district, but these
provisions did not apply to ‘proclaimed districts’.63 It was only through the Licensing
Amendment Act 1910 that the more restrictive provisions were applied to the King
Country.64 Under the Act, Pakeha residents could still legally import liquor for their own use,
but under relatively strict conditions. Liquor sellers needed to notify an official, appointed
under the Act, of every order of liquor to be delivered into a dry district.65 If people brought
liquor into the district for their own use, they could only bring in one quart of wine or spirits
and one gallon of beer on any one day.66 For the first time, King Country residents were put
on the same footing as those in the other 12 dry districts in New Zealand with respect to their
ability to access liquor.
The 1891 license application
Initially, at least, the banning of liquor sales in the King Country appeared to work well. In
his May 1887 annual report on the Waikato, native agent Wilkinson noted that ‘the Natives in
this district are much more temperate than they used to be in years gone by’.67 Wilkinson
reported that some illegal liquor selling by Maori was taking place, but he considered this
was for purely political reasons. Te Mahuki’s ‘Tekau-ma-rua’ followers (discussed in chapter
3) seem to have opposed initiatives of the traditional leadership such as the liquor ban, and
thus took action against them. As a result, according to Wilkinson, their members openly sold
61
New Zealand Gazette, 23 March 1905, p 777, 15 June 1905, pp 1452-3, 17 May 1906, p 1284, 4 October
1905, pp 2548-9, 25 October 1906, pp 2803-4
62
Commissioner of Police, memorandum to General Manager, Railway Department, 8 March 1916, in
‘Conveyance of Liquor into Prohibited Districts’, AAEB, W3293, Box 119, ANZW, SD vol 1, p 207
63
Licensing Acts Amendment Act 1904, s 5
64
Licensing Amendment Act 1910, s 45, which applied s 147 of the Licensing Act to proclaimed dry districts.
65
Licensing Act 1908, s 147(1)(b). The officials appointed under the Act were based in Magistrates Courts.
66
Licensing Act 1908, s 147(1)(f). It was not necessary to report these private imports to the authorities.
67
AJHR 1887, session 2, G1, p 5
212
liquor as a political statement. However, some Europeans were selling liquor for profit, and
rather more discretely than the Tekau-ma-rua.68 All the same, reports by Wilkinson in 1890
and 1891 continued to comment on the absence of Maori drinking.69
In December 1891, an unexpected event took place when Wahanui, Taonui and ‘the principal
chiefs of the Ngatimaniapoto tribe’ met with Native Minister, Alfred Cadman at
Otorohanga.70 They asked Cadman if he would grant a license to John Hetet, one of the
Maori owners of the Temperance Hotel.71 Subsequently, on 21 December, Wahanui and 30
others signed a petition from ‘the Maoris who reside at Otorohanga’ for a liquor license to be
granted there.72 The letter argued that the arrival of the railway and the Native Land Court
meant it was desirable for the Otorohanga Hotel to have a license to enable it to legally sell
alcohol. ‘It is true that formerly we objected (to any licenses being granted), but now so many
of our European friends come here that we ask you to grant a license for this place only
within Rohe Potae.’ Somewhat inconsistently, a separate letter, signed by Wahanui and
Haupokio Te Pakaro, requested a license for a public house at Kawhia.73 Wahanui sent a
further separate letter to the Minister, dated 22 December, to explain that he had signed the
Otorohanga application because Europeans were falling foul of the law there. Wahanui asked
that licences be granted at both Kawhia and Otorohanga.74 The inclusion of Kawhia within
the proclaimed area had been controversial from the outset due to the number of Pakeha
residing there and the amount of land in European ownership.
The letters to the Native Minister argued that issuing a license in Otorohanga was desirable to
protect Europeans from prosecution. However, Wilkinson speculated that local hapu had a
slightly different motivation – to protect the landlord John Hetet and others associated with
the hotel. Wilkinson said hotel guests regularly requested liquor, as did detectives posing as
guests. The resulting prosecutions were seen by local Maori as unfair, as only Europeans
68
AJHR 1887, session 2, G1, p 6
Skerman, pp 38-39
70
AJHR 1892, G3, p 4
71
Cadman, memo to Minister of Justice, 9 February 1892, King Country Licensing, J1, 1522, 18/25/8, ANZW,
SD vol 1, p 221
72
Wahanui, Taonui and 30 others to Native Minister, 21 December 1891, King Country Licensing, J1, 1522,
18/25/8, ANZW, SD vol 1, pp 215-216
73
Wahanui and Haupokio Te Pakaro to Native Minister, 29 December 1891, King Country Licensing, J1, 1522,
18/25/8, ANZW, SD vol 1, pp 217-218
74
Wahanui to Cadman, 22 December 1891, King Country Licensing, J1, 1522, 18/25/8, ANZW, SD vol 1, pp
219-220
69
213
were involved yet the victim was the landlord who was ‘one of their own people’. Wilkinson
considered that local Maori were near unanimous in their support for a license.75
Cadman agreed that a license was desirable for Otorohanga, due to the growing European
population there, but not at Kawhia, as ‘one hotel in that part of the country was sufficient’.76
But before a license was granted, the proclamation of 1884, as amended in 1885, would need
to be further amended. As a result, a new proclamation was issued on 14 April 1892,
revoking the 1885 proclamation and replacing it with a new one, identical except that it cut
out one acre for the Otorohanga Temperance Hotel.77 Presumably in the knowledge that a
new proclamation was about to be issued, on 11 April John Hetet applied to the Minister of
Justice (William Pember Reeves) for a liquor license for his hotel.78 He needed to apply
directly to the Minister, as there was no licensing committee for Otorohanga. This fact caused
bureaucratic delays, as it was first suggested that the town be included in the nearest licensing
district, then that a special licensing committee of three people be appointed to consider the
license application. This latter course was eventually followed.79
On 24 May 1892, the New Zealand Herald questioned whether the license at Otorohanga had
the support of Maori throughout the King Country.80 The article alerted prohibitionists to the
issue, and a lobbying offensive was launched. On 25 May, Alliance President Sir William
Fox wrote to the Prime Minister raising the same question as the Herald and claiming that the
Otorohanga Hotel would distribute liquor throughout the prohibition district.81 Throughout
June, congregations of the Wesleyan Church sent copies of resolutions to the Prime Minister,
from Waimate, Christchurch, Ashburton and New Plymouth, along with resolutions from the
New Plymouth branch of the Independent Order of Rechabites, the Palmerston North
Prohibition League, the Women’s Christian Temperance Union in Wellington and citizens of
Masterton and Waimate South. A petition was presented from the citizens of Norsewood
75
AJHR 1892, G3, pp 3-4. Hetet’s name was misspelled by Wilkinson and others.
Cadman, memo to Minister of Justice, 9 February 1892, and Cadman, note to Gipps, 18 February 1892, King
Country Licensing, J1, 1522, 18/25/8, ANZW, SD vol 1, pp 221-222
77
New Zealand Gazette, 14 April 1892, no 31, p 598
78
Hetet to Minister of Justice, 11 April 1892, King Country Licensing, J1, 1522, 18/25/8, ANZW, SD vol 1, p
223
79
Wilkinson memo to Undersecretary, Native Department, 26 April 1892; Reeves telegram to Cadman, 6 May
1892, King Country Licensing, J1, 1522, 18/25/8, ANZW, SD vol 1, pp 224-225
80
New Zealand Herald, 24 May 1892
81
Fox to Premier, 23 May 1892, King Country Licensing, J1, 1522, 18/25/8, ANZW, SD vol 1, pp 226-227
76
214
calling for the March proclamation to be rescinded.82 On 20 June, ‘a large deputation
embracing M.H.R.s, clergymen, city councillors and temperance advocates’ visited the
Premier, who promised to raise the issue of the license at Otorohanga with Cabinet.83 On 23
June, the New Zealand Herald claimed that ‘Kingites’ were opposed to a public house in the
King Country.84
Two protests were received from within the inquiry district. One was from Stephen White, a
former employee of a coal company in the Rohe Potae, warning of the effects of liquor on
Maori.85 His letter, written on 27 June, was too late to influence subsequent events. Of more
import was a telegram from Rewi Maniapoto to Governor Glasgow on 23 June 1892, shortly
after the Governor’s arrival in the country. It read: ‘This is my word to you. Do not by any
means allow a license to be issued within this Rohe Potae tribal boundary district at
Otorohanga’.86 Rewi’s telegram was publicised in the press, which was generally opposed to
the decision to allow a license.87 It was regularly reproduced in subsequent decades, although
with significantly changed wording.
When confronted with nationwide opposition to the licensing proposal, the Prime Minister
had second thoughts. On 20 June 1892, a telegram was sent to Wilkinson on behalf of
Ballance, asking him to try and ascertain whether the principle chiefs of the district indeed
wished to go back on the 1884 petition, which had asked for liquor sales to be banned.88
Wilkinson passed the message on to Wahanui and others, who on 21 June wrote to the
Premier reaffirming their support for a license.89 Wahanui also organised a meeting at
82
Women’s Christian Temperance Union, Wellington to Premier, 18 June 1892; Palmerston North Prohibition
League to Premier, 18 June 1892, New Plymouth Independent Order of Rechabites to Colonial Secretary, 18
June 1892; Citizens of Masterton to Premier, 22 Jun 1892, Ashburton Wesleyan Church to Premier, 22 June
1892; Wesleyan Church of New Plymouth to Premier, 23 June 1892; Citizens of Norsewood to Premier, 23 June
1892; Waimate Wesleyan Congregation to Premier, 26 June 1892; Durham St and East Belt Wesleyan
Congregation to Colonial Secretary, 28 June 1892, King Country Licensing, J1, 1522, 18/25/8, ANZW, SD vol
1, pp 242-256, 259-263
83
Marlborough Express, 21 June 1892, p 2
84
Cited by Skerman, p 45
85
Stephen White to Colonial Secretary, 27 June 1892, King Country Licensing, J1, 1522, 18/25/8, ANZW, SD
vol 1, pp 257-258
86
Rewi Maniapoto, telegram to Governor (translation), 23 June 1892, King Country Licensing, J1, 1522,
18/25/8, ANZW, SD vol 1, p 231
87
Poverty Bay Herald, 29 June 1892, p 2. Other newspapers carried the same story.
88
Morpeth, telegram to Wilkinson, 20 June 1892, King Country Licensing, J1, 1522, 18/25/8, ANZW, SD vol 1,
p 228
89
Wahanui, Te Kanawa, Taonui and others to Ballance, 21 June 1892, King Country Licensing, J1, 1522,
18/25/8, ANZW, SD vol 1, pp 229-230
215
Otorohanga, which was reported in the press as unanimously supporting the license
application.90 Wahanui again wrote to the Premier on 25 June, saying that he and Taonui
‘with our people, are entirely agreed that this should be the day for taking off the restrictions
respecting drink at Otorohanga only for the convenience of visitors to this place’.91 This was
not enough to convince the Government, and at its meeting on 28 June 1892, Cabinet decided
to reverse its earlier decision to allow a license at Otorohanga. Ballance told parliament that
Cabinet changed its mind because it had found that ‘the Natives were divided on the
question’.92 Much weight must have been attached to the 23 June telegram from Rewi
Maniapoto, which was the only apparent evidence of Maori opposition. In a report dated 28
June, the date of the Cabinet decision, Wilkinson stated that ‘the Natives have decidedly
shown by petition and otherwise that they desire to have the house at Otorohanga licensed’.93
Had the Natives themselves been divided in opinion, and had one section of them
expressed themselves as strongly against the Otorohanga hotel being licensed as the other
section was in favour of it, there would be good reason for withholding the license, for a
time at least. But we do not find that it is so.94
Of course, Wilkinson’s report would not have been received until well after the Cabinet
meeting. The same applied to a letter written on 29 June by William Gudgeon, the magistrate
based at Otorohanga, and received by the Native Minister on 6 July. Gudgeon argued that a
license was desirable so that liquor sales could take place in a supervised environment.95
On 5 July 1892, Taonui, Wahanui and three others wrote to the Native Minister expressing
their disappointment at the Cabinet decision. They asked that the licensing committee set up
to hear the application be allowed to continue its work. The letter expressed ‘regret’ at the
telegram from Rewi Maniapoto, saying, among other things, that he was ‘not from this
district’. Further ‘we are quite agreeable to a poll of all the people in this district being taken
with a view to ascertaining whether they approve of a licensed house being erected here or
not’. The letter claimed that members of the Good Templars had canvassed the district to
drum up opposition to the proposed license, but ‘have not succeeded in obtaining the support
90
Poverty Bay Herald, 29 June 1892, p 2
Wahanui and Taonui to Ballance, 25 June 1892, King Country Licensing, J1, 1522, 18/25/8, ANZW, SD vol
1, p 232
92
NZPD 1892, vol 75, p 49
93
AJHR 1892, G3, p 3
94
AJHR 1892, G3, p 4
95
W Gudgeon to Native Minister, 29 June 1892, MA1/851 1892/1148, ANZW, SD vol 1, pp 292-294
91
216
of one Maori or European’.96 The Alliance later denied that Good Templars had been
canvassing in the district.97
The last-ditch letter from the chiefs was in vain, for on 7 July 1892 a new proclamation was
gazetted, returning the acre for the Otorohanga Hotel to the proclaimed district.98 Taonui and
Wahanui did not give up, and in fact began to agitate for an end to prohibition throughout the
entire district. In September they, along with four others, sought James Carroll’s support for
their petition ‘that the prohibition against the sale of liquor within the Rohe Potae be
withdrawn’.99 The general message from this petition and the previous letter was the same; it
was they who had asked for prohibition to be imposed, but now that they were asking for it to
be removed, even to a tiny extent, numerous outsiders interfered. The petition was
unsuccessful, as was an application in June 1893 for a liquor license at Kawhia.100 In the
latter case, an official drew the Minister’s attention to the extensive file of opposition to the
1891 application, demonstrating that no action was ‘desirable at present’.101
A petition praying ‘that no licenses may be granted for the sale of spirituous liquors at
Otorohanga, or other Native districts’ belatedly went before the Native Affairs Committee on
9 August 1892. The petition was organised by former Western Maori MP Wi Parata, who
resided on the Kapiti Coast, and was signed by 62 others. The committee made no
recommendation ‘as this matter has already been settled’.102
The complete reversal, within three months, of a government decision to allow a license at
Otorohanga, shows the lobbying power of the prohibition movement at the time. It was this
power that, in 1893, resulted in parliament legislating for three-yearly polls that would enable
whole electorates to ban liquor sales. It is notable that, throughout the Otorohanga license
controversy, no reference was ever made to a ‘sacred’, ‘solemn’, or indeed to any kind of
pact involving alcohol and the main trunk railway.
96
Taonui, Wahanui, Patupatu Keepa, Pepene Eketone, and Kingi Wetere to Native Minister, 5 July 1892, King
Country Licensing, J1, 1522, 18/25/8, ANZW, SD vol 1, pp 233-235
97
Evening Post, 26 July 1892, p 2
98
New Zealand Gazette, 7 July 1892, no 54, p 945
99
Taonui, Wahanui and four others to James Carroll, September 1892, King Country Licensing, J1, 1522,
18/25/8, ANZW, SD vol 1, pp 236-238
100
Turnbull to Colonial Secretary, 224 June 1893, King Country Licensing, J1, 1522, 18/25/8, ANZW, SD vol
1, pp 239-240
101
Memo to Minister of Justice, 28 July 1893, King Country Licensing, J1, 1522, 18/25/8, ANZW, SD vol 1, p
241
102
AJHR 1892, I3, p 5
217
Seddon enters the picture
John Ballance died in 1893, and Seddon prevailed over Stout in the ensuing struggle for the
Premiership. As David Hamer has shown, Seddon’s concessions to the prohibition lobby had
much to do with his eventual victory in the Liberal leadership battle.103 Seddon made himself
Native Minister, and in early 1894, embarked on a tour of ‘native districts’, accompanied by
new Cabinet Minister James Carroll and various officials. Seddon’s first stop was at
Moawhango, just inside the Upper Wanganui prohibition district. One speaker, Hiraka te
Rango, said they wanted a licensed hotel in the district as controlled sales of alcohol were
preferable to sly-grog.104 It was an argument that Maori were to make on other occasions over
the next decade. Seddon indicated he was opposed to this idea.105
Seddon’s trip took him through the Rohe Potae during March 1894, although the official
account says almost nothing of the meetings he had there.106 The first of these meetings were
at Taumarunui and Te Kuiti. At Otorohanga, he was met by ‘Wahanui and other chiefs’.107 In
a satire on the liquor ban, the Observer newspaper outlined an imaginary conversation
between Seddon and Wahanui at Otorohanga, in which the Premier offers Wahanui a large
tumbler of quality whiskey.108 This fiction made an odd transformation into reality over two
years later. In September 1896, senior Alliance member Frank Isitt visited the King Country.
The following month he wrote to several newspapers alleging that Wahanui had told him that
Seddon had supplied King Country Maori with whiskey while visiting in 1894.109 Isitt made
the same claim, with further embellishments, in the Prohibitionist newspaper, which he
edited.110 Isitt’s article also claimed that Wahanui told him he had been involved in the 1891
Otorohanga liquor licence application by mistake; he thought he was signing a petition in
favour of leasing and selling land.111 This seems hard to square with the seven letters that
Wahanui signed in support of licenses in Otorohanga and Kawhia, his personal request to
103
David Hamer, The New Zealand Liberals: The Years of Power, 1891-1912 (Auckland: AUP, 1988), pp 115119
104
AJHR 1894, G1, p 5
105
AJHR 1894, G1, p 4
106
AJHR 1894, G1, p 9
107
Evening Post, 10 March 1894, p 2
108
Observer, 24 March 1894, p 5
109
Hawera and Normanby Star, 30 October 1896, p 2. The same letter can be found in several other newspapers
around the same date.
110
Quoted by Rev Edward Walker in Otago Daily Times, 23 October 1897, p 3
111
Skerman, pp 40-41
218
Cadman for licenses in these locations, and his association with an 1892 petition to remove
totally the ban on liquor sales within the Rohe Potae.
The truth of Isitt’s allegations relating to Seddon was disputed by a fellow Alliance member,
the Reverend Edward Walker. In 1897, Walker communicated with several of those who had
accompanied Seddon on his 1894 tour, including the Hansard reporter James Geddis. In
September 1897, Geddis wrote to Walker rejecting all the claims made by Isitt. Walker
resigned from the Alliance and sent copies of the correspondence between himself and
Geddis to the press for publication.112 Seddon does not seem to have publicly denied the
claims until April 1898, when he had an audience with King Mahuta in Huntly. The
newspaper reports on the meeting said that the chiefs present ‘agreed that Mr Seddon’s denial
was correct’.113 No-one seems to have contacted Wahanui about the allegations before his
death in December 1897. However, contemporary evidence indicates Wahanui was too ill in
the last year of his life to be involved in such a controversy.114
In June 1897, someone obviously closely associated with Isitt and the Alliance wrote to the
Hawke’s Bay Herald under the pen-name ‘Daybreak’. The letter touched upon the Maori
origins of the Rohe Potae liquor ban, and also contained a new claim - that Rewi Maniopoto
had sent a telegram to the Governor ‘from his deathbed’, with the following words:
Oh Governor, welcome to New Zealand! Long may you live! This is my first request, that
you prevent strong drink being allowed to come within the Rohe Potae. This, my first
request, will be my last.115
The letter claimed that Governor Glasgow had just arrived in the country, indicating that the
telegram referred to was the one Rewi sent to the Governor in June 1892 regarding the
Otorohanga licensing controversy. However, the wording had been significantly changed
from the original, which was quoted earlier.116 Furthermore, this was a full two years before
Rewi’s death in 1894. In fact in February 1894, when Rewi was genuinely ‘on his deathbed’,
112
Otago Daily Times, 23 October 1897, p 3
Evening Post, 6 April 1898, p 2
114
Manuka Henare, 'Wahanui Huatare', from the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, Te Ara - the
Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 1-Sep-10, www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/biographies/2w2/1. According to
William Hursthouse, who knew him well, Wahanui suffered from mental illness for most of 1897 – see AJHR
1900 I1a, p 22.
115
Hawke’s Bay Herald, 4 June 1897, p 4
116
Rewi’s June 1892 telegram (in translation) read: ‘This is my word to you. Do not by any means allow a
license to be issued within this Rohe Potae tribal boundary district at Otorohanga’ – see SD vol 1, p 231.
113
219
he wrote to the former Governor George Grey, who subsequently went to visit him.117
Prohibitionists regularly repeated the fabricated Rewi ‘deathbed’ quote in decades to come,
including Sir Robert Stout in 1923.118 The ‘Daybreak’ letter made little of its reference to the
Maori origins of the liquor ban, except to criticise Seddon’s alleged supply of liquor to King
Country Maori. Within a few years, however, the Alliance would successfully imbue these
events (both real and imagined) with rather more significance.
When Seddon met with Mahuta in 1898, the King ‘expressed the approval of the Maori
people of the measures taken by the Government to prevent the sale of liquor in the King
Country, which was best for the Maoris under the present circumstances’.119 In 1903, Mahuta
signed the pledge at the instigation of Wesleyan missionary William Gittos.120 This seems to
have done little to curb Mahuta’s reported fondness for drink.121
The Pakeha influx
The accelerating influx of European settlers into the Rohe Potae from the late 1880s was
rapidly changing the character of the district. In particular, it brought people into the district
with the desire, contacts and means to import alcohol. Much of this liquor was brought in by
sly-grog sellers. By the mid-1890s, the widespread flouting of the ban on liquor sales in the
King Country was widely acknowledged. This report will not cover the evidence provided on
this issue, but rather on the solutions proposed and the political divisions that resulted. Two
diametrically-opposed solutions were proposed to the enforcement problems in the district.
One was for greater enforcement efforts backed up by stricter legislation. For example, at a
prohibition meeting in July 1896, a resolution was carried that ‘this meeting of Auckland
Citizens deeply regrets to hear of the shameful manner in which the law prohibiting the liquor
traffic in the King Country is being violated, and respectfully requests the Government to
take more vigorous measure to enforce the law’. Robert Stout was one of the speakers at the
meeting.122 The previous year, Stout had been elected president of the Alliance.123
117
Poverty Bay Herald, 22 February 1894, p 2
McLintock, p 51
119
Evening Post, 6 April 1898
120
Poverty Bay Herald, 9 July 1903, p 2
121
Ballara, ‘Mahuta Tawhiao Potatau Te Wherowhero’, Dictionary of New Zealand Biography
122
Evening Post, 21 July 1896, p 5
123
Evening Post, 16 March 1895, p 4
118
220
The other solution proposed to the problem of illegal liquor sales was to allow liquor licences
in the district. In September 1896, a petition was presented to parliament, signed by Wahanui
and 201 others, calling for liquor licences to be allowed within the Rohe Potae.124 One of the
reasons given by the petitioners was ‘so that sly grog selling in our district may be
suppressed’.125 However, the Government remained nervous of intervention in the face of the
prohibition lobby. In November 1897, Parnell MHR Frank Lawry, who edited the Licensed
Victualler’s Association Gazette, asked the Minister of Justice whether he would authorise
hotels at Otorohanga and Te Kuiti. The Minister replied that such a move ‘would not be in
accordance with what is conceived to be popular sentiment’.126
It was not just Maori within the Rohe Potae who wanted an end to prohibition. Many within
the small but growing Pakeha population in the King Country were unhappy with the lack of
licences and with their inability to vote to restore them. In 1895 the law was amended to
explicitly enable those in dry areas to vote to restore licences, but the King Country was
excluded.127 In 1897, parliament received two petitions, apparently from Pakeha, requesting
licenses for the district.128 In April 1898, King Country settlers and ‘some of the most
influential chiefs there’ invited Frank Lawry to address a meeting at Otorohanga. Lawry gave
an account of the meeting to the Royal Commission on the Police Force two months later. He
told the meeting, through an interpreter, that they should lobby for the right to vote on
whether or not to allow licences in the district. Lawry claimed, on the basis of a resolution
passed, that his views were ‘approved of by every Native and every European at the large
meeting’.129 He told the Royal Commission that he regularly visited the King Country and
knew the Maori of the district well.130 ‘So far as I understand them, they were absolutely in
favour of establishing a license and the regulation of the trade.’131
124
AJHR 1896, I3, p 19
Translation of Petition in Jamie Mitchell, ‘King Country Petitions Document Bank’, commissioned by CFRT
for the Rohe Potae District Inquiry (Wai 898), January 2008, pp 425-426
126
NZPD 1897, vol 100, p 454
127
Alcoholic Liquors Sales Control Amendment Act 1895, s 12. The main Act had been unclear about the
situation regarding dry districts.
128
AJHR 1897, I1, p 9
129
‘Report and Evidence of the Royal Commission on the Police Force in New Zealand’, AJHR 1898, H2, pp
1087-1088
130
AJHR 1898, H2, p 1087
131
AJHR 1898, H2, p 1088
125
221
The 1898 Royal Commission also interviewed William Gittos about his knowledge of slygrogging in the King Country. Gittos had moved from Kaipara to Auckland in the mid-1880s,
and from 1891 was ‘active in the Methodist Maori mission in Auckland province’, which
included the Rohe Potae. Gittos was based in Auckland city, apart from a stint in Te
Awamutu from 1891 to 1893.132 His evidence to the royal commission is interesting given
later claims made on his behalf. For example, a 1949 booklet published by the King Country
Sacred Pact Committee claimed that Gittos ‘frequently preached about the Pact in the eighties
and nineties of last century’.133 Gittos was questioned by his acquaintance Frank Isitt, on
hand as a representative of the Alliance. Part of the exchange went as follows:
Isitt - Has your attention been much directed to the King-country?
Gittos - For about ten years it has been directed to the King-country, and the general
aspect of things there.
Isitt - Do you know the circumstances under which the King-country was declared a
prohibited area?
Gittos - I simply know from documentary evidence. I have no personal knowledge.
Mr Poynton [Chairman] - You know it is a prohibited area?
Gittos - Yes.134
In its final report, the 1898 Royal Commission was sceptical about the ability of the police to
enforce prohibition in the King Country.135 The Commission said that ‘it is a matter for
serious consideration whether it would not conduce to the welfare of the people and to their
observance of the law if licensed houses existed in their neighbourhood at which reasonably
good liquor could be obtained under proper regulation and control’.136
In mid-1900, Rohe Potae Maori made yet another push for liquor licenses in the district. A
petition to this effect was presented to parliament, signed by Whaaro Kaitangata and 401
132
M B Gittos, 'Gittos, Marianne - Biography', Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, Te Ara - the
Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 1-Sep-10, www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/biographies/2g12/1. This is actually a
joint biography of Marianne and William Gittos.
133
‘The King Country Sacred Pact and the Licensing Commission’ (Maori King Country Sacred Pact
Committee, 1949), p 4
134
AJHR 1898, H2, p 1012
135
AJHR 1898, H2, p xxv
136
AJHR 1898, H2, p xxiv
222
others and dated 27 June. A similar petition was presented from ‘John Tammadge and 113
others of Te Kuiti’. Both petitions argued that the situation had changed so much with the
influx of Europeans to the district that licences were needed to stop illicit sales.137 On 1 June
1900, a meeting at Te Awamutu ‘attended by two hundred representative Waikato residents’
unanimously carried resolutions that ‘residents of the King Country be given an equal
opportunity with those of other districts for deciding by ballot whether alcoholic liquor be
sold in their midst’.138 A week later, the Waikato branch of the Liberal Party announced a
planned conference to discuss a proposal ‘that the inhabitants of the King Country should be
given the right to say at the ballot-box whether or not licenses should be granted in the
district’.139
The Public Petitions Committee began hearing evidence on the Tammadge petition on 5 July
1900, and the evidence was later published in the AJHRs. Those who appeared on both sides
of the argument for and against licences were of the view that the majority of Maori in the
district supported an end to the licensing ban. Apirana Ngata was the first to appear, while the
other witnesses were not examined until September. Ngata was a lifelong temperance
advocate, and was later acknowledged as such by the Alliance.140 He had been sent to the
King Country to prepare a report for the Te Aute Students’ Association, which supported
continued prohibition. But he found that even strong temperance advocates – specifically
Moerua Natanahira and Whitinui – felt that the time had come to introduce licences. They
told Ngata that the restriction ‘has had a fair trial, and is an absolute failure’.141 They argued
that growing Pakeha settlement had completely changed the situation, and sly-grogging had
become rife. Ngata quoted from his Te Aute report, saying ‘the Native chiefs who secured the
prohibition sixteen years ago petitioned for its removal before they died, and the
Ngatimaniapoto Tribe of today, among whom are prominent men of pronounced temperance
views, ask for its removal’. Ngata recommended that the association support the right of
Maori within the King Country to have an opportunity to vote on ending prohibition.142
137
AJHR 1900, I1a, p 1
Evening Post, 2 June 1900, p 5
139
Star, 9 June 1900, p 5
140
J Cocker and J Malton Murray, Temperance and Prohibition in New Zealand (London: Epworth Press,
1930), p 245
141
AJHR 1900, I1a, p 2
142
AJHR 1900, I1a, p 3
138
223
The petitions from Maori and Pakeha within the Rohe Potae, along with the testimony of
Ngata, no doubt contributed to Seddon deciding that the time was ripe for change. In
parliament on 6 July, Lawry asked the Premier whether he intended to allow a ballot on King
Country liquor licensing. Seddon said that he had received submissions on the subject ‘from
quarters he little expected’ and ‘did not see why these European settlers should be debarred
from the privileges that settlers in other parts of the colony possessed’.143 Prohibitionists were
concerned at the turn of events, and on 12 July 1900, a large deputation met with the Premier
to urge him to continue with prohibition in the King Country. Seddon stated his intentions
clearly, telling the deputation that ‘he proposed to give the Maoris and Europeans the right to
vote on the subject in the King Country as elsewhere’. The Evening Post reporter predicted
‘trouble ahead’.144
The ‘sacred compact’ is born
Seddon’s blunt announcement on 12 July 1900 that he intended to legislate for a referendum
on licensing in the Rohe Potae excited immediate protest. During the following week,
resolutions condemning the decision were passed at public meetings and by church
congregations.145 At least two newspaper editorials criticised the proposal.146 The resolutions
and editorials all made the same point – that prohibition protected Maori from the harm
caused by alcohol. For example, a Napier meeting of the Temperance Party expressed its
‘strongest disapproval of the proposed introduction of licenses for the sale of intoxicants in
the King Country, believing that it will be detrimental to the physical, moral, and social
development of the native race’.147 This had always been the standard argument for
prohibition in the Rohe Potae; Maori were especially vulnerable to alcohol, and it was best
kept out of their reach. Prohibition was in turn the most effective way of achieving this.
Those of a contrary view argued that prohibition had proved ineffective in keeping alcohol
from King Country Maori, and licensed hotels would prevent sly-grogging. This was the
view that Seddon put to the 12 July deputation.148
143
NZPD 1900, vol 111, p 313
Evening Post, 12 July 1900, p 6
145
See, for example, Hawera and Normanby Star, 13 July 1900, p 2, Evening Post, 16 July 1900, p 6, Southland
Times, 18 July 1900, p 2, Hawkes Bay Herald, 23 July 1900, p 2
146
Evening Post, 13 July 1900, p 4
147
Wanganui Herald, 16 July 1900, p 2
148
Evening Post, 12 July 1900, p 6
144
224
Immediately after that meeting, the Evening Post reporter questioned Alliance representatives
and judged them to be ‘altogether dissatisfied with the Government pronouncement’.149
Nothing else was heard from the Alliance for the next 11 days. This uncharacteristic silence
seems especially odd given that Seddon challenged the temperance deputation that they ‘now
had fair warning of his intention, and could set to work at once’.150 But despite its silence, the
Alliance was far from idle, for liquor licenses in the King Country would have been a huge
setback for the prohibition movement which it spearheaded.
One member of the 12 July deputation was Alliance acting secretary Frank Isitt, editor of the
weekly newspaper the Prohibitionist, for a time the largest circulation newspaper in the
country.151 Isitt set about putting together a leaflet – described as a ‘summarised and
authenticated statement’ - outlining the ‘position of those who oppose the introduction of
liquor’. Isitt’s leaflet ignored the standard arguments, such as the detrimental effect of alcohol
on Maori. Instead, it made a startling and novel claim; ‘It is plain that both races understood
that the prohibition of liquor was a condition of the opening of the King Country and the
introduction of the railway, which the Maoris imposed and the Europeans accepted’.152
It is not intended here to provide a critical analysis of the argument made in Isitt’s leaflet, but
rather to comment on the sources on which it was based. The leaflet quoted from
documentary sources that the Alliance had collected over the years. Some of these, such as
the 1884 proclamation and Wahanui’s speech to parliament, were uncontroversial and are
outlined earlier in this report. Others were clearly fabricated, such as the Rewi ‘deathbed’
telegram. Many of the quotations had appeared in Alliance literature before, but had not
previously been used in the service of such an innovative conclusion. The only non-written
source was a claim that in 1896 Wahanui had regretted his earlier opposition to prohibition.
This claim was based on a visit that Isitt made to the Rohe Potae with William Gittos that
year – his only visit to the district. Gittos was the only Alliance member with significant King
Country connections, and he spoke fluent Maori. However, as Gittos told the 1898 royal
149
Evening Post, 12 July 1900, p 6
Evening Post, 12 July 1900, p 6
151
Allan K Davidson, 'Isitt, Leonard Monk - Biography', from the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, Te
Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 1-Sep-10, www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/biographies/3i2/1. This
biography contains some material on Leonard’s brother Frank.
152
‘Liquor in the King Country’, in New Zealand Alliance: Correspondence and papers relating to licensing in
the King Country, Alexander Turnbull Library ref 77-206-17/6, SD vol 1, p 4
150
225
commission, the only knowledge he had as to how prohibition came to be imposed in the
King Country was from ‘documentary evidence’. Wherever Isitt got the idea of linking
prohibition with the railway, it does not seem to have been from Maori sources.
Regardless of where Isitt got the idea, it was a stroke of genius. The slow progress on the last
section of the railway, which traversed the King Country, loomed large in the public mind,
and had been a prominent campaign issue in the 1899 general election.153 During 1900, 122
petitions were presented to parliament asking for ‘speedy completion’ of the line, some
claiming 1,000 signatures.154 Resolutions to this effect were passed at public meetings.155 A
North Island Central Main Trunk Railway League was formed at one such meeting on 3 July
1900, a week before the temperance deputation met with Seddon.156
Isitt’s leaflet was distributed to Alliance supporters around the country. Some of these
supporters subsequently sent copies to their local newspaper to be published as letters to the
editor under the sender’s name.157 Isitt did the same. On 21 July, he wrote a letter to the
editor of Wellington’s Evening Post newspaper, most of which consisted of a slightly reedited version of his ‘authenticated statement’. The letter was published on 23 July 1900, thus
becoming the first recorded public expression of an alleged link between the King Country
liquor ban and the railways negotiations.158 However, Isitt’s pamphlet and letter nowhere
used the word ‘compact’, or any simile such as ‘pact’, ‘pledge’, ‘promise’, ‘treaty’ or
‘agreement’. Nor did the words ‘sacred’, ‘solemn’, or ‘binding’ appear.
To gain support for his new strategy, Isitt set about organising a public meeting. He also
talked with Frederick Wallis, the Bishop of Wellington, and another senior Anglican
clergyman, the Reverend T H Sprott, to enlist their support.159 Isitt must have been motivated
by the status of the Anglican church, by far the country’s largest, for the prohibition
movement tended to be dominated by the Methodists and Presbyterians. The Anglican
hierarchy were divided on the subject, and Wallis was of temperance rather than
153
Otago Daily Times, 25 October 1899, p 7; Hawkes Bay Herald, 4 November 1899, p 3
Journals of the House of Representatives 1900, pp XV to XLIII
155
North Otago Times, 26 June 1900, p 2
156
Wanganui Chronicle, 4 July 1900, p 2
157
See, for example, Otago Daily Times, 14 August 1900, p 3, and Grey River Argus, 15 August 1900, p 4.
158
Evening Post, 23 July 1900, p 5
159
Minutes for 19 July 1900, New Zealand Alliance: Executive Meetings Minutes 1900-1903, Alexander
Turnbull Library reference 77-206-11/06, SD vol 1, pp 2-3
154
226
Figure 2: The July 1900 leaflet prepared by Alliance secretary Frank Isitt, the first
known publication to claim a link between the railway negotiations and the Rohe Potae
liquor ban.
227
prohibitionist views, albeit a strong supporter of King Country prohibition. Approaching
Wallis turned out to be an enormously lucky stroke, for he moved in the same Wellington
circles as Sir Robert Stout - both, for example, were members of the Victoria College
Council.160 Stout had become an ardent prohibitionist, and was President of the Alliance from
1895 to 1897 inclusive.161 Wallis was sceptical when Isitt raised the liquor-railway claim with
him, and so approached Stout for confirmation. Stout agreed to provide Wallis with
something in writing, and subsequently sent him a letter.
On 19 July, the Alliance executive gave Isitt the go-ahead for the public meeting.162 He sent
press releases and advertisements to the Wellington newspapers, announcing a meeting to
‘protest against licenses in the King Country’, to be held three days later.163 Several
prohibitionist MHRs were recruited to address the meeting, including George Fowlds, elected
as MHR for Auckland on the Liberal ticket in 1899 after standing in 1896 as an independent
prohibitionist. In 1909 he became Vice-President of the Alliance.164 The only suitable indoor
venue available at short notice was the skating rink near the city centre. Permission was
needed from the Wellington Poultry Club, which had hired the rink for a week-long
exhibition.
The Wellington protest meeting was held on the evening of 23 July 1900. The first speaker
was the Reverend J Paterson, who said that ‘the Natives had asked to have drink kept out of
the King Country’ – one of the themes of the Isitt leaflet. The next speaker was Fowlds, who
told the meeting about the ‘promise’ under which the proclamation prohibiting the sale of
liquor was issued. ‘The natives agreed to the opening of their country to railway construction
on the distinct understanding that no liquor should be allowed to be admitted. In common
honesty this pledge should be kept’.165 However, the speaker who made the greatest impact
was Wallis. Wallis told the meeting about how he initially had doubts about the alleged
160
See, for example, Evening Post, 20 July 1899, p 2 and 18 October 1899, p 2
Cocker and Murray, p 264
162
Minutes for 19 July 1900, New Zealand Alliance: Executive Meetings Minutes 1900-1903, Alexander
Turnbull Library reference 77-206-11/06, SD vol 1, pp 2-3
163
Evening Post, 20 July 1900, pp 4, 6
164
Cocker and Murray, pp 222, 265, Frank Rogers, ‘Fowlds, George – Biography’, Te Ara - the Encyclopedia
of New Zealand, updated 1-Sep-10, www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/biographies
165
Evening Post, 24 July 1900, p 2
161
228
promise made in relation to the railway, and had approached Stout who sent him a letter. A
copy of the letter was not located in research for this report. However, Wallis read an extract
from it to the Wellington meeting, and this was recorded by the press. Wallis first
paraphrased some of the letter, in which Stout confirmed for him that a proclamation had
indeed been issued banning liquor sales in the Rohe Potae. Wallis then quoted directly from
the letter:
I can further say that if we had not acceded to Wahanui’s representations about the sale of
liquor, I feel sure that he and his people would not have consented to the railway being
made through the King Country. I met Wahanui and other chiefs at Alexandra and at the
boundary of the King Country at the Punui River [sic] on the morning the first sod was
turned (in 1885). I had a long talk with them, and it was a feature of the arrangements that
no liquor was to be sold if the territory was to be opened for the railway. 166
To the uninitiated reader, it would appear from Stout’s statement, as presented by Wallis, that
the prohibition proclamation was issued because of a deal struck on the morning of the sodturning ceremony. However Isitt’s letter, published a day earlier, made it clear that the
proclamation was issued some months beforehand, although no-one seems to have noted the
inconsistency. Unlike Isitt, speakers at the skating rink meeting used the terms ‘promise’ and
‘pledge’ to describe the liquor-railway arrangement, but not the words ‘pact’ or ‘compact’.
Isitt’s leaflet, and the press reports of the skating rink meeting published the following day,
completely changed forever the debate on King Country prohibition. On 13 July 1900, a
rather mild Evening Post editorial said that King Country prohibition should stay ‘in the
interests of the natives’.167 On 24 July, after the launch of the prohibitionist’s new strategy,
the Post took a rather stronger line. ‘The Government of the colony was morally bound by
the promise made to Wahanui and other chiefs in 1885 when the Maoris agreed to the
construction of the railway through the King Country.’ The Post went on to say that ‘even if
the promise to Wahanui is not to hold good forever, the time has obviously not yet come
when it can be set aside without breach of faith’.168 Other newspapers followed suit. On 4
August, the Observer editorialised that allowing the sale of liquor in the King Country
‘would be a gross violation of the undertaking made with Wahanui in 1886 [sic], when the
natives agreed to allow the railway to run through their territory, but stipulated that liquor
166
Evening Post, 24 July 1900, p 2
Evening Post, 13 July 1900, p 4
168
Evening Post, 24 July 1900, p 7
167
229
should not be sold there’.169 Also on 4 August, the Marlborough Express outlined the terms
of ‘the now historical compact between the Government and the King Country natives, when
the latter agreed to throw open their territory to Europeans’.170 This seems to be the first time
the word ‘compact’ was used to describe the alleged agreement.
The notion of a government pledge or promise relating to liquor in the King Country quickly
spread throughout the country from late July 1900, and was regularly repeated at public
meetings and in church services over subsequent weeks. In a Wellington sermon on 29 July,
the Reverend Sprott (who had been approached by Isitt two weeks earlier) said the
Government had no right to set aside the understandings reached with Stout, ‘even if there
was a general demand from the Maoris do away with prohibition in the King Country’. 171 On
1 August, a meeting of the Palmerston North Women’s Christian Temperance Union
protested the Government’s proposed ‘violation of a pledge made to the natives’.172 Also in
early August, the Council of the Evangelical Churches of Auckland opposed ‘the granting of
licenses in the King Country as a breach of the agreement entered into with the Natives’.173
At a Taranaki public meeting on 8 August, the Reverend J Dukes said that to remove the
proclamation of 1884 ‘would be a violation of a promise made solemnly to the natives’.174
A petition against King Country licensing, initiated by the Bishop of Wellington, was
circulating in Wanganui during early August 1900. The Wanganui Chronicle supported King
Country prohibition, and reported on two sermons and a public meeting on the subject around
that time. At the public meeting on 8 August, the Reverend A O Williams stated that ‘the
natives of the King Country had allowed railways, etc., to be carried through their district on
the strict understanding that no liquor should be allowed there’.175 At the same meeting, the
Reverend Maclean said that ‘New Zealand was pledged, for not only had the promise been
made by the Premier and the Government, but by the Legislature, and was as binding as an
Act of Parliament’. Maclean went on to recite the fabricated Rewi ‘deathbed’ quote.176 A few
days earlier, the Vicar of Christ Church told parishioners that ‘when the district was first
169
Observer, 4 August 1900, p 2
Marlborough Express, 4 August 1900, p 2
171
Otago Daily Times, 31 July 1900, p 3
172
Manawatu Standard, 2 August 1900, p 3
173
Star, 4 August 1900, p 5
174
Hawera and Normanby Star, 9 August 1900, p 2
175
Wanganui Chronicle, 9 August 1900, p 2
176
Wanganui Chronicle, 10 August 1900, p 2
170
230
opened up the Government of the day promised to prohibit the sale of liquor there, and as
honourable men we should keep our promise’.177 The local Wesleyan minister preached that
Stout undertook to maintain the proclamation of 1884 ‘inviolate’, as it was ‘sacred’, and in
the nature of a contract. He quoted liberally from the Isitt leaflet.178 On 7 August, the
Wanganui Chronicle reproduced Isitt’s leaflet almost verbatim as part of an editorial,
portraying it as an ‘authoritative source’. The Chronicle concluded that ‘Mr Seddon will
commit a great blunder and a great sin if he sanctions the violation of the Colony’s pledge to
the Maori people. No plausible arguments, however deftly urged, can get behind the sacred
and binding character of that pledge’.179
The word ‘compact’ appears to have been first used on 4 August 1900 to describe the liquorrail deal, but it soon became common. This is probably because it better encapsulated the
notion of a two-way agreement, whereas words like ‘pledge’ and ‘promise’ implied a
unilateral undertaking. On 7 August, the Reverend A H Collins told an Auckland meeting,
called to protest against licenses in the King Country, that ‘the moral sentiment of the colony
would demand that the solemn compact made with the Maoris should be maintained
intact’.180 Three days later, a letter to the Auckland Star referred to ‘the compact existing
between the Maoris and the Government, so clearly pointed out in the letter Sir Robert Stout
sent to Bishop Wallis’.181 A letter to the Evening Post on 14 August disapproved of the
‘proposal to set aside the solemn compact made between the Maoris and the Government in
1884’. This ‘compact’ was to last ‘forever’.182 Isitt began using the word, telling a public
meeting in Nelson on 15 August 1900 that ‘no one had a right to set apart the compact then
made with the Maoris and their chiefs’.183 On 19 August the congregation of the Church of
Christ, Ponsonby, condemned the illegal importation of drink into the King Country
‘whereby a sacred compact with the natives is being outrageously set at naught’.184 By late
August the story of the agreement had been expanded to include additional actors. The
Reverend Luxford told an Invercargill temperance meeting of promises made to Wahanui,
177
Wanganui Chronicle, 6 August 1900, p 2
Wanganui Chronicle, 7 August 1900, p 2
179
Wanganui Chronicle, 7 August 1900, p 2
180
Auckland Star, 8 August 1900, p 3
181
Auckland Star, 10 August 1900, p 2. For another example, see Auckland Star, 13 August 1900, p 2
182
T G Hammond, Patea Missionary, in Evening Post, 14 August 1900, p 6
183
Colonist, 16 August 1900, p 2
184
Auckland Star, 20 August 1900, p 4
178
231
Rewi and others by Sir George Grey, John Ballance and Robert Stout that ‘if they would
permit their land to be settled, and the railway were allowed to pass through the King
Country no sale of intoxicating liquor would be permitted in their domain’.185
In less than a month the prohibitionists had completely turned the debate. Prior to July 1900,
they had occasionally mentioned that prohibition in the King Country was imposed after a
request from Maori chiefs, but made little of this. Instead, they, and sympathetic newspapers,
emphasised the deleterious effect of alcohol on Maori which prohibition helped prevent.
Then, on 23 and 24 July 1900, King Country prohibition was linked with the railway as a
‘promise’, or ‘condition’. Over subsequent weeks, in the hands of prohibitionists and the
press, the deal was increasingly characterised as a ‘compact’ or ‘pledge’, words sometimes
linked with modifiers such as ‘sacred’, ‘solemn’, and ‘binding’. The King Country ‘sacred
compact’ was born.
Introducing the idea of a liquor-railway link probably succeeded far beyond expectations,
thanks mainly to the timely and unexpected contribution by Stout. It is interesting, however,
that those embracing the idea did not always include Frank Isitt’s fellow Alliance members.
For example, his brother Leonard, a former Alliance president, spoke at a Christchurch
prohibition rally on 31 July 1900. Leonard Isitt simply expressed doubt that Seddon would go
ahead with his King Country referendum proposal, and said nothing of any agreement over
the railway.186 Of course, prohibitionists had other weapons at their disposal. Speakers
regularly attacked the notion that Maori should have a vote in a referendum on alcohol. The
words of George Fowlds in July 1900, that allowing Maori such a vote was like a man asking
his children what kind of gunpowder they wanted to play with, were quoted earlier.187
Prohibitionists pointed out that Seddon had expressed similar views to a temperance
delegation five years earlier.188 Others noted that different laws applied to Maori on matters
other than voting on liquor issues. At a public meeting in Wanganui, one speaker said, rather
inaccurately, that ‘it was a curious thing that in all matters save drink, the Government
185
Southland Times, 25 August 1900, p 2
Star, 1 August 1900, p 4
187
Evening Post, 24 July 1900, p 2
188
See, for example, Evening Post, 10 August 1900, p 7. The delegation’s visit was reported in the Evening
Post, 5 July 1895, p 4. The report does not entirely back up the Alliance’s claims, but it was probably an
incomplete record.
186
232
regarded the Maoris as children’.189 The prohibition lobby utilised its extensive church
networks to mobilise opposition to Seddon’s proposal. During September and October 1900,
36 petitions were presented to parliament against allowing liquor licenses in the King
Country.190 Most of the signatories appeared to be from the South Island, with one Dunedin
petition claiming 5,051 signatures and one from a small town in Southland claiming 1,600. In
the North Island, the petition organised on behalf of the Bishop of Wellington claimed 4,500
signatures.191 Two petitions were received from Maori with connections to the southern part
of the proclaimed district, both calling for liquor licences not to be allowed in ‘the Kingcountry, Upper Wanganui and Inland Patea’. One was from Pokiha Nikorima and 136 others
of Wellington. The other was from Wiari Turangapito and 16 others of Wanganui.192
Not everyone was critical of Seddon’s proposals. In August 1900, the Taranaki Herald asked
the Reverend J Hosking, ‘who for some years was engaged in ministering in the King
Country’, for his views. Hosking described prohibition as a failure. ‘It is not the sly-grog
sellers who want the licensing system, nor the drunkards, but the temperate people, both
native and European’.193 Maori and Pakeha within the proclaimed district organised further
petitions of their own against prohibition. One, from Terenui te Tuku and 229 others, called
for a law change ‘to allow the issue of licenses to sell alcoholic liquors in the Rohepotae
district’.194 Two similar petitions were received from the district, possibly initiated by
Pakeha.195 However, these minority views were lost in the flood of anti-license lobbying
flowing in from all around the country.
Seddon backs down
Faced with a deluge of prohibitionist propaganda, Seddon soon wavered from the intentions
he had so confidently announced on 12 July. On 7 August 1900 he received a Kingitanga
deputation to discuss Maori land law. Seddon touched on liquor matters, saying that if King
Country residents voted for liquor sales there, ‘it should be brought in by the Government,
189
Wanganui Chronicle, 9 August 1900, p 2. Restrictions on Maori access to alcohol were actually
considerable, including a ban on sales to Maori women.
190
Journal of the House of Representatives 1900, pp XLIII- XVI
191
AJHR 1900, I1, p 13
192
Journal of the House of Representatives 1900, pp XXXII, XLII, AJHR 1900, I1, p 13
193
Taranaki Herald, 10 August 1900, p 2
194
AJHR 1900, I3, p 17
195
AJHR 1900, I3, p 18 and I1, p 6
233
and sold by people controlled by the Government after the Gothenburg system’.196 Here
Seddon was advocating a modified version of the system instituted in the Swedish city of
Gothenburg some decades earlier, by which liquor outlets were run by a municipal body.
From time to time such a system was advocated in New Zealand as a moderate half-way
house between prohibition and licenses under private enterprise.197 Indeed, by the end of
August a petition was presented to parliament by residents of the King Country and nearby
districts calling for the Gothenburg system to be trialled there. Two similar petitions followed
in subsequent weeks.198 Seddon may have hoped that announcing an intention to trial a
central-government version of the system would reduce opposition to his referendum
proposal. But in some ways he merely further antagonised the prohibition lobby. As one
journalist pointed out, prohibitionists were staunchly opposed to any government
involvement in the liquor industry.199 The Gothenburg issue in any case quickly became an
irrelevant sideshow to the main event – license versus prohibition – and was barely
mentioned by the protagonists. Three weeks later, parliament had its first opportunity to
discuss liquor licensing in the Rohe Potae. On 30 August 1900, the Native Affairs Committee
reported on the June petition from Whaaro Kaitangata and 401 others, ‘praying that the Kingcountry should be declared a district wherein alcoholic liquors should be sold’. The
Committee made no recommendation on the basis that ‘the question was one of policy’.
Northern Maori member Hone Heke objected to the blandness of this finding given the public
interest in the issue, and moved that the report be referred back to the Committee for
reconsideration.
Heke made a long and impassioned speech based on his ‘personal experience’ of the King
Country. He condemned the widespread illegal trading under prohibition, and said licences
were needed with increasing European settlement. Heke said that liquor was now dealt with
by Maori communities a lot better than in the past thanks, to a large extent, to the work of
native committees.200 However, the King Country lagged behind the rest of Maoridom
because licensing laws did not apply there. ‘To my mind, the sooner licenses are granted in
the King-country the better’. Heke thus advocated that ‘the question should be left to the
196
Evening Post, 7 August 1900, p 6
See, for example, Star, 14 September 1899, p 4
198
Wanganui Herald, 1 September 1900, p 2, and Southland Times, 19 September 1900, p 2
199
Manawatu Standard, 8 August 1900, p 3
200
NZPD 1900, vol 113, pp 324-326
197
234
people to decide – to the Maoris and to the Europeans who live there – that we should give
them the right to express themselves either one way or the other’.201 Heke said nothing about
the ‘compact’ issue, but this was confronted by the next speaker, Lawry, who seconded
Heke’s motion. As noted earlier, Lawry was a frequent visitor to the King Country, and
condemned the numerous pronouncements on the liquor issue made by people who (unlike
Heke) ‘had no knowledge’ of it.202
Then, they talk this insufferable ‘rot’ about the railway not being allowed to go through
there, except on a promise, which Sir Robert Stout had given them, that no liquor would
ever be sold in the King-country.
An Hon. Member – Where is the proof of it?
Mr Lawry – There is no proof. Wahanui told me he never asked such a question, and
never obtained such a pledge.203
Although Lawry claimed a friendship with Wahanui, his evidence on this last point can
hardly be taken seriously. As Wahanui died in 1897, there seems no reason why Lawry
would ever have asked him about a compact whose alleged existence was kept secret until
1900. George Fisher, the member for Wellington, agreed with Lawry about the level of
ignorance of the subject:
For months past various assemblages have been discussing this question, and passing
resolutions upon a matter in regard to which they have displayed the most utter ignorance.
All the particulars necessary to the discussion of the subject are now in the possession of
the House, except one thing – and that is, we want proof of the statement ascribed by Sir
Robert Stout to the now dead chief Wahanui. And I assert positively that that proof
cannot be produced.204
However, the Wairarapa member John Hornsby expressed no such scepticism, condemning
the proposal ‘to break the solemn pledge given by the Government of this country’. Hornsby
said he was against Maori having a vote on the issue ‘not because I want to stop them from
exercising their rights as citizens, but because a pledge was given by this colony to one, if not
201
NZPD 1900, vol 113, pp 325-326
NZPD 1900, vol 113, pp 326-327
203
NZPD 1900, vol 113, p 327
204
NZPD 1900, vol 113, p 331
202
235
two of the leading chiefs – a pledge that should always be held as a sacred by the people of
this colony’.205
The debate was soon adjourned, leaving Waikato member Frederick Lang, who had
originally presented Kaitangata’s petition to the House, unable to speak in support of it.206
However, from Hornsby’s remarks it was clear that the change of tack by the prohibitionists,
just over a month earlier, was starting to reap dividends. This became more apparent a few
days later, when Heke and Lang introduced to Seddon a deputation of ‘chiefs representing the
King natives’. The deputation, consisting of Te Heuheu Tukino, Matengarao Hetet, Moerua,
and Kahu Huatare (Wahauni’s brother), visited the Premier on 3 September 1900, ‘to urge
upon him the importance of revoking the prohibition against the sale of liquor in the King
Country’.207
Te Heuheu was the first to speak. Whereas Lawry and Fisher had challenged the idea of a
liquor-rail agreement, Te Heuheu supported it. He said that Rohe Potae Maori had indeed
sanctioned railway construction on the condition that liquor sales would be prohibited.
However, a second condition was imposed, that no land would be purchased or leased in the
district, and that condition was broken almost immediately. As a result, Pakeha had flooded
into the district, bringing liquor with them. Now Maori wanted the other condition revoked so
that the liquor trade could be brought under control.208 Te Heuheu outlined his views in more
detail three months later, at a debate organised by the Te Aute Students Association. These
are discussed below.
The other members of the deputation did not support Te Heuheu’s views, but instead argued
that licensing would reduce sly-grogging. Hetet outlined how the chiefs ‘who originally
asked for prohibition’ later petitioned for its removal. He objected that ‘people outside the
district opposed the removal of prohibition, but the wish of the people inside should be first
considered, for they had the best knowledge of the matter’. The delegation suggested five
locations within the Rohe Potae where they considered licensed hotels should be
established.209 Frank Isitt, who had been invited by Seddon to question the delegation, asked
205
NZPD 1900, vol 113, pp 329-330
NZPD 1900, vol 113, p 331
207
Evening Post, 3 September 1900, p 6
208
Evening Post, 3 September 1900, p 6, NZPD 1900, vol 113, pp 487-488
209
NZPD 1900, vol 113, p 488
206
236
Kahu Huatare about Wahanui’s support for prohibition. Kahu said that his brother had, ‘up
until the time of his illness expressed himself favourable to prohibition being removed’. He
implied that Wahanui’s views were unknown after that because of his mental instability.
Te Heuheu and Moerua proposed that licensing, if allowed, should be put into the hands of
native councils. However, Seddon rejected this idea, saying he ‘would not be prepared to give
local bodies control, and as regards giving control to the chiefs, there was the difficulty that
some of them might be interested in licenses’. Seddon’s first objection may have been related
to his own version of the Gothenburg system outlined a month earlier, by which central
government rather than local authorities would control liquor outlets.
In response to the deputation, Seddon said that he had initially supported prohibition in the
King Country, but had since changed his mind due to the massive increase in illegal sales and
the Commissioner of Police stating that it was impossible to prevent sly-grogging in the
district. However, he also indicated that he had shifted his position from that outlined six
weeks earlier, when he first advocated a referendum on the licensing question. He now
suggested that perhaps there should be a commission of inquiry first. The seeds of doubt
sown by the prohibitionists were starting to take hold.
Seddon’s suggestion of a commission of inquiry was taken up in parliament two days later.
On 5 September 1900, Dunedin member James Arnold asked the Premier whether ‘the
Government will appoint a Royal Commission to visit the King-country for the purpose of
ascertaining the views of the people there upon the liquor question’.210 Arnold said that
within the last three days he had presented petitions from the South Island containing 6,000
signatures, ‘and almost six thousand more were on the way up’. This showed the amount of
interest in the issue, ‘in the southern part of the colony at any rate’.211
Seddon gave a lengthy response outlining how, on visiting the district in 1894, Wahanui had
told him he no longer supported the liquor ban. Seddon also spoke of receiving a deputation
around that time ‘from the chiefs and the leading Native people asking that liquor should be
put under control by granting licensed houses’. When he visited the district in 1898, Seddon
said sly grogging had got worse, and ‘Government officers and Native chiefs’ had come to
210
211
NZPD 1900, vol 113, p 436
NZPD 1900, vol 113, p 437
237
similar conclusions.212 He went on to talk about the deputation he had received two days
earlier, and the ‘two conditions’ argument that Te Heuheu had raised. ‘Some of the chiefs had
asked for the repeal of the conditions they themselves had imposed.’213 Seddon thus seemed
to be coming around to the view that there had perhaps been a compact. Te Heuheu probably
thought he had been making a similar argument to that made by Rohe Potae Maori in the past
– that prohibition had been implemented at their request and it should be repealed at their
request. However, his argument radically changed the focus of the debate. Seddon went on to
inform parliament that he had told the deputation ‘that the Government were considering
whether or not, in the face of conflicting testimony, a Commission might be set up to take
evidence in the district’. Such a commission might deal ‘not only with the licensing question
in the King-country, but also with the whole licensing question throughout the colony’. 214
In October 1900, the Clutha Leader mocked Seddon’s capitulation, pointing out that in July
Seddon had confidently told a temperance deputation of his intention to allow Maori and
Pakeha to vote on liquor licensing in the King Country. Within a month, this proposal
became a vote on whether to allow government-run liquor outlets. However, ‘the Premier
soon discovered that this scheme was equally repugnant to the people, and in despair resolved
to place it in the hands of a Royal Commission’.215
To be fair to Seddon, he was trying to balance a number of on-going political pressures. It is
not that he was unsympathetic to Rohe Potae Maori who were pushing for an end to the
liquor ban. But their wishes had to be balanced against the potential votes of thousands of
prohibitionists throughout the country. From the outset, the liquor issue had regularly
threatened to tear the nascent Liberal Party apart, as its members and supporters included
hard-line prohibitionists. Seddon’s strategies to deal with these divisions included trying to
push the issue onto voters through regular polls, and allowing Liberal politicians a free vote
on alcohol-related legislation – a custom that has continued into the present day as the socalled ‘conscience vote’.216 The downside of this latter approach was the difficulty in getting
212
NZPD 1900, vol 113, p 487. No other reference to this delegation has been uncovered in research for this
report.
213
NZPD 1900, vol 113, pp 487-488
214
NZPD 1900, vol 113, p 488
215
Clutha Leader, 19 October 1900, p 4
216
Law Commission, Review of Regulatory Framework for the Sale and Supply of Liquor: Part 1, Alcohol
Legislation and the Conscience Vote, Law Commission: Wellington, 2009, pp 21-22
238
liquor legislation through parliament. The numerous petitions against King Country licensing
submitted during 1900, and which continued to be submitted during 1901, were more than
just minor nuisances. They, along with regular public meetings, were signals to MHRs that
votes were at stake. Two petitions and a delegation from Rohe Potae Maori were, in
comparison, of little consequence. A royal commission may have seemed to Seddon to be a
way of getting a non-parliamentary body to make recommendations on the issue, thus
absolving politicians of responsibility.
The ‘compact’ ascendant
On 11 September 1900, the Public Petitions Committee re-commenced its hearings on the
petition from ‘John Tammadge and 113 others of Te Kuiti’ in support of liquor licences. The
committee had interviewed Ngata in July, perhaps because he was in Wellington at the time.
As was outlined, Ngata said he now supported licenses in the King Country after a visit there.
In September, the committee interviewed W Cussen, who said he had lived in the King
Country ‘on and off’ for some 20 years. He considered that sly-grogging had got much worse
with the arrival of Europeans, and that the majority of people in the proclaimed district now
supported licences. ‘I may say that the head chiefs, who do not drink, think the same on that
point’.217 Charles Hursthouse, interviewed two weeks later, agreed that the great majority of
Maori and Pakeha in the district wanted a say on whether to continue or end prohibition.218
The committee also interviewed John Ellis, a storekeeper and businessman who had lived in
the King Country for some 26 years. Ellis agreed that Maori in the district would vote for
licences if given the chance, but did not favour a Maori vote on the issue as he supported
continued prohibition.219
Frank Isitt was also examined by the committee. As outlined earlier, Isitt had visited the King
Country, accompanied by William Gittos, in September 1896. Isitt claimed that Wahanui had
written to Gittos, begging him to help undo the mischief he had done by changing his stance
on prohibition.220 According to Isitt’s evidence, Wahanui told them that he had supported a
license at Otorohanga in 1892 because he had lent money to the owners of the hotel.221 As
217
AJHR 1900 I1a, p 6
AJHR 1900 I1a, p 22
219
AJHR 1900 I1a, pp 10, 13
220
The alleged letter was never produced in evidence and was unable to be located in research for this report.
221
AJHR 1900 I1a, p 15
218
239
Skerman notes, this contradicts Isitt’s version in his 1896 article in the Prohibitionist, when
he claimed that Wahanui told them he had supported the license through a
misunderstanding.222 Isitt also told the Petitions Committee that in September 1896, Wahanui
was ‘strongly adverse to the issue of a license’.223 Again, Skerman notes that this claim is
hard to reconcile with Wahanui signing a petition in 1896 in support of licensing in the King
Country.224
In December 1900, Isitt spoke at a debate on licensing in the Rohe Potae, organised by the Te
Aute Students Association. There he gave yet another account of his 1896 visit to the King
Country, claiming he had ‘heard from Wahanui’s own lips the story of the early King
Country compact’.225 This is no less suspect than Isitt’s other claims relating to his 1896
discussions with Wahanui. Isitt told the Petitions Committee in September that he did not
understand Maori. ‘The whole conversation was in Maori, but Mr Gittos interpreted it as we
went along. Wahanui understood more English than he could speak.’226 Thus, everything
Wahanui told Isitt he also told Gittos. As outlined earlier, Gittos told the Royal Commission
on the Police Force in 1898 that everything he knew about how prohibition came to be
instituted in the Rohe Potae came from ‘documentary evidence’.
The most interesting contribution to the Te Aute debate came from Te Heuheu. He made a
new claim that he had not made in the September meeting with Seddon – that he had been
among those outside Wahanui’s house at Alexandra in April 1885, when discussions were
held with Stout before the sod-turning ceremony. Te Heuheu said that ‘the statement that a
stipulation had been made that no liquor should be admitted if the train and the pakehas were
permitted to enter the King Country was perfectly correct’:
He was present and heard two conditions imposed, (1) that liquor should not be admitted,
and (2) that no land should be sold. Because the second condition had been broken they
(the natives) now demanded that the first should be repealed.227
Te Heuheu thus provided eye-witness evidence of the events of 1885, albeit 15 years later.
There are, of course, a number of problems with this evidence. McLintock questions whether
222
Skerman, p 41.
AJHR 1900 I1a, p 18
224
Skerman, p 152
225
Wanganui Chronicle, 11 December 1900, p 2
226
AJHR 1900, I1a, p 15
227
Wanganui Chronicle, 11 December 1900, p 2
223
240
Te Heuheu was even there as a young man aged about 20.228 Skerman notes that his evidence
was incompatible with the account of the meeting recorded by Wilkinson and the New
Zealand Herald at the time.229 By both accounts, the only significant issue discussed was who
would turn the first sod later that day. That an important last-minute deal was done at all
seems highly implausible – particularly as no-one involved seems to have said anything about
it for the next 15 years. Stout was Prime Minister until 1887, but never seems to have
mentioned the supposed deal he had done committing the Government to maintaining a longterm liquor ban. Indeed, in a speech in January 1885, Stout said that King Country
prohibition could be undone by Act of Parliament.230 As president of the Alliance from 1895
to 1897, Stout spoke at public meetings regarding King Country licensing. It might be
thought he would have then mentioned the ‘compact’ at such meetings, yet there is no record
of anyone mentioning a liquor-railway deal before July 1900. Two of the people most closely
associated with the alleged compact, Wahanui and Taonui, spent most of the latter years of
their lives trying to undo King Country prohibition.
Such objections aside, Te Heuheu’s statement made quite an impact. In 1903, there was a
remarkable exchange in parliament between Seddon and Lawry during parliamentary
question time. Seddon said that ‘it was an open question to say that because [of] a pledge
given to the Native chiefs some years ago...therefore for all time that state of things should
continue, especially when one of the parties to the compact – the Maoris or the Maori chiefs
themselves – were really pressing for a further review of the question’. In response, Lawry
adopted Te Heuheu’s argument as his own, saying that:
…he [Lawry] was at the first turning of the sod of the railway when the compact was
virtually ratified. The great conditions there laid down were that no land should be sold
and that no liquor should be dispensed in that Rohe Potae district. There had never been
any protest against the violation of the principal part of that compact – namely, the sale of
the land - by any Prohibitionist in this colony.231
Less than three years earlier, Lawry had described the compact idea as ‘insufferable rot’. But
after 1900, opponents of prohibition in the Rohe Potae commonly adopted Te Heuheu’s
228
McLintock, p 42
Skerman, p 149
230
Otago Daily Times, 22 January 1885, p 2. This speech was some six weeks before the sod-turning ceremony,
indicating that no deal had been done by then to Stout’s knowledge.
231
NZPD 1903, vol 123, p 771
229
241
argument that Maori had made a compact and now wanted to undo it. Te Heuheu had
converted many, from the Prime Minister down, to believers in the ‘sacred compact’. It
should be noted, however, that Te Heuheu himself was never reported as using the word
‘compact’, or any simile such as ‘treaty’, ‘pact, ‘pledge’, ‘contract’, ‘agreement’ or
‘promise’.
Also in 1903, the first ‘European’ church in the King Country opened at Otorohanga. In
1949, a publication produced by the Maori King Country Sacred Pact Committee claimed
that a stained glass window in the church was erected ‘in honour of the Sacred Pact’.232
However, a press report on the opening of the church said nothing about this.233 A booklet
published in 1978 for the 75th jubilee of the church simply noted that the window, by then in
the Sunday school building, ‘is often referred to as commemorating the sacred pact between
Maori and pakeha regarding the sale of liquor in the King Country’.234
The elusive royal commission
On 20 September 1900, Seddon introduced his new Licensing Acts Amendment Bill to
parliament. Although he was merely seeking leave to allow the Bill to be printed and
circulated to members, rumours as to its contents resulted in an extensive debate in the
House.235 Hone Heke said it was absolutely necessary for the Government to include in the
Bill provisions to allow Rohe Potae residents ‘to declare their voice either for or against the
granting of licenses’.236 As Rohe Potae Maori had done previously, Heke expressed
resentment at the interference of outsiders in the issue, referring to the numerous
prohibitionist petitions presented that session.237
Seddon’s Bill was not circulated until 9 October.238 It provided that licensing matters in the
‘Rohe-Potae or King-country’ should remain unchanged until a royal commission had
reported to the House. Other provisions included abolishing the licensing polls held every
232
Maori King Country Sacred Pact Committee, ‘The King Country Sacred Pact and the Licensing
Commission’, Te Kuiti, 1949, p 4
233
Auckland Star, 10 August 1903, p 3
234
75th Jubilee of the Otorohanga Methodist Church: Mother Church of the King Country (Methodist Church of
New Zealand, 1978), p 6
235
NZPD 1900, vol 114, pp 68-69
236
NZPD 1900, vol 114, p 77
237
NZPD 1900, vol 114, p 78
238
Evening Post, 10 October 1900, p 6
242
three years in every electorate, replacing them with similar polls in nine provincial districts.
There was also to be a referendum on whether these polls might be held every six years rather
than every three.239 The parliamentary session ended later that month, so the Bill was held
over until 1901.
The recess saw a rising tide of prohibitionist opposition to Seddon’s proposals. The royal
commission idea was treated as tantamount to allowing liquor licenses in the Rohe Potae. In
February 1901, the Christchurch Prohibition League protested ‘against the proposal to
legalise the sale of liquor under any system in the King Country, and ask that the prohibitory
laws be stringently enforced’. It urged parliament to reject the main proposals in Seddon’s
Bill.240 A similar motion was passed at the annual Prohibition Convention in May, at which
several MHRs spoke.241 When parliament re-opened in July, more than 50 petitions were
presented protesting against King Country licensing and the main provisions of the Licensing
Bill.242
On 9 July 1901, Waikato member Frederick Lang asked Seddon whether he still intended to
appoint a commission to inquire into ‘the desirability or otherwise’ of allowing a vote on
King Country licensing. In response, Seddon said nothing had happened because of the extent
of public agitation and the fact that several other commissions were appointed during the
recess. However, the matter ‘was one deserving consideration, and would not be lost sight
of’.243 The Bill from the previous year was quietly dropped, to be replaced by one making
various technical changes to the main licensing acts. Even this Bill failed to get through the
House.
In September 1901, further petitions on King Country prohibition were presented to
parliament.244 Many of these called for section 33 of the Alcoholic Liquors Sales Control Act
1893 to be applied to the King Country, thereby imposing specific conditions under which
liquor could be imported into the district. Many, including Seddon, were unwilling to impose
such conditions on a district where the residents had no vote on licensing. He expressed
239
Bills Thrown Out 1900, Licensing Acts Amendment Bill, s 34
Otago Witness, 27 February 1901, p 12
241
Manawatu Times, 25 Mary 1901, p 4
242
Fielding Star, 8 July 1901, p 2
243
NZPD 1901, vol 116, pp 185-186
244
NZPD 1901, vol 118, pp 613-614
240
243
frustration, saying ‘he could not understand why those who were always saying they were
willing to trust the people refused to allow those within the boundaries to have a say on these
matters, in the same way as people had in other parts of the country’.245 On 20 September his
new Licensing Acts Amendment Bill had its first reading. Heke immediately asked whether
the Bill would deal with prohibition in the Rohe Potae. Seddon responded that ‘I think the
matter will have to be dealt with outside the House’ – an indication he had not yet given up
on a King Country commission.246
In April 1902, a temperance deputation visited Seddon requesting that the royal commission
he mooted some 18 months earlier should go ahead.247 This seems ironic given that many
prohibitionists had earlier opposed this idea. Seddon said that Maori ‘could not exercise the
same self-control as Europeans and should not be trusted with liquor’. The ban on liquor sales
to Maori women instituted in 1895 had been of ‘great benefit’. Thus, instead of a royal
commission, he put forward a new proposal – for the government to establish hotels where
liquor sales to guests, but not to others, would be allowed. Some of these could be within the
King Country. As indicated earlier, the idea of government-owned liquor outlets was
anathema to most prohibitionists, and a spokesman for the deputation said as much.
In July 1903, another prohibitionist deputation visited Seddon. Among the proposals put to
him was that the importation of liquor into the King Country ‘on any pretext’ should be
outlawed. One speaker referred to the ‘holy compact’ between the Government and Tawhiao
(sic). Seddon said he would go further – he would ‘allow no one to have liquor in his house’
in any dry district. With reference to the Rohe Potae, Seddon said he had ‘never gone back on
his contention that he would allow the natives to vote on the question of license or nolicense’.248
Seddon introduced yet another Licensing Bill to the House in October 1903. This provided,
as he had told the July delegation, for the possession of liquor in a district voted dry to be
outlawed. Ironically, this excluded the Rohe Potae.249 The Bill also included Seddon’s idea
for government-run tourist hotels at several locations, including Pipiriki within the upper
245
NZPD 1901, vol 118, p 614
NZPD 1901, vol 118, p 644
247
Evening Post, 12 April 1902, p 2
248
Evening Post, 8 July 1903, p 7
249
Bills Thrown Out, 1903, Licensing Acts Amendment Bill, s 9
246
244
Wanganui prohibition district.250 In addition, a commission would be established, with
members elected by the House of Representatives, to inquire into the licensing situation in
the Rohe Potae. The options available to the commission were strictly proscribed. It could
either endorse the status quo, or recommend that state-controlled outlets be established to sell
liquor to non-Maori only. In the latter case, the proposals would be submitted to European
voters within the district to endorse by a three-fifths majority. If the vote failed, possession of
liquor would be outlawed, as in other dry districts under the Bill.251 Seddon had completely
backed down from his 1900 support, reaffirmed in July 1903, for Maori within the Rohe
Potae to be granted a vote on liquor licensing.
Almost everything about Seddon’s 1903 Bill was hated by the prohibitionists, particularly
outlawing the possession of liquor in dry districts. This not only interfered with individual
liberties, but, more importantly, would be a disincentive for voters to support prohibition.252
Prohibitionists also renewed their opposition to the idea of a King Country commission.
Radical Christchurch Liberal MHR Tommy Taylor told a Wellington meeting, called in early
November to protest Seddon’s Bill, that a commission was not wanted – ‘public opinion is
good enough’.253 The commission idea also appeared to have little support in parliament.
Lyttelton member George Laurenson said he was ‘entirely opposed’ to any attempt to
introduce liquor into the King Country. ‘It has been kept out of that district by virtue of a
treaty made between ourselves and the Maoris, and I trust it will always be kept out’.254 Hone
Heke, on the other hand, said that the proposed commission was unnecessary, as the House
had long had all the evidence it needed to effect change, referring to the published select
committee hearings from 1900. Thus ‘what has been going on in the King-country is
detrimental to the interests, not only of the Europeans, but the Natives, and the only remedy
is to remove the prohibition and allow licenses’.255 In the end Seddon withdrew all references
to the King Country and government tourist hotels from his Bill. The whole Bill was shortly
afterwards thrown out by parliament by a narrow margin.256
250
Bills Thrown Out, 1903, Licensing Acts Amendment Bill, s 37 and second schedule
Bills Thrown Out, 1903, Licensing Acts Amendment Bill, s 36
252
See, for example, Wanganui Herald, 23 October 1903, p 2
253
Evening Post, 6 November 1903, p 5
254
NZPD 1903, vol 127, p 191
255
NZPD 1903, vol 127, p 247
256
NZPD 1903, vol 127, pp 453, 467-470
251
245
In September 1904, Seddon introduced yet another Licensing Amendment Bill to parliament.
The Bill included a clause to extend the enforcement provisions of section 33 of the Alcohol
Liquors Sales Control Act 1893 to the Rohe Potae. This was what many prohibitionists had
long asked for. Egmont member William Jennings moved that this clause be thrown out, to
be replaced by another providing for a referendum on prohibition.257 Jennings may have been
influenced by a petition presented late in the 1903 session by ‘450 residents of Te Kuiti’
requesting a vote on liquor licensing.258 Several members spoke in support of the Jennings
amendment, including Henare Kaihau for Western Maori (a King supporter), Heke, and
Waikato member Lang. James Carroll, on the other hand, opposed the measure, as he did not
think that Maori in the upper Wanganui district wanted licensing. Lawry showed that he was
still a convert to the compact argument put by Te Heuheu nearly four years earlier,
contending that ‘the Maoris should have the right to say whether the compact they entered
into many years ago by which liquor was excluded from the district should be altered or
confirmed’.259 Auckland member Frederick Baume put a similar view, showing that the
‘compact’ argument had been adopted by those supporting King Country licensing:
…[O]bjections urged against Mr Jenning’s amendment was that a solemn contract had
been entered into with the Maori chiefs, but the Government also promised sacredly that
there should be no land sales in the King Country. It was not an act of Parliament, simply
the promise of a Premier, and that promise had never been carried out in its essentials namely, the exclusive possession and enjoyment of the land by the Maoris to the eternal
exclusion of the Europeans as settlers. That being the case, the circumstances had entirely
changed, and he thought the right thing to do was to adopt the proposal of Mr Jennings. 260
Jenning’s referendum amendment was supported by all four Maori members, but was voted
down by a large margin.261 The Act, as passed, thus extended the enforcement provisions of
the 1893 Act to the Rohe Potae.262 It also prohibited the sale of liquor to any Maori for
consumption off the premises in districts defined by the Governor.263 By November 1906,
almost the entire North Island had been proclaimed such a district through five separate
257
NZPD 1904, vol 130, p 374
Taranaki Herald, 5 November 1903, p 3
259
Otago Witness, 28 September 1904, p 15. The speeches from the debate were not reported in the NZPD.
260
Otago Witness, 28 September 1904, p 15
261
NZPD 1904, vol 130, p 437
262
Licensing Acts Amendment Act 1904, s 18
263
Licensing Acts Amendment Act 1904, s 46
258
246
proclamations.264 It thus became, for all practical purposes, impossible for any Maori to
legally import liquor into the King Country.
Jennings was a regular visitor to the Rohe Potae. After a visit there in 1908, he told an
Evening Post reporter that the situation had improved through the reforms of the 1904 Act, by
clarifying the conditions under which liquor could be imported into the district for private
consumption. Jennings said that the ability of Pakeha to legally import liquor for their own
use had greatly reduced sly-grogging.265 But the failure of Jenning’s 1904 amendment
signalled the end, for the time being, of efforts by Rohe Potae Maori to overturn the
proclamations of the 1880s.
Maori opposition to prohibition declines
As has been seen, during the decade after 1890, Rohe Potae Maori appeared increasingly
eager to do away with the prohibition proclaimed in 1884. A request for a single license in
1891 was followed by petitions in 1892 and 1896 to revoke the proclamation entirely. In
1900, Rohe Potae Maori presented two more petitions in favour of licensing totalling 632
signatures, and sent a deputation of chiefs to convince the Premier to repeal prohibition.
Several King Country residents and visitors, including temperance advocates, agreed that
Maori who resided there generally wanted an end to prohibition. In 1904 the four Maori
MHRs supported a proposed referendum on King Country prohibition, although the
amendment was decisively rejected by the House. An important reason for wanting to end
prohibition was the apparent extent of Maori involvement in the illegal liquor trade. On his
visit to the district in May 1900, Ngata recorded Moerua and Whitinui as telling him that
‘men, women and children’ were engaged in sly-grog selling ‘for the profits were great’.266
But from the early 1900s, opposition to prohibition by Rohe Potae Maori seemed to fade. The
only outspoken Maori advocate for licensing, at least in the period under review, was John
Ormsby. Opposition to King County prohibition was increasingly driven by Pakeha. Seddon
told parliament in September 1904 that ‘if the Maoris were asked tomorrow they would
264
New Zealand Gazette, 23 March 1905, p 777; 15 June 1905, pp 1452-3,; 17 May 1906, p 1284,; 4 October
1905, pp 2548-9; 25 October 1906, pp 2803-4
265
Evening Post, 22 July 1908, p 4
266
AJHR 1900, I1a, p 2
247
object to licenses in the King Country’.267 This is a rather different view than he expressed
three years earlier. As will be seen, Ngata changed his views in support of continued
prohibition in the Rohe Potae. Others also changed their mind on the issue. In September
1900, Moerua was a member of the Rohe Potae delegation to Seddon to request an end to
prohibition. In 1901, he became chairman of the new Maniapoto Maori Council, a position he
still held in 1914. He told the Alliance’s 1914 annual conference that, after the new Council
was established, he had changed his views in favour of prohibition. Moerua said that Maori
efforts to end prohibition stopped once the Council was established, and Rohe Potae Maori
now overwhelmingly supported the liquor ban. Maori did not want a vote on King Country
licensing, and he feared that, if a vote took place, people would be bribed by ‘the trade’.268
The Maniapoto Maori Council chaired by Moerua was among those established in 1901
under the Maori Councils Act 1900.269 The Act, as amended in 1903, provided that councils
could make by-laws to prevent ‘drunkenness and sly-grog selling’ and ‘the introduction by
Maoris or any other persons of alcoholic liquors into any Maori kainga, village, or pa’.270 In
the latter case, offenders could be fined by the Council, have their liquor confiscated, and, in
addition, be convicted and fined in the Magistrate’s Court.271 Twelve members were elected
to Maori councils under the Act, and these members could in turn appoint ‘Village
Committees’ (Komiti Marae) of up to five people, to assist with enforcement of the bylaws.272 The first by-laws for the Maniapoto Maori Council were gazetted in September 1902.
They included fines for drunkenness, and prohibited liquor from hui.273 As was seen in the
previous chapter, we were unable to find evidence as to the extent, if at all, that the Council
was able to enforce its by-laws. It is possible, however, that the mere fact that a Maori body
was empowered to enforce prohibition reduced Maori opposition to the liquor ban. In
addition, as outlined earlier, by 1906 it was for all practical purposes impossible for Maori to
legally import liquor into the district.
267
Otago Witness, 28 September 1904, p 15
Evening Post, 26 June 1914, p 2
269
Taranaki Herald, 8 January 1901, p 2
270
Maori Councils Act 1900, s16(3)
271
Maori Councils Amendment Act 1903, s3
272
Maori Councils Act 1900, ss 6, 17
273
New Zealand Gazette, 11 September 1902, no 72, p 1928
268
248
In 1900 Seddon had proposed that Maori should have a vote on King Country licensing, but
this proposal quickly faded from view. The failed Jennings amendment of 1904 proposed a
European-only vote, as elsewhere in the country. No-one, including the four Maori members
who voted for the amendment, objected to this. Later licensing proposals were also for
Pakeha-only votes, with liquor outlets, if legalised, prohibited from selling to Maori. The fact
that such proposals were being made is evidence for a general perception that Maori in the
district were no longer interested in ending prohibition. The available evidence is fairly
sketchy, and there may have been a division of opinion in the district. If this was the case, it
failed to come to public attention.
A new version of the ‘compact’
Seddon’s Licensing Acts Amendment Act 1904 had been his fourth attempt since 1900 to get
a licensing Bill through parliament. He died less than two years later, and no further licensing
legislation was enacted until 1909, when an Act was passed specifically for the King
Country. The prohibitionists had won the battle, and little was heard from them on the King
Country licensing issue for the next five years. Indeed, there seems to be no reported mention
of the ‘compact’ between 1904 and 1909.
In June 1905, the prohibitionists achieved a further victory, when a railways bylaw was
gazetted, under the provisions of the Government Railways Act 1900, prohibiting liquor
being conveyed into ‘the Rohe Potae District’ by train.274 Two weeks later, a public meeting
at Te Kuiti protested the move as being ‘an undue interference with the liberty of British
subjects’.275 This was followed soon after by a petition to parliament.276 The issue continued
to excite residents in subsequent years. In 1909, for example, a letter in the King Country
Chronicle protested at the way residents were being discriminated against compared with
those in the 12 other dry districts where the bylaw did not apply.277
When Prime Minister Joseph Ward visited the Rohe Potae in 1908, he was met by
deputations in Taumarunui and Te Kuiti asking for changes to the licensing laws. A license
was requested for Taumarunui, while the Te Kuiti deputation asked ‘whether legislation
274
New Zealand Gazette, 29 June 1905, no 60, p 1550, Skerman, pp 113-117
Poverty Bay Herald, 12 July 1905, p 3
276
Evening Post, 21 July 1905, p 6
277
Cited by Skerman, pp 115-116
275
249
could not be passed to give them the right, enjoyed by other Europeans throughout the
Dominion, to vote on the issue of licenses in their own district’. Ward said there was ‘no
prospect of any licensing legislation being passed this year’.278 The prohibitionist victory
seemed complete.
However, in 1909 the long semi-truce came to an end. A reallocation of electoral boundaries
after the 1906 census created the Taumarunui electorate, which included much of the
proclaimed prohibition districts. The new electorate, as was the norm, elected a licensing
committee. In April 1909, the Taumarunui Licensing Committee approved wholesale liquor
licenses for Mokau and Awakino, within the proclaimed districts. This decision came about
when a sly-grogging charge was dismissed in the magistrates court because the land on which
the sales took place was held to be Crown rather than Native land when the latest
proclamation was issued in 1894. The view of the court was that the proclamation applied
only to lands in Maori ownership at the time.279 The decision was followed by other
applications for licences on lands alleged to have been in Crown ownership in 1894, and the
Minister of Justice began looking into the issue.280 There was significant press coverage when
the licensing committee approved four more wholesale licenses at its June 1909 meeting, at
Raetihi, Ohakune, Rangataua and Waitara, and renewed those issued for Mokau and
Awakino.281
The issuing of six liquor licenses within the King Country incensed the Alliance, which
quickly condemned the decision.282 The Wanganui Herald also weighed in, arguing that the
committee’s decision appeared wrong in law and, if not, the law should be changed.283 While
government officials investigated the issue, the Taumarunui Licensing Committee refused
additional license applications.284 It was not until late September 1909 that the AttorneyGeneral announced that, as the land in question had indeed been Crown land in 1884, there
278
Taranaki Herald, 25 June 1908, p 4
Wanganui Chronicle, 22 April 1909, p 7, Royal Commission on Licensing, AJHR 1946, H38, p 219
280
Evening Post, 31 May 1909, p 8
281
Wanganui Herald, 7 June 1909, p 3. The committee issued wholesale rather than publican’s licenses because
of the virtual freeze on new publican’s licenses under the Licensing Act 1908 (which consolidated liquor
legislation). A freeze was not placed on wholesale licenses until 1920, AJHR 1946, H38, pp 183-184.
282
Evening Post, 7 June 1909, p 7
283
Wanganui Herald, 8 June 1909, p 4
284
Evening Post, 21 July 1909, p 8
279
250
were no legal grounds to overturn the committee’s granting of licenses.285 Legislation would
therefore be required if the original intention of parliament was to be preserved.
Also in 1909, European residents of the Rohe Potae renewed their efforts to get a vote on
King Country prohibition. Until 1900, it had been commonly argued that liquor had flowed in
as Europeans settled in the district, and licensing was needed to control the trade. But from
the early 1900s, as Pakeha became a majority in the Rohe Potae, the argument changed. The
new argument noted that the liquor ban had been implemented to protect Maori from the
ravages of alcohol. But now Europeans were a majority in the King Country, they should
have the same voting rights as the residents of other districts on liquor licensing.286 Earlier
notions of giving Maori a vote on the issue were quietly dropped, as Maori had no voting
rights on liquor polls elsewhere in the country. In May 1909, the residents of Te Kuiti held a
large public meeting presided over by John Ormsby, by then chairman of Waitomo County.
The meeting passed a resolution describing the liquor restrictions as ‘irksome’ and calling for
a local option poll, as in other districts.287
In October 1909, Prime Minister Joseph Ward announced proposed legislation that would
deal with the issue of the rogue licenses issued by the Taumarunui Licensing Committee, and
also satisfy the demands of Pakeha King Country residents. A Bill would be introduced in the
session ‘which would confer on the people of the King Country the right to give expression to
their opinion on the liquor questions’. The Taranaki Herald concluded that ‘the people in the
King Country are to be allowed the common privilege of voting on the question of local
option’.288 Ward’s proposed solution was a neat one, for if the vote in favour of licenses
failed to achieve the required 60 percent, the six new liquor outlets would be forced to close.
On the other hand if the vote reached the threshold, then the issuing of licenses would be
vindicated by ‘the people’, and parliament would not have to act. However, new license
applications were submitted for Taumarunui, forcing the Government’s hand.289 In December
1909, Ward introduced a Bill, intended as an interim measure:
285
Taranaki Herald, 28 September 1909, p 2
Several licensing districts included parts of the proclaimed prohibition district, and European residents of the
district could therefore vote on licensing. However, these votes had no effect on licensing in the Rohe Potae.
287
Marlborough Express, 1 June 1909, p 2
288
Taranaki Herald, 23 October 1909, p 4
289
Star, 3 December 1909, p 3, NZPD 1909, vol 148, p 722
286
251
This Bill proposes to put the law as it was intended to be before these wholesale licenses
were issued, and to preserve the status quo until Parliament decides by legislation to give
the people there an opportunity of voting upon this question. That legislation will
probably be introduced to Parliament next session.290
Opposition leader William Massey supported the Bill, saying he would like to see a local
option poll in the King Country. Massey made what was by then the standard argument for
this position – that the European population of the district had increased so dramatically in
the last decade that the residents should have the same rights as those elsewhere in New
Zealand. Jennings, by then the member for Taumarunui, put a similar argument. He said he
supported the Bill ‘on the condition that the Premier has stated to the House, that he would
give the residents of the Taumarunui Electorate the same right as that which is given to the
people in other parts of the Dominion – the right of voting for local option’.291
The King-country Licenses Bill was quickly rushed through both chambers, and enacted on
24 December 1909. It provided that the prohibition proclamations issued in 1887 and 1894
would apply to all areas of the proclaimed districts, regardless of whether or not they were in
Crown ownership at the time or since. The Act thus closed the legal loophole under which
wholesale licenses had been issued earlier that year. These outlets would be allowed to
continue operating until their licenses expired the following June.
The acknowledgement that the six Taumarunui liquor outlets had been operating legally, and
could continue to do so until June 1910, created problems for the railways, which could not
refuse legitimate liquor orders. The Minister of Railways therefore issued a confidential
circular saying the bylaw prohibiting conveyance of liquor into the Rohe Potae should not be
enforced.292 The bylaw was repealed in January 1910.293 When the question of re-instating it
came up after the licenses expired in June, the Solicitor-General advised that the bylaw had
been ultra vires from the outset, contravening provisions in the Government Railways Act.294
No further action was therefore taken. The anti-prohibitionists in the King Country had won a
rare victory.
290
NZPD 1909, vol 148, p 1315
NZPD 1909, vol 148, p 1315
292
Wanganui Chronicle, 12 February 1910, p 3
293
New Zealand Gazette, 27 January 1910, issue 7, p 293
294
Minister of Railways to Rev J Dawson, 1 November 1913, in Conveyance of Liquor into Prohibited Districts,
AAEB, W3293, Box 119, ANZW; Royal Commission on Licensing, AJHR 1946, H38, p 219
291
252
The Taumarunui licenses matter sent prohibitionists into paroxysm of protest. They had
largely ignored the Rohe Potae for the previous five years, focussing instead on trying to get
a national referendum on prohibition. But during the latter months of 1909, numerous
meetings were held to protest the Taumarunui Licensing Committee decisions. The Otago
Witness reported in September that 2,000 people had attended a Dunedin temperance meeting
to discuss this and other liquor-related issues. The violation of the ‘solemn promise’ made to
Rohe Potae Maori was condemned by the meeting.295 In fact the King Country compact was
mentioned in almost every pronouncement on the subject.
However, the compact that emerged in 1909 was significantly different from that first
launched by prohibitionists in July 1900. It will be recalled that, under the original version of
the compact, the main trunk railway would be allowed through the Rohe Potae only if liquor
sales were banned there. But by 1909, the railway was complete and its slow progress had
long since ceased to be a public issue. The argument based on the compact was therefore redesigned to meet the arguments then being made by licensing supporters. This new version of
the compact said that liquor sales had been banned, not as a condition of allowing the
railway, but as a condition of allowing European settlement in the Rohe Potae. As these
settlers supposedly knew about the compact, they had no right to try and overturn it.296 This
argument was put many times during the second half of 1909, and a few examples are
provided below. In research for this report, only one example was found of the railway being
mentioned during 1909 in relation to liquor sales being banned in the King Country, and that
was in an editorial in the Wanganui Herald in early June 1909.297
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the fingerprints of Alliance stalwart Frank Isitt were all over the new
version of the compact. On 7 June 1909, two days after licenses were approved by the
Taumaruni Licensing Committee, Isitt told the press that ‘Europeans were admitted into the
King Country only on condition that no liquor should be introduced...and if a man went into
the King Country he knew that to be a fact’.298 The Dominion No-license Convention, held in
Christchurch a week later, resolved that the action of the Taumarunui committee was ‘a
295
Otago Witness, 28 September 1909, p 6
This is almost the opposite of Te Heuheu’s argument in 1900, in which he said that the agreement involved a
ban on land sales.
297
Wanganui Herald, 8 June 1909, p 4
298
Evening Post, 7 June 1909, p 7. Isitt made the same claim elsewhere, for example, Wanganui Chronicle, 21
August 1909, p 7
296
253
breach of trust to the Natives in the district, inasmuch as Europeans were only allowed to
become residents therein on the distinctly laid down conditions that strong drink should not
be admitted into the territory. A proclamation made by the Government confirmed this
condition’.299 No mention was made of the railway.
The Christchurch convention was addressed by the Reverend Frederick Bennett, of Te Arawa
descent.300 Bennett spoke about the Taumarunui decision. ‘Time and again the Europeans had
sought entry into the King Country, and permission to enter had only been given when a
solemn treaty was made in 1885 that no liquor was to be introduced into the district. That
solemn treaty has been disregarded’.301 Bennett seems to be the first Maori to be recorded as
mentioning the compact, at least in such terms. In 1900, Te Heuheu referred to an agreement
linking the railway with liquor, although clearly did not see it as binding and never used the
word ‘compact’ or any simile such as ‘treaty’ or ‘pledge’. Bennett himself had spoken
previously on King Country prohibition without reference to a compact or agreement.302
A prohibition convention was held in Te Kuiti in September 1909, to oppose licensing in the
King Country. One of the speakers was William Gittos, who said that a ‘most solemn
obligation has been entered into with the Native Race as a condition of the latter opening up
their lands for settlement, and it would be nothing short of criminal, now that the lands have
been opened up and the Maoris have fulfilled their side of the contract, for us to violate the
conditions imposed upon us’.303 Similarly, the Reverend Dewdney stated that Maoris had
given Europeans permission to come into the King Country on the ‘solemn pledge’ that
liquor should not be allowed to be brought in.304 Again, the railway was ignored.
This revised version of the sacred compact was picked up by Members of the House of
Representatives. When debating the King-country Licenses Bill in December 1909, several
members opposed the idea of a local option poll. Wellington South member Robert Wright
told the house:
299
Ashburton Guardian, 16 June 1909, p 4
Cocker and Murray, p 209
301
Poverty Bay Herald, 17 June 1909, p 2
302
Taranaki Herald, 10 August 1900, p 2. Bennett became president of the Alliance in the 1930s.
303
Cited by Skerman, pp 118-119
304
Cited by Skerman, p 119
300
254
…when the Maoris opened up the country to Europeans they were promised that no
liquor should be introduced into the country; and if the people who went there, knowing
that it was a prohibited area, are endeavouring to override the agreement originally made,
it is not a fair thing’.305
Henry Okey, the member for Taranaki, similarly said that the settlers who took up land ‘knew
the conditions under which they were taking it up’, and should not be asking for the right to
say whether or not licenses should be granted. Again, no member on either side of the debate
mentioned the railway, although four of them mentioned the alleged compact. Only the
Wanganui Herald demonstrated any historical memory of the issue – and that was in an
editorial written in early June, around the same time that the new version of the King Country
compact was first promulgated by the Alliance.
A final attempt
When speaking on the debate on the King-country Licenses Bill, Henry Okey argued that, if
there was to be a local option vote, ‘the Maoris shall also have the right to vote on the
question’.306 This was a rare instance of Maori voting rights on the issue being asserted, albeit
by someone opposed to any vote at all. Okey was probably reflecting the common view of
the time, that Maori had reverted to their earlier opposition to licenses in the Rohe Potae.
However, the Alliance was not so sure. During 1910 the organisation became aware of
reports ‘that the Maoris were willing if not anxious to have the proclamation of 1884,
whereby liquor was to be kept out of the King Country for ever, annulled’.307 As a result, an
invitation was secured by Ngata for an Alliance delegation to visit Mahuta at Waahi, near
Huntly, in June 1910. The delegation explained the purpose of their visit and discussed how
prominent Maori in earlier decades had opposed liquor. They asked for Mahuta’s ‘powerful
aid to keep liquor out of the King Country’. Mahuta replied, as reported in the press:
My words shall not be many, but few, about the Rohi Potai [sic]. Those words (the
proclamation) shall never be altered. They never shall be. The intention of our Maori
Councils is that we will not have liquor in the district. This thing shall be again discussed
at our great meetings. I quite approve of what you ask for. I shall stand by the work of our
fathers and our grandfathers. Their work was right. I will do as you ask and will send a
305
NZPD 1909, vol 148, p 1316
NZPD 1909, vol 148, p 1318
307
Wanganui Chronicle, 8 June 1910, p 5
306
255
message to my people through the Council to say that the word of our fathers is to stand
and that no liquor shall come into Rohi Potai.308
This seems to be Mahuta’s first reported statement on the issue since 1903. His words were
widely reported in the press and gave great encouragement to the Alliance. A meeting of nolicense delegates in late June passed a motion congratulating Mahuta on his stand to keep
liquor out of the Rohe Potae.309 The Kingitanga was thereafter often closely associated with
campaigns to uphold prohibition in the King Country, despite a reputed fondness for drink on
the part of Mahuta and Koroki (Maori King from 1933 to 1966).310
Mahuta’s close confidante, Western Maori MP Henare Kaihau, was also at the Huntly
meeting, and was praised by no-license delegates for taking a similar stand against
licensing.311 However, when Kaihau was interviewed by the press on 13 June, his views
seemed slightly ambiguous. He said that that ‘in view of the enormous extension of European
settlement in the King Country he did not see how the opponents of prohibition could fail to
carry their point to annul the proclamation forbidding the introduction of liquor’. Kaihau also
said that he ‘would be no party to the removal of the restriction. The evil, if introduced,
would owe its presence to the pakeha, who would have to bear the onus if disastrous results
followed’.312 These latter words are hard to square with the fact that in 1904 Kaihau both
spoke and voted in favour of a proposed amendment to the Licensing Act to allow for a local
option poll in the Rohe Potae. He voted for an identical amendment later in 1910.
In October 1910, Prime Minister Ward introduced a new Licensing Amendment Bill to the
House. This was the first such Bill in six years, barring the three-clause King-country
Licenses Act. But, despite Ward’s undertakings the previous December, the Bill did not allow
for a local option vote for King Country residents.313 Instead, it provided for a nationwide
poll to prohibit the sale of alcohol throughout the whole country. This is something the
Alliance had been pushing for several years. The prohibitionist’s hand had been greatly
strengthened by the large vote for no-license in the 1908 local option polls, in which six new
308
Wanganui Chronicle, 8 June 1910, p 5
Marlborough Express, 27 June 1910, p 3
310
Ballara, ‘Mahuta Tawhiao Potatau Te Wherowhero’, Dictionary of New Zealand Biography; King, Te Puea,
pp 255-256
311
Marlborough Express, 27 June 1910, p 3
312
Evening Post, 14 June 1910, p 7
313
Poverty Bay Herald, 7 October 1910, p 6
309
256
districts had voted dry. Ward’s Bill also provided for barmaids to be banned, another matter
on the prohibitionist wish-list.314
On 11 November 1910, Taumarunui member Jennings moved an amendment at the
committee stage to provide for a vote on King Country licensing.315 He was understandably
displeased that Ward had gone back on his earlier undertaking, although Ward denied that he
had ever signalled a law change for the King Country. The amendment was soundly defeated
after a heated debate.316 In 1904, all four Maori members had supported a vote on King
Country licensing, but in 1910 they were evenly split. Te Rangihiroa had since replaced Heke
in Northern Maori, and Ngata had replaced Wi Pere in Eastern Maori. Both opposed the
amendment, which was supported by Kaihau and Parata.317 Another who supported the
amendment was Patea member George Pearce, who in a speech the following March
questioned why prohibitionists so vehemently opposed a vote in the King Country when they
otherwise championed voter’s rights.318 The failure of the Jennings amendment represented
the end, for several decades, of serious attempts to introduce licenses into the King Country.
Te Rangihiroa spoke against the Jennings amendment. After it failed, he successfully moved
a new clause providing for polls on liquor licensing to be held in Maori Council districts, on
the recommendation of the council.319 On a majority vote, Maori in the district could ban the
sale or supply of liquor to any Maori in the district.320 A measure along these lines had been
advocated for a number of years by Frederick Bennett.321 Bennett’s idea was supported by the
Alliance, although they proposed that Maori residing in the King Country should be
specifically excluded from such a vote.322 The idea was supported by the Maori Congress in
1908, but Prime Minister Ward was sceptical about its practicality.323 However, Apirana
Ngata, an MP since 1905, supported local option for Maori and was probably influential in
converting his Liberal Party colleagues to the idea.324 Ngata was Minister in Charge of Maori
314
Evening Post, 8 October 1910, p 9, Poverty Bay Herald, 7 October 1910, p 6
NZPD 1910, vol 153, p 571
316
Evening Post, 12 November 1910, p 9. The debate was not reported in the NZPD.
317
NZPD 1910, vol 153, p 571
318
Hawera and Normanby Star, 22 March 1911, p 5
319
NZPD 1910, vol 153, pp 571-572
320
Licensing Amendment Act 1910, s 46
321
See, for example, Poverty Bay Herald, 10 October 1907, p 5
322
Otago Witness, 23 June 1909, p 41, Wanganui Chronicle, 25 September 1909, p 3
323
Poverty Bay Herald, 20 July 1908, p 5, Hawera and Normanby Star, 21 July 1908, p 8
324
Evening Post, 18 July 1908, p 2
315
257
Councils, and had earlier chaired the Horouta Maori Council on the East Coast. He persuaded
the Horouta Council to hold a poll under the new provisions in 1911, and the district was
voted dry. Horouta Maori voted to allow licenses again in 1922, and it appears to have been
the only Maori district to go dry by poll rather than proclamation.325 A poll could in theory
have been held by the Maniapoto Maori Council, but even if the result was in favour of
licenses this would not have overridden the King-country Licenses Act 1909.
The main liquor issue during 1911 was New Zealand’s first ever referendum on national
prohibition. The Rohe Potae does not appear to have featured at all, except for periodic
reports of convictions for sly-grogging. In June 1912, a King Country representative was
elected to the Taumarunui Licensing Committee for the first time.326 The committee passed a
resolution requesting that the Mayor of Taumarunui call a public meeting to discuss a
proposal that the supply of liquor in the King Country be placed under municipal or state
control.327 No record of such a meeting has been found in research for this report. However,
at its September meeting the Te Kuiti Borough Council passed a resolution in support of
municipal or state control in the district.328 The futility of such proposals was demonstrated in
June when a prohibitionist deputation visited the Prime Minister calling, among other things,
for tighter enforcement of King Country prohibition. The new Premier, Thomas McKenzie,
agreed that ‘the spirit of the promises made in regard to the King Country should be carried
out’.329
By 1913, the long Liberal reign had come to an end. At the end of the year, new Prime
Minister William Massey circulated a draft Licensing Bill. In May 1914, he announced that
he intended to introduce the Bill in the new parliamentary session, the first such Bill in four
years.330 The story from here is taken up by Jonathan Sarich in his political engagement
report for 1914 to 1935. A minor event not mentioned by Sarich was the Alliance’s annual
conference held in Wellington at the end of June 1914. As outlined earlier, Moerua, chairman
of the Maniapoto Maori Council, was among those who spoke at the conference.331 The
325
Hutt, pp 61, 67
Wanganui Chronicle, 11 June 1912, p 4
327
Evening Post, 6 June 1912, p 7
328
Bay of Plenty Times, 30 September 1912, p 5
329
Evening Post, 28 June 1912, p 3
330
Colonist, 28 May 1914, p 7
331
Evening Post, 26 June 1914, p 2
326
258
following day, he joined a prohibitionist deputation to the Prime Minister over various liquor
issues, accompanied by Taihape chief Kingi Topia. The Evening Post reported that the pair
asked Massey that King Country prohibition be ‘strictly maintained’.332 There is no record in
the newspaper reports of either chief mentioning the alleged Rohe Potae compact.
Massey touched on the King Country licensing issue when he moved the second reading of
his Licensing Bill on 21 July 1914. He acknowledged that ‘a large majority of the European
population were clamouring for the right to vote’, but said his Bill would not deal with the
issue at that time. Instead, he proposed to set up a royal commission to examine the King
Country situation after the 1914 election.333 Little had changed since Seddon made a similar
proposal 14 years earlier.
By the time of the 1914 general election, the country was embroiled in a world war that
provoked international anti-alcohol hysteria due to concerns about ‘national efficiency’. By
war’s end, New Zealand prohibitionists had achieved almost everything they were aiming for.
Liquor sales were banned after 6 pm, and there were to be regular referendums on national
prohibition by which a bare majority could outlaw the manufacture, importation or sale of
alcohol.334 In the heady wartime environment, the chance of a royal commission investigating
whether to allow liquor to be sold in the Rohe Potae was nil.
Conclusions
A prohibition on liquor sales was imposed by proclamation throughout most of the Rohe
Potae in 1884. This followed a large petition organised by Pakeha prohibitionists and
supported by prominent chiefs such as Wahanui, Taonui and Rewi Maniapoto. In 1887,
prohibition was extended further south after a petition from the Whanganui district. In 1891,
Wahanui, Taonui and others sought a slight variation to the prohibition imposed, requesting a
single liquor license for Otorohanga. The government initially agreed, but quickly reversed
its decision following a storm of prohibitionist protest from around the country. Wahanui and
his supporters argued that they had asked for prohibition, and others should not be interfering
in their request for a minor variation. They therefore petitioned for the removal of prohibition
altogether.
332
Evening Post, 26 June, 1914, p 8
Evening Post, 22 July 1914, p 3
334
Christoffel, pp 17-18, 70-75
333
259
Rohe Potae Maori continued to complain about the interference of outsiders in the issue over
the next decade. They submitted another petition to allow licenses in 1896, this time
motivated by the illegal liquor sales that had accompanied Pakeha into the district. By 1900
there seemed to be evidence of widespread opposition among Rohe Potae Maori to
prohibition. That year they presented two more petitions to parliament in favour of licensing,
totalling 632 signatures, and sent a deputation of chiefs to Wellington to argue their case.
Apirana Ngata recommended a local referendum on the issue after visiting the district, and
Northern Maori MP Hone Heke expressed similar views in the House. By July 1900, Prime
Minister Richard Seddon was convinced there was support for change.
On 12 July 1900, Seddon told a temperance deputation that he intended to legislate to allow
both Maori and Pakeha to vote on King Country licensing. His proposal was potentially a
major setback for the prohibition movement. The Alliance for the Abolition of the Liquor
Traffic showed itself equal to the task. Its secretary, Frank Isitt, published and distributed a
leaflet linking King Country prohibition with an issue of great public interest at the time – the
slow progress on completing the last section of the main trunk railway through the Rohe
Potae. During 1900, 122 petitions were presented to parliament asking for ‘speedy
completion’ of the line.335 A North Island Central Main Trunk Railway League was formed
on 3 July 1900, a week before the temperance deputation met with Seddon.336
The new Alliance strategy was launched on 23 July 1900, when Wellington’s Evening Post
newspaper published Isitt’s leaflet as a letter to the editor. The letter claimed that the railway
had been allowed through the King Country on the condition that liquor sales would be
banned. This was the first recorded instance of such a claim being made. Isitt’s leaflet was
based on documentary sources, apart from an anecdote concerning Wahanui’s alleged reconversion to prohibition. There is no evidence of any other input from Maori sources into
the leaflet. Cathy Marr has written that temperance advocates ‘began to insist that there was a
sacred pledge or compact made’ around this time.337 However, the Isitt leaflet nowhere used
these words or anything similar.
335
Journals of the House of Representatives 1900, pp XV to XLIII
Wanganui Chronicle, 4 July 1900, p 2
337
Marr, Alienation of Maori Land 1900-1960, p 152
336
260
Isitt recruited Frederick Wallis, the Bishop of Wellington, to speak in support of his claims
about a liquor-rail link. A public meeting was held on the evening of 23 July, and several
speakers, including Wallis, backed up Isitt’s claims. Wallis read a supporting letter from
Robert Stout, who was Alliance president from 1895 to 1897. As Stout was Prime Minister
when the alleged deal was made, this proved to be a vital and unexpected piece of support for
the new strategy.
The words ‘promise and ‘pledge’ appeared in the published accounts of the 23 July public
meeting, but not the words ‘compact’, ‘pact’, ‘sacred’, or ‘solemn’. However, in the press,
church sermons, public meetings, and newspaper correspondence over subsequent weeks,
these words gradually crept into discussions on King Country licensing. The liquor
agreement seems to have been first described as a ‘compact’ on 4 August 1900, in a
Marlborough Express editorial. Over the next two weeks this term, or similes such as
‘pledge’ and ‘promise’, appeared more frequently in discussions on the issue, at times linked
with the modifiers ‘solemn’, ‘sacred’, or ‘binding’. In less than a month, the King Country
‘sacred compact’ was born.
The compact idea was given an added boost in September and December 1900, when the
Tuwharetoa chief Te Heuheu Tukino put forward his own version of events. Te Heuheu said
that the railway had indeed been approved on the condition that liquor sales be prohibited.
However, another condition was that sales and leasing of land would also be banned. This
latter condition had not been met, and Pakeha and liquor had flowed into the district. Te
Heuheu argued that the other condition should therefore also be rescinded to prevent slygrogging. His overall argument was not supported by other Rohe Potae Maori, but it
converted some fellow opponents of prohibition to the idea of the ‘compact’.
The opposition of many Rohe Potae Maori to prohibition faded after 1900. A contributing
factor appears to have been the government’s empowering of the Maniapoto Maori Council
to enforce the law after it was established in 1901. The last serious attempt to overturn King
Country prohibition in this early period came in 1904, when all four Maori MPs voted
unsuccessfully for an amendment to the Licensing Act to provide for a vote on King Country
licensing. With this threat defeated, the idea of the ‘compact’ fell into disuse for the next five
years.
261
However a crisis arose in 1909, when the Taumarunui Licensing Committee used a legal
loophole to approve six liquor licenses in the Rohe Potae. By then, Pakeha were a sizeable
majority in the district and were demanding the right to vote on whether or not to allow liquor
licenses. The Alliance responded to these twin threats by re-launching the ‘compact’.
However, by 1909 the main trunk railway was complete and no longer a public issue. The
new version of the compact therefore argued that European settlement, rather than the
railway, had been allowed on the condition that liquor sales were banned in the King
Country. The message was clear – the settlers clamouring for a vote were only there thanks to
the compact, and should not try and overturn it. Prohibitionists regularly mentioned the
compact during the 1909 crisis, but never once mentioned the railway.
The sequence of events outlined in this chapter appears inconsistent with Marr’s claim that
the idea of the liquor-rail compact was a prohibitionist distortion of the actual Rohe Potae
compact.338 There is no evidence that claims about a liquor-rail agreement, which first
emerged in July 1900, were in any way linked with discussions about a broader compact.
Indeed the word ‘compact’ (or any simile) was never used when Frank Isitt first raised the
idea that the railway was allowed only if liquor sales were banned. It was only in subsequent
public meetings, church services, and in the press that words such as ‘promise’, ‘pledge’ and
‘compact’ began to be associated with this alleged arrangement, sometimes linked with the
words ‘sacred’ or ‘solemn’. Again, there is no evidence that this use of words was inspired by
notions of a more general compact. It is more likely that the idea of a ‘sacred compact’
emerged from the strongly religious basis of the prohibition movement. The impression that
the sacred compact was a creation of the prohibition movement was reinforced during the
debates of 1909, when the idea of the compact re-emerged. The terms of the compact were
then altered by prohibitionists to suit the times, with the liquor ban no longer related to the
railway.
The commission for this report refers to ‘continuing understandings of Te Rohe Potae pact
during this period and what this might mean for continuing political relations with the Crown
in its administration of the district’. Te Heuheu in 1900 was the only example found in
research for this report of Maori with Rohe Potae connections publicly agreeing that a liquorrail deal had been made. Te Heuheu opposed prohibition and was possibly using the issue to
338
Marr, Alienation of Maori Land 1900-1960, p 152
262
raise awareness of the significant land sales in the district. He did not describe the alleged
arrangement as a compact or anything similar. No record was found of Rohe Potae Maori
explicitly invoking the King Country compact in support of prohibition. Indeed, according to
the evidence presented in Jonathan Sarich’s political engagement report for this inquiry, the
first recorded instance of such a claim was in 1923.339 Any ‘continuing understandings’ of a
pact appeared to be on the Pakeha side, where belief that the Government had committed
itself to keeping liquor out of the district spread rapidly after July 1900. Between 1900 and
1913, MHRs (but not the Maori members) occasionally cited the ‘compact’ in discussions on
King Country licensing. This helped ensure that the referendum proposed by Seddon in 1900
did not take place for many decades.
339
Sarich, pp 141-142
263
Chapter 9: Rates
One of the things clearly requested of the government by Rohe Potae Maori in the 1880s was
that their lands be exempt from rates. The reply of government representatives was never
particularly clear, but Ballance in particular made some assurances on the issue. Because of
this, rates have sometimes been regarded as a part of the Rohe Potae ‘compact’, and the issue
also illustrates the extent to which Rohe Potae Maori were able to influence government
policy. This chapter will explore the extent to which Maori in the Rohe Potae inquiry district
remained free of rates on their lands, and will show that they were generally not compelled to
pay rates in the 1886 to 1913 period. This is despite the fact that some of their land was
legally rateable, particularly in the north of the inquiry district and from 1905.
The mechanics and implementation of rating law as applied in the Rohe Potae inquiry district
have been explored in detail by Jane Luiten in her local government report for this inquiry. 1
Luiten also discussed the related issue of local government representation. Hospital rates
have been covered briefly in this inquiry’s health report.2 Consequently, this chapter will
focus primarily on the politics surrounding Maori land rating in the inquiry district, and the
extent to which Rohe Potae Maori were able to negotiate their rateless status with central and
local government.
Rating in statements of claim
Rating is mentioned in numerous statements of claim for this inquiry. The Wai 1495 and
1616 Local Government and Rating Claims state that the rating regime established by the
Crown has never taken into account Maori cultural values concerning land, and that this has
caused prejudice ‘including land loss and an unfair financial burden’ on Maori land and
Maori ratepayers.3 Numerous other claims include rating as a general issue.
Some statements of claim for this inquiry argue that the Rohe Potae ‘compact’ included a
promise not to impose rates on Maori land, or to impose them only under certain conditions.
1
Luiten, Jane, ‘Local Government in Te Rohe Potae’ A Report Commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal for the
Te Rohe Potae Inquiry, January 2011, Wai 898, A2
2
Robinson, pp 150-2
3
Wai 1495 1.1.1, s6; Wai 1616, s6
264
For example the Ngati Motai and Ngati Te Apunga (Wai 1474) statement of claim argues
that:
The issue of rates in the King Country district caused a great deal of tension between
Maori and local government. After the signing of the ‘compact’ Ngati Maniapoto chiefs
were under the impression that rates, relating to the lands in the area of the proposed
railway line, would not be charged until after the sale or leasing of such lands. This was
not the case.
Moreover, the constant hounding Maori land owners were getting from local government
about outstanding rates added to the mounting tension. Consequently relations between
King Country iwi and local government were strained for most of the twentieth century. 4
The statement of claim goes on to mention specific incidents and laws of the mid-twentieth
century. However, as will be shown, the tension mentioned in the statement was clearly
present during the 1886 to 1913 period. The Whakataute Interests Claim (Wai 1593) and the
Pareketawa Non-Raupatu Claim (Wai 2014) also argue that rating was contrary to the Ohaki
Tapu (Rohe Potae compact) and placed an ‘unfair burden’ on the claimants’ iwi and hapu.5
Agreements about rating before 1886
Rating was one of the issues raised by Rohe Potae Maori leaders in meetings with
Government representatives in the mid 1880s. When Ballance met with various Rohe Potae
chiefs at Kihikihi in February 1885, John Ormsby said that he was wary about roads because,
he argued, they tended to be followed by Road Boards, which imposed rates, and these could
accumulate on his people’s lands for decades regardless of whether the land was used or not.6
Ballance’s response, while sympathetic, was not entirely clear. He stated that:
I think it is unfair to rate land that is not in the condition of being used. The Government
have the power of proclaiming Native lands subject to the Rating Act, and of course they
may abstain from proclaiming under the Act. I do not think any of this land along the line
of the railway, or along the roads leading up to the railway, should be proclaimed under
the Act. When the land has been leased or sold, then the time will have come for putting
on rates; and I infer that no Native will object to pay rates when the land has been leased
and is being cultivated, for the rates are put on for the benefit of the roads, and roads
cannot be made without them.7
4
Wai 1474 1.1.1, ss 11.1-2
Wai 1593 1.1.1, s3.11; Wai 2014 1.1.1, s3.1.11
6
AJHR 1884, G1, pp 14-16
7
AJHR 1885, G1, p17
5
265
Ormsby asked that something be put in writing regarding government undertakings with
respect to rates, along the lines of the ‘compact’ with Bryce over the preliminary search for a
possible rail route.8 The March 1883 agreement with Bryce was undertaken through an
exchange of letters, and Ballance proposed the same. However, his proposal did nothing to
clarify what the Government intended:
Mr. Ormsby has asked me to tell him at once that the Crown and Native Lands Rating Act
should not be put over the lands – that is to say, for the railway, and for the roads which
lead to the railway – made for the use of the railway. I think that is a very proper request,
and if Mr. Ormsby will address to me a letter upon the point I will sent to him an official
reply, which will be recorded in the department, which will be kept on record for future
reference, and be binding on future Governments.9
In August 1885, Ballance was criticised in Parliament for some of the assurances he had
given at the meeting at Kihikihi, particularly in relation to rates. Dunstan MHR Vincent Pyke
accused the Minister of making promises which were ‘contrary to the law and the
Constitution’.10 Ballance had
…made promises to the Natives which he had no more right to make than one of the
messengers of the House - promises which will not be binding on the Parliament of this
colony, promises which will not be binding on any future Government, promises which
are not binding even on the present Ministry.11
John Ormond, MHR for Napier, confined his criticism to promises made in relation to rates:
I see that the Native Minister has given a written promise to Natives declaring that their
land shall not be subject to rating or taxation by his Government or succeeding
Governments. I say that in this the honourable gentleman has committed a most
unconstitutional and improper act – in giving a pledge to bind the action of future
Governments and future Parliaments in this matter.12
Premier Robert Stout defended his Minister, in a slightly backhanded way. He pointed out
that the promised exchange of letters had never taken place, because it proved unnecessary.
Ballance had made his undertaking due to a misunderstanding of the law.13 Ballance was
correct that the Crown and Native Lands Rating Act 1882 allowed rates to be levied on lands
8
AJHR 1885, G1, p19
AJHR 1885, G1, p19. No researcher seems to have uncovered any correspondence on this subject.
10
NZPD 1885, vol 52, pp 440-441
11
NZPD 1885, vol 52, p440
12
NZPD 1885, vol 52, p400
13
NZPD 1885, vol 52, p408
9
266
within five miles of roads within native districts proclaimed as coming under the Act.14
However, Stout pointed out that the Rating Act did not apply to the Kawhia and East and
West Taupo Counties, which encompassed the Rohe Potae.15 ‘There was therefore no need of
a letter; the pledge was given in the Act itself’.16 Stout’s defence was only partial, for it was
still open to future parliaments to amend the Crown and Native Lands Rating Act 1882 to
include the Rohe Potae, regardless of anything that Ballance had said.
It is not entirely clear what Ballance conveyed to Rohe Potae Maori and what they thought
they had been promised. Ballance stated that Ormsby’s request for the Crown and Native
Lands Rating Act not to be applied to land along the railway was ‘a proper one’. This is not
the same as saying that he agreed to the request, but this may have been the meaning that
Rohe Potae Maori took, and it is certainly the meaning which some of Ballance’s
parliamentary colleagues took. Whether or not Ballance intended to convey that Rohe Potae
Maori land would never be rated, this was nonetheless the impression that some people
received. More clearly, he made a distinction between land which had not been sold or leased
and was not being used, and that which was in productive use. He clearly stated that to rate
land which was not being used would be unfair, but also implied that land which was
profitable for its owners – whether through lease or agriculture – should be rated, especially if
the money was paying for roads which the landowners benefitted from. In summary, then,
Rohe Potae Maori may have been led to believe that their land would not be subject to rates.
If this was not the case, they were certainly led to believe that their land would not be rated
unless it was productive and the rates money was paying for things that they benefitted from.
Rating and Maori land in the Rohe Potae to 1900
For the purposes of rating, the Crown and Native Lands Rating Act 1882 defined ‘Native
lands’ as any land or interests in land held by any Maori (including half-castes), whether
under customary title or not, which lay within any Native rating district. These rating districts
included the counties of Raglan and Taranaki, which included parts of the Rohe Potae inquiry
district.17 All Native land within Native rating districts was deemed to be rateable property
14
Crown and Native Lands Rating Act 1882, ss 4, 6(15)
NZPD 1885, vol 52, p408, Crown and Native Lands Rating Act 1882, s 6(13), Counties Act 1876, Second
Schedule
16
NZPD 1885, vol 52, p408
17
New Zealand Gazette, 21 February 1884, no 22, p337; Counties Act 1876, first schedule
15
267
unless it was more than five miles from ‘any public road or highway open for horse traffic’ or
within one of several named counties including Kawhia and West Taupo.18 As Map 4 shows,
these counties encompassed the entire Rohe Potae inquiry district except the area roughly
between the confiscation line and Aotea Harbour, which was in Raglan County, and the area
south of the Mokau River, which was in Taranaki County.19
Map 4: Local government boundaries in Te Rohe Potae, 1876 and 1910
Under the Act, therefore, the only rateable Maori land in the inquiry district was that south of
the Mokau River or north of Aotea Harbour, and even then only if it was within five miles of
a public road. There had been road boards in the Raglan area since the 1860s, and so it is
18
19
Crown and Native Lands Rating Act 1882, s6 (13, 15); Counties Act 1876, second schedule
Counties Act 1876, first schedule
268
likely that some Maori land in the north of the inquiry district was rateable.20 As this land was
not part of the area ‘opened up’ after the 1880s negotiations, it is difficult to argue that it was
covered by any Rohe Potae pact or agreement. However, Ballance made similar statements
about rating to Maori communities elsewhere in New Zealand, so his undertakings did apply
to Maori outside the aukati.21 The 1882 Act was strongly opposed in parliament by Western
Maori MHR Te Wheoro, who called it ‘monstrous’ and contrary to the Treaty of Waitangi.
He also argued that Maori land would be rated out of all proportion to the amount of money
the government would pay for it, and that the Act would ‘ultimately lead to the confiscation
of the Native Lands’.22
Although Maori land could accrue rates under the 1882 Act, Maori landowners generally did
not have to pay them, at least not directly. Rates demands for Maori land were addressed to
the Colonial Treasurer, who then published a notice in Maori in the New Zealand Gazette. In
practice, this did not always happen but, even if it did, it seems an ineffective way of
informing owners that rates were owing.23 If the rates were not paid within three months, the
Treasurer paid them, and this money was recovered when the land was leased or sold.24 The
question of who eventually paid this money – the buyers or the sellers – is outside the scope
of this report. Leanne Boulton shows in this period that survey liens typically came out of the
land-sellers’ money rather than being paid by the purchaser, so this may have been the case
with rates liens as well.25 In his report on rates and local government in Northland, Bruce
Stirling shows that, nationwide, 58% of the money originally paid under the 1882 Act was
recovered when the land was alienated. The remaining money, nearly half of which related to
Crown purchases, was eventually written off in 1928.26
The rates on Maori land paid by the Treasurer in the 1885-86 financial year to local bodies
connected to the Rohe Potae, and therefore accruing on land in or near the inquiry district,
came to:
20
Luiten, p54
Bruce Stirling, ‘Eating Away at the Land, Eating Away at the People: Local Government, Rates, and Maori in
Northland’, a report commissioned by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, August 2008, Wai 1040, A15, p155
22
NZPD, 1881, vol 38, pp 576-7
23
Stirling, ‘Eating Away at the Land’, p152
24
Crown and Native Lands Rating Act 1882, ss 7, 12, 15
25
Boulton, pp 247, 372
26
Stirling, ‘Eating Away at the Land’, p159
21
269
Karioi Road Board
£22/8/2
Whaingaroa Road Board
£30/12/0
Clifton Road Board
£0/19/11
Clifton County Council
£54/9/7
TOTAL
£98/9/827
It is not known what proportion of this money related to land within the inquiry district, or to
what extent it was spent on improvements and maintenance in the district. Raglan County had
not yet fully come under the Counties Act, and so its money was distributed to its constituent
road boards.28 The county established a council in 1886 and was thereby enabled to levy
county rates.29
In April 1888 Native Minister Edwin Mitchelson and the Native Department Under-Secretary
met at Otorohanga with several Rohe Potae chiefs, including Wahanui. Wahanui listed rating
law as one of the things he wanted the hui to discuss, although neither he nor his spokesman
John Ormsby seems to have actually done so. Mitchelson had probably been briefed in
advance by Ormsby, with whom he had had ongoing correspondence, and stated that his
Government intended to repeal the Crown and Native Lands Rating Act.30 The Act was
repealed later that year, although, according to Bruce Stirling, more because the government
could no longer afford to pay the rates money than because they wanted to keep faith with
Maori.31 The repeal meant that Maori land now came under the Rating Act 1882, which
provided that Maori-owned land was not rateable unless it was occupied by a non-Maori.32
In 1893 parliament passed an amendment to the Ratings Act, the full title of which was ‘An
Act for the Amendment of the Rating Acts, and to declare all Native Land to be Rateable
Property’.33 This was then consolidated wholesale into the Rating Act 1894, but will be
referred to as the 1893 amendment for purposes of clarity. It made all Maori-owned land
liable for rates unless it was situated more than five miles from any public road or highway,
had been declared exempt by the Governor, or its title had not been determined by the Native
27
AJHR 1886 B-15, pp 3-4
Luiten, p58
29
Luiten, p59
30
Te Aroha News, 14 April 1888, p3; Wanganui Herald, 18 April 1888, p2
31
Stirling, ‘Eating Away at the Land’, p158
32
Rating Act 1882, s2 (6)
33
Rating Acts Amendment Act 1893
28
270
Land Court and there was no Pakeha occupier.34 The counties of Kawhia and West Taupo,
which covered most of the inquiry district, had been described in the Counties Act 1876, but
were inoperative (that is, they had no County Council) and were excluded from the
operations of the Act. It was not until the early 1900s that the bulk of the Rohe Potae came
under any kind of local government.35 Outside of these and other excluded counties, Maori
land which did not meet any of the above criteria would be rateable, but only liable for half
normal rates and not liable at all for special rates, unless it was within a borough or occupied
by a Pakeha.36 There was no distinction made between Maori-occupied land which was
returning a profit and that which was not. Nor was there any exemption for urupa or other
lands which could not be developed. Maori land could not be sold or have any judgment or
lien registered against it for non-payment of rates unless the case had been investigated by a
Trust Commissioner under the Native Lands Frauds Prevention Act 1881.37 A search of the
New Zealand Gazette has not found any evidence of blocks in the Rohe Potae inquiry district
being declared exempt from rating under this Act but, as noted above, most of the district was
excluded from the operation of the Act anyway. In effect, then, Ballance’s undertakings about
rates were being kept too, since most Rohe Potae Maori land was not subject to rates.
However the 1893 amendment went against Ballance’s statement that land should only be
rated if it was productive. Outside of Kawhia and West Taupo, land which was leased to
Pakeha was fully rateable, in contrast to Maori-occupied land. However, within this latter
category there was no distinction made between productive and unproductive land, including
land which could not be developed.
Presumably because it did not affect most of them, little evidence could be found of Rohe
Potae Maori lobbying the government on the issue of rates in the nineteenth century. None of
the several petitions on a rating clause in the Native Lands Bill of 1888 came from Rohe
Potae leaders, for example.38 Some mention of rating may have been made at Seddon’s
meetings with Maori at Taumarunui, Te Kuiti and Otorohanga in 1895, but the official record
of the trip did not mention the topics of discussion at these hui.39 At Hukanui, Kingmaker and
34
Rating Acts Amendment Act, s18
Luiten, p53
36
Rating Acts Amendment Act, s17
37
Rating Acts Amendment Act, s19
38
See relevant petitions in AJHR 1888 I-3, pp 23-4, 27.
39
AJHR 1895 G-1, p9. No newspaper account could be found.
35
271
Kauhanganui Premier Wiremu Taingakawa asked Seddon to remove all taxes from Maori
land, which presumably included rates.40 Seddon replied that:
...the pakehas just as much as the Maoris wanted to escape taxation, but the Government
could not do without money, and taxes therefore must be imposed for the benefit of both
races. As to the objections to local rating, the Natives had only to pay half-rates, and
where they were too poor, the Governor had the power to exempt them altogether. Any
cases of hardship could therefore be submitted to the Native Minister.41
As we have seen, this exemption power did exist, but no evidence could be found of it
actually being used for land in the inquiry district.
Meanwhile, county councils were having difficulty rating Maori land under the existing law,
and were lobbying the government for change.42 Raglan County Council, for example, argued
that the existing system was ‘unfair, unjust and unworkable’ for local bodies.43 In response,
the Government amended the Rating Act again, in 1896. Where a block of Maori land was
owned or occupied by four or more people, the local authority was enabled to require them to
nominate one owner to represent all of them for the purposes of rating. If they did not do this
within three months, the authority could choose a representative itself. The nominated owner
could then be subject to legal proceedings as if he or she was the sole owner, but would not
be liable in excess of his or her share of the land, plus a share of the legal costs. No judgment
could be operated or enforced without the prior consent of the Native Minister.44 In lieu of
granting consent, the Minister could, if he thought it was in the best interests of all parties,
authorise the lease of the land for a period of 21 years or fewer.45
The nominated owner provisions were brought about because of the extreme difficulty faced
by most local bodies in even identifying and locating all the owners of particular blocks of
Maori land, let alone serving rates demands and collecting the money or following up nonpayment.46 However, Stirling notes that ‘Given the state of Maori land titles and Native Land
Court records, the nominated owner selected could be a distant absentee owner or even a
40
AJHR 1888 I-3, p11
AJHR 1888 I-3, p12
42
Stirling, ‘Eating Away at the Land’, pp 176-7
43
Luiten, p59
44
Rating Act Amendment Act 1896, s2
45
Rating Act Amendment Act 1896, s3
46
Stirling, ‘Eating Away at the Land’, p177
41
272
deceased owner without a successor’.47 This would become a very real problem in Raglan
County in the twentieth century. Apart from failing to solve local authorities’ rates collection
problems, the nominated owner system meant that Maori landowners and occupiers might be
unaware that rates had been levied and unpaid on their land.
Rating and Maori land in the Rohe Potae, 1900-1913
In 1903 the Kawhia and Awakino Counties Act split Awakino County off from Kawhia
County and brought the Counties Act into force in the remainder of Kawhia County.48 The
following year the Waitomo County Act took parts of Kawhia and Awakino Counties,
created Waitomo County out of them, and brought the Counties Act into force in Waitomo
County (see map 4).49 The Governor was thereby enabled to divide Kawhia and Waitomo
Counties into ridings (essentially council electorates) and generally establish local
government there. He did this for Kawhia in June 1905, with the first election to be held on
12 July that year, and for Waitomo in July 1905, with the first election on 25 August. 50
Awakino County was not brought under the Counties Act until 1913.51
Once Kawhia and Waitomo County Councils were established, they were able to rate Maori
land in their districts under a new Native Land Rating Act, passed in 1904. This made Maori
land subject to full rates, including special rates, if it:
Had a Pakeha occupier, or
Was located in or within ten miles of a borough or town district, or
Was located within five miles of any Government or county road, or
Had been at any time acquired by purchase or lease, or
Had been at any time liable for full rates (ie, if it had been leased to a Pakeha
and had reverted to Maori ownership52), or
Was incorporated under the Native Land Court Act 1894.53
47
Stirling, ‘Eating Away at the Land’, p178
Kawhia and Awakino Counties Act 1903. For background to this, see Luiten, pp 70-1
49
Waitomo County Act 1904
50
New Zealand Gazette, 8 June 1905, p1425; New Zealand Gazette, 27 July 1905, p1783
51
New Zealand Gazette, 14 February 1913, p591
52
Tom Bennion, Maori and Rating Law: Rangahaua Whanui National Theme I (Wellington: Waitangi Tribunal,
1997), p34
53
Native Land Rating Act 1904, s2 (1)
48
273
All other Maori land was liable for half rates unless the title had not been ascertained, and
even then the Native Minister could instruct the Native Land Court to ascertain title if he
thought the owners were delaying title investigation in order to avoid rates.54 The Governor
retained his ability to exempt Maori land from rating liability but, as with previous
legislation, no evidence has been found that he ever did this for any land in the inquiry
district. Rates were also imposed on Maori-owned land in Te Kuiti township by a council
which included Jeremiah Ormsby of Ngati Maniapoto.55 Even more so than previous
legislation, the 1904 Act went against Ballance’s undertakings of the 1880s. Maori land
would be fully rateable not only if it was leased, but also if it had ever been leased in the past,
or if it happened to be near a road, a borough or town district. All this applied regardless of
whether or not the land was in use or capable of use. As with the earlier Act, Maori land not
liable for full rates was liable for half rates regardless of whether it was capable of profitable
use.
The 1904 Act carried on the nominated owner provisions of the 1896 amendment, with some
modifications. Where land was in multiple ownership, the Valuer-General was to enter on the
valuation roll the names of whichever owners he saw fit as ‘nominated Native occupiers’,
who were not to exceed one per 25 owners.56 These nominated occupiers could be treated as
if they were the sole owners and thereby sued for outstanding rates. However their actual
liability was only that of their personal share, plus any costs. No judgment against a Maori
landowner or occupier for non-payment of rates could operate or be enforced without the
written consent of the Native Minister.57 The Minister was also enabled to authorise the local
Maori Land Council (later Maori Land Board) to administer the land, and could also pay the
rates money out of central government funds. If he did this, part of the land would become
vested in the Crown.58 A search of the New Zealand Gazette reveals only one instance in
which the Minister authorised a Land Council or Board to lease a block of Maori land on
which rates were owing. This was the Tinakori South block in Wellington.59 If there were any
54
Native Land Rating Act 1904, s2 (2)
Luiten, pp 83-4
56
Native Land Rating Act 1904, s7
57
Native Land Rating Act 1904, s8
58
Native Land Rating Act 1904, ss 9-10
59
New Zealand Gazette, 28 January 1909, p208. The block was ‘within a short distance of the heart of
Wellington city... On the Tinakori Hills, nearly opposite the main entrance to the Botanical Garden’ and was
therefore presumably worth more than most blocks of Maori land with unpaid rates. Star, 9 August 1909, p2
55
274
instances of the Minister consenting to the enforcement of a rates-related judgment on Maori
landowners under the 1904 Act, they did not appear in the Gazette.
The 1904 Act was, not surprisingly, unpopular with Maori. Western Maori MHR Henare
Kaihau opposed it during parliamentary debates, objecting in particular to the provision
allowing the compulsory vesting of rates-owing land in Maori Land Councils. He also said
that Maori were willing to be rated provided the restrictions on their land were removed.60
Mahuta made similar points in the Legislative Council, adding that the Bill was contrary to
the Treaty of Waitangi.61 After the Act was passed, there were numerous Maori petitions
against it, including one from Mahuta’s brother, Te Wherowhero Tawhiao, and 262 others.62
Because local government was being brought into operation in Kawhia and Waitomo
Counties, Rohe Potae Maori were aware that they would soon be likely to have rates imposed
upon them. Rating was therefore a major topic of discussion at a hui in Te Kuiti in late April
1905. A resolution was passed stating that the Act was unjust, especially considering the
restrictions in place on Maori lands, and that it therefore should be repealed or amended.63
The formation of operative local government in Kawhia County led directly to an important
case on Maori rating law. Native Minister James Carroll visited Kawhia in March 1905 and
told settlers that once the valuation rolls had been compiled, ‘The Maoris would all be on the
roll, and would have to pay rates’.64 The Valuation Department began to assess Maori land in
the county, basing their valuations on what the owner would be likely to receive for the land
if it was sold in the open market. Some Kawhia County Maori objected to this, saying that
since it was illegal for them to sell, lease or otherwise alienate their land, on the open market
or otherwise, it had no economic value. In May 1905, John Ormsby argued this point before
the Assessment Court in Otorohanga, representing landowner Moe Omipi. The Court agreed
with Ormsby, but suggested that the Valuation Department appeal to the Supreme Court so
that the matter could be properly clarified. It also adjourned all the other Maori cases before
60
NZPD, 1904, vol 131, pp 349-50
NZPD, 1904, vol 131, p809
62
AJHR 1905 I-3, p15
63
Taranaki Herald, 12 May 1905, p4
64
Luiten, p71
61
275
it, ‘as they were practically in the same position, pending the decision of the Supreme
Court’.65
Meanwhile, the Valuation Department told the Kawhia County Council not to enter restricted
Maori land on its valuation roll, and Maori land was also left off the Waitomo County roll for
the same reason.66 This meant that Maori land in these counties was not subject to rates.
Omipi’s Supreme Court case was eventually heard in September 1907, and decided in
December of that year. Justice Denniston found that interests in Maori land could not be
valued on the basis of an unrestricted estate, but on the basis of what the owner could actually
do with it.67 However, he did not agree that the owner’s inability to alienate the land meant
that it had no value, and referred the matter back to the Assessment Court.68 Within the time
available for this report, it has not been possible to discover what the Assessment Court
subsequently did. Two years later the Native Land Act 1909 removed restrictions on the
alienation of Maori land, presumably making the valuation process for Maori land somewhat
easier.69
Even when the value of Maori land was uncontested, local councils found it extremely
difficult to collect rates from Maori landowners. Raglan County Council had a zero-tolerance
policy for non-payment of rates, and in the first decade of the twentieth century had seized
and auctioned the lands of several Pakeha rates defaulters. By 1913 the Pakeha landowners of
Raglan County were all paying on their rates before the due date.70 The Council were far less
successful with Maori landowners. In 1909 the chairman explained to a county council
conference the lengths it had gone to in order to get rates money from Maori, without
success.71 In the two years from 1 April 1906, the Council had levied £2942 in rates on Maori
landowners, and had received only £7 16s 6d, or about 0.25% of the total. Apart from the
£2934 written off as irrecoverable, the Council also missed out on a subsidy paid to them as a
proportion of rates collected, and had spent £500 in their attempts to recover the outstanding
money.
65
Kawhia Settler, 16 June 1905, in Luiten, supporting documents, pp 2682-3
Luiten, p72
67
Valuer-General v Ormsby – (1907) 27 NZLR, p44. The ‘Orsmby’ in the case name seems to be a
transliteration of Omipi.
68
Valuer-General v Ormsby – (1907) 27 NZLR, p49
69
Luiten, p73
70
Luiten, p60
71
Evening Post, 13 May 1909, p3; Luiten, p60
66
276
The Council obtained from the Valuation Department the names of three nominated
occupiers of Te Akau 3A, an 11,587 acre block on which £82 was owing. The money was
sued for in test case, and a Supreme Court verdict delivered in favour of the Council by
default. Permission was sought from the Native Minister to enforce the judgment, but this
was denied on the grounds that two of the nominated owners had in fact been dead for several
years. In cases such as this it is not clear whether the unpaid money was simply written off or
whether it was registered as a lien against the land title to be paid when the land was sold.
The problem of out-of-date land records was a common one elsewhere in the country.72
In August 1909 Acting Prime Minister James Carroll met and discussed rating with a group
of Maori at Otorohanga. According to Carroll:
...they were willing to become liable to rates and taxes where they were receiving the
benefits of improvements already carried out at the expense of the community, and were
agreed that they should not allow themselves to receive from others without giving a fair
return. What he thought they would like was that the rating and taxing of their lands
should be made gradually, by installments, so as to accustom them to bear the fresh
burdens which they would have to carry. 73
At a settlers’ banquet in Te Kuiti later in the month, he said that he was planning a Native
Land Rating Bill, which would make Maori land rateable if it was near a township, or further
afield but capable of supporting profitable occupation. ‘The only exception would be lands
that it was impossible to bring into profitable occupation’.74 To balance this out, the
Advances to Settlers Act would be amended to make it practical for Maori to make use of it.
Carroll said that ‘The Maori should be put on the same footing as his pakeha neighbour, and
encouraged to vie with him or exceed him’.75 Earlier in the year John and Jeremiah Ormsby
had made a similar point at a County Councils conference, saying that ‘until the natives were
given equal privileges with Europeans, by the removal of the existing restrictions on their
lands, it was unfair to compel them to pay rates’.76 Maori rating law was not amended until
1910, and in the meantime local bodies and other Pakeha organisations in the Rohe Potae and
72
Stirling, ‘Eating Away at the Land’, p239
Evening Post, 7 August 1909, p9
74
West Coast Times, 14 August 1909, p4
75
West Coast Times, 14 August 1909, p4
76
Evening Post, 13 May 1909, p3
73
277
elsewhere continued to pressure the government to bring Maori land more fully into the
rating system.77
The Rating Amendment Act 1910 made Maori freehold land liable to rating ‘in the same
manner as European land’, with a few exceptions.78 These were that customary land was still
exempt from rating, that land vested in a Maori Land Board could not be liable for rates in
excess of its revenues, and that the Governor could exempt Maori land from rates. Land
Boards were enabled to sell land vested in them under this Act for non-payment of rates.79
Action against rates-defaulters no longer required the consent of the Native Minister. Despite
what Carroll had said the previous year, and what Ballance had said in the 1880s, no
exceptions were made for land incapable of profitable occupation, unless it was vested in a
Land Board, although the Governor could make exemptions on a case-by-case basis. Maori
remained generally unable to make use of the Advances to Settlers Act, and significant
development finance for Maori land did not become available until the 1920s.80
Local councils continued to find it difficult to impose rates on Maori landowners. In 1911 the
Waitomo County Council wrote to the Minister for Native Affairs asking for Maori to be put
‘upon the rate book’ so that their land could be rated.81 It is not clear why this had not already
happened, but for some reason Maori land in Waitomo County was not placed on the rating
roll, and thereby made liable for rates, until the 1911-12 financial year.82 Even in Raglan
County, which as we have seen had been very active in trying to extract rates money from
Maori landowners, there was no Maori land on the rating roll between 1908 and 1914.83
In 1913 the Evening Post suggested that the 1910 legislation was ‘a forgotten Act’ which
many local bodies were failing to use in order to get rates from Maori landowners.84 This was
supported by a resolution passed by the Counties’ Association Conference the same year,
reaffirming the policy of placing Maori and Pakeha on the same footing with regard to
77
Hawera & Normanby Star, 13 July 1910, p8; Evening Post, 10 August 1910, p4; Luiten, p61; Stirling, ‘Eating
Away at the Land’, p236
78
Rating Amendment Act 1910, s3
79
Rating Amendment Act 1910, s17
80
Boast, p261. It was not impossible for Maori to make use of the Advances to Settlers Act but, as Boast
explains, it was extremely difficult.
81
Broadfoot to Minister for Native Affairs, 14 March 1911, MA 1 1049 1911/184, ANZW. SD vol 1, p272
82
Luiten, p73
83
Luiten, p63
84
Evening Post, 8 August 1913, p4
278
rates.85 Taumarunui MHR Charles Wilson said in parliament that there was no reason why
Maori should not pay rates ‘the same as anybody else’ and that Maori were ‘making their
living by carrying on the roads which the Pakeha have to make and maintain, and yet they
pay no rates’.86 In 1914 the Waitomo County Council chairman stated that, in the previous
financial year, 625 out of 703 Maori-owned properties in the County had rates owing. The
Council could register the unpaid rates as a lien against the land title, so that when the land
was sold the money could be recovered, but this cost five shillings per assessment plus legal
costs and title searches, making the registration uneconomic in many cases.87 This meant that
even when Maori did not pay their rates, the debt did not necessarily accrue on the land title.
We have seen that Raglan County Council’s case against the owners of Te Akau 3A had
foundered because the nominated occupiers were not living, and out-of-date or otherwise
inaccurate records of nominated occupiers continued to be a serious problem. The staffing
problems of the Waikato-Maniapoto Land Board, which were outlined in chapter six, seem to
have contributed to this.88
Conclusions
During negotiations over the opening of the Rohe Potae in the 1880s, Maori leaders were
adamant that they did not want their lands rated, particularly if the lands were not in use.
While it is not clear exactly what promises the Government made at this time, Rohe Potae
Maori were given the clear impression that their unproductive lands would not be subject to
rates. They may also have been led to believe that none of their lands would be rated. Despite
this, over the next few decades Maori land in the Rohe Potae and elsewhere was gradually
brought into the scope of rating law, and by 1914 nearly all Maori land in the Rohe Potae
inquiry district was liable for local body rates.
This chapter has shown, however, that being liable for rates is not the same thing as having to
pay them. Most Maori land in the inquiry district did not become even theoretically liable for
rates until around 1905, when the Native Land Rating Act 1904 was closely followed by the
establishment of local government in Kawhia and Waitomo Counties. The ability of the new
County Councils to impose rates was severely handicapped by the Assessment Court’s Omipi
85
Poverty Bay Herald, 22 August 1913, p3
NZPD, 1913, vol 167, p574
87
Luiten, p88
88
Luiten, p88
86
279
ruling of 1905, which found that Maori land which could not be alienated had no rateable
value. This obstacle was removed in 1909 with the repeal of alienation restrictions but, as we
have seen, Rohe Potae councils continued to have great difficulty in extracting rates from
Maori landowners. This situation was shared by county councils elsewhere in the North
Island.89 No attempt has been made in this chapter to discover whether Rohe Potae Maori
were defaulting on rates because they were unable to pay them, as a political statement, or
simply because they knew that they could probably get away with it. There was probably a
mix of reasons but inability to pay seems likely to have been an important reason.
In the time available it has not been possible to find evidence of persistent Rohe Potae Maori
lobbying against rating in the 1886 to 1913 period. Before about 1905, it is likely that this
was because most Maori in the inquiry district were not liable for rates, and so rating was
therefore a relatively minor issue for them. The failure of local government bodies to collect
rates or impose penalties for defaulting in this period may have kept rating from being a
major concern up until at least World War I. There is some evidence of Rohe Potae Maori
agreeing to their productive lands being rated as long as they received some of the benefits of
development, but it is not clear how widely this view was held.
In the mid 1880s Rohe Potae Maori were led to believe that their land would not be rated, at
least if it was not productive. By 1913 nearly all of their land which remained in their
ownership was liable for rates, but there do not seem to have been any practical consequences
for not paying them. This was probably not the way Rohe Potae Maori believed the
Government’s promise would be fulfilled, and it is unlikely to have been an intentional policy
on the Government’s part. However to some extent Ballance’s undertakings of the 1880s
were kept in the period covered by this report, in practice if not in theory.
89
Marinus La Rooij, ‘“That most difficult and thorny question”: The Rating of Maori Land in Tauranga
County’, a report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, 4 April 2002, Wai 215, P14, pp 26-30
280
Conclusions
The Commission for this report covers the following topics for the period 1886 to 1913:
a) The extent of continuing understandings of Te Rohe Potae pact during this period
and what this might mean for continuing political relations with the Crown in its
administration of the district.
b) The operation of Maori committees from the 1870s such as the Kawhia committee.
c) District participation in, and support for, 1890s developments in relations with the
government, including the nature of support for the Kingitanga, various prophetic
movements and the Kotahitanga, and the relationships between these movements in
the district.
d) The Maori Councils established under the Maori Land Administration Act 1900 as
a form of political engagement, the extent to which these provided for forms of local
political authority and the fate of the Maori Councils system and Annual General
Conferences by 1911.
e) The nature of the relationship between the Crown and any hapu and iwi of the
district who were not part of the Rohe Potae alliance.
This conclusion will summarise those topics before drawing together some of the wider
themes of political engagement in the Rohe Potae in the 1886 to 1913 period. It will be
argued that although some agreements of the 1880s were broadly honoured, Rohe Potae
Maori underwent significant loss of power and autonomy during the period covered by this
report.
(a) The extent of continuing understandings of Te Rohe Potae pact during this period
and what this might mean for continuing political relations with the Crown in its
administration of the district.
Numerous claimants in this inquiry have referred to a Rohe Potae ‘sacred compact’ or ‘pact’
(also known as the Aotea agreement or ‘compact’). This term refers to events during the
opening up of the Rohe Potae in the mid-1880s. The negotiations included an agreement
between Native Minister Bryce and the ‘Four Tribes’ alliance in March 1883, allowing a
preliminary survey of the railway route. Later that year, in November, the Rohe Potae
281
leadership agreed to submit their lands to the Native Land Court to have their boundary
determined, with the survey costs to be fixed at £1600. As was discussed in chapter one,
these two written agreements have been characterised by some historians as stages in a Rohe
Potae ‘compact’, while others dispute this description.
Some Rohe Potae leaders believed that the Government broke the November 1883 agreement
when, in 1886, it encouraged a Native Land Court hearing on the Tauponuiatia block. The
hearing included some of those lands claimed as the Rohe Potae area, and therefore preempted the Rohe Potae boundary survey then under way. According to Stirling, this was a
‘unilateral overturning of the Rohe Potae compact’.1
This report has found that public references to a King Country ‘sacred compact’ seem to have
first emerged in August 1900 in relation to liquor prohibition (with the proviso that no Maori
language sources were able to be examined in the time available). Liquor sales were banned
at the request of Rohe Potae leaders in 1884. However, during the 1890s they increasingly
believed that sales under license would prevent sly-grogging, which was perceived to have
become widespread. They considered that, as the liquor ban had been implemented at their
request, it could therefore be overturned at their request. This belief proved mistaken,
however, for the powerful prohibition lobby ensured that prohibition stayed in place
regardless of the views of the Rohe Potae leadership.
An opportunity for change arose in July 1900, when Prime Minister Richard Seddon
proposed allowing Maori and Pakeha resident in the King Country to vote on whether to
maintain prohibition. However, prohibition activists began to claim that such a move would
violate a government undertaking that no liquor sales were to be allowed in the Rohe Potae if
the railway was allowed through it. Within weeks, this alleged agreement was being
described as a ‘solemn’ or ‘sacred’ compact, particularly by church-affiliated groups. Seddon
soon backed down from his referendum proposal, and by 1904 had abandoned any intention
of allowing liquor sales in the King Country. The compact idea was revived in 1909 when a
legal loophole allowed liquor licences to be granted in certain areas within the prohibition
district. However, this time prohibitionists claimed that, under the ‘compact’, liquor sales
1
Stirling, ‘Taupo-Kaingaroa’, vol 3, pp 1112-1113
282
would be banned in the King Country if European settlement was allowed, the completion of
the railway no longer being a live issue.
In the time available for this report, it has not been possible to find evidence of any Rohe
Potae ‘compact’ being referred to outside of the liquor debate. However, if the term
‘compact’ is treated as shorthand for the negotiations with the Government in the mid-1880s,
many of the issues raised in those negotiations were live political topics in the 1886 to 1913
period. In 1885, Native Minister John Ballance gave certain undertakings to Rohe Potae
representatives, two of which are discussed in detail in this report. In both cases the
Government appears not to have breached the commitments it had made to Rohe Potae
Maori, although it did not keep them in the way Maori might have expected. With regard to
political representation, Ballance promised to support requests from Rohe Potae leaders to
make Maori representation in parliament proportionate to the number of Maori in the New
Zealand population. The number of Maori electorates was not increased until the 1990s, but
proportional Maori representation was achieved in 1890 via a reduction in the number of
‘general’ electorates. Maori representation in parliament remained in proportion to their
percentage of the New Zealand population for several decades. In relation to rates, most
Maori land in the Rohe Potae was not liable for rates until around 1905. Even after this, local
authorities found it virtually impossible to compel Maori to pay rates due to the difficulties in
pursuing a successful prosecution for non-payment. The legislation therefore went against
undertakings of the 1880s that Maori land would not be rated, especially if it was not in use.
However, in practice Rohe Potae Maori generally did not have to pay rates in the 1886 to
1913 period.
For some claimants, the notion of the ‘compact’ refers to the objectives of the Rohe Potae
leadership in allowing the opening up of the district. These objectives included minimising
the role of the Native Land Court and maintaining iwi and hapu control over land alienation.
None of these objectives were achieved. Rohe Potae lands were submitted to the Native Land
Court in 1886 and titles were individualised; Maori in the district were legally prohibited
from leasing land until 1900 and could sell land only to the Crown; and nearly half of Rohe
Potae lands were sold by 1908. Attempts during the 1890s to overcome Crown pre-emption
in the district failed. Some leasing was, however, allowed after 1900, and land sales
283
temporarily slowed under the ‘taihoa’ policy. In this report these issues are covered only in
overview, and are dealt with in more detail in other reports for this inquiry.2
(b) The operation of Maori committees from the 1870s such as the Kawhia Committee
As our Commission generally covers the period from 1886, we have not discussed any
committees prior to the Kawhia Committee. It is assumed that these are dealt with by
commissioned reports covering the pre-1886 period. In his study of committees formed under
the Native Committees Act 1883, Vincent O’Malley argues that the Kawhia Committee was
able to achieve significantly more than similar committees elsewhere in the country.
Research for this report has supported the view that the Kawhia Committee was able to play
an important role in the relationships of Rohe Potae Maori with the Crown and Pakeha in the
1880s. This was due at least partly to the contemporary political context.
While the district was in the process of being opened to Pakeha, Rohe Potae Maori retained
considerable power and so it was in the government’s interest to work in partnership with
them. The Kawhia Committee was very useful in that it was an officially constituted body
with which the government could negotiate. However, it was still an autonomous Maori
organisation rather than one controlled by the government. As such, it was probably more
likely than government representatives to be trusted by Maori communities which were less
than enthusiastic about the arrival of Pakeha. These factors meant that the Committee was
able to negotiate an agreement on gold prospecting which pleased the Government and Rohe
Potae Maori, even those who were initially opposed to prospecting in their rohe. It also
facilitated other resource management agreements, and acted as a Court for minor offences
between Maori. The Committee’s main weakness was that it lacked the power to enforce its
judgements on land matters. This meant that it could not fulfil its supporters’ hopes that it
would replace the Native Land Court. The Committee’s problems seem to have been
compounded from 1886 by the operation of the Land Court, which was more powerful than
the Committee and did not have to take notice of its views. Throughout the mid 1880s, Rohe
Potae Maori lobbied for the Committee’s powers to be extended but, although Ballance made
repeated statements in support of this, no such changes were made. The Committee seems to
have gone into decline and, from the evidence available, had ceased to function by 1890.
2
Primarily Boulton, and Husbands and Mitchell.
284
(c) District participation in, and support for, 1890s developments in relations with the
government, including the nature of support for the Kingitanga, various prophetic
movements, and the Kotahitanga, and the relationships between these movements in the
district
From the 1880s there was division within Rohe Potae Maori, with some groups continuing to
be strongly allied with the Kingitanga and the majority taking a more independent path
involving negotiations with the government over the opening of the district. Throughout the
1886 to 1913 period the relationship between the two groups was somewhat tense,
particularly where attempts at local self-government were involved. However Maniapoto and
other Rohe Potae hapu and iwi continued to have strong links with the Kingitanga, and the
relationship may have improved towards the end of this period.
Apart from Tawhiao, the two most prominent prophets with connections to the Rohe Potae
seem to have been Te Mahuki and Te Kere. Te Kere appears to have had a good relationship
with the Kingitanga, but no evidence has been found concerning his relationships with other
Rohe Potae Maori. He seems to have had some followers in the south of the inquiry district.
Te Mahuki’s relationship with other Rohe Potae Maori was more problematic. He was an
active leader of resistance to the opening of the Rohe Potae, and came into conflict with
various Rohe Potae chiefs on several occasions. The only other Rohe Potae-based prophet of
known significance in the 1886 to 1913 period was Te Kooti. His relationship with the Crown
seems to have been relatively positive following his pardon in 1884, as exemplified by his
involvement in the rescue of Hursthouse and his companions from Te Mahuki. Te Mahuki
and Te Kere seem to have been important leaders of resistance to the opening of the Rohe
Potae, while Te Kooti’s political influence in the region does not appear to have been strong
at this time.
The involvement of Rohe Potae Maori in the Kotahitanga seems to have been fairly minor,
primarily because of the district’s continued strong connections with the Kingitanga.
Although these connections were weaker and more problematic in the 1890s than in earlier
decades, they were still strong enough to prevent the significant engagement of Rohe Potae
Maori with the Kotahitanga.
285
(d) The Maori Councils established under the Maori Land Administration Act 1900 as a
form of political engagement, the extent to which these provided for forms of local
political authority and the fate of the Maori Councils system and Annual General
Conferences by 1911.
This topic covers two entirely separate council systems: the Maori Land Councils established
under the Maori Land Administration Act 1900, and the general Maori Councils established
under the Maori Councils Act 1900. It was the latter bodies (Maori Councils as opposed to
Maori Land Councils) which were intended to provide local political autonomy, and which
had General Conferences, the last of which was held in 1911. Both systems were used as a
form of political engagement, but the two types of council worked in different ways, had
different responsibilities, and had very different histories.
The Maori Land Councils established under the Maori Lands Administration Act 1900 were
intended and used as a system of land management or administration, as the Act’s name
implies. They also had important political aspects. The Kingitanga’s initial co-operation with
the system meant that for the first time the Kingitanga and the government were to some
degree working as partners within one Maori land administration system. In general, the
Maori Land Councils system provided Maori with significant autonomy, particularly in the
hands of men with experience in Pakeha systems, such as John Ormsby and Pepene Eketone.
Some historians have seen it in a particularly favourable light compared to the Native Land
Court, which was previously the only official means by which Maori could deal with their
land. The Land Councils took over many of the Court’s functions, including approval of
leases and other alienations. However the amount of autonomy the system gave to Maori was
quickly reduced. Compulsory vesting was introduced within a few years and the elected
Maori membership removed from the Councils in 1905, when they became Maori Land
Boards. By 1913 the Boards had become essentially the administrative arm of the Native
Land Court, and lacked any Maori membership.
Meanwhile, some degree of local political authority was provided by the Maori Councils
established under the Maori Councils Act 1900. The Maori Councils were established with
the stated intent of giving Maori a system of local government, although one with much less
power than that enjoyed by Pakeha-dominated local bodies under mainstream local
286
government legislation. Maori in the Rohe Potae and elsewhere were initially enthusiastic
about the Councils but, once it became obvious that they lacked funding and significant
power, interest waned. The Maniapoto Maori Council, whose district covered most of the
Rohe Potae inquiry district, had particular difficulties due to the antagonism of the
Kingitanga towards the Maori Councils system. This prevented the establishment of any
Waikato Maori Council and also led to power struggles with the Maniapoto Maori Council,
particularly over boundaries and the dog tax, with the Council and the Kingitanga each
regarding the other as intruding on its authority. General Conferences of the Maori Councils
occurred semi-annually until 1911 and are likely to have provided valuable networking
opportunities for delegates, with associated benefits to their communities. The delegates were
clearly frustrated at their Councils’ lack of power and funding, and by 1911 it was obvious
that an overhaul was necessary if the Councils were to survive in any meaningful way.
(e) The nature of the relationship between the Crown and any hapu and iwi of the
district who were not part of the Te Rohe Potae alliance
It would be highly misleading to try and divide the hapu and iwi of the Rohe Potae inquiry
district into those who were or were not part of the Rohe Potae alliance. For example,
Maniapoto was one of the ‘Four Tribes’ behind the 1883 petition, but parts of Maniapoto
were behind a counter-petition produced by the Kingitanga in response. In addition, prophetic
movements which led the resistance to the opening of the Rohe Potae do not seem to have
formed on a iwi or hapu basis. Throughout this report we have shown that divisions within
Rohe Potae Maori have not been along clear iwi or hapu lines, but were frequently within iwi,
particularly Maniapoto. It is more helpful, therefore, to think in terms of groups such as the
Kingitanga, and of general groups of Maori who were clearly not involved in the Rohe Potae
negotiations of the 1880s.
The main group of Maori which had connections to the Rohe Potae but were not part of the
Rohe Potae alliance was the Kingitanga. Once negotiations between the government and the
Kingitanga in the mid 1880s petered out, government representatives dealt primarily with
leaders of the Rohe Potae alliance such as Wahanui. It has not been possible in the time
available for this report to fully explore the relationship between the Crown and the
Kingitanga in the 1886 to 1913 period. However in relation to the Rohe Potae inquiry district,
287
there was ongoing low-level conflict between the Kingitanga on one hand and the Crown and
members of the Rohe Potae alliance on the other. A particular source of friction was the
establishment of officially-recognised committees and councils such as the Kawhia
Committee and the Maniapoto Maori Council. Both of these councils, and the systems under
which they operated, were perceived by the Kingitanga as a threat to the King’s authority. As
a result, many Kingitanga-aligned Maori refused to be involved with the official councils,
and the Kingitanga established rival councils of their own. The Kingitanga was initially more
involved with the Maori Land Councils established under the Maori Lands Administration
Act, but withdrew their support after a short time.
Other groups of Rohe Potae Maori who were not part of the Rohe Potae alliance included the
followers of the prophets Te Mahuki and Te Kere. The Crown’s relationship with these
groups was fairly negative, particularly in the case of Te Mahuki. On several occasions he
threatened Pakeha settlers and government staff, and was imprisoned as a result. These
prophets were leaders of the resistance to the opening of the Rohe Potae, and as such it was
perhaps inevitable that their relationship with the Crown would be antagonistic.
General summary
The 1886 to 1913 period saw the arrival of large scale Pakeha settlement in the Rohe Potae
inquiry district. It also saw the introduction of Pakeha forms of local government and land
administration such as County Councils and formal townships. It can therefore be asked to
what extent this period saw the loss of Maori autonomy in the district and the transfer of
substantive political power from Maori to Pakeha. Although this is a complex question to
answer, it seems clear from the evidence examined for this report that there was a loss of
Maori autonomy and a transfer of power from Maori to Pakeha.
The various Maori councils and committees active in the inquiry district from the 1880s to
1913 provide one illustration of the decline of Maori power and autonomy. The Kawhia
Committee of the 1880s was an officially recognised body formed under government
legislation. However it was elected by Maori, entirely made up of Maori, and exercised
considerable autonomy in its brief life. This is shown particularly in its agreement over gold
prospecting. In this case, the Committee made a decision on the exact means by which
prospecting would occur in the area, and then worked with government representative George
288
Wilkinson to bring this about. When Wilkinson wanted to change the plan, the Committee
rejected his suggestion and Wilkinson went along with the Committee’s wishes. Despite this
success, however, the Committee seems to have stopped meeting by 1890. The reasons for
this are unclear, but the arrival of the Land Court probably had a strong impact, combined
with the Committee’s inherent lack of official powers.
Lack of power was also a problem faced by the Maniapoto Maori Council. It had more
funding and more clearly defined powers than the Kawhia Committee, and a longer life, but it
is not clear that it achieved much other than a possible improvement in living standards. It is
possible that it helped to reduce illegal alcohol consumption, but little evidence of this could
be found. The Maniapoto-Tuwharetoa Land Council, by contrast, was fairly active and seems
to have been to some extent controlled by John Ormsby and Pepene Eketone, both of whom
were Maori. However it had two Pakeha members, including the chairman, and within a few
years the Maori majority was removed. The decline in Maori power and autonomy in the
Rohe Potae can therefore be clearly tracked through the Kawhia Committee to the Maniapoto
Maori Council and Maniapoto-Tuwharetoa Land Council, and finally to the Pakehacontrolled Waikato-Maniapoto Maori Land Board. The involvement of John Ormsby in three
of these bodies also illustrates another shift of power: from traditional chiefs such as Wahanui
to men such as Ormsby, who were comfortable in both worlds and skilled in the use of
Pakeha systems. While traditional chiefs probably retained considerable power within their
own communities, the shift of wider power to Pakeha and the government meant that Ormsby
was able to dominate interaction between Rohe Potae Maori and the government.
The wishes of Rohe Potae Maori as expressed in the 1880s negotiations were sometimes
fulfilled in the 1886 to 1913 period, particularly when they did not involve land. However the
chapters on liquor and rates, in particular, have shown that the decision making power now
lay not with the Maori communities most affected but with Pakeha-dominated central and
local government. Government representatives consulted with Rohe Potae Maori, many of
who, at least until the early 1900s, wanted to end the ban on liquor sales there. However, such
views were generally over-ridden by more strident voices from outside the King Country,
particularly those of the powerful prohibition lobby. The option to vote on whether or not to
continue with the liquor ban, granted to Pakeha in other ‘dry’ districts, continued to be denied
to Rohe Potae Maori. With respect to rates, Maori continued to express a desire not to have
289
their lands rated. However, the continued freedom of Maori lands in the Rohe Potae from
rating was due more to the tangles of bureaucracy than to any government policy. Maori were
represented in the House of Representatives by just four MHRs and, although this became
proportionate to their numbers in the New Zealand population, they were a small and easily
ignored minority. As was discussed above, the bodies established to give Maori some degree
of autonomy or local self-government were underfunded and underpowered, and generally
failed to meet the expectations of Rohe Potae Maori.
The ‘opening up’ of the Rohe Potae, the beginning of substantial Pakeha settlement, and the
introduction of the Native Land Court led to significant changes in the district, not least in
terms of power relations. While it is difficult to measure the extent to which Rohe Potae
Maori lost power and autonomy in this period, it is clear that both of these were lost to some
extent. There was also a power shift within Maori communities, as men who could engage
with and use Pakeha political systems came to the fore. The traditional leadership lost its
main bargaining chips once construction began on the railway and the Native Land Court
began to operate in the Rohe Potae. This was illustrated when Rohe Potae leaders tried to
broker a deal with Native Minister Cadman in the early 1890s to reduce restrictions on land
alienation, particularly leasing. The individualisation of title by the Land Court meant that
they no longer wielded the influence to be able to offer up anything to the government –
particularly the sale of specific land blocks – in return for the changes they sought.
290
Appendix - Direction Commissioning Research
291
Bibliography
Archival sources
Archives New Zealand, Wellington
Justice Department files
AAEB, W3293, Box 119
J1, 1522, 18/25/8
Lands Department files
LS 1 471 42821
Native and Maori Affairs files - General
MA 1 1049 1911/184
MA 1 371 19/1/361
MA 1/851 1892/1148
MA 1 884 1906/536
MA 19 6/10
MA 19 6/11
MA 19 6/9
MA 23 10/13b
MA 23 11/14
MA 23 2/3
MA 23 2/4a
MA 23 5/6
MA 23 9/13a
MA W1369 22 1b
MA W1369 23 1d
MA W1369 23 1f
Maori Affairs files – Maori Councils
MA-MC 1/1
MA-MC 1/2
MA-MC 1/3
MA-MC 2/1
294
MA-MC 3/2
Maori Affairs files – Maori Land Administration and Purchase
MA-MLA 1/1
MA-MLA 1/1 1901/1-231
MA-MLA 1/2
MA-MLA 1/3
MA-MLP 1 70 1904/28
Alexander Turnbull Library
New Zealand Alliance Papers, 77-206-16/3
New Zealand Alliance, ‘Correspondence and papers relating to licensing in the King Country’, 77206-17/6
New Zealand Alliance, ‘Executive Meetings Minutes 1900-1903’, 77-206-11/06
Kawhia Committee Minute Book, Ormsby Family Papers, MSY-5008
Maori Manuscripts librarian: Te Kotahitanga Papers, MS-Papers-6373-26
University of Waikato library
Ormsby letterbook, Box 1492
Published primary sources
Legislation
Alcoholic Liquors Sales Control Amendment Act 1895
Counties Act 1876
Crown and Native Lands Rating Act 1882
Electoral Act 1893
Electoral Act 1905
Electoral Act 1956
Electoral Amendment Act 1896
Electoral Amendment Act 1967
Electoral Amendment Act 1975
Kawhia and Awakino Counties Act 1903
Licensing Act 1881
Licensing Act 1908
Licensing Acts Amendment Act 1904
Licensing Amendment Act 1910
295
Maori Councils Act 1900
Maori Councils Amendment Act 1903
Maori Land Claims Adjustment and Laws Amendment Act 1904
Maori Land Laws Amendment Act 1903
Maori Land Laws Amendment Act 1908
Maori Land Settlement Act 1905
Maori Lands Administration Act 1900
Maori Lands Administration Amendment Act 1901
Maori Representation Act 1867
Native and Maori Land Laws Amendment Act 1902
Native Committees Act 1883
Native Land Amendment Act 1913
Native Land Rating Act 1904
Native Land Settlement Act 1907
Native Townships Local Government Act 1905
Qualification of Electors Act 1879
Rating Acts Amendment Act 1893
Rating Amendment Act 1910
Representation Act 1881
Representation Act 1887
Representation Act Amendment Act 1889
Representation Acts Amendment Act 1887
Tohunga Suppression Act 1907
Waitomo County Act 1904
Reported Legal Cases
Valuer-General v Ormsby – (1907) 27 NZLR
Newspapers
Auckland Star
Bay of Plenty Times
Bruce Herald
Clutha Leader
Colonist
Evening Post
Fielding Star
296
Grey River Argus
Hawera and Normanby Star
Hawkes Bay Herald
Kawhia Settler
Manawatu Standard
Marlborough Express
Mataura Ensign
Nelson Evening Mail
New Zealand Herald
New Zealand Tablet
North Otago Times
Observer
Otago Daily Times
Poverty Bay Herald
Southland Times
Star
Taranaki Herald
Te Aroha News
Thames Star
Timaru Herald
Tuapeka Times
Waikato Times
Wanganui Chronicle
Wanganui Herald
West Coast Times
Official publications
Appendices to the Journals of the House of Representatives (AJHR)
Bills Thrown Out
British Parliamentary Papers
Journals of the House of Representatives
New Zealand Parliamentary Debates (NZPD)
New Zealand Gazette
297
Pamphlets and reports
Maori King Country Sacred Pact Committee, ‘The King Country Sacred Pact and the Licensing
Commission’, Te Kuiti, 1949
Report of the Fifth Conference of the Te Aute College Students’ Association, December 1900
Report of the Seventh Conference of the Te Aute College Students’ Association, January 1903
Te Aute College Students’ Association, Report of the Ninth Conference, January 1905
Record of inquiry
Oral Traditions Hui Transcipts, ‘Nga Kōrero Tuku Iho o Te Rohe Pōtae’, Waitangi Tribunal,
December 2010, Wai 898, 4.1
Secondary sources
Official Inquiries
A H McLintock, ‘Liquor and the King Country’, AJHR 1953, H25
Law Commission, Review of Regulatory Framework for the Sale and Supply of Liquor: Part 1,
Alcohol Legislation and the Conscience Vote, Law Commission: Wellington, 2009
Report and Evidence of the Royal Commission on the Police Force in New Zealand, AJHR 1898, H2
Report of the Royal Commission on the Electoral System 1986, available at
http://www.elections.org.nz/voting/mmp/royal-commission-report-1986.html
Royal Commission on Licensing, AJHR 1946, H38
Waitangi Tribunal Reports
Waitangi Tribunal, He Maunga Rongo: Report on Central North Island Claims Stage 1, (Wai 1200),
volume 1, (Wellington: Legislation Direct, 2008)
Waitangi Tribunal, The Pouakani Report, (Wai 33), (Wellington: Brooker and Friend, 1993)
Rangahau Whanui reports
Bennion, Tom, Maori and Rating Law: Rangahaua Whanui National Theme I (Wellington: Waitangi
Tribunal, 1997)
Loveridge, Donald M, Maori Land Councils and Maori Land Boards: A Historical Overview, 1900 to
1952, Waitangi Tribunal, Rangahaua Whanui National Theme K (Wellington: Waitangi
Tribunal, 1996)
Marr, Cathy, The Alienation of Maori Land in the Rohe Potae (Aotea Block) 1840-1920, Waitangi
Tribunal: Rangahaua Whanui Series, (Wellington: Waitangi Tribunal, 1996)
Marr, Cathy, The Alienation of Maori Land in the Rohe Potae (Aotea Block) Part 2: 1900 – 1960,
Waitangi Tribunal: Rangahaua Whanui Series, Wellington: Waitangi Tribunal, 1999)
Woodley, Suzanne, The Native Townships Act 1895, Rangahaua Whanui National Themes
(Wellington: Waitangi Tribunal, 1996)
298
Reports for Tribunal Inquiries
Bassett, Heather and Kay, Richard, ‘The Impact of the Native Townships Acts in the Rohe Potae: Te
Kuiti, Otorohanga, Karewa, Te Puia and Parawai Native Townships’, Crown Forestry Rental
Trust, November 2009
Berghan, Paula, ‘Block Research Narratives: CFRT 1508: Te Rohe Potae District Research
Assistance Project’, 2009
Boulton, Leanne, ‘Land Alienation in the Rohe Potae Inquiry District, 1884 – 1908: An Overview’,
Consultation Draft, March 2011
Christoffel, Paul, ‘The Provision of Education Services to Maori in Te Rohe Potae’, A Report
Commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal for the Te Rohe Potae district inquiry, March 2011,
Wai 898, A27
Cleaver, Philip and Sarich, Jonathan, ‘Turongo: The North Island Main Trunk Railway and the Rohe
Potae, 1870-2008’, Waitangi Tribunal, 2009, Wai 898, A 20
Douglas, Tutahanga, Innes, Craig and Mitchell, James,‘Alienation of Maori Land within Te Rohe
Potae inquiry district 1840-2010: A quantitative study’, Waitangi Tribunal, September 2010,
Wai 898, A21
Hearn, T J, ‘Maori, Land and the Crown in Te Rohe Potae c1900 to c1935’, Crown Forestry Rental
Trust, draft, April 2011. At the time of writing, this report was due to be finalised and filed by
31 August 2011
Hutton, John L, ‘The Operation of the Waikato-Maniapoto District Maori Land Board’, Report
written for the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, May 1996
La Rooij, Marinus, ‘“That most difficult and thorny question”: The Rating of Maori Land in Tauranga
County: Report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal for Wai 215 – Tauranga Maori District
Inquiry’, 4 April 2002, Wai 215, P14
Loveridge, Donald M, ‘The Crown and the Opening of the King Country 1882-1885’, a report
commissioned by Crown Law for the National Park inquiry, 2006, Wai 903, A76
Luiten, Jane, ‘Local Government in Te Rohe Potae’ A Report Commissioned by the Waitangi
Tribunal for the Te Rohe Potae Inquiry, January 2011, Wai 898, A24
Marr, Cathy, ‘Te Rohe Potae Political Engagement 1864-1886, Part 1: 1864-1882’, Draft circulated to
Te Rohe Potae (Wai 898) district inquiry parties for comment, June 2011
Marr, Cathy, ‘The Waimarino Purchase Report: The investigation, purchase and creation of reserves
in the Waimarino block, and associated issues’ a report commissioned by the Waitangi
Tribunal, 2004, Wai 1130, A43
Mitchell, Jamie, ‘King Country Petitions Document Bank’, commissioned by CFRT for the Rohe
Potae District Inquiry, January 2008, Wai 898, A9
O’Malley, Vincent, ‘Te Rohe Potae Political Engagement 1840-1863’ A Report Commissioned by the
Waitangi Tribunal’, November 2010, Wai 898, A23
Robinson, Helen, ‘Te Taha Tinana: Maori Health and the Crown in the Rohe Potae Inquiry
District,1840 to 1990’, a report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal for the Te Rohe Potae
district inquiry, March 2011, Wai 898, A31
Sarich, Jonathan, ‘An Overview of Political Engagement between Hapu and Iwi of the Te Rohe Potae
inquiry district and the Crown, 1914-c.1939’ A Report Commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal
for the Te Rohe Potae inquiry, March 2011, Wai 898, A29
299
Stirling, Bruce, ‘Eating Away at the Land, Eating Away at the People: Local Government, Rates, and
Maori in Northland’, a report commissioned by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, August 2008,
Wai 1040, A15
Stirling, Bruce, ‘Taupo-Kaingaroa Nineteenth Century Overview Project, Volume 2’, An overview
report commissioned by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust for the Central North Island Inquiry,
2004, Wai 1200, A71
Thomas, Paul,‘The Crown and Maori in Mokau, 1840-1911’, A Report commissioned by the
Waitangi Tribunal for Te Rohe Potae Inquiry’, February 2011, Wai 898, A28
Books
Atkinson, Neill, Adventures in Democracy: A History of the Vote in New Zealand (University of
Otago, Dunedin, 2003)
Ballara, Angela, Iwi: The Dynamics of Maori Tribal Organisation from c.1769 to c.1945 (Wellington:
Victoria University Press, 1998)
Binney, Judith, Redemption Songs: A Life of Te Kooti Arikirangi Te Turuki (Auckland: Auckland
University Press, 1995)
Boast, Richard, Buying the Land, Selling the Land: Governments and Maori Land in the North Island,
1865-1921 (Wellington: Victoria University Press, 2008)
Cocker, J and Malton Murray, J, Temperance and Prohibition in New Zealand, (London: Epworth
Press, 1930)
Crosby, Ron, Gilbert Mair: Te Kooti’s Nemesis (Auckland: Reed, 2004)
De La Mare, Alan, Drink or Drought: Liquor Licensing and the Prohibition Movement (Invercargill
Licensing Trust, 1981)
Elsmore, Bronwyn, Mana from Heaven: A Century of Maori Prophets in New Zealand, 2nd edition
(Auckland: Reed, 1999)
Gilling, Bryan, The Mana of their own Lands: Rangatiratanga and the origins and operation of the
Maori Land Councils regime 1900-1905 (Wellington: Victoria University of Wellington, 2004)
Hamer, David, The New Zealand Liberals: The Years of Power, 1891-1912 (Auckland University
Press, 1988)
Hutt, Marten, Maori and Alcohol: A History, (Wellington: Health Services Research Centre, 1999)
King, Michael, Te Puea: A Biography (Auckland: Hodder and Stoughton,1977)
King, Michael, Te Puea: A Life, 4th ed (Auckland: Reed, 2003)
Lange, Raeburn, A Limited Measure of Local Self-Government: Maori Councils 1900-1920
(Wellington: Treaty of Waitangi Research Unit, 2004)
McCan, David, Whatiwhatihoe: The Waikato Raupatu Claim (Wellington: Huia, 2001)
Methodist Church of New Zealand, 75th Jubilee of the Otorohanga Methodist Church: Mother
Church of the King Country (Methodist Church of New Zealand, 1978)
O’Malley, Vincent, Agents of Autonomy: Maori Committees in the Nineteenth Century (Wellington:
Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 1997)
Scholefield, G H, ed, A Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, vol 2, (Wellington: Department of
Internal Affairs, 1940)
Walker, Ranginui, He Tipua: The Life and Times of Sir Apirana Ngata (Auckland: Viking, 2001)
300
Walker, Ranginui, Ka Whawhai Tonu Matou: Struggle without End, 2nd ed (Auckland: Penguin, 2004)
Williams, David V, ‘Te Kooti Tango Whenua’: The Native Land Court 1864-1909 (Wellington: Huia,
1999)
Williams, John, Politics of the New Zealand Maori: Protest and Cooperation (Seattle: University of
Washington Press, 1969)
Young, David, Woven by Water: Histories from the Whanganui River (Wellington: Huia, 1998)
Articles and Theses
Adams, Tui, Te Uira, Ngahinaturae and Parsonson, Ann, ‘“Behold, A Kite Flies Towards You”: The
Kiingitanga and the “Opening” of the King Country’, New Zealand Journal of History, 31, 1
(1997)
Allen, Michael, ‘Maori political thought in the late nineteenth century: A microhistorical study of the
document of speeches from John Ballance's tour of seven Maori districts, 1885’, MA thesis,
University of Canterbury, 2004
Brooking, Tom, ‘“Busting up” the Greatest Estate of All: Liberal Maori Land Policy, 1891-1911’ New
Zealand Journal of History, 26, 1 (1992)
Brooking, Tom, ‘Use it or Lose it: Unravelling the Land Debate in late Nineteenth Century New
Zealand’, New Zealand Journal of History, 30, 2 (1996)
Christoffel, Paul, ‘Removing Temptation: New Zealand’s Alcohol Restrictions, 1881-2006’, PhD
thesis in History, Victoria University of Wellington, 2006
Daniels, John, ‘Prohibition’, An Encyclopaedia of New Zealand 1966, available at
www.teara.govt.nz/en/1966/prohibition/3, accessed 24 March 2011
Lange, Raeburn, In an Advisory Capacity: Maori Councils, 1919-1945 (Wellington: Stout Centre,
2005)
Parsonson, Ann R, ‘Te Mana o te Kingitanga Maori: A Study of Waikato-Ngatimaniapoto Relations
during the struggle for the King Country, 1878-84’, MA thesis, University of Canterbury, 1972
Skerman, Peter, ‘The Dry Era: A History of Prohibition in the King Country 1884-1954’, MA Thesis
in History, University of Auckland, 1972
Sorrenson, M P K, ’A History of Maori Representation in Parliament’, Appendix B, Report of the
Royal Commission on the Electoral System, 1986
Stephens, Mamari, ‘A Return to the Tohunga Suppression Act 1907’, Victoria University of
Wellington Law Review, 32, 2 (2001), pp 437-62
Summersby, Kim, ‘Does Maori Representation Matter?: An Analysis of the Relationship Between
Maori Descriptive and Substantive Political Representation in Parliament and Local
Government’, PhD thesis in Maori Studies, University of Auckland, 2009
Dictionary of New Zealand Biography
Ballara, Angela, and Don Hutana, 'Hutana, Ihaia - Biography', from the Dictionary of New Zealand
Biography. Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 1-Sep-10, URL:
http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/biographies/2h58/1
Ballara, Angela, 'Eketone, Pepene - Biography', from the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography. Te
Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 1-Sep-10, URL:
http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/biographies/3e3/1
301
Ballara, Angela, 'Mangakahia, Hamiora - Biography', from the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography.
Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 1-Sep-10
URL: http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/biographies/2m29/1
Ballara, Angela, 'Te Waharoa, Tupu Atanatiu Taingakawa - Biography', from the Dictionary of New
Zealand Biography. Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 1-Sep-10
URL: http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/biographies/3t22/1
Ballara, Angela, 'Mahuta Tawhiao Potatau Te Wherowhero - Biography', from the Dictionary of New
Zealand Biography. Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 1-Sep-10, URL:
http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/biographies/3m35/1
Binney, Judith, 'Te Kooti Arikirangi Te Turuki - Biography', from the Dictionary of New Zealand
Biography. Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 1-Sep-10
URL: http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/biographies/1t45/1
Butterworth, Graham, 'Pomare, Maui Wiremu Piti Naera - Biography', from the Dictionary of New
Zealand Biography. Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 1-Sep-10
URL: http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/biographies/3p30/1
Davidson, Allan K, 'Isitt, Leonard Monk - Biography', from the Dictionary of New Zealand
Biography. Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 1-Sep-10, URL:
http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/biographies/3i2/1
Evison, Harry C., 'Mackay, James - Biography', from the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography. Te
Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 1-Sep-10
URL: http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/biographies/1m29/1
Gittos, M B, 'Gittos, Marianne - Biography', from the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography. Te Ara the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 1-Sep-10, URL:
http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/biographies/2g12/1
Henare, Manuka, 'Wahanui Huatare', from the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, Te Ara - the
Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 1-Sep-10, URL:
http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/biographies/2w2/1
'Kaihau, Henare - Biography', from the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography. Te Ara - the
Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 1-Sep-10
URL: http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/biographies/2k3/1
Koroheke, Chris, ‘Te Mahuki - Biography', from the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography. Te Ara the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 1-Sep-10, URL:
http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/2t22/1
Mahuta, R T, 'Tawhiao, Tukaroto Matutaera Potatau Te Wherowhero - Biography', from the
Dictionary of New Zealand Biography. Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 1Sep-10, URL: http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/biographies/2t14/1
McIvor, Tim, 'Ballance, John', from the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, Te Ara - the
Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 1-Sep-10, URL:
http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/biographies/2b5/1
Oliver, Steven , 'Pirani, Frederick - Biography', from the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, Te
Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 1-Sep-10, URL:
http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/biographies/2p19/1
Ormsby, M J, 'Ormsby, John - Biography', from the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography. Te Ara the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 1-Sep-10, URL:
http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/biographies/2o8/1
302
Ward, Alan, 'Carroll, James - Biography', from the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, Te Ara the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 1-Sep-10, URL:
http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/biographies/2c10/1
Young, David, 'Te Kere Ngatai-e-rua - Biography', from the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography.
Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 1-Sep-10
URL: http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/biographies/2t21/1
303