WAI894 # A19
The Te Pahon Blocks
A Report on the Wai 725 Claim
by
Peter Clayworth
A report commissioned by the Waitangi
Tribunal
June 2002
MAPS ......................................................................................................................................... 4
ABBREVIATIONS USED IN TEXT ..................................................................................... 5
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 7
1.1 AUTHOR........................................................................................................................................................ 7
1.2 COMMISSION AND AIM OF REPORT .............................................................................................................. 7
CHAPTER TWO: TE PAHOU AND RAMA TE TUHI. ..................................................... 9
2.1 THE TEPAHOUBLOCKS CLAIM ................................................................................................................... 9
2.2 WHERE IS TE PAHOU? WHO WAS RAMA TE TUHI? ................................................................................... 9
CHAPTER THREE: GIFTING OF LAND AT TE WHAITI ........................................... 12
3.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 12
3.2 THE DONATION OF LAND FOR A SCHOOL SITE ........................................................................................... 12
3.4 THE DONATION OF LAND FOR A POLICE STATION SITE ............................................................................ 16
3.5 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................................. 19
CHAPTER FOUR: THE UREWERA CONSOLIDATION SCHEME AND THE
ALIENATION OF LAND ............................................................................................... 20
4.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 20
4.2 THE UREWERA COMMISSIONS AND THE ALillNATION OF LAND ............................................................... 20
4.3 THE SALE OF LANDS IN THE TE WHAITI BLOCKS ...................................................................................... 23
4.4 THE UREWERA CONSOLIDATION SCHEME ................................................................................................ 24
4.5 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................................. 27
CHAPTER FIVE: THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE TE PAHOU BLOCK ................ 29
5.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 29
5.2 ISSUES ARISING FROM THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE TE PAHOU BLOCK ................................................. 29
5.3 TE PAHOU: LAND TAKINGS FOR ROADING ................................................................................................ 32
5.4 TE PAHOU- SURVEY TAKINGS ................................................................................................................... 36
5.5 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................................. 37
CHAPTER SIX: RAMA TE TUHI'S GIFT - THE PARTITION OF THE TE PAHOU
BLOCK ............................................................................................................................. 38
6.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 38
6.2 RAMA TE TUHI'S 1938 GIFTING OF LAND TO THE TE WHAITI SCHOOL .................................................. 38
6.2 THE CROWN'S RESPONSE TO THE CONDITIONS RAMA TE TUHI REQUESTED .......................................... 41
6.4 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................................. 42
CHAPTER SEVEN: THE CROWN'S RETURN OF THE POLICE STATION SITE .44
7.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 44
7.2 THE RETURN OF THE POLICE STATION RESERVE SITE AND THE TEACHER'S RESIDENCE...................... 44
7.3 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................................. 47
CHAPTER EIGHT: THE LEASE OF THE TE PAHOU BLOCKS ................................ 48
8.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 48
8.2 THE TE PAHOU BLOCKS ARE LEASED - 1971 ............................................................................................ 48
8.3 CONCLUSIONS (A)- POSSmLE TREATY ISSUES ARISING FROM THE LEASE OF TE PAHOU ...................... 51
8.4 CONCLUSIONS (B)- THE LEASE OF THE TE PAHOU BLOCKS AND THE ROLE OF THE MAORI TRUSTEE .. 53
CHAPTER NINE: CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................... 55
9.1 THE FIVE ACRES OF THE TE WHAITI SCHOOL GROUNDS ......................................................................... 55
9.2 THE LAND FOR THE POLICE STATION SITE ............................................................................................... 55
9.3 THE UREWERA COMMISSIONS AND THE INDIVIDUALISATION OF SHARES IN LAND................................. 56
9.4 THE UREWERA CONSOLIDATION SCHEME ............................................................................................... 56
9.5 RAMA TE TVHI'S DONATION OF LAND ...................................................................................................... 57
2
9.6 THE POLICE STATION SITE ........................................................................................................................ 58
9.7 THE LEASE OF THE TE PAHOU BLOCKS AND THE ROLE OF THE MAORI TRUSTEE .................................. S8
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................. 59
3
MAPS
Figure 1: Te Pahou, Te Whaiti and the Urewera District ....................................... 6
Figure 2: Te Pabon and adjacent blocks ........................................................... 10
Figure 3: The Poukura School Site 1895 ........................................................... 13
Figure 4: Te Whaiti Police station site reserve ....................•.............................. 17
Figure 5: Te Whaiti block 1901 and Te Whaiti 1 & 2 1913 .....•........•...................•. 22
Figure 6: Te Pabon block 1922 ....................................................................... 31
Figure 7: Te Pahou 1,2,3,4 following partition 1938 ...................................•......... 40
4
Abbreviations used in text
AJHR- Appendices and Journals of the House of Representatives
CFRT - Crown Forestry Rental Trust
LINZ - Land Information New Zealand
MB - Minute Book
MLC - Maori Land Court
NA - National Archives
NLC - Native Land Court
NZPD - New Zealand Parliamentary Debates
UDNR- Urewera District Native Reserve
5
.'
,,
_ _ _ _ f.o1J!js£!!tiQ.n ilPu!!.di!!Y'
.
."
""'..
,........... :
:: ........... 1:
KEY
r:mfi!it!i!im
o
I!,
••
,!.
10
It!
o' , , , , "
'10
20
!
Urewera National Park
,
,
20
30miles
Figure 1: Te Pahou, Te Whaiti and the Urewera District
6
Chapter One: Introduction
1.1 Author
Tena koutou. My name is Peter Clayworth. I am a Pakeha of English, Welsh and Irish
descent. My hometown is Nelson (Whakatu) in Te Wai Pounamu. I completed a first class
BA(Hons) in History at Otago University in 1992. I completed my Phd in history in March
2001. My Phd thesis examined the ideas of nineteenth century Pakeha ethnographers on
Polynesian migration, with an emphasis on the origins of the so-called 'Moriori myth'. I have
also studied Zoology and Ecology at Canterbury and Auckland Universities. I have completed
a commissioned report for the Waitangi Tribunal on the Tuararangaia blocks and a
preliminary report for the Waitangi Tribunal on the pa site Te Pou 0 Tumatawhero.
1.2 Commission and aim of report
The current report was commissioned as part of the research for the Wai 725 Te Pahou blocks
claim. It began as a research project to assist the Wai 725 claimant, Hiraina Hona, with a
report she was commissioned by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust (CFRT) to write for the
Wai 725 claim. My research project was originally intended merely to cover those
documentary sources in the Wellington region to which Ms Hona did not have easy access.
Part way through this project the Waitangi Tribunal decided to commission a report on Te
Pahou involving the material from this research project. This report has concentrated entirely
on material available from the documentary record. It has not looked at the issues of
traditional history and whanau and hapu history that are clearly of considerable importance to
this claim. It is hoped that Ms Hona's report will cover these aspects. I am well aware of my
own lack of knowledge of the relationships within the whanau of Rama Te Tuhi and the hapu
and iwi of the Te Whaiti area. This gap in my knowledge has greatly restricted my ability to
comment on the allocation of land among the people of Te Whaiti in the late nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries.
The commission for the current report states that it should cover the following subjects:
• A description of the geographical location of Te Pahou and a brief outline of customary
ownership
• A description of the original gifting of lands in the Te Whaiti area for a Native School and
for a Police Station site
• An account of the division of the original Te Whaiti block through the processes of the
Urewera Commission and the Urewera Consolidation Scheme, leading to the eventual
creation of the Te Pahou block
• The loss of land from the Te Pahou block for roading and survey liens
• An account of Rama Te Tuhi's gifting of land to the Te Whaiti School in 1938. This
should include an account of the Crown's response to the conditions Rama Te Tuhi laid
down in making her gift
• A description of the Crown's return of the Te Whaiti Police Station land with an attempt
to identify to whom the land was returned
• An account of the lease of the Te Pahou blocks with an examination of the role of the
Presbyterian church and the Maori Trustee in this process
1.3 Methodology and sources
This report is based largely on primary research carried out from material held in the
following establishments:
7
•
•
•
•
•
Wellington National Archives
Land Information New Zealand (LINZ): Head Office, Wellington
LINZ files held in the Auc1dand National Archives and the Hamilton LINZ office,
obtained through LINZ Hamilton
Waiariki Maori Land Court Rotorua
Presbyterian Archive, Knox College, Dunedin
It should be noted that due to budget and time restrictions at the Waitangi Tribunal I was
unable personally to visit the Auckland National Archives. This meant I was unable to access
the Education Department files there, which may have contained valuable information for this
project. I was, however, able to obtain copies of a number of documents from the Auc1dand
National Archives education department files.
8
Chapter Two: Te Pahon and Rama Te Tnhi
2.1 The Te Pahou blocks claim
In March 1998 Hiraina Ngatima Hona lodged the Te Pahou blocks claim, Wai 725, with the
Waitangi Tribunal. Ms Hona made this claim on behalf of herself and N ga uri katoa 0 Rama
Te Tuhi, the descendants of Rama Te Tuhi. Ms Hona is herself a descendant of Rama Te
Tuhi.
The claim alleges a series of Crown breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi. It specifically
mentions the Crown's failure to recognise the Maori system of land tenure, the Crown's
imposition of a Western system of land tenure, and the implementation of the jurisdiction of
the Native Land Court, which led to the loss of Maori land. The claim further alleges that the
Crown's use of a language foreign to the claimant's tupuna gave the Crown power in all
dealings, that the Crown was not honest in its dealings and that the Crown used its legal
powers to manipulate situations to its own advantage. Under the heading of 'omissions' the
claim alleges that the Crown failed to recognise gifts of land that were made, failed to
compensate or assist the claimant's tupuna, and failed to inform the claimant's tupuna of the
full import of the western system of land tenure. Further, the Crown failed to seek the full
approval of landowners for the actions of Crown agencies regarding Maori land and failed to
fulfil Treaty obligations to guarantee a fair deal in land purchases.
It is in the section entitled 'relief' that the more specific details of this claim are set out. The
claim asks for compensation for the gifting of the land on which the Te Whaiti Bilingual
School stands and for the additional gift of the land known as Te Pahou 1. This block was
gifted by Rama Te Tuhi to be used as a playing field for the Te Whaiti Bilingual School. The
claim seeks compensation for land taken from the Te Pahou 2 block for roading purposes.
The claim also asks for compensation for the partition of the Te Pahou 2, 3 and 4 blocks and
asks that these blocks, which are currently leased to R Smith, be returned to the claimants.
The scoping report for the Wai 725 claim sets out the historical basis for the claim. The
scoping report asserts that three separate areas of land were gifted to the Crown by the
claimant's tipuna, Rama Te Tuhi. The report claims that Rama Te Tuhi gifted five acres of
land for the establishment of a Native School in 1895 and then gifted a further eight acres of
land for a Police Station site in 1899. The Crown gave no recognition to Rama Te Tuhi for
these gifts. In 1938 Rama Te Tuhi made a gift of 2 acres 2 roods of land adjacent to the
School grounds for use as a playing field. When she made this gift, Rama Te Tuhi set out a
series of conditions which, according to the scoping report, the Crown failed to meet. In
addition the scoping report describes the Crown's taldngs of land from the owners of the Te
Pahou block for roading and survey costs. 1
2.2 Where is Te Pahou? Who was Rama Te Tuhi?
The Te Pahou blocks are approximately 69 hectares (170 acres 2 roods 37 perches) of land in
the vicinity of Te Whaiti, about twenty ldlometres south of Murupara. (See Figures 1 and 2).
The Te Pahou blocks straddle the Minginui road less than a ldlometre from where it turns off
State Highway 38, the highway from Rotorua to Waikaremoana. The Wai 725 claim also
1
H Hona 'Scoping Report for Wai 725: Te Pahou blocks, Te Whaiti', Waitangi Tribunal, 1999
9
Graphical Representation Only
Jan 2002
~:>.r---
TEAPU
Police Reserve
PI TAHUPANGO
TE RAUTAHI
WAIREPOREPO
HUIRANGI
TE TAWHITIWHITI
TAUWHAREKOPUA
o
500m
1km
r
2km
~:~=±~i~i~=i~ii~i~i~i====~i----~i
o
440yd
880yd
1320yd
1mile
Figure 2: Te Pahou and adjacent blocks
10
concerns the 2.1 hectare (5 acre) block of land on which the Te Whaiti School stands. In
addition the claim may yet be expanded to include a 3.2 hectare (8 acres 3 roods 1 perch)
block of land located just over 1 kilometre to the north of the Te Pahou blocks, between State
Highway 38 and the Whirinaki river. 2
Elsdon Best records that when the Reverend G Preece established a mission at Te Whaiti in
1847, Ngati Whare had recently established a new settlement called Te Pahou. This kainga
was apparently located on the right bank of the Whirinaki River just to the west of the
Preece's mission house. Presumably it was from this settlement that the name of the Te Pahou
blocks was derived. 3
The Wai 725 claim is based around the assertion that Rama Te Tuhi was the person who held
the principal mana in the area around the Te Pahou blocks, in the period from the late
nineteenth century through to the 1930s. It is therefore necessary to identify who Rama Te
Tuhi was.
Rama Te Tuhi was the daughter of Kuoro and Te Tuhi Paroane. She was also known as
Whaitiri Kuoro. She was born at some time in the mid nineteenth century and lived until
1938. Her grandmother, Rangiaukume was half sister to Tutakangahau, Elsdon Best's
principal informant. Rama Te Tuhi could trace ancestral connections to, among others, the
Warahoe, Ngati Hamua and Ngati Te Haraha hapu of Ngati Whare and to the Patuheuheu,
Ngati Maru and Ngai Tama hapu of Tuhoe, as well as having connections to Ngati Manawa. 4
Hiraina Hona states that Whaitiri Kuoro was the name by which Rama Te Tuhi was known
among her Tuhoe relatives. 5 Rama Te Tuhi married Te Tapuke Hamiora, with whom she had
eight children. Hiraina Hona quotes Native Land Court records that describe Te Tapuke
Hamiora's tribal affiliations as 'Warahoe-Tuhoe', but could find out little more about his
ancestry.6
As will be outlined in the following report, it is clear that Rama Te Tuhi was a woman of
mana with considerable standing in the Te Whaiti area. This is illustrated by the fact she was
one of a number of Ngati Whare leaders who signed political letters to the Native Minister. In
one of these letters she was specifically named as the head of her whanau. In a similar manner
Apirana Ngata named her as the head of her family group when the area of the Te Whaiti
block was partitioned into smaller blocks in 1921. 7
H Hona, 'Draft Report on Te Pahou Blocks claim', CFRT 2001, pp 61-63
E Best, Tuhae: The Children afthe Mist, Auckland, 1996, pp 458
4 Best, Tuhae, pp 465-467
Hona, 'Draft Report' , pp. 1-5
5 Hiraina Hona, personal communication with researcher, 28 August 2001
6 Hona, 'Draft Report' , pp 6-7
7 W Whatanui, Rama Te Tuhi and others to J Carroll, the Minister of Native Affairs, 3 September 1908, MA
13/90, Wellington NA
W Whatanui, Rama Te Tuhi and others to Minister of Native Affairs, 24 May 1912, MA 13/90, Wellington NA
AJHR 1921 G-7, pp 12,32
2
3
11
Chapter Three: Gifting of land at Te Whaiti
3.1 Introduction
The following chapter outlines the original donation of land in 1895 for a school in the Te
Whaiti area. The questions of who owned this land and who donated it to the Crown will be
examined. In particular we will examine the question of whether Rama Te Tuhi' s claim to
have been the original donor of the land is backed up by any of the contemporary
documentation. This is followed by a similar investigation into the donation of land for Police
Station Reserve by the Whirinaki river. Rama Te Tuhi also claimed to have gifted this land to
the Crown in the late nineteenth century.
3.2 The donation of land for a school site
In January 1894, Ngati Whare leaders applied to the Minister of Education to establish a
school at Te Whaiti. Te Wharepapa Whatanui and ten others wrote to the Minister of
Education on behalf of four hapu, who they named as 'Ngati Whare', 'Ngati Hape', 'Ngati Te
Karaha' and 'Ngawarahoe,.8
Richard John Seddon paid the first visit by a Premier to the people of Te Whaiti in March of
1894. The record of the speech that Seddon made on the first evening of this visit, states that
he emphasised to Ngati Whare the importance of education and communication. The next
morning a man, named in the Government record of the meeting as 'Tuhi Tuhi', raised with
the Premier the twin questions of establishing a school at Te Whaiti and conducting a survey
of the area. Seddon promised to support setting up a school at Te Whaiti. 9
It seems likely that it was pressure from Seddon that led the Education Department to send an
inspector, H B Kirk, to Te Whaiti on 25 August 1895. The visit was on a Saturday, the
Sabbath day of the Ringatu faith to which most of the Te Whaiti people adhered. Despite this
fact Kirk was able to learn enough from Whatanui and the Ngati Whare people to make a
report to the Inspector General of Schools in Wellington. Kirk was able to report that the
people of Te Whaiti had offered a site for the school grounds. Referring to Ngati Whare's
offer, Kirk wrote:
The Natives offer a site close to the village, on rising ground and with a pleasant
outlook. The soil is very light, and I think that, if a school is established at least 5
acres should be given. I told the Natives ... my opinion on this point. They
demurred; but promised to discuss it with the other Natives and report the decision
to the Department. They had a map sent by Mr. Mueller, on which they were to
mark the position of the school site, returning the map to Mr. Mueller. At their
request, I marked the position and returned the map, with a sketch plan of the site
and a note to the effect that, if a survey were asked for, not less than 5 acres
Te Wharepapa Whatanui and others to Minister of Education, Hanuere 1894, BAAA 1001/628a, Auckland NA
AJHR, 1895, G-1, p 72
A booklet produced for the Te Whaiti School reunion claims that there was a school established in Te Whaiti
around 1880. The lack of mention of this school in the discussions with Seddon recorded in the AJHR, or in
Kirk's report, or in any other information source other than the school reunion booklet indicates that this claim
may in fact be mistaken. See Te Whaiti School Reunion: Labour Weekend 1988, Te Whaiti School, Te Whaiti,
1989
9 AJHR, 1895, G-1, pp 67-73
8
12
Graph/cal Represenlation Only
Jan 2002
.....
- ,...---
..........
,,
,
'......
Road now .
- - - - In_
-- -
c o"r
--,8
e
"
0""
"'\-0~o'
'\
'\ -:::.
' \ 0.,:>
'\
'\
'\
'\
"" ,
.. .
: • ••
......
_----
/' /
.......
Settlement
• • Murumurunga Pa
o
2OOme~es
~:====;:::======;,-"
o
200yanls
Figure 3: The Poukura School site as shown on T J Phillips 1895
map (ML 6612)
13
/
should be surveyed unless the Education Department stated its willingness to accept
less. The Natives offer three acres. IO
Kirk did not explain why he considered a minimum area of five acres to be essential for the
school ground. His report included a sketch map of the proposed site, which was located on a
low rise overlooking the Whirinald River, with the Tutaengaro stream, (simply marked 'small
creek' on the sketch map), running immediately to the west of the site. ll In September of 1894
Wharepapa Whatanui offered a five-acre site for a school, in a document that he sent to the
Education Department listing forty five potential Te Whaiti school pUpilS. 12
In August 1895 the site sketched in Kirk's report was surveyed by T J Philips, who marked
out an area of five acres to be designated the Poukura School Reserve. 13 (See Figure 3).
Following this survey a commissioner appointed under the Native School Sites Act 1880,
Richard John Gill, visited Te Whaiti. 14 On 13 November 1895, Gill met with a group he
described as 'representatives of Ngatiwhare, Ngatimanawa, Patuheuheu and Tuhoe Natives'.
Gill reported that, when shown the five acres of land marked on Phillips' survey plan, those
present at the hui unanimously declared that it was the property of 'Wharepapa Whatanui,
Pihopa Tamehana, Te Tuhi Pihopa, Hamiora Potakurua and Hiwawa.' The men named as the
landowners then proceeded to give their consent that the land in question should be used as a
site for the school to be built in Te Whaiti. IS
3.3 Rama Te Tuhi's claim regarding the school site
In May 1938 Rama Te Tuhi made an offer to the Director of Education in Wellington, to gift
an area of 'approximately six chains by four chains' (which turned out to be two acres and
two roods), to the Te Whaiti School for a playing field. 16 In a memo to the Registrar of the
Native Department in Rotorua concerning this gift, the Director of Education wrote that Rama
Te Tuhi had stated that she was in fact the donor of the five-acre school site. He stated that she
also maintained she had donated eight acres for a Police Station site, a gift that will be
examined in more detail below. 17
H B Kirk to the Inspector General of Schools, 5 September 1894, BAAA 1001/628a, NA, Auckland
Ibid.
12 Wharepapa Whatanui, list of potential students for Te Whaiti School, 14 September 1894, BAAA 1001/628a,
NAAuckland
13 Plan ML 6612,3 September 1895, LINZ Head Office, Wellington
14 Section 2 of the Native School Sites Act 1880 stated that when 'Natives' had offered a site of not less than ten
acres for a school, where the title had not been determined by the Native Land Court, the Governor could
appoint 'a competent person to ascertain the title of such Natives to the land, and their consent to such
appropriation'. The inspector's report would be the final determinant of the title to the land and of the assent of
the owners to its donation for educational purposes. A notice in the New Zealand Gazette would be the official
notification of this.
15 R J Gill, 'Report under "The Native School Sites Act 1880",23 January 1896', New Zealand Gazette, no 19,
1896, pp 488-489. Te Tuhi Pihopa was probably the same Te Tuhi Pihopa named as Rama Te Tuhi's first cousin
by Hiraina Hona, H Hona 'Draft Report', pp 1-2. Hiwawa was the younger brother ofWharepapa Whatanui and
was also known by the names Te Pari and Matehaere. John Hutton, personal communication with author, 10
November 2001.
16 Rama Te Tuhi to the Director of Education, Wellington, 3 May 1938, W w2108 31/412/1, Wellington NA. It
should be noted that Rama Te Tuhi dictated this letter, probably to Robert Shutt the schoolteacher. The letter
was written in English and was witnessed by the Rev John Currie, J P. The fact that Rama Te Tuhi signed her
name with an 'X' indicates that she may have been unable to read and write in Maori or English.
17 Director of Education, Wellington, to The Registrar, Native Department, Rotorua, 8 August 1938, Block
Order File 689, Box 621, Waiariki MLC, Rotorua
10
11
14
In looking at the donation of land for the school grounds it must be remembered that this gift
occurred in 1895, at a time when the Te Whaiti lands were still held under customary title.
Gill's accounts of the meeting at which the gift was offered are the only contemporary written
versions of these events that we know of at present. His report of January 1896 names
Wharepapa Whatanui, Pihopa Tamehana, Te Tuhi Pihopa, Hamiora Potakurua and Hiwawa as
the owners and donors of this five-acre site. There is no evidence that Gill made any further
investigation into the ownership of the land in question. He simply stated that those present at
the hui had unanimously agreed that the named men were the owners and had consented to the
land being gifted to the Crown for the purpose of building a school. 18
Hiraina Hona suggests that Gill would have been unaware of Rama Te Tuhi' s role in the
gifting, as on an occasion such as the hui at which the gift was made, only male leaders would
speak. Thus Gill may not have been aware that it was in fact Rama Te Tuhi who was donating
the land rather than the five male leaders mentioned above. 19
We do not know how fluent Gill was in te reo Maori nor how familiar he was with the tikanga
of Ngati Whare or Tuhoe hui. Such knowledge would be helpful in judging how well he had
understood what was going on at this meeting. It is clear, however, that no written evidence
has come to light from the late nineteenth century in support of Rama Te Tuhi's claim to be
the original donor of the five acres. The earliest known documentation of Rama Te Tuhi's
claim is her letter in 1938 to the Director of Education. I was unable to locate this letter, but it
is described in some detail by the Director, in his memo to the Registrar of the Native
Department in Rotorua. 2o
The written evidence presents a number of possibilities regarding the donation of the five
acres in 1895.
•
Gill's report of 1896 may be completely accurate. The five men named, Wharepapa Te
Whatanui, Pihopa Tamehana, Te Tuhi Pihopa, Hamiora Potakurua, and Hiwawa, may
have been both the traditional owners and the donors of the five acres. All of these men
were leaders of Ngati Whare and Gill's account tells us that those assembled at the hui
agreed they were the owners and expressed their support for the donation. I have not been
able to find any written record of objections to the donation of the land. 21
•
A gift of land for a Government school would have been a tuku of great significance for
the local people and indeed for the people of the wider area. Wharepapa Whatanui and
other N gati Whare leaders had been lobbying the Minister of Education to establish a
school in the Te Whaiti region since at least January 1894. It is likely that a gift of such
importance as land for a school would have been made by hapu and iwi leaders on behalf
of all the hapu and iwi involved in the gift, including the traditional owners of the
specified site. It may be that the five named 'owners' were in fact making the gift of land
on behalf of a much larger group of traditional owners, perhaps including Rama Te Tuhi.
It is possible that Gill was not knowledgeable in either te reo or in the tikanga of Ngati
Whare and Tuhoe. If so he may not have been aware of the subtleties of the gifting
process.
Gill, 'Report, January 1896'
Hiraina Hona, personal communication with researcher, 28 August 200l.
20 Director of Education, Wellington, to Registrar, Native Department, Rotorua, 8 August 1938, Block Order
File 689 (Box 621) Te Pahou 1-4, Waiariki MLC, Rotorua
21 Gill, 'Report, January 1896'
18
19
15
•
It is possible that Rama Te Tuhi was in 1895 the traditional owner or one of the traditional
owners of the five acre block. According to Hiraina Hona, even if Rama Te Tuhi was the
donor of the land, the male leaders of the Te Whaiti hapu would have made the
presentation on her behalf. Her husband, Te Tapuke Hamiora, would probably not have
spoken on her behalf, as he did not hold high rank within Ngati Whare. 22 As suggested
above, if Gill was not knowledgeable regarding te reo or tikanga he may not have had a
full awareness of what was happening in the gifting process. Rama Te Tuhi's connections,
from the 1920s onwards, with the land around the school site are clearly shown in the
written record. In the early 1920s, under the Urewera consolidation scheme, Rama Te
Tuhi was the head of a whanau group that was awarded ownership of the Te Pahou
block,23 The five acre school site was almost completely enclosed within the north east
corner of the Te Pahou block, once the block was surveyed out in the early 1920s. 24
Information from the Urewera consolidation commission's investi~ation of Te Whaiti
indicates that, by 1922, Rama Te Tuhi was living next to the school. 5 There is, however,
no written evidence of her presence on this site in the 1890s. There is also no
contemporary evidence of her having taken the initiative in gifting this specific area of
land to the Crown. Even if she was one of the traditional owners of this block in the 1890s,
the written record gives no support to her claim to have been the donor of this land.
It can be seen that the written record from 1890s only tells us about the five leaders who made
the gift of the land for the school site. If they were not the traditional owners of the five acres
we do not have a clear idea who the owners were. If these leaders were making this gift as part
of a wider group of traditional owners the written record does not tell us who the other owners
were. It is clear that the gift must have been made with the consent of the owners as no
opposition to the donation has come to light. The written record of the late nineteenth century
is silent on the role of Rama Te Tuhi in the gifting of the school grounds. Oral history may
help clarify some or all of the issues mentioned above.
3.4 The donation of land for a Police Station site
In 1899 two notices appeared in the New Zealand Gazette concerning land in the Te Whaiti
area that was to taken under the Public Works Act 1894 for the purposes of the construction of
a Police Station?6 The land in question was an area of approximately seven acres and two
roods that had been surveyed by Henry Mitchell in December of 1898. The area of land is
shown on the survey plan ML 6717. (See Figure 4). It is bounded on the east by the Whirinald
river and on the west by the Rotorua-Waikaremoana road, on the boundary line between
blocks X and VI of the Ahikereru Survey District?? The land is just over one kilometre north
of the Te Pahou blocks.
22 Hiraina Hona, personal communication with researcher, 28 August 2001.
Hona, Draft Report, pp 6-7
23 AJHR 1921-22, G-7, pp 12,32
24 Plan SO 1376712,23 December 1923, LINZ Head Office, Wellington
25 Urewera MB 1 consolidation commission 1922-1923, Waiariki MLC, Rotorua, fol99
26 'Native Land proposed to be taken for Construction of a Police Station', New Zealand Gazette, no 19, 1899, P
500
'Native Land proposed to be taken for Construction of a Police Station', New Zealand Gazette, no 24, 1899, p.
624.
27 Plan ML 6717,13 December 1898, LINZ Head Office, Wellington
Plan ML 18130, 15 June 1959, LINZ Head Office, Wellington
16
Graphical Representation Only
Jan 2002
Land taken for Police
station site in 1899 -\---\---....
under Public Works Act.
Land set aside for
teachers residence 1957.
o
200 metres
~:====================,.~.
o
200 yards
Figure 4: Te Whaiti Police Station Site Reserve
17
The earliest record I was able to locate concerning the acquisition of this land was a telegram
from the Chief Surveyor of Aucldand to the Surveyor General, Stephenson Percy Smith. The
telegram stated that the police Department had specifically asked that Henry Mitchell be
authorised to survey a police station site for them on the 'main road Urewera'. Smith, who
was also one of the Urewera Commissioners, wrote the following reply, pointing out that the
area was still under Native Title:
I do not exactly see what is to be gained by a survey - it will not give you a title.
That must wait the sitting of the Urewera Commission. It will be a considerable
expense to send a surveyor to Te Whaiti- but still, if you wish and your
Department will bear the cost the necessary authority can be telegraphed?8
C A Lawn, Chief Surveyor of the Aucldand district, writing in 1958, said he had seen a file
from 1898 in which Inspector Emerson of Napier claimed to have selected the Te Whaiti
Police Station site?9 In my research, however, I have been unable to find any record showing
that Mitchell had a specific site in mind before surveying in the Te Whaiti area. On Mitchell's
arrival in the Te Whaiti area some of the Maori land owners expressed concern that they had
not been advised of the survey and concern over which land was to be taken for the Police
Station site. According to a letter from one of the owners to the Surveyor General, once the
owners knew that the police station site was to come from Maori land they were agreeable to
the survey going ahead. The site that Mitchell surveyed was the area of land shown in the plan
ML 6717 (See Figure 4).30
While it may appear somewhat strange that local landowners were happy about their land
being taken for a police station, some oral evidence recorded in 1957 may help explain why
local owners had no objection to their land being used for this site. Dr Allan North wrote to
the Commissioner of Crown Lands in 1957 expressing the interest of the Ngati Whare Tribal
Committee in the Police Station site, which by that time was no longer being used by the
police. Dr North wrote:
The main reason that the Ngati Whare Tribal Committee are interested in what
was the Police Land is that the elders of the tribe maintain emphatically that this
land was only lent to the Armed Constabulary about 1895, & subsequently to the
Police Dept, as a grazing area for horses, on the understanding that when the
Police had no further use for it, it was to be returned to the tribe. 31
If the information in Dr North's letter was accurate, then the area that Mitchell went to survey
would have been known to him, as well as to the Police and local Maori, as an area that local
landowners had already designated for use by the Police Department. The land was probably
set aside during the period between October 1895 and May 1896 when up to five police
constables were stationed at Te Whaiti. They appear to have been stationed there as a
consequence of events surrounding the so-called 'small war', in April 1895. This series of
events was in fact a case of non-violent resistance by Tuhoe and Ngati Whare objectors, who
turned back surveyors from their lands. The Crown responded by sending in troops and armed
28?J W Patrick, Waiariki MLC, Rotorua, to Chief Surveyor, Dept of Lands and Survey, Auckland, 26 June
1958,6900/487, Vol 2, LINZ Hamilton
29 C A Lawn, Chief Surveyor, Auckland, to Chief Inspector, Police Department, Napier, 22 July 1958,
6900/487, Vol 2, LINZ Hamilton
30?J W Patrick, Waiariki MLC, Rotorua, to Chief Surveyor, Dept of Lands and Survey, Auckland, 26 June
1958,6900/487, Vol 2, LINZ Hamilton
31 A North to Commissioner of Crown Lands, Hamilton, 10 December 1957,6900/487, Vol 2, LINZ Hamilton
18
police, which led to a series of negotiations and the continuation of surveying and road
building in the Te Whaiti area. 32
According to the Director of Education's memo of 8 August 1938, Rama Te Tuhi stated that it
was in fact she who had donated an area of around eight acres for Police purposes in the late
1890s. 33 From the written evidence that has been uncovered, it appears the land for the Police
Station was indeed donated by local people before it was formally taken under the Public
Works Act. The lack of any recorded local opposition to the Police acquisition of this site
reinforces this idea. On the other hand, there does not appear to be any written evidence
discovered so far to either confirm or deny Rama Te Tuhi's claim that she was in fact the
donor of the Police Station. Unless further documentation is found, it appears that oral
evidence alone will have to be relied on to help identify the original donor or donors of this
land and the conditions they may have attached to that donation.
3.5 Conclusion
In 1895 a group of five Ngati Whare elders presented a gift to the Crown of five acres of land
for the purpose of establishing a school for the local area. Almost forty years later, in 1938,
Rama Te Tuhi made another gift of two acres and two roods of land for school playing fields
and in the process claimed that she was in fact the donor of the original five acres. The
documentary evidence from 1895 supports the idea that the five Ngati Whare leaders were
indeed the donors of the land. This documentary evidence is, however, minimal consisting of
the writings of one man, R J Gill, who took at face value the assertion that the five leaders
were both the owners and the donors of the land in question. We do not know how fluent Gill
was in te reo Maori or how aware he was of Ngati Whare and Tuhoe tikanga. It is therefore
difficult to judge how accurate his assessment of the situation was.
It is quite likely that the five Ngati Whare leaders were in fact making the donation of the
land on behalf of the wider hapu and iwi of the area. As such it is also likely that they were
not the sole owners of the five acres in question but were in fact malting the donation of on
behalf of other owners. Rama Te Tuhi may have been one of those with specific traditional
rights over the area in question. There is no contemporary documentary evidence of any role
she might have played in the donation of the land. Oral history may help us to define her role
more precisely. The one thing clear from all accounts is that there appears to have been no
opposition to the donation of this land for a school site.
With regard to the donation of land for a Police station site, the written record gives us no
clues as to who was responsible for this in the 1890s. The gift was clearly made with the
consent of the local hapu. Other than her own account in 1938, there is no written evidence of
Rama Te Tuhi's role in this donation. Again oral history may help shed light on these events.
32A Miles, Te Urewera, Rangahaua Whanui Report, Waitangi Tribunal, 1999, pp 270-272
33 Director of Education, Wellington, to The Registrar, Native Department, Rotorua, 8 August 1938, Block
Order File 689, Box 621, Waiariki MLC, Rotorua
19
Chapter Four: The Urewera Consolidation Scheme and the alienation of
land
4.1 Introduction
The following chapter examines the impact of a series of Crown actions on the ability of the
landowners of the Te Whaiti block to retain control of their lands. Rama Te Tuhi's whanau
lost their ownership rights to a large area of their traditional lands over this time, despite the
fact that she and many of her whanau members were non-sellers. The whanau's loss of land
will be placed within the broader context of the activities of the first and second Urewera
Commissions and the Urewera consolidation scheme in the Te Whaiti region. The chapter will
show how the Te Pahou block was created and how Rama Te Tuhi's whanau acquired title to
this block.
4.2 The Urewera Commissions and the alienation of land
In 1896 the Urewera District Native Reserve (UDNR) was created through the Urewera
District Native Reserve Act. (See Figure 1). The Reserve included the area that was to be later
designated as the Te Whaiti block. The UDNR Act placed those lands inside the Reserve
beyond the jurisdiction of the Native Land Court. The Act provided that the lands inside the
Reserve would be subdivided into blocks by an Urewera Commission of seven members,
being two Pakeha and five Maori who were to be 'Natives of the Tuhoe tribe', (which in this
context included Ngati Whare). Once an area had been subdivided out the Urewera
Commission were charged by the Act to name all the owners of the block, who would be
grouped by family, and then apportion shares in the land to each individual. This would in
effect mean the extinguishing of the original Native Title to the land, to be replaced by a
complete individualisation of ownership. The Act also established a system of local
government in which the owners of each block would elect a Local Committee, who would in
tum elect a member to represent them on the General Committee. The General Committee
was supposed to be the governing body for the Reserve area. The UDNR Act stipulated that
only the Crown had the power to alienate land in the area of the Urewera District Native
Reserve and that this could only occur with permission of the General Committee. By 1910
the Crown had undermined this part of the Act by arranging sales with individual land sellers
through the Native Land Purchase Board. This process effectively took away any powers of
veto over land sales that the General Committee had held under the UDNR Act. 34
At the tum of the century the area around Te Whaiti was known as the Te Whaiti-nui-a-Toi
block. Dissatisfaction with the first Urewera Commission investigation into this area, which
took place from 1901 to 1903, resulted in so many appeals that a second Urewera Commission
was appointed. The second Commission carried out a whole new set of hearings from 1906 to
1907. The Urewera Commission of 1901 subdivided the Te Whaiti-nui-a-Toi area into several
smaller blocks. (See Figure 5). The area designated as the Te Whaiti block included the land
that was later to be the Te Pahou blocks. Descent groups identifying with Ngati Whare, with
Ngata Manawa and with Tuhoe all made separate claims to ownership of the land covered by
the Te Whaiti block. The Urewera Commission released its decision in 1903, giving
ownership of this land to Ngati Whare and Tuhoe, but excluding Ngati Manawa. Rama Te
34 Urewera District Native Reserve Act 1896, Sections 3, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17,21
Miles, Te Urewera, pp 348-349
20
Tuhi was among those who were awarded shares in the Te Whaiti block with an award of ten
shares. 35
Both Ngati Manawa and Ngati Whare lodged appeals against the decisions of the Urewera
Commission. Ngati Manawa appealed on the grounds of being denied any rights to the Te
Whaiti block, while Ngati Whare appealed on the grounds that they did not believe Tuhoe had
any rights to this land. Several smaller groups and individuals from Ngati Manawa, Ngati
Whare and Tuhoe, also made appeals on a variety of grounds. Rama Te Tuhi and her whanau
were not listed among the objectors?6
As a consequence of the number of appeals against the decisions of the original Urewera
Commission, James Carroll set up a second Urewera Commission in 1906. This commission
was a three-man group consisting of Paratene Ngata of Ngati Porou, D F G Barclay and
Gilbert Mair. Mair had been a commander of Arawa troops in the New Zealand Wars and had
a reputation as being pro-Ngati Manawa. The commission held hearings at Te Whaiti from 15
to 28 March 1907. Raimona Heretaunga conducted the Ngati Whare case, calling Te
Matehaere Whatanui and George Preece as his witnesses. Te Matehaere Whatanui was the son
of Ngati Whare leader Wharepapa Whatanui. Both he and Raimona Heretaunga denied
Tuhoe's rights to Te Whaiti. They also emphasised the close relationship Ngati Whare and
Ngati Manawa, but emphasised that any rights to land in the Te Whaiti block came through
descent from Wharepakau, the eponymous ancestor of Ngati Whare, rather than through
Wharepakau's nephew, Tangiharuru, who was acknowledged as the founding ancestor of
Ngati Manawa. 3? Preece was the son of Pakeha missionaries and had grown up around Te
Whaiti. He claimed that during his childhood Ngati Whare had been the iwi who held mana in
the area and denied that Tuhoe had any mana over lands in the Te Whaiti block. 38
In the report released on 28 May 1907, the second Urewera Commission overturned the
decisions of the first Urewera Commission regarding the Te Whaiti block. They disallowed
the Tuhoe claim to Te Whaiti and allowed the admission of Ngati Manawa in their own right
to the ownership list. The commission struck off some of the names from the Ngati Whare list
of owners, on the grounds their rights had become 'cold', as they were no longer in
occupation. This left a list of 318 names from various hapu of Ngati Whare. The commission
admitted to being uncertain as to the exact rights of Ngati Manawa to lands in the Te Whaiti
block and accepted that Wharepakau, rather than Tangiharuru, was the main ancestor for this
block. Nevertheless the commission accepted an owners list of 188 Ngati Manawa names for
the Te Whaiti block. Once again Rama Te Tuhi was listed as an owner with ten shares in the
Te Whaiti block. 39
In 1909 the Urewera District Native Reserve Act was amended to allow areas within the
Reserve to come under the jurisdiction of the Native Land Court. The UDNR land remained
alienable to the Crown alone and then, supposedly, only with the consent of the General
Committee. During 1910 Apirana Ngata lobbied James Carroll to apply for the partitioning of
several blocks of land in the UDNR, including Te Whaiti. Ngata appears to have believed this
Miles, Te Urewera, pp 302-305
AJHR 1903, G-6, pp 215, 219
36 Miles, Te Urewera, pp 302-305
37 Best, Tuhae: Children a/the Mist, Vol 2, chrts 7,19.
38 Miles, Te Urewera, pp 297-298, 302-305
John Hutton, personal communication with author, 10 November 2001
39 AJHR 1907, G-4, pp 21-24
Miles, Te Urewera, pp 302-305
35
21
Ol
c::
.~
.Q
o
u..
~
o
o
::c
Figure 5: Te Whaiti block 1901 and Te Whaiti 1 & 2
22
would settle any disputes between Ngati Whare and Ngati Manawa, while at the same time
making Crown purchase of the block easier. This led to an Order in Council allowing the
Native Land Court the jurisdiction to partition the Te Whaiti block. In 1913 a Native Land
Court hearing was held under section 12 of the Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1911, at
Murupara, to decide on partitioning the Te Whaiti block. 4o
In a judgement released on 9 May 1913, Judge Browne decided that traditionally there had
been no distinct borders between Ngati Whare and Ngati Manawa on the land of the Te
Whaiti block and that in fact most people on the block could claim membership of both iwi.
He also reiterated the conclusion of the second Urewera Commission that any Ngati Manawa
rights to the Te Whaiti block were derived from their descent from Wharepakau, which they
shared with Ngati Whare. Despite coming to these conclusions, Judge Browne divided the
block in two. He designated Te Whaiti 1 (45,048 acres) as primarily for Ngati Whare owners
and Te Whaiti 2 (26, 292 acres) as principally for Ngati Manawa owners. (See Figure 5). The
land that was to become the Te Pahou block was located in the Te Whaiti 1 block. Te Whaiti 2
consisted of the southwestern corner of the original Te Whaiti block while the remainder
made up Te Whaiti 1.41
The 1913 partition accelerated the alienation of land in the Te Whaiti area and had particularly
negative impacts on Ngati Whare. Ngati Whare had been awarded the larger of the two
subdivisions, Te Whaiti 1 being 45, 048 acres divided into 2,277 shares held by 449 owners,
while Ngati Manawa were awarded Te Whaiti 2, of 26, 292 acres with 1,329 shares held by
262 owners. Rama Te Tuhi was once again represented among the owners with ten shares. 42
Despite having received a smaller area Ngati Manawa had in monetary terms received the
more valuable land. This was due to the fact that Te Whaiti 2 contained the most valuable
stands of timber within the old Te Whaiti block. The revised valuation carried out by J H
Burch of the Valuation Department in 1915 reflects this difference between the two blocks.
Burch valued Te Whaiti 1 at £18,687 (8s 3d per acre) but valued Te Whaiti 2 at £28,000 (£1
Is 3d per acre).43
4.3 The sale of lands in the Te Whaiti blocks
The Urewera District Native Reserve Amendment Act 1909 (sections 3, 4, 5, 7) extended the
powers of the Native Land Court over the land of the Urewera District Native Reserve. This
allowed for the conversion of Urewera title orders into freehold titles, under the Native Land
Act 1909. The UDNR Amendment Act 1909 had stipulated that alienation of land should only
occur with the consent of the General Committee (sections 7, 8). In 1914 the Native Land
Purchase Board, which derived its powers from section 361 of the Native Land Act 1909,
decided to commence the direct purchasing of undivided shares from individual owners of
AT Ngata to Native Minister, 7 September 1910, MA 113/90, Wellington NA
Order in Council, 12 September 1910, MA 1 13/90, Wellington NA
Miles, Te Urewera, pp 376-377
41 Murupara MB 1913, Wellington NA, fols 252-259
42 'List of Owners ofTe Whaiti 1 in 1913' from CFRT document bank C6
43 Valuer General to Under secretary Native Department, 23 August 1915, MA-MLP 1 10/28/4, Wellington NA.
This was the second valuation J H Burch had carried out. Burch carried out his first valuation, earlier in 1915,
without being aware that the Te Whaiti block had been subdivided. He therefore simply placed an overall value
of £46,887 (13s an acre) on the whole block. See J H Burch to Valuer General, 5 July 1915, MA-MLP 1
10/28/4, Wellington NA
Valuer General to Under secretary Native Department, 16 July 1915, MA-MLP 1 10/28/4, Wellington NA
See also Miles Te Urewera, pp 382-383.
40
23
land in the Urewera District Native Reserve, without consulting the General Committee. The
Reform Government's Native Minister, W H Herries, a strong advocate of the purchase of
Maori land, was a moving force behind this decision. On 17 May 1915 the Native Land
Purchase Board made a formal resolution to start buying shares in the Te Whaiti blocks. The
Native Land Purchase Officer for the Aucldand region, W H Bowler, actively pursued a
policy of trying to buy as many undivided shares as possible in Te Whaiti 1 and 2.44
Many of the Maori landowners in the Te Whaiti area were willing to sell their land. The
question must be asked as to why they were willing to do this. Land was generally the only
asset Maori in the Urewera region possessed. Therefore the sale of some land was often the
only option landowners had for acquiring capital to develop those lands they retained. Land
sales were also often necessary for raising funds in situations such as crop failures or for
whanau health or education. In those blocks where the Crown had purchased some shares
while traditional owners retained the rest, it became problematic for the Maori owners to carry
out any economic development. The Crown, as a tenant-in-common with the remaining Maori
owners, was able to demand that the other owners account to it for a share in the profits from
the exploitation of any resources on the block This made it very difficult for the non-selling
owners to develop any of the resources on such blocks and acted as a further encouragement
to sell their shares in the land to the Crown. The fact that many of the landowners no longer
lived on or near some of the blocks they owned shares in provided another incentive for them
to sell their shares. A landowner might sell shares in a distant block in order to get capital to
develop a block they were living on or near. 45
Despite the fact that many Ngati Whare and Ngati Manawa had sold their shares in the Te
Whaiti blocks by 1920, Rama Te Tuhi remained as a non-seller throughout. A list of owners
of Te Whaiti 1 compiled in 1913 shows her as a non-seller. She was still a non-seller in the
early 1920s as evidenced by her name on a list of non-sellers that was released on 21 July
1921.46
4.4 The Urewera Consolidation scheme
By 1920 the Crown had purchased a large number of shares in the UDNR, including shares in
Te Whaiti 1 and 2. In March of 1920 Bowler reported to the Under Secretary of the Native
Department that he had purchased interests in 44 blocks within the UDNR, having bought a
total of 320, 578 acres. Yet, despite the fact that the Crown now owned more shares in the
UDNR than those of the remaining non-sellers, the Crown had not acquired clear title to any
block of land within the Reserve area. In the case of Te Whaiti 1 the Crown had purchased
31,909 acres 1 rood and 8 perches by 31 March 1921, but was unable to make much headway
in buying the remaining 13,138 acres 2 roods and 32 perches. Throughout the Urewera,
Bowler was faced with the same problem as at Te Whaiti, the fact that the remaining nonsellers were the owners who were very reluctant to sell the land they retained. The marked
drop in the amount of land purchased in 1920 and 1921, compared with sales in the 191Os,
clearly illustrates this situation. 47
Miles, Te Urewera, pp 336-339, 360-364, 383-385
Miles, Te Urewera, pp 371-373
46 'List of Owners ofTe Whaiti No 1 in 1913', from CFRT document bank C6
'List of Non-sellers in Te Whaiti No 1 as at 21 July 1921' from CFRT document bank vol 4
47 W H Bowler to Under secretary Native Department, 9 April 1919, MA-MLP 1 10/28/9, Wellington NA
C B Jordan to Native Minister, 21 April 1921, MA 1 29/4I7a, Wellington NA
AJHR 1921-1922, G-7, P 3
44
45
24
At the same time that sales of land were slowing down, pressure was increasing on the
Government from Pakeha farmers to open up the Urewera to Pakeha settlement. Maori
landowners of the Te Whaiti blocks had begun to pressure the Government to partition the
blocks to separate the Crown's interests from those of the remaining Maori owners. When
Massey, who was both Prime Minister and Minister of Lands, paid a visit to Te Whaiti in
March 1920, a delegation of non-sellers came to ask him to partition the Te Whaiti blocks.
Massey appears to have favoured the idea of partitioning the two blocks as soon as possible.
Bowler on the other hand constantly advised the Native Department against partitioning the
blocks. Bowler, along with the Native Minister Herries, believed that partition should be
delayed as long as possible in order to try and purchase more land in the Urewera blocks. 48
While Herries was opposed to early partition, from 1919 onwards he became interested in the
idea of a consolidation scheme for the UDNR. This scheme envisaged swaps of land in order
to consolidate Crown holdings into a series of blocks, while the holdings of the remaining
Maori landowners were also consolidated into a series of blocks. Consolidation had several
advantages for the Crown over the process of partition. Consolidation involved fewer surveys,
whereas partition would have required an extensive survey programme to define the interests
of the non-sellers. As a landowner in the blocks involved, the Crown would have been
responsible for paying for a fair proportion of the survey costs. Partition would also have
meant involving the Native Land Court in deciding the areas landowners would retain. Native
Department officials were opposed to the Native Land Court's involvement as they believed
the Court would award Maori those areas where they had dwellings and cultivations, which
would not necessarily fit in with the Crown's own plans for roading and settlement. 49
In 1921 R J Knight of the Lands Department and the Native Land Court Judge H Carr,
representing the Native Department, were appointed to facilitate the consolidation scheme in
the Urewera District Native Reserve. The first of a series of meetings were held at Ruatoki in
August 1921 and attended by representatives of every family of non-sellers. At this meeting
Knight set out the Crown's objective to acquire the Te Whaiti 1 and 2 blocks in their entirety.
The Crown intended to leave only 'small reservations at the Te Whaiti Settlement for nonsellers'. The Crown was anxious to acquire the Te Whaiti lands in order to gain access to the
valuable timber resources in the area. 50
In its initial stages the Urewera consolidation scheme was authorised solely by ministerial
instructions, with no specific legislation to back it up. In the report they made to the House of
Representatives in 1921, Knight, Carr and Balneavis recommended that retrospective
legislation be brought in to repeal all the existing legislation regarding the Urewera District
Native Reserve and set up the arrangements devised in the consolidation scheme. Some
S K L Campbell, 'Land Alienation, Consolidation and Development in the Urewera, 1912-1950', Urewera
Overview Project, CFRT, 1997, P 33
48 W H Bowler to C B Jordan, Under secretary Native Department, 18 January 1918, MA-MLP 1 10/28/4,
Wellington NA
W H Bowler to C B Jordan, Under secretary Native Department, 14 June 1918, MA-MLP 1 10/28/4, Wellington
NA
Under secretary Native Department to W H Bowler, 22 June 1918, MA-MLP 1 10/28/4, Wellington NA
Lands Department Memo, 23 March 1920, MA-MLP 1 10/28/4, Wellington NA
Campbell, 'Land alienation' , pp 43-44
49 AJHR 1921-1922, G-7, pp 3-4
Campbell, 'Land Alienation', pp 43-44
50 AJHR 1921-1922, G-7, P 4
25
landowners appear to have welcomed the scheme on the grounds that it would help them
develop the lands they were awarded. On the other hand, the impression is gained from the
Knight, Carr and Balneavis report that those landowners who opposed the scheme had little
chance of preventing or modifying the scheme. A committee of thirty-seven representatives
of the non-sellers who attended the August 1921 meetings authorised Apirana Ngata to
negotiate for them during the establishment of the consolidation scheme. However, given
Ngata's known enthusiasm for the scheme, it cannot be guaranteed that he was always acting
in the interests of those non-sellers who opposed consolidation. So far the only written
records to come to light concerning the consolidation scheme are the official Government
ones. Once again oral history may help us to gain some insight into the attitudes of Ngati
Whare, Ngati Manawa and Tuhoe people to a scheme that was imposed upon them. 51
The Crown was unable to acquire the entire Te Whaiti 1 and 2 blocks under the consolidation
scheme. There were still 164 owners, including Rama Te Tuhi, who retained shares in Te
Whaiti 1 block on 1 July 1921, while 52 still held shares in Te Whaiti 2. Once it was clear
that these people would have to be given land on parts of the Te Whaiti blocks, Ngata went to
Te Whaiti to identify the main whanau groups. Ngata arranged the Te Whaiti 2 owners in one
group, while identifying ten whanau groups for Te Whaiti 1. Ngata identified one of these
whanau groups as being headed by Rama Te Tuhi. Using the estimate of 8s 3.55d per acre,
Ngata calculated that the interests of Rama Te Tuhi's group could be valued at 111, 688
pence, which he calculated to be equivalent to 1057 acres 2 roods and 24 perches. 52
In the wake of Ngata's visit to Te Whaiti, the Urewera consolidation commissioner, R J
Knight, paid a visit accompanied by representatives of the landowners. Knight's mission was
to make preliminary allocations of lands to the groups that Ngata had identified. No final
allocations could be made until survey and roading costs had been calculated in land and
deducted from the final allocation. 53
The Second schedule attached to the Knight-Carr-Balneavis report to Parliament gives the
value of the final allocations of shares to the Te Whaiti groups, along with the number of
people in each group and the proposed location of their blocks of land. Rama Te Tuhi' s
group, designated as Group F, were calculated to hold shares to the value of 206, 627 pence
or £860 18s lId. No explanation is given in the report as to why this calculation of share
value was so much higher than that made earlier by Ngata. The Knight-Carr-Balneavis report
proposed that the ten members of Group F be allocated a block of land in the Te Whaiti 1
papakainga and the remainder of their land in the Te Whaiti residue. The acreage of land to be
allocated was not specified in the report. The Te Whaiti 1 papakainga referred to the general
area near the Te Whaiti school site and the north-western bend in the Whirinaki river, which
was traditionally an area of concentrated settlement. The Te Whaiti residue referred to an area
of forested land that was to be retained by the Te Whaiti 1 land owners, located
approximately four kilometres due north of the Te Whaiti schoo1. 54
The second schedule also contained a series of group lists naming the members of each group
and showing the number of shares they had been allocated. The ten whanau members who
AJHR 1921 G-7, P 5. H R H Balneavis was private secretary to the Native Minister, G Coates.
A Ngata to R J Knight, 6 August 1921, MA 1 29/4/7a, Wellington NA
53 HRH Balneavis to G Coates, 27 August 1921, MA 1 29/4/7a, Wellington NA
54 AJHR 1921, G-7, pp 9,12
R Wiri, 'The Prophecies of the Great Canyon of Toi: A History of Te Whaiti-nui-a - Toi in the Western Urewera
Mountains of New Zealand', Phd thesis, University of Auckland, 2001, pp 209, 332-337
51
52
26
made up Group F held between them 206,627 shares of which Rama Te Tuhi personally held
35,589. 55 While this was not in itself the largest single shareholding in the block, the fact that
Rama Te Tuhi was named as head of Group F indicates that she had a position of high
standing within the whanau group. This position is further emphasised by the fact that in 1938
she was able, in her own name, to gift land to the Te Whaiti school, with the approval of
fellow whanau members and shareholders. The standing of Rama Te Tuhi in her whanau is
another area where oral histor~ should provide a more detailed picture than the written
records ofthe 1920s and 1930s. 6
The Urewera Lands Act 1921-22 was enacted to repeal the laws that had set up the UDNR
and to legalise the arrangements that had been made under the Urewera Consolidation
Scheme. In 1923 Knight and Carr set out to finalise the arrangements under this legislation
for the Te Whaiti land blocks, basing their decisions around the whanau groups that Ngata
had set down in 1921. In their 1923 report Knight and Carr stated that surveys were well
advanced for the blocks of land to be awarded to the non-sellers. The new titles were signed
in 1926 and approved by the Chief Judge of the Native Land Court. The block of land
allocated to Group F in the Te Whaiti area was designated as the Te Pahou block. The issues
arising from the establishment of this block will be discussed below. 57
4.5 Conclusion
The two Urewera Commissions divided the Urewera District Native Reserve land into
specified blocks and then individualised the titles to those blocks. In the case of the Te
Whaiti block, the second Urewera Commission cut out any ownership rights that Tuhoe may
have had. The further division of the Te Whaiti block into Te Whaiti 1 and Te Whaiti 2
removed the ownership rights of many Ngati Whare people to the land of what became the Te
Whaiti 2 block. The individualisation of titles allowed the piecemeal sale of shares in land by
shareholders. In the Te Whaiti block W H Bowler pursued a policy of trying to buy up as
many shares as possible for the Crown.
The Crown further encouraged the alienation of land by preventing development on those
blocks of land in which they owned shares. Maori owners were made to account to the
Crown, as a fellow shareholder, for any profits made from a block in which the Crown also
owned shares. This factor, combined with the lack of financial or other forms of support for
the development of Maori land, encouraged Maori to see the sale of their shares in land as the
only way to raise any capital. Through such actions non-sellers such as Rama Te Tuhi were
left in a position where they were forced to accept the Urewera Consolidation scheme in order
to get clear title to some of their lands and therefore have a chance of making a living from
them.
No evidence has been uncovered to show that Rama Te Tuhi or the members of her whanau
supported or lobbied for a consolidation scheme for the Urewera lands. It appears likely that
this scheme was something they had to accept in order to gain a clear title to some of their
lands. In the Te Whaiti region, where farming was relatively difficult, forest land, particularly
The ten members of Group F were Ninehou Konaho, Rira Rama or Rira Te Tapuke, Kahupu Te Tapuke,
Kereru Kahupu, Matetu Te Tapuke, Rama Te Tuhi or Whaitiri KUOfO, Ramarihi Te Tapuke, Rangi Te Tapuke,
Tamaku Te Tapuke and Wharerimu Te Tapuke. AJHR 1921, G-7, p 32
56 AJHR 1921 G-7, pp 12,32
57 AJHR 1923, G-7, p 1
Miles, Te Urewera, pp 449-450
55
27
lowland podocarp forest, was the most valuable economic asset. The Urewera consolidation
scheme left Rama Te Tuhi's whanau with some forest land in the Te Whaiti residue, but took
away their ownership rights to mauch larger forest areas. The Te Pahou block itself contained
no forest resources. The over all operations of the Urewera consolidation scheme meant that
Rama Te Tuhi' s whanau lost their ownership in thousands of acres of the most valuable
lowland podocarp forest in the Te Whaiti region. These forests now passed into Crown
ownership, with the decisions over their use becoming the preserve of Crown agencies.
28
Chapter Five: The Establishment of the Te Pahou block
5.1 Introduction
The following chapter illustrates the processes involved in the setting up of the Te Pahou
block. It will show that through the processes of the consolidation scheme devised by the
Crown, Rama Te Tuhi and her whanau continued to lose land. The specific land costs
involved in the Urewera roading scheme will be examined, with an investigation of whether
the local tangata whenua had any obligation to pay for the roads built in the Te Whaiti area.
We will also examine the issue of the loss of land to pay for the surveys the Crown insisted
on carrying out in order to award titles to the land blocks in question.
5.2 Issues arising from the establishment of the Te Pahou block
Knight went to Te Whaiti in March and May of 1922, accompanied by the surveyor H T
Mitchell. Their mission was to define the boundaries and designate the owners for the blocks
to be awarded to the non-selling whanau groups in the Te Whaiti area. Knight, Carr and
Mitchell returned to Te Whaiti in February 1923 to continue this work. As a result of these
visits Mitchell produced the map ML 1376212, which shows a number of blocks and road
lines surveyed in the Te Whaiti area, including the land designated as the Te Pahou block.
(See Figure 6). The Te Pahou block is shown situated immediately adjacent to, in fact
surrounding on three sides, the Te Whaiti school grounds. On the plan ML 1376212 the Te
Pahou block is described as covering an area of 170 acres 2 roods and 37 perches. The
balance of the land awarded to Group F was located in the Te Whaiti residue. 58
At the time of these visits by Knight, Carr and Mitchell, it appears that Rama Te Tuhi was
living by the southern boundary of the Te Whaiti school grounds. At this time a rough,
unmetalled road connected the Te Whaiti school to the main Rotorua-Waikaremoana
highway. The Urewera minute book for 4 May 1922 records that, in order for Rama Te Tuhi
to have access to the road, Knight, Carr and Mitchell adjusted the boundaries of the Te Pahou
block. Te Pahou's boundaries were adjusted in relation to the boundaries of both the school
and the boundaries of the land of Group A. Group A (headed by Matehaere Te Hira) owned
the Te Tawhitiwhiti block on the eastern border of the Te Pahou block. (See Figure 3). A strip
of land between the eastern boundary of the school grounds and the swamp on the western
boundary of the Te Tawhitiwhiti block was allocated to the Te Pahou block. (See Figure 6).
The minute book notes that the strip of land would 'leave Rama Te Tuhi's access to her
section from this place [the school road] undisturbed'. It should be noted that this 'access'
strip had no road or path on it in 1922, nor was any road or path built on it following its
allocation to the Te Pahou block. The survey map ML 1376212 shows the Minginui road
running around the northern and western boundaries of the Te Whaiti school grounds and
then continuing to the south west through the Te Pahou block. (See figures 2 and 6). As will
be shown below in section 5.3 of this chapter, it appears that before 1924 the Minginui road
was a paper road, which, if it existed at all, would have only been a rough track. This is
confirmed by the fact that Rama Te Tuhi had to get access to the school road from the east
side of the school grounds. 59
58 Plan ML 1376212,23 December 1924, LINZ Head Office, Wellington
Urewera MB 1 Consolidation Commis, 1921-1923,3 May 1922,256-271, Waiariki MLC, Rotorua, fols 94-104
59 Urewera MB 1 Consolidation Commission, 3 May 1922, Waiariki MLC, Rotorua, fol99
Plan ML 13762/2,23 December 1924, LINZ Head Office, Wellington
29
The order conferring title over the 170 acres 2 roods and 37 perches of Te Pahou shows that
Knight and Carr made the decision to allocate this land to the Group F owners on 23 February
1923, during a sitting they held in Te Whaiti. The Chief Judge of the Native Land Court did
not countersign the title order until 24 January 1927. The list of Group F owners recorded in
February 1923 was different from that drawn up by Ngata in 1921. There were now eight
group members rather than ten. On 15 March 1922, Hinehou Konaho had asked Knight and
Mitchell to transfer her 45,201 shares from Group F to Group H. From this time on she was
no longer included on the list of Group F shareholders, indicating that her request must have
been granted. 6O
The other name no longer present on the list of Group F shareholders was that of Wharerimu
Te Tapuke. A memo dated 12 April 1923, from R N Jones, the Under Secretary of the Native
Department, to the Native Minister, shows that Wharerimu Te Tapuke had agreed to sell his
shares to the Crown for £42 2s 8d. 61
There had been some controversy over the fact that Crown agents continued to purchase
shares in the land of the UDNR, during the period when the consolidation scheme was being
implemented. Knight, one of the Urewera Commissioners, was buying up shares for the
Department of Lands, while also acting as a Consolidation Commissioner. Knight had in fact
written to the Under Secretary of the Department of Lands, on 8 May 1922, suggesting that
he, Knight, be made a Justice of the Peace. Such an appointment would make it easy for the
land purchases he had made to confirm to section 215 (2) of the Native Land Act 1909. This
section stated that a Justice of the Peace or one of a variety of other legal officials had to
witness a land seller placing their signature on a document of sale for that sale to be legally
valid. 62
Whatanui wrote to Ngata on 12 May 1922, complaining about Knight's practices, along with
a variety of other grievances he saw as endangering the consolidation process. Ngata, who
worried that Knight's purchases would turn the people of the Urewera against the
consolidation process, wrote to Coates, the Native Minister, expressing his concerns. This led
the introduction of a new system, whereby shares could only be purchased if both
commissioners applied to the Ministers of Lands and Native Affairs and both Ministers gave
their approval. 63
Rough sketch Te Whaiti school attached to R Shutt to the Director of Education, Wellington, 5 May 1938,
BAAA 1001l630a, NA Auckland
60 Order conferring Title, Te Pahou block, 23 February 1923, Block Order File 689 (Box 621) Te Pahou 1-4,
Waiariki MLC, Rotorua
Urewera MB 1 Consolidation Comm, 1921-1923,20 March 1922, Waiariki MLC, Rotorua, fol56
61 R N Jones to G Coates, 12 April 1923, MA 1 29/417 Part 1, Wellington NA
62 Knight to Under Secretary of Lands, 8 May 1922, MA 1 29/417 Part 1, Wellington NA. Section 215 (2) of the
Native Land Act 1909 stated that if a Native land seller understood the English language sufficiently to
understand the document of sale, they had to sign the document of sale to indicate this. For such a signature to
be valid it had to be witnessed by a solicitor of the Supreme Court, a Justice of the Peace, a Judge, Registrar, or
Commissioner of the Maori Land Court or a Postmaster. Section 215 (3) stated that if a Native land seller did not
understand English their signature could be witnessed by any of the above officers, but must also be witnessed
by a licensed interpreter, who must certify in writing that the seller has had the document of sale explained to
them.
63 W Whatanui to A Ngata, 12 May 1922, MA 1 29/417 Part 1, Wellington NA
AN gata to J G Coates, 28 June 1922, MA 1 29/417 Part 1, Wellington NA
Campbell, 'Land Alienation', pp 88-89
30
Graph/c41 Represenlation OrJlr
Jan 2002
I
I
I
I
~/'
I
I
I
,...---
Te Pahou block
i·
}
..
c:::J
Te Pahou block
Designated roads
500m
1km
F===~===T~~~==~~=r~I~==~T=~=r==~==~'I--_1
o
500YdS
Figure 6: Te Pahou block 1922
31
1000yds
Despite this more complicated system Wharerimu Te Tapuke was still able to sell his shares
in the Group F land, with the approval of the Native Minister and the Minister of Lands. As
Wharerimu Te Tapuke owned over one tenth of the shares in Group F it can be assumed that
his sale led to a substantial reduction in the area of land that was finally allocated to Group F
in 1923. The fact that Wharerimu's name appears on a memo with twenty-five other sellers
from different parts of the Urewera, indicates that his sale was no isolated incident. 64
In their report on the Urewera consolidation scheme Carr, Knight and Balneavis had stated
that the new land blocks would be owned by, 'compact families ... whose only link with the
past would be that the sections comprise the homes and cultivations of their ancestors' .65
Despite this statement there is no clear evidence that the areas designated for each group
reflected their traditional areas of occupation or ownership. It is nevertheless noteworthy that
all those designated as owners for the Te Pahou block were members of Rama Te Tuhi' s
immediate whanau. None of the men named as owners of the land donated in 1895 for the
school site were named as owners of the Te Pahou block. Wharepapa Whatanui was named as
head of Group B with 9,862 shares to his name. 66
5.3 Te Pahou: Land takings for roading
A memo of 11 June 1925, from Knight to the Under Secretary of the Native Department,
described the blocks into which Te Whaiti 1 had been divided, including showing how much
land had been taken from each block to cover the costs of road building and surveys. The Te
Pahou block is misspelt as 'Te Pahue' and the figure given for the net area of the block is two
acres smaller than the figure arrived at after the block was surveyed. Despite these
inaccuracies this memo was the only document I was able to locate giving the specific areas
taken for roading and surveys. The memo states that the acreages were all worked out from an
estimate value of 8s 4d per acre. Te Pahou's owners had 134, 287 shares, which entitled them
to a gross area of 286 acres. From this area 48 acres were taken for 'road survey and
formation', amounting to a value of £20, while 70 acres, amounting to a value of £30, were
'taken for survey costs. According to the memo these deductions left a net area of 168 acres,
although as mentioned above, the area of the Te Pahou block was in fact shown on both the
title deed and the map ML 1376212 as being 170 acres 2 roods and 37 perches. 67
We will deal first with the issue of how roading costs affected the Te Pahou landowners.
When the idea of a consolidation scheme was being discussed in 1919, the Lands and Survey
Department argued it was necessary to first develop a comprehensive roading scheme to
ensure access to all the Crown blocks. 68 Once the road scheme had been drawn up, the Lands
Department took no immediate steps to begin building roads. The Department considered that
to start building roads while Maori still had ownership rights in all the Urewera blocks would
dri ve up the price of Maori land. 69
64 R N Jones, Under Secretary Native Department, to J G Coates, Native Minister, 12 April 1923, MA 1 29/1417
Part 1, Wellington NA
65 AJHR 1921-1922, G-7, P 7
66 Ibid., P 32
67 Attachment to memo, Knight to Under Secretary Native Department, 11 June 1925, MA 1 29/417 Part 1,
Wellington NA
68 Campbell, 'Land Alienation', p 32
69 Campbell, 'Land Alienation', pp 32-33
Miles, Te Urewera, p 421
32
The issue of local Maori malting a contribution to the roading costs for the Urewera was first
raised by Ngata and by Guthrie, the Minister of Lands, at a hui at Ruatoki in May 1921. 70 At
the August 1921 hui at Ruatoki, Knight suggested that Urewera Maori should make a
contribution of £32,000 towards the building of roads. In the Knight-Carr-Balneavis report
this figure had been reduced to £20,000, still a considerable figure for impoverished people
whose only real asset was their remaining land. Section 5 of the Urewera Lands Act 1921-22
specified that the Crown would take an extra area of land to the value of £20,000. 71
It appears that Tuhoe, Ngati Whare and Ngati Manawa were pressured into accepting the
roading costs. Those who agreed to the roading costs probably did so from the fear that
without their contribution the roads would not be built. The thought that roads would bring a
degree of economic prosperity seems to have been a major factor in persuading Maori to
support the consolidation scheme. 72 But Ngata himself acknowledged that Urewera Maori
were under no legal obligation to contribute to the scheme, stating in parliament:
That contribution is part of the settlement now, but there was never any obligation
upon the Urewera Natives to make a contribution of a single penny towards the
cost of roading. It has always been recognised that the opening-up of the country
with arterial roads is the job of the state. 73
Section 10(4) of the Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1923
gave the Urewera Commissioners the power to layoff road lines. Knight and Carr proceeded
to layoff a comprehensive roadline system, which they announced officially in December
1926. The roadlines were proclaimed in July 1930, in accordance with section 48 of the
Native Land Amendment Act and section 10 (4) of the 1923 Act. The roadlines were
calculated to cover an area of 1,930 acres. A map produced with the 1926 road proclamation
shows the roads that would have been put through the Urewera district. The majority of these
roads were never built, meaning that access to many areas of Maori land remained difficult. 74
All the Te Whaiti No 1 land, including the Te Pahou block, was calculated to have a standard
value of eight shillings and four pence per acre. To pay for roading costs forty-eight acres,
valued at £20, were deducted from the original gross area of approximately 286 acres
calculated for the Te Pahou block. It would seem this forty eight acres valued at £20 was a
standard figure for roading costs in the Te Whaiti area, as all the other Te Whaiti blocks
charged for roading have the same figure deducted. Knight's 11 June 1925 memo states that
for Te Pahou the area of land deducted was taken from the Te Whaiti residue rather than from
the block itself. This appears to mean that the gross area of 286 acres at Te Pahou was
calculated but not surveyed. The Te Pahou block was only surveyed once the net figure of 168
acres was calculated. Nor does the Crown appear to have taken land from around the Te
Pahou block specifically to pay for the roading or survey of the block. It would appear that the
areas of land taken by the Crown to pay for the roading and survey costs for Te Pahou were
surveyed out of the Group F land in the Te Whaiti residue. As explained above, despite the
70 Meeting of Urewera Natives with D H Guthrie, Native Minister, and J G Coates, Native Minister, Ruatoki, 22
May 1921, pp 11-15, MA 1 29/417a, Wellington NA
71AJHR 1921-1922, G-7, pp 4,8
72 P Cleaver, 'Urewera Roading', draft report, CFRT, 2002" pp 55-57
73 Ngata, 14 December 1921, NZPD, 1921, vol 192, p 1115
74 Cleaver, 'Urewera Roading', pp 69-71
Plan B 86, with attached order from Knight and Carr declaring roadlines, 18 December 1926, LINZ Hamilton
Map, undated 1930s, MA 1 28/41711, Wellington NA
33
fact that the net area of the Te Pahou block was calculated as 168 acres 2 roods, the final area
surveyed for the Te Pahou block came to 170 acres 2 roods 37 perches. 75
While the roads laid out for Te Whaiti were built and did provide access to Te Pahou, there
are serious arguments that the deduction of land from the Te Pahou block for roading was
unfair. In the Te Whaiti area the Rotorua to Waikaremoana highway already existed before
the proclamation of roadlines in 1927, having been constructed in the mid 1890s. The
Minginui road was laid out as a roadline through the order made by Knight and Carr on 18
December 1926. It was officially gazetted as a road on 14 July 1930 (See Figures 2 and 6).76
The Urewera consolidation commissioners acknowledged that these roads were not among
those paid for by the deduction of land for roading costs. The minutes of a meeting at
Ruatahuna on 25 February 1925 records the commissioners as stating, 'The road being
constructed at Te Whaiti is being done by the Crown to give access to Crown land & has no
connection with the road covered by the £20,000 contribution,.77
The surveyor R G Dick highlighted some of the injustices involved in malting the Te Whaiti
people contribute land for Urewera Consolidation roading costs, in a report he made on 20
August 1937. Dick pointed out that the parts of the Rotorua-Waikaremoana road that went
through Te Whaiti were built well before the Urewera Lands Act 1921-1922. (The Te Whaiti
section of the road had in fact been built in 1895-6, partly for the strategic purpose of opening
up the Urewera country to allow the Crown forces access78). Dick argued that this road could
not be seen as part of the consolidation arrangements. He stated that the only road works on
the Te Whaiti section of this road that could be seen to be part of the consolidation fcrocess
were the construction of a bridge and the building of about half a mile of new road. 9 With
regard to the complete Rotorua-Waikaremoana highway Dick stated, 'This highway has been
constructed as a tourist route and has not benefited Native access to consolidated areas ... ' .80
Dick further argued that the construction of the Minginui road, which he referred to as the
Whirinaki Valley road or Winger's road, could also not be seen as part of the consolidation
scheme. (See Figure 2). He based this on the fact that the Public Works Department had stated
that the £350 they had spent on this road was for the purposes of providing access to forests to
cut posts for the Galatea estate and not for providing access to Maori land. 81
Records from the Lands and Survey and the Public Works Department show that the first part
of the Minginui Road was constructed some time after late 1924 to allow a Pakeha settler
access to land he had leased from the Crown. W J Marsh, the Commissioner of Crown Lands
when writing to the Under Secretary for Lands on 9 May 1924, noted that, while the Rotorua
to Ruatahuna Road was good enough for motorised and horse drawn transport, the 'junction
road', (the Minginui road), was 'at present only roughly formed' .82 A memo of 27 August
75 Knight to Under Secretary of Lands, 11 June 1925, MA 1 29/4/7, Part 2, Wellington NA
Plan ML 13762/2,23 December 1924, LINZ Head Office, Wellington
76 Order delineating roadlines, R Knight & H Carr, 18 December 1927, attached to Map B86, LINZ Hamilton
Proclamation of Roadlines, 14 July 1930, New Zealand Gazette, 1930, no 52, p 2194
Plan ML 13762/2, LINZ Head Office, Wellington
77 Urewera MB 2A, consolidation commission, 1923-1925,25 February 1925, fol233
78 Miles, Te Urewera, pp 274-275
79 R G Dick, Report to Under Secretary of Lands, 20 August 1937, MA 1 28/4/7/1 Wellington NA, p 3
80 Ibid, P 4
81 Ibid, P 4
82 W J Marsh, Commissioner of Crown Lands, to Under Secretary for Lands, 9 May 1924, ABWN 6095 w5021
16/736 Wellington NA
34
1924 from Marsh, in his capacity as Chief Surveyor, to the Under Secretary for Public Works,
sent a requisition for the sum of £750 to build a road through to Section 2, Block X, of the
Ahikereru Survey District. This was to enable the lessee, H M McPherson, who was also
storekeeper, Postmaster, and Policeman at Te Whaiti, access to the property he had selected.
Marsh did not consider it necessary to build the road past Section 2 of Block X, as none of the
blocks further along the legal roadline had been selected by Pakeha farmers. No mention was
made in this correspondence of building any roads to allow Maori access to their land blocks.
The £750 that were requisitioned came from the budget of the Public Works Department and
appear to have had no direct connection with the land taken for roading under the Urewera
Lands Act 1921-1922. 83
It is not exactly clear when the various sections of the Minginui Road were built. A memo
from the Resident Engineer in Tauranga to the District Engineer in Hamilton, dated 16 May
1947, states that, 'No record can be found in this office of when this road was constructed or
by whom' .84 The plan SO 23014 of part of the Te Tawhitiwhiti block, located immediately to
the east of Te Pahou, is dated January 1930. It shows the Minginui road as formed but not
fenced or metalled. It can be assumed that the road at this time must have been fairly rough as
the plan shows a wire fence from the Te Tawhitiwhiti block actually enclosing a small section
of the legal road. 85
What is clear is that neither the Rotorua-Waikaremoana highway nor the Minginui Road were
built to give Maori landowners road access to their properties. The Rotorua-Waikaremoana
highway was begun for strategic reasons and then, according to Dick's report, was continued
and maintained as a tourist road. The Minginui road was begun to give McPherson access to
Section 2 Block X of the Ahikereru survey district. Dick's report indicates that this road was
extended to provide access to timber supplies. While both of these roads would have provided
Maori with access to their lands, this does not appear to have been the reason they were built
by the Crown. In the case of the Minginui road, it is possible that the road would not have
been built at all if Pakeha farmers and loggers had not wanted access to lands in the area. The
Crown took land from the Te Pahou landowners to pay for roads, but only two roads were
built in the area. These were the Rotorua-Waikaremoana highway, the Te Whaiti section
having already been built for the Crown's own strategic and economic reasons, and the
Minginui road, which was built to meet Pakeha economic needs. 86
It would also appear that before the passing of the Urewera Lands Act 1921-22, Maori were
not legally obliged to pay for roading. The guarantee of roads being built and the promise of
the economic development to follow were factors that motivated some Maori to support the
consolidation scheme. Yet in the long run the majority of these roads were not built. 87 The
83 W J Marsh, Chief Surveyor, to Under Secretary for Lands, 27 August 1924, ABWN 6095 w5021 16/736
Wellington NA
Map attached to memo, 27 August 1924, ABWN 6095 w502116/736 Wellington NA
J B Thompson, Under Secretary Lands, to Under Secretary Public Works, 30 September 1924, ABWN 6095
w5021 16/736 Wellington NA
Engineer -in-Chief & Under Secretary Public Works to Under Secretary Lands, 13 November 1924, ABWN
6095 w5021 16/736 Wellington NA
84 Resident Engineer, Tauranga, to District Engineer, Hamilton, 16 May 1947, BAAS Acc A269 33e 25/14,
AucklandNA
85 Plan SO 23014, LINZ Head Office, Wellington
86 Dick, Report to Under Secretary Lands, 20 August 1937, MA 1 28/4/7/1, Wellington NA
Cleaver, 'Urewera Roading', p 88
87 Cleaver, 'Urewera Roading', pp 85-90
35
Crown insisted that Te Whaiti Maori pay for roading in land rather than cash. Thus, like other
Urewera Maori, the Te Whaiti Maori lost even more land through the consolidation process.
The Te Pahou land owners, unlike many of the other Urewera Maori, did get roads built,
which enabled them to link up with the outside world. However these roads were built to
answer Pakeha economic and political agendas. Any benefit that came to the Te Pahou Maori
was by accident rather than design. The departmental records examined in the course of this
research failed to reveal any indication that roads were built in the Te Whaiti area for the
economic benefit of Maori. Therefore it appears that Te Pahou landowners gave land to pay
for roads that were built primarily for the benefit of Pakeha.
5.4 Te Pahou- Survey takings
At the hui begun on 1 August 1921 at Ruatoki, Knight outlined a series of Crown proposals to
the assembled Maori. One of these was that 'the existing titles and surveys and tribal
boundaries be cancelled and abolished, and new titles issued to the non-sellers for properly
surveyed and roaded sections under the Land Transfer Act' .88
Such a scheme meant that all the new blocks of land would have to be surveyed and that
Maori would be expected to bear most of the cost of this. Under the consolidation scheme, as
described in the Knight-Carr-Balneavis report, the old magnetic surveys of the Urewera
country were seen as being of value only for calculating the proportions of land acreage
particular groups were entitled to. The boundaries and partitions worked out in those initial
surveys were to be ignored. New blocks would be surveyed out, to be awarded either to the
Crown or the non-selling Maori landowners. The report also described how these new surveys
would be paid for:
The survey of all Native sections shall be carried out by the Crown, at the cost of
those sections, to be paid for in land. The cost of the survey shall be estimated
beforehand, and the area of land to defray the same shall be deducted from the
area of the Native section to be surveyed and awarded to the Crown. That area
need not be cut off contiguous to the Native section, or it may take the form of
scenic or water-conservation or forest-conservation areas within the boundaries of
the Native section. 89
It would appear that survey costs were worked out for each individual block, with the survey
costs for those areas considered to be 'low priced lands' being calculated by the surveyor as
the work proceeded. 9o The lands around Te Whaiti were valued at 8s 4d per acre. From this
the surveyor worked out that the survey charge for Te Pahou was £30. The Crown took
seventy acres of land to pay for this survey charge, land which would otherwise have been
included in the Te Pahou block or in Group F' s share of the Te Whaiti residue land. 91
There was quite clearly dissatisfaction among the Te Whaiti residents over land being taken to
cover survey costs. Whatanui and others petitioned the Crown on 1 May 1925, over a variety
of issues that arose from the consolidation. Among these issues was: 'THAT we are being
unfairly deprived of our lands inasmuch as large areas are being taken by the Crown for
alleged Survey Costs and we are not being afforded the opportunity of paying for such
AJHR, 1921-1922, G-7, p 4
AJHR, 1921-1922, G-7, p 8
90 Campbell, 'Land Alienation', p 93
91 Knight to Under Secretary for Lands, 11 June 1925, MA 1 29/417 Part 2, Wellington NA
88
89
36
surveys,.92 Carr in response to this petition claimed that the Maori had gained the best land
while the Crown got the 'hinterland'. This argument seems somewhat disingenuous when it is
considered that the Crown had gained the valuable forests of the old Te Whaiti 2 block while
areas such as Te Pahou that were retained by the Te Whaiti Maori were largely scrub. Knight
argued that the greatest care had been taken to get accurate figures for the surveys. He pointed
out that £1800 of costs had resulted from the work of surveyors Armit and Mitchell. Knight
added that the Crown would have to bear a half share of the cost of the common boundaries,
between £200 and £250. 93
5.5 Conclusion
The exchange described in the paragraph above illustrates the self-serving nature of the
Crown's approach to the Urewera Consolidation Scheme. In effect, non-sellers, such as Rama
Te Tuhi and the whanau members of Group F, had very little choice as to whether or not they
would accept the consolidation scheme. To retain legal title to their lands they had to go along
with the scheme, which was driven by the Crown rather than by the Maori landowners. The
Crown benefited from the scheme by gaining a clear title to large amounts of land in the Te
Whaiti area including the valuable timber areas of the oldTe Whaiti blocks. For the scheme to
succeed surveys were necessary to define the landowner's blocks. The Crown was easily able
to afford any survey costs it incurred in this process. In contrast land was generally the only
resource the Te Whaiti Maori possessed. In order to gain title to land through a scheme that
was largely imposed on them, Maori had to sacrifice some of their remaining land to pay for
surveys confirming their titles. Thus the Crown was able to get Maori to pay for a large
proportion of the survey costs necessary to implement a scheme which benefited the Crown.
The Crown then benefited again by gaining more Maori land as payment. In the case of Te
Pahou seventy acres of land that would otherwise have been designated for Rama Te Tuhi' s
whanau was taken by the Crown to pay for the survey of the block.
The Crown also took forty-eight acres of Group F land to pay for the costs of roads in the Te
Whaiti area. This appears to have been manifestly unfair. The building of arterial roads was
the responsibility of the Crown. It only became a legal responsibility for Urewera Maori to
pay for roads with the passing of the Urewera Lands Act 1921-1922. The Te Whaiti section of
the Rotorua to Waikaremoana highway had been built in the 1890s for strategic regions and
was then maintained and extended as a tourist road, rather than for the benefit of Te Whaiti
Maori. The Minginui road was built in the 1920s to provide access for a Pakeha farmer and
later extended to provide access to timber. Again access for Maori was not a major
consideration. The taking of land to help pay for roading appears to have been yet another
exercise by the Crown to acquire as much land as possible in the Urewera region, including
Te Whaiti.
Petition 1 May 1925, MA 1 29/417 Pt 2, Wellington NA
H Carr to Under Secretary of the Native Department, 30 May 1925, MA 1 29/417 Part 2, Wellington NA
R Knight to Under Secretary of the Native Department, 11 June 1925, MA 1 29/417 Part 2, Wellington NA
92
93
37
Chapter Six: Rama Te Tuhi's Gift - the partition of the Te Pahou block
6.1 Introduction
The following chapter will examine Rama Te Tuhi's gift of a playing field to the Te Whaiti
school and outline the resulting division of the original Te Pahou block. Particular attention
will be paid to the Crown's response to the conditions laid down by Rama Te Tuhi as part of
her gift.
6.2 Rama Te Tuhi's 1938 gifting of land to the Te Whaiti School
The block order file for the blocks Te Pahou 1 to Te Pahou 4, held at the Waiaraiki District
Maori Land Court in Rotorua, indicates that there were no changes to the title of the Te Pahou
block between 1923 and 1938. The Order Conferring Title to Te Pahou was signed by Knight
and Carr on 23 February 1923 and countersigned by the Chief Judge R N Jones on 24 January
1927. The eight people named as owners on the schedule were all from the original Group F
named in the Schedule attached to the Knight-Carr-Balneavis Report. The land was held under
this title order until it was partitioned on 29 September 1938. At that time the same eight
owners, all members of Rama Te Tuhi's whanau, were still1isted as owners of the Te Pahou
block. 94
A sketch map, probably drawn by Tai Mitchell, signed by Carr and Knight, shows the block
as it was between 1923 and 1938. (See Figure 6). The block is divided into three sections by
the roadlines laid out over it. It is not clear when these roads were actually built but they were
quite possibly still only paper roads when the sketch was drawn. A narrow corridor of land
can be seen running up the eastern boundary of the Poukura or Te Whaiti School site to the
roadline. This is the piece of land mentioned in the consolidation commission's Urewera
minute book 1, having been marked out in 1922 to allow Rama Te Tuhi access to her section.
As stated in the previous chapter this strip of land remained completely undeveloped
throughout the 1920s and 1930s having no formed road or pathway built on it. 95
On 3 May 1938, Rama Te Tuhi dictated a letter to be sent to the Director of Education in
Wellington and signed it with her mark in front of the Reverend John Currie, Justice of the
Peace. In the letter she declared that, as 'principal owner of the land adjoining the southern
boundary of the Te Whaiti School', she wished to gift an area of 'approximately six chains by
four chains of land adjoining the Southern boundary of the School Property for the purpose of
providing the school children with a full size football field'. 96
Rama Te Tuhi attached the following conditions to the gift:
1. The ground shall be known as Rama Te Tuhi Park
94 Order Conferring Title, Te Pahou Block, 23 February 1923, with attached schedule of owners, Block Order
File 689 (Box 621) Te Pahou 1-4, Waiariki MLC, Rotorua
Partition Order, Te Pahou 1,29 September 1938, Block Order File 689 (Box 621) Te Pahou 1-4, Waiariki MLC,
Rotorua
Partition Order, Te Pahou 2,3 &4, 29 September 1938, with attached schedule of owners, Memorial Schedule
104B, Te Pahou 2, 3 & 4, Waiariki MLC, Rotorua
95 Sketch map of Te Pahou, undated 1920s, Block Order File 689 (Box 621) Te Pahou 1-4, Waiariki MLC,
Rotorua
UMB 1 consolidation commission 1922-1923, Waiariki MLC Rotorua, fol99
96 Rama Te Tuhi to Director of Education, Wellington, 3 May 1938, W w2108 31/412/1, Wellington NA
38
2. Neither I nor my descendants shall be liable for any expenses incurred through
this gift of land
3. The right to use the School access road to my property shall be granted me
4. Improvements to the donated land shall be commence within twelve months
from the date of transfer97
A memo from the Director of Education, Wellington, to the Registrar of the Native
Department, Rotorua, dated 8 August 1938, set out extra information that had been passed on
to the Education Department by Mrs Te Tuhi. The Director of Education wrote:
Mrs Te Tuhi claims to have given the present school site of five acres to the
Education Department, and to have given also eight acres to the Police
Department, and she states that the gift of land now in view is her final gift. She
desires me, to appeal to you, on her behalf, for the erection on her property of a
small cottage, in recognition of her three gifts of land to the Government. 98
Rama Te Tuhi applied to partition out an area from the rest of the Te Pahou block, that would
be held in her name alone so she could gift the area to the school. The Te Pahou block was
duly partitioned at a sitting of the Native land Court on 29 September 1938. Mr Shutt, the
schoolteacher at Te Whaiti, explained that the applicant, Rama Te Tuhi, wished to partition
the land in order to add 2 acres 2 roods (2 Vz acres) to the school site. Te Teira Wi, who was
called as a witness, confirmed that the land was to be added to the school grounds and stated
that, 'the matter has been fully discussed by the people who consent to it'. This passage
indicates that, while Rama Te Tuhi was the initiator of the process of gifting the land, she
discussed the matter with the other land owners and gained their agreement. He also pointed
out that, 'it is desired to keep access at eastern side ?through the portion if practical?', ( the
last five words in this sentence are unclear in the microfilm of the minute book).99
It was duly ordered that an area of 2 acres 2 roods would be partitioned out of the Te Pahou
block, 'to be called Te Pahou 1 or Rama Tuhi Park'. Rama Te Tuhi, also known as Whaitiri
KuOfo, was to have all 423 shares in this block. At this point in the Court record it was also
pointed out by the witness (Te Teira Wi presumably) that Rama Te Tuhi's name had been
misspelt as 'Rama Te Tihi' on the title to the old Te Pahou block. The Native Land Court also
ordered that, 'that portion of the block to the eastward of the school reserve of Te Pahou No 1
be laid off as a road line ... '. The remainder of the old Te Pahou block was partitioned into Te
Pahou 2 of 142 acres 2 roods 13 perches, Te Pahou 3 of 13 acres 3 roods 38 perches and Te
Pahou 4 of 11 acres 2 roods 26 perches. (See Figure 7). The original eight owners of the old
Te Pahou block were named as the owners of Te Pahou 2, 3 and 4. The Minute Book also
noted that if the gift of land was accepted, the Crown agreed to pay for the Survey and also
that Court fees were remitted as the matter concerned a gift. No explanation is given in any of
the records as to why the remainder of the original Te Pahou block was divided into three
blocks. lOO
97 Ibid. The fact that Rama Te Tuhi asked for use of the school access road confirms that her strip of 'access'
land on the eastern boundary of the school grounds still had no road or pathway on it. A sketch map by Mr
Shutt, the Te Whaiti school teacher, shows the proposed recreation area required clearing, levelling, turfing and
grassing in order to be suitable for a sports field. Attachment to R Shutt to the Director of Education, 5 May
1938, BAAA 1001l630a, Auckland NA
98 Director of Education, Wellington, to Registrar, Native Department, Rotorua, 8 August 1938, Block Order
File 689 (Box 621) Te Pahou 1-4, Waiariki MLC, Rotorua
99 Rotorua Minute Book 90,29 September 1938, Microfilm, Wellington NA, fol188
100 Rotorua Minute Book 90,29 September 1938, Microfilm Wellington NA, fols 189-190
39
Graphical Represenletion Only
Jan 2002
++---+- Te Pahou1
(playing field)
Te Pahou 2
Figure 7: Te Pahou 1,2, 3, 4 following partition 1938
40
The final action to complete the gifting of the land was for the Crown to legally take Te
Pahou 1 for the purposes of a Native School under the authority of the Public Works Act
1928. This taking was gazetted on 23 August 1939, to take effect from 4 September 1939. A
plan of the area, marked PWD 102857 (SO 29990), was deposited at the office of the Minister
of Public Works, to show the specific area referred to. 101
6.2 The Crown's response to the conditions Rama Te Tuhi requested
As mentioned above, Rama Te Tuhi set out a series of conditions attached to her gift of the
land at Te Pahou 1. She also asked that, in recognition of this gift and those of the School and
Police Station sites, she should have a small cottage erected for her by the Government. The
Director of Education passed these conditions and the request for the building of a cottage on
to the Registrar of the Native Department at Rotorua, Mr T Anaru. Mr Anaru made it clear
immediately that the Native Department would not pay for the building of a cottage. He wrote
back to the Director of Education: 'As to erecting a house for her in consideration of the gifts
she has made to the Crown, that is a matter for the Crown to consider. This Department erects
houses for natives who are prepared to pay for them.' 102
Rama Te Tuhi died at some time before 5 April 1939, as noted in Department of Education
correspondence concerning Te Pahou. 103 The conditions she requested regarding her gift of
land were not met in any formal sense by the Crown, as shown by the correspondence in 1943
between the Director of Education, the Under Secretary of the Native Department and the
Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court. This correspondence was the result of what at that time
was normally a routine procedure, the application to the Native Land Court for an assessment
of compensation for an area taken under the Public Works Act 1928. According to the
Director of Education, the normal practice at that time was that in the case of land donated by
Maori for educational purposes, a nil award for compensation would be made. Judge Harvey
of the Rotorua Native Land Court had refused to make such a nil award in the Te Whaiti case,
as well as in the separate case of land donated to the Pukehina School. The Judge maintained
he was protecting Maori interests by applying the letter of the law for assessing compensation
under the Public Works Act. The Director of Education on the other hand was concerned that
this would complicate the use of the Act for legally acquiring land gifted by Maori for
educational purposes. Before these two cases arose, the Education Department had regarded
the Public Works Act as the most efficient way of carrying out such procedures. 104
A memo to the Under Secretary of the Native Department from the Chief Judge of the Native
Land Court, in response to these concerns, described the Native Land Court's attitude to
meeting conditions set out by Maori land owners when gifting land. The Judge's memo
specifically referred to Rama Te Tuhi's gift of land at Te Pahou:
Mr Voice [a Department of Public Works official] has furnished a copy of the
agreement referred to [between Rama Te Tuhi and the Director of Education].
101 New Zealand Gazette, No 66, 31 August 1939, p 2243
Plan SO 29990,14 December 1938, in W w2108 31/41211, Wellington NA
102 T Anaru, Registrar, Rotorua Native Department, to Director of Education, Wellington, 14 September 1938,
Block Order file 689, (Box 621)TePahou 1-4, Waiariki MLC, Rotorua
103 Director of Education, Wellington, to Permanent Head, Public Works Department, Wellington, 5 April 1939,
W w2108 31/412/1, Wellington NA
104 Director of Education, Wellington, to Under Secretary of the Native Department, 9 April 1943, MA 121/4A
Wellington NA
Chief Judge of the Native Land Court to Under Secretary of the Native Department, 10 May 1943, MA 1 2114A
Wellington NA
41
You will see that it purports to donate an area of approximately 6 chains by 4
chains subject to certain conditions therein expressed. Judge Harvey informs me
that he was told by Mr Voice that it was not intended to carry out the conditions
set out in the alleged gift offer. These conditions may not in themselves be very
onerous, but the alleged gift is nevertheless made expressly subject thereto- in
addition to which the donor is now deceased. IDS
The Chief Judge went on to say that he had consulted with Judges Carr, Harvey, Beechey and
Whitehead and they had all agreed that it was up to the Native Land Court rather than Maori
themselves as to whether any compensation should be paid. He continued:
I have always held the opinion that under the policy of our Native Land laws the
Native owners were not competent to arrange a gift of their lands to strangers or to
waive the requirement of compensation for any land taken for any Public Work
and that any agreement to that effect was of no force or validity, except by way of
consent to the taking or proposed talting by those owners executing it. I06
Thus, while the Judges saw the Native Land Court as protecting the Maori landowner's right
to compensation for donated land, it also meant that the Native Land Court would not act to
ensure that the conditions of agreements, such as those put forward by Rama Te Tuhi, would
be upheld. If the views expressed by Mr Voice to the Rotorua Native Land Court were
accurately reported, then the Education Department and the Public Works Department had not
intended to meet the conditions asked for by Rama Te Tuhi, regardless of the decisions of the
Native Land Court.
As a sequel to this exchange of letters, the Rotorua Maori Land Court held a sitting as a
Compensation Court on 26 January 1949. At this sitting, Judge Harvey awarded £65
compensation to be paid to the Waiarilti District Maori Land Board for administration under
Section 552 of the Maori Land Act 1931. Section 552 stated that a Maori Land Board could, if
they so desired, hold compensation money as a Trust fund to be paid out at the discretion of
the Board. I have been unable to find any evidence of what became of the £65 paid in
compensation to the Waiariki District Maori Land Board. It should be remembered that Rama
Te Tuhi was the sole owner of Te Pahou 1, the school playing field site. Bearing in mind the
fact that her successors were not placed on a succession order until 31 May 1956, almost
twenty three years after her death, it appears unlikely that any of the compensation money
found its way directly to them. I07
It is also noteworthy that as of the year 2001 the playing field by the Te Whaiti school had
still not been officially named Rama Te Tuhi Park.
6.4 Conclusion
105 Chief Judge of the Native Land Court to Under Secretary of the Native Department, 10 May 1943, MA 1
2114A Wellington NA
106 Ibid
107 Order for Compensation, Rotorua MLC, 26 January 1949, Block Order file 689, (Box 621), Te Pahou 1-4,
Waiariki MLC, Rotorua
Rotorua Minute Book 97,26 January 1949, fo192, Microfilm, Wellington NA
Settlement Document, Ministry of Works, Auckland, 9 February 1949, W w2108 311412/1, Wellington NA
Succession Order schedule Te Pahou 1,31 May 1956, Block Order file 689, (Box 621), Te Pahou 1-4, Waiariki
MLC, Rotorua
42
It is clear from what is outlined above that the Crown were very willing to accept Rama Te
Tuhi's gift of land for a playing field for Te Whaiti school. They were not, however, prepared
to accept the conditions that Rama Te Tuhi sought to attach to the gift of land. Judge Harvey
of the Maori Land Court at Rotorua made a decision not to meet these conditions, but Mr
Voice, the Public Works official, stated that the Government departments concerned had
already come to the same decision.
Although the title deed to Te Pahou 1 also used the name Rama Te Tuhi Park, there seems to
be no official public acknowledgement of this placename, even up to the present day. If any
of the other conditions set down in Rama Te Tuhi's letter were met, this would appear to be
by accident rather than design, given that the Departments of Works and Education had
decided not to meet the conditions stipulated.
It should be noted that the Crown was quite happy to pay compensation for the land and did
so. The compensation money for Te Pahou 1 was, however, paid to the Waiariki District
Maori Land Board. There is a strong possibility that none of the compensation money found
its way through to the descendants of Rama Te Tuhi, especially given the fact that at the time
the compensation money was paid, in 1949, her successors had not yet been named. While it
is not clear that any compensation money is owed to the successors of Rama Te Tuhi, it is
clear that her mana should be acknowledged as the donor of the playing field land.
43
Chapter Seven: The Crown's return of the Police Station site
7.1 Introduction
The Wai 725 scoping report and Hiraina Hona's draft report for the Te Pahou claim both
mention an issue that is not specifically referred to in the statement of claim for Wai 725. This
concerns the Police Station Reserve lands situated just over a ldlometre due north of the Te
Pahou blocks. (See Figures 2 and 4). The Police Station land is an area of 8 acres 3 roods 2
perches between the Rotorua-Waikaremoana highway (now State Highway 38) and the
Whirinald river, in the area where the highway crosses from Block VI to Block X of the
Ahikereru Survey District. The circumstances of the Crown's acquisition of this land have
been discussed above. (See Section 3.4). It has also been noted above that, when she gifted
the land for the school playing field in 1938, Rama Te Tuhi claimed that it was she who had
also gifted the land for the Police Station Reserve. I08
7.2 The return of the Police Station Reserve Site and the Teacher's residence
An area of land originally surveyed as being of 7 acres 2 roods, was taken under the Public
Works Act 1894, for the construction of a Police Station. I have been unable to determine
when a Police Station was first built on this site, but a major rebuilding of the now rundown
Police Station was planned in 1936, indicating that the original station had been on the site for
some time. 109 The site became surplus to Police requirements in 1955, when the local Police
Officers were stationed at Murupara. 110 On 11 June 1957, an area from the Police Station
Reserve of 1 rood 10.8 perches was set apart for a teacher's residence, under the Public
Works Act 1928. 111 A survey of the site, carried out to define the teacher's residence area,
found that the area of the Police Station Reserve was in fact 8 acres 3 roods 1.9 perchesY2
With the setting apart of the small area for the teacher's residence, the remaining 8 acres 1
rood 31.1 perches became Crown land for disposal. 113
In October of 1957, G Mulligan, a Senior Field Officer with the Department of Lands and
Survey, met with Dr Allan North, Secretary of the Ngati Whare Tribal Committee, while
visiting the Te Whaiti area. Dr North explained to Mr Mulligan that the kaumatua of Ngati
Whare maintained that Ngati Whare had loaned the land in question to the Police in 1895. The
108 Scoping Report, Wai 725, pp 5,6,7
H Hona, 'Draft Report' , pp 62-63
Plan ML 13762/2, 23 December 1924, LINZ Head Office, Wellington
Plan SO 38214, 9 August 1956, LINZ Head Office, Wellington
Director of Education, Wellington, to Registrar, Native Department, Rotorua, 8 August 1938, Block Order file
689, (Box 621), Te Pahou 1-4, Waiariki MLC, Rotorua
109 Assistant Regional Engineer to District Engineer, Public Works Department, Tauranga, 7 October 1936,
AATE Acc A934 299a 34/30 Vol 1, Auckland NA
lI°Controller General of Police, Wellington, to Chief Surveyor, Department of Lands and Survey, Auckland, 5
August 1958, 6900/487 vol 2, LINZ Hamilton. It was pointed out in this letter that the Police file on the Te
Whaiti station had been destroyed, so they were able to provide very little information on subjects relating to the
reserve land.
G Mulligan, Senior Field Officer, Department of Lands and Survey, Rotorua, to Commissioner of Crown Lands,
Hamilton, 30 October 1957,6900/487 vol 2, LINZ Hamilton
111 NZ Gazette, no 45,13 June 1957, p 1138
112 Plan SO 38214, 9 August 1956, LINZ Head Office, Wellington
113 E P Wakelin, Commissioner of Crown Lands, Hamilton, to A North, Secretary, Te Whaiti Tribal Committee,
4 December 1957, 6900/487 vol 2, LINZ Hamilton
44
land was available for the Police to use for as long as they so wished, but had to be returned to
Ngati Whare when it was no longer needed. When the Ngati Whare Tribal Committee became
aware that the Police were vacating the land, they wrote to the Police Department and asked
for its return. The Police Department replied that the Education Department in Aucldand now
controlled the land. Mr Mulligan advised Dr North to contact the Commissioner of Crown
Lands in Hamilton on behalf of the Tribal CommitteeY4 Dr North contacted the
Commissioner explaining the history of the land as described by the elders of Ngati Whare.
His account contained no mention of Rama Te Tuhi. Dr North asked the Commissioner
whether the Crown had a clear title to the land, explaining that the elders had thought that the
Crown did not. Dr North explained that the Tribal Committee wanted the land in the hope of
developing it as a sports and recreation area. 115
More correspondence and some investigation into the history of the acquisition of the Reserve
land followed. The Department of Lands and Survey had not been able to find any
information on how the Crown had originally acquired the land, other than the gazette notice
of 1899 stating the land was taken under the Public Works Act 1894. As the Department were
also unable to find any evidence of compensation being paid to the original owners, the
Commissioner of Crown Lands in Hamilton recommended, in January 1959, that the area be
revested in the Tribal Committee for recreation purposes, subject to certain conditions. The
Department asked that the Tribal Committee allow the Crown to retain a half chain reserve
along the western bank of the Whirinaki River, a condition the Tribal Committee agreed to. 116
On 16 July 1959, an application was made under section 436 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953
for an Order revesting land acquired for Public Work, in order to revest 7 acres 10 roods of
land in 'such persons as may be found by the Court to be justly entitled to' .117 At a sitting of
the Maori Land Court, on 28 June 1961, the area of land to be revested was adjusted to 8 acres
3 roods 1.9 perches, the new figure arrived at from the 1956 survey of the Reserve land. On 1
November 1961, the Maori Land Court made the order, under Section 436, that the block be
revested in Trustees to be named later by the Court on the recommendation of the Ngati
Whare Tribal Committee. On 1 December 1961 the land was vested in Makarena Ngapuhi of
Rotorua and Reverend Tommy Te Teira of Ruatahuna upon trust on behalf of the N gati
Whare Tribe. Dr North, in his capacity as Secretary of the Ngati Whare Tribal Committee,
nominated these men to act as trustees. No evidence was presented at any of these sittings to
identify the original donor or donors of the Police Station Reserve land. 118
114 G Mulligan, Senior Field Officer, Department of Lands and Survey, Rotorua, to Commissioner of Crown
Lands, Hamilton, 30 October 1957,6900/487 vol 2, LINZ Hamilton
115 A North, Secretary, Te Whaiti Tribal Committee, to Commissioner of Crown Lands, Hamilton, 10 December
1957,6900/487 vol 2, LINZ Hamilton
116 F S Beachman, Commissioner of Crown Lands, Hamilton to Director General of Lands, Wellington, 23
January 1959, 6900/487 vol 2, LINZ Hamilton
Commissioner of Crown Lands to P Taylor, Chairman Te Whaiti Tribal Committee, 27 May 1959,6900/487 vol
2, LINZ Hamilton
A North, Secretary Te Whaiti Tribal Committee, to Commissioner of Crown Lands, Hamilton, 8 June 1959,
6900/487 vol 2, LINZ Hamilton
Rotorua MB, vol 115, 28 June 1961, Microfilm Wellington NA, fol171
117 Application for an Order Revesting Land Acquired for Public Work, 16 July 1959, 6900/487 vol 2, LINZ
Hamilton
118 Extract from Rotorua MB ,vol 115, 28 June 1961,6900/487 vol 2, LINZ Hamilton, foll71
Order Revesting Land Acquired for Public Work, 1 November 1961, 6900/487 vol 2, LINZ Hamilton
Extract from Rotorua MB, vol 116, 1 November 1961, 6900/487 vol 2, LINZ Hamilton, fol85
45
The area of 1 rood 10.8 perches set apart for a teacher's residence remained as Crown land
after. the remainder of the Police Reserve land was revested in the trustees. At some time
before 1985 the teacher's residence on the old Police Reserve land ceased to be used as a
dwelling and the house was removed. In 1985 G F Wright, acting on behalf of the Regional
Superintendent of Education, wrote to the Commissioner of Crown Lands, Hamilton, with the
information that the teacher's residence site was now surplus to requirements. The District
Commissioner of Works recommended that, as it could not be definitely established whether
or not the land had originally been gifted, it should be returned at nil consideration to whoever
was considered entitled to it. As with the rest of the Police Station Reserve, the lack of
evidence of any compensation being paid for the land appears to have been a deciding factor
in returning the land without charge. At a sitting on 1 December 1986, Judge Hingston
amended the title of the former Police Reserve land to include the 1 rood 10.2 perches of the
teacher's residence. No evidence was presented at this sitting to identify the original donor or
donors of the Police Station Reserve land. Thus the teacher's residence land was also vested
in Makarena Ngapuhi and Reverend Tommy Te Teira upon Trust on behalf of the Ngati
Whare tribe. 119
It should be noted that in the 18 March 1985 letter from G F Wright of the Education
Department to the Commissioner of Crown Lands, Mr Wright stated regarding the Police
Station Reserve: 'The land appears to have been donated by Mrs Rama Te Tuhe [sic] on 29
September 1939' .120 The two different copies I have of this letter both have hand written
comments in the margins disputing this statement. One copy has the hand written statement,
'Apparently not so. See MLC minutes under this folio,.121 The other has 'No. Taken 1899, p
624 for Police Station' .122 A hand written memo from a Ministry of Works and Development
official mentions that Don Prentice of Lands and Survey came in to the Ministry of Works
and Development office and pointed out that the statement regarding the Rama Te Tuhi' s
donation was incorrect. 123
It would appear that Mr Wright was indeed mistaken, as he thought that Rama Te Tuhi had
donated the land on 29 September 1938. Rama Te Tuhi may well have been the donor of the
land, but if she were the donor, the donation would have been made in the 1890s, probably in
1895, not in September 1938. The Education Department may have confused Rama Te Tuhi's
gift of the playing field in 1938 with the earlier donation she claimed to have made. The
statement in Wright's letter can not be taken to prove Rama Te Tuhi was the original donor of
the land, but on the other hand, the comments refuting his statement do not prove that Rama
Te Tuhi was not the donor in the 1890s.
119 G F Wright, for Regional Superintendent of Education, to Commissioner of Crown Lands, Hamilton, 18
March 1985, E 39/20111/0 (BAPP 5113/1368b Auckland NA)
B G Parker, for District Commissioner of Works, Hamilton, to Commissioner of Works, Hamilton, 26 April
1985, E 39/201/1/0 (BAPP 5113/1368b Auckland NA)
A R Wilson for District Commissioner of Works, Hamilton, to the Registrar, Maori Land Court, Rotorua, 3
September 1986, E 39/201/1/0 (BAPP 5113/1368b Auckland NA)
Order Revesting Land Acquired for Public Work, E 39/201/1/0 (BAPP 5113/1368b Auckland NA)
Extract from Rotorua MB 218, 1 December 1986, E 39/201/1/0 (BAPP 5113/1368b Auckland NA), fo19
120 G F Wright, for Regional Superintendent of Education, to Commissioner of Crown Lands, Hamilton, 18
March 1985,6900/487 vol 2, LINZ Hamilton
121 G F Wright, for Regional Superintendent of Education, to Commissioner of Crown Lands, Hamilton, 18
March 1985. Copy stamped 'Received 21 March 1985', E 39/201/1/0 (BAPP 5113/1368b Auckland NA)
122 G F Wright, for Regional Superintendent of Education, to Commissioner of Crown Lands, Hamilton, 18
March 1985, Copy stamped 'Received 20 March 1985',6900/487 vol 2, LINZ Hamilton
123 ? (signature indecipherable) Professional Services, Ministry of Works and Development, Hamilton to
Director of Prof Services, MWD, Hamilton, 22 March 1985, E 39/201/1/0 (BAPP 5113/1368b Auckland NA)
46
7.3 Conclusion
The written evidence available gives no indication of the identity of the donor of the Police
Reserve land. The Maori Land Court, when investigating the history of the two sections of the
old Police Reserve for the purposes of revestment, was unable to find any evidence
concerning the identity of the original donors. 124 The only written evidence indicating that
Rama Te Tuhi was the donor is the 8 August 1938 letter from the Director of Education. 125
Therefore, unless other written evidence comes to light, it appears we will have to rely almost
exclusively on oral evidence to give a better idea of the identity the donor or donors of the
Police Reserve land in the 1890s.
124Extract from Rotorua MB, vol 115, 28 June 1961, 6900/487 vol 2, LINZ Hamilton, foll71
Extract from Rotorua MB, vol 116, 1 November 1961, 6900/487 vol 2, LINZ Hamilton, fol85
Extract from Rotorua MB 217, 29 October 1986, E 39/201/1/0 (BAPP 5113/1368b Auckland NA), fol190
Extract from Rotorua MB 218, 1 December 1986, E 39/201/1/0 (BAPP 5113/1368b Auckland NA), fol9
125 Director of Education, Wellington, to the Registrar, Native Department, Rotorua, 8 August 1938, Block
Order File 689, (Box 621) Te Pahou 1-4, Waiariki MLC, Rotorua
47
Chapter Eight: The Lease of the Te Pahou blocks
8.1 Introduction
The following chapter brings the account of the Te Pahou blocks up to the beginning of the
twenty first century. It looks at the leasing arrangement set up with the Maori Trustee and the
Presbyterian Church in 1971. The history of this lease is followed up to recent times. The role
of the Maori Trustee and the degree of control retained by the land owners is examined.
Finally the settlement between the current lessee and the descendants of Rama Te Tuhi
concerning the whanau's cottage is briefly described.
8.2 The Te Pahou Blocks are leased· 1971
In 1923, following the success of their Turakina Maori Girl's College, the Maori Missions
Committee of the Presbyterian Church began to raise funds for a 'Waimana Maori Boy's
College Building Fund'. While the Committee had no difficulty in raising the necessary
funds, problems with securing title to lands meant that no college was built at Waimana. In
the early 1930s the idea developed that the Presbyterian Church should set up a farm school at
Te Whaiti to teach Maori boys farming methods. The Crown offered a block of 330 acres near
Te Whaiti, for a price of 7s 6d per acre. The Farm School was officially opened on 29
September 1937 and remained in operation until 16 June 1967, when it closed due to a decline
in enrolments. The first year boys who had enrolled at the school were taken on as farm
cadets, while the administration of the farm passed from Te Hinota Maori, the Maori Synod of
the Presbyterian Church, to the Church Property Trustees. The farm was given the name
Pukekohu farm in 1972. 126
On 13 February 1971 a meeting of assembled owners for Te Pahou 2, 3 and 4 was called
under Part XXIII of the Maori Affairs Act. The meeting was called to discuss the proposal
that the Presbyterian Church Property Trustees should lease the property for 42 years. Present
at this meeting were S Rahunga, acting as Recording Officer, Timi Wi Rutene, acting as
solicitor for the Presbyterian Church Property Trustees, G Fullerton and four of the block's
owners; Kereru Rune (also known as Kereru Kahupu), Ratuhi Tepene, Taupoki Wharerimu,
and Atamira Iraia. Kereru Rune also held proxy votes for Rahera Brown and Taimona
Tepene. Between them, including proxy votes, those present represented 50.24992 of the
168.23125 shares in Te Pahou 2,3 and 4.127
The minutes of the meeting record:
Mr Wi Rutene introduced himselfAct for applicant- who wants 42 year lease- proposal is 21years/21 yearsprepared to accept a full term lease with seven year reviews- you are all aware
why lease required- will get a fair deal- at end of term will get land back- fully
improved- a good asset. 128
126 D A Larsen, Notes on the Origin and Establishment ofPukekohu Farm, March 1982, GAJ75, 99/12/36
Presbyterian Church Archives, Dunedin
127 Statement of Proceedings of Meeting of Assembled Owners, Te Pahou 2,3 and 4,13 February 1971, MT
13/1922 Series 1, Maori Trustees Office, Rotorua
128 Minutes of Meeting of Owners Te Pahou 2,3 and 4, S Hahunga recording officer,13 February 1971, MT
13/1922 Series 1, Maori Trustees Office, Rotorua
48
Kereru Rune announced that the proposal had already been fully discussed among the owners
and that they had agreed to a proposal drawn up by his solicitor. Mr Rutene on looking at the
resolution agreed that his clients would accept the proposal. The following amendment was
then moved by Kereru Rune and seconded by Taupoki Wharerimu:
That Te Pahou Numbers 2, 3, and 4 block be leased to the Presbyterian Church
Property Trustees for a term of 21 years with a right of renewal for a further term
of 21 years, the annual rent for the first seven years of the term to be calculated at
7% of the special Government Valuation at the commencement of the term the
annual rent to be reviewed at the end of the first seven years and at the end of
every seven years thereafter and to be calculated at 7% of the then capital value of
the land as determined by a special government valuation less the value of the
improvements effected by the Lessee since the date of commencement of the lease
but such rental to be not less than the rent payable during the preceding seven
years such lease to be upon and contain such terms and conditions as are normally
included in leases of Maori Land executed by the Maori Trustee pursuant to part
XXIII of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 and to contain no provision of compensation
.
IE
f orlmprovement
This amendment was passed unanimously, then put to the meeting again as a resolution and
again passed unanimously. The resolution was confirmed at a sitting of the Maori Land Court,
on 21 July 1971, before Judge Gillanders Scott at Whakatane. No objections were made and
the Court ordered that land be released to the Maori Trustee to facilitate its being leased to the
Presbyterian Church Property Trustees. The Te Pahou 2, 3 and 4 blocks were then deemed to
be leased to the Presbyterian Church Property Trustees from 21 July 1971, for a rental of $154
per annum for the first seven years. 130
In June of 1982, Te Hinota Maori, the Maori Synod of the Presbyterian Church, resolved that
the Church Property Trustees should sell the Pukekohu Farm. This sale was to be subject to
the conditions that 'the Ngati Whare people be given first option to purchase' and that 'should
the Ngati Whare people be unable to purchase every effort be made, within a reasonable
period, to sell it to other Maori interests' .131 The purchase of the farm would have also
involved the purchase of the lease on the Te Pahou blocks. In early July 1982, M Temara, the
Secretary of Te Hinota Maori, attended a meeting of representatives of Ngati Whare, at
Murupara, where the issue of the purchase of the Pukekohu farm was discussed. Mr Temara
noted that the Ngati Whare representatives appeared to be eager to purchase the farm but did
not know where they would find the funds to do this. 132
The Church Property Trustees were asking for $575, 000, plus stock and chattels at valuation,
for a farm of 272 hectares plus 118 hectares of leasehold land. Correspondence between D A
Larsen, the Secretary of the Church Property Trustees and P Taylor, the Chairman of the
Ibid.
Resolution of Assembled Owners, Te Pahou 2,3 and 4, 13 February 1971, MT 1311922 Series 1, Maori
Trustees Office, Rotorua
Extract from Whakatane minute book 52,21 July 1971, fo128, MT 13/1922 Series 1, Maori Trustees Office,
Rotorua
Order Confirming Resolution of Assembled Owners, Waiariki District MLC, Whakatane, 21 July 1971, MT
13/1922 Series 1, Maori Trustees Office, Rotorua
131 M Temara, Secretary, Maori Synod of the Presbyterian Church of NZ, to D A Larsen, Secretary, Church
Property Trustees, Presbyterian Church ofNZ, 28 June 1982, GAl75, 99/12/36, Presbyterian Archives, Dunedin
132M Temara, Secretary of the Maori Synod, to D A Larsen, General Treasurer, Presbyterian Church, 23 July
1982, GAl75, 99/12/36, Presbyterian Archives, Dunedin
129
130
49
Ngati Whare executive, indicates that Ngati Whare accepted the offer in principle but were
unable to raise the necessary funds. As it turned out Ngati Whare had no way of raising so
much money within the time required by the Presbyterian Church. Therefore the Church
Property Trustees sought a buyer elsewhere. 133
The Trustees originally made an arrangement to accept an offer on the Pukekohu farm from a
Mr and Mrs Foote of Taneatua, but this offer fell through. Therefore the Property Trustees
accepted an offer from Nigel Bevin and on 27 July 1984 the lease for Te Pahou 2, 3, and 4
was transferred to him. 134 It should be noted that the Maori Trustee did not take part in
negotiations to sell the lease. The lease contains the right for the lessee to sell the lease, but
only with the consent of the Maori Trustee as Agent for the owners. The Maori Trustee's role
is restricted in such a case to ascertaining that the new lessee can meet the conditions of the
lease. The lease itself can only be amended if a meeting of owners is called for this purpose
under Section xxnI of the Maori Affairs Act 1953. 135
During the period of his lease up to 1991, Mr Bevin had several disputes with the Maori
Trustee over non-payment of rent. On four separate occasions in 1986, 1987, and 1988 the
Maori Trustee threatened Mr Bevin with legal action for the non-payment of rent. 136 In each
case Mr Bevin eventually paid the rent arrears before legal action was taken. Over the same
period the inspector's reports on the leased land record only minor breaches of the lease,
indicating the land was being farmed in a manner that fulfilled the conditions of the lease.
Despite Mr Bevin's record of late payments he ensured that all rent was paid up to 20 July
1992, when he applied for a 21 year renewal of his lease on 28 November 1991. The
application was approved on the grounds that the rent was paid up and the only money owed
was $125. 59c in rates plus $300 worth of breaches needing to be rectified. The internal
memo from the Maori Trustee's office recommending renewal of Mr Bevin's lease stated:
'This lessee has been very good since he took over the lease in 1984'. 137 Approval for the
renewal of the lease was granted on 4 March 1992. There is no evidence on record of
133 D A Larsen, Secretary Church Property Trustees, to P Taylor, Chairman Ngati Whare Executive Committee,
27 August 1982, GAJ75, 99/12/36, Presbyterian Archives, Dunedin
P Taylor, Chairman Ngati Whare Executive Committee, to D A Larsen, Secretary Church Property Trustees, 24
August 1982, GAJ75, 99/12/36, Presbyterian Archives, Dunedin
D A Larsen, Secretary Church Property Trustees, to T B Spence, Pukekohu farm, 30 November 1982, GAl75,
99/12/36, Presbyterian Archives, Dunedin
W Hodges, Maori Trustees office, Rotorua, to D A Larsen, Secretary, Church Property Trustees, 9 December
1982, GAJ75, 99/12/36, Presbyterian Archives, Dunedin
134 Macalister, Mazengarb, Parken & Rose to Maori Trustee, 5 December 1983, MT 13/1922 Series 1, Maori
Trustees Office, Rotorua
Notice of Change of Ownership or Occupancy, Te Pahou 2, 3 and 4,27 July 1984, MT 13/1922 Series 1, Maori
Trustees Office, Rotorua
135 C Kingham, Land Administration Officer, Maori Trustees Office, Rotorua to Maori Land Court, Wellington,
19 March 1997, MT 13/1922 Series 2, Maori Trustees Office, Rotorua
Memorandum of Lease, Te Pahou 2,3, and 4,21 July 1971, MT 13/1922 Series 1, Maori Trustees Office,
Rotorua
136 J H Walker, District Solicitor to N R H Bevin, 15 September 1986, MT 13/1922 Series 1, Maori Trustees
Office, Rotorua
T Wi Rutene to N R H Bevin, 8 September 1987, MT 13/1922 Series 1, Maori Trustees Office, Rotorua
Affidavit ofR J Nicklin, on behalf of the Maori Trustee, Rotorua, 18 April 1988, MT 1311922 Series 1, Maori
Trustees Office, Rotorua
Affidavit of DC Denize, on behalf of Maori Trustee, Rotorua, 3 November 1988, MT 1311922 Series 1, Maori
Trustees Office, Rotorua
137 Internal memo, office of Maori Trustee, 'Sak' to 'Henry', 28 February 1992, Sheet 199, MT 13/1922 Series
1, Maori Trustees Office, Rotorua
50
consultation with the owners before renewal of the lease, but the conditions of the lease do not
require any such consultation. 138
By 29 January 1992 Mr Bevin had entered into an agreement to sell the Pukekohu farm and
the leases connected with it to R Wand S C Smith. This turned into a complicated and drawn
out process as the two parties became engaged in a two-year legal battle. Mr and Mrs Smith
finally gained possession of the farm and the lease of Te Pahou 2, 3 and 4 on 30 September
1994. As of some time before May 1999 Robert Smith has managed Pukekohu farm and
leased the Te Pahou blocks on his own.139
8.3 Conclusions (a)- Possible Treaty issues arising from the lease of Te Pahou
In her draft report on the Wai 725 Te Pahou claim, Hiraina Hona has raised a series of issues
regarding the lease of the Te Pahou blocks, which may involve breaches of the Treaty of
Waitangi. Ms Hona raises the initial point that the boundaries of the Te Pahou block were the
creation of the partition order of 29 September 1939 and before that of the consolidation
process in the early 1920s. The boundaries were imposed on the non-selling members of
Rama Te Tuhi's whanau by a series of processes of the Pakeha legal system. In the course of
these processes the whanau lost land to pay for surveying made necessary by a scheme that
had been imposed on them. They also lost land to pay for roads that were built for purposes
other than to provide access to their blocks of land. The imposition of surveyed boundaries to
replace traditional systems of land tenure might be interpreted as a Treaty breach as it led to
the loss of traditional lands. The loss of land through survey and roading takings could well be
interpreted in a similar way. 140
The vote to lease the Te Pahou blocks to the Presbyterian Church Property Trustees was legal
within the terms of part XXIII of the Maori Affairs Act 1953. Clause 309 (1) of the Act states
that: 'No meeting of assembled owners shall be deemed to be properly constituted unless at
least three individuals entitled to vote are present during the whole meeting'. Therefore four
owners with two proxy votes could quite legally make a decision on behalf of all the other
owners. A further clause, 311(1) states that:
Every resolution which a meeting of assembled owners is authorised by this Act
to pass shall be deemed to be carried if the owners who, either personally or by
proxy, vote in favour of the resolution own a larger aggregate share of the land
affected thereby than the owners who vote, either personally or by proxy, against
the resolution.
Clause 315 (1) stated that: 'The assembled owners of any land may pass in manner aforesaid
anyone or more of the following resolutions ... ', including: '(c) That a proposed alienation of
the land or any part thereof to any person other than the Crown be agreed to'. In 1971 there
were twenty-six owners listed for the Te Pahou blocks. Yet these clauses enabled four people
Internal memo re Ministerial regarding Jack and Sharon Taylor, Maori Trustees Office Rotorua, 12 May
1994, MT 13/1922 Series 1, Maori Trustees Office, Rotorua
T Wi Rutene, Maori Trustee's Office, Rotorua, to B Foley, Ministerials Officer, Maori Trust Head Office,
Wellington, 16 May 1996, MT 13/1922 Series 1, Maori Trustees Office, Rotorua
139 G A Poulgrain to Maori Trustee, Rotorua, 29 January 1992, MT 13/1922 Series 1, Maori Trustees Office,
Rotorua
I H Bode to the Office of the Maori Trustee, Rotorua, 1 October 1993, MT 13/1922 Series 1, Maori Trustees
Office, Rotorua
I H Bode to the Office of the Maori Trustee, Rotorua, 3 October 1994, MT 13/1922 Series 1, Maori Trustees
Office, Rotorua
140 H Hona, 'Draft Report on Wai 725', pp 65-68
138
51
with two proxy votes, representing 50.24992 out of a total of 168.23125 shares, to legally
alienate the land of a much larger group of people, a group who owned the majority of shares
in the land. It should however be noted that no objectors turned up to the Whakatane Maori
Land Court sittin? of 21 July 1971, at which the resolution that the Te Pahou blocks be leased
was confirmed. 14
Clause 323 (1) of the 1953 Act states that on the confirmation of a resolution for alienation of
land or for 'the variation of the terms or conditions of any lease, the Maori Trustee shall
become the statutory agent of the owners ... '. Thus the owners effectively hand over to the
Maori Trustee the power to make decisions concerning the land. These clauses of the 1953
Act do not appear to provide for the retention of Maori land under the direct control of the
owners. Such aspects of the Act, which legally allow for the almost total loss of control over
land by its Maori owners, might also be interpreted as a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi.
Ms Hona suggests that a major reason the owners decided to lease the land to the Presbyterian
Church Property Trustees was because the owners saw the Pukekohu farm as providing
training that was beneficial for Maori. She believes that the owners were not aware that the
lease on the farm could be sold to a private buyer.
Ms Hona points out that the Crown gave a great deal of support to the Presbyterian Church to
establish the Maori Boys Farm. The Presbyterian Church were offered a block of Crown land
for a very cheap price, 330 acres at 7s 6d an acre. In contrast the Government appears to have
given very little support to Ngati Whare and Ngati Manawa people to develop their own land.
Ms Hona points out that the Crown seems to have made no effort in the early 1980s to help
the owners of Te Pahou to buy back their lease or to regain the land of the Pukekohu farm.
She does not, however, tell us whether the owners made any approach to the Crown regarding
these matters. 142
Kereru Hune's occupation of the whanau cottage on the Te Pahou block raises some issues
concerning his own understanding of the lease agreement. The cottage, called Kereru' s whare
or Pigeon's whare, is located on the Te Pahou 2 block by the Tutaengaro Stream (known
locally as Pigeon's creek) and less than a kilometre from the Minginui road. Ms Hona states
that the fact that Kereru Hune and Taituha Taylor were living in the cottage until the latter
part of 1973 shows that Kereru Hune did not intend this land to be part of the Te Pahou
lease. 143
It will be recalled that it was Kereru Hune who had worked with his own solicitor to produce
the lease agreement accepted by the landowners and the Presbyterian Church Property
Trustees. It was Kereru Hune who proposed the motion that the meeting of owners should
adopt this proposal and agree to lease the land. Yet his continued occupation of the cottage on
the Te Pahou block, along with his reported setting aside of eleven acres of land in that area,
indicate that he did not fully agree with, or perhaps fully understand, the legal definition of
the lease. Mr Hune may have believed that the lease did not apply to the area of eleven acres
141 Order Confirming Resolution of Assembled Owners, Waiariki District MLC, 21 July 1971, MT 13/1922
Series 1, Maori Trustees Office, Rotorua. The Judge in this case was K Gillanders Scott, with I Kingi acting as
clerk/interpreter
Extract from Whakatane minute book 52, fol2S, 21 July 1971, MT 13/1922 Series 1, Maori Trustees Office,
Rotorua
142 Hona, 'Draft Report' , p 71
143 Hona, 'Draft Report' , p 70
52
around the old cottage, as Ms Rona has suggested. Another possibility is that Mr Rune
accepted that the area was covered by the lease, but did not realise that this could legally
prevent members of the whanau from using the land. 144
In her draft report Hiraina Rona had expressed particular concern over the area of eleven
acres around Kereru's whare, which she maintained was set aside for her whanau by her
grandfather Kereru Rune. In August 2001 a group of the descendants of Kereru Rune, among
whom Hiraina Rona was prominent, established a whanau trust, the full name of which was
Te Pou Tiaki Ukaipo 0 Kereru Kahupu Kereru Rune Matepo me Pani Taia Reurea Pani Te
Urupiua Porere Te Ao Tangohau Whanau. 145 The members of the trust were able to come to
an agreement with the Te Pahou lessee, Robert Smith, concerning occupation of the cottage
and surrounding lands. A signed hand written note from Mr Smith declared the trust 'can
occupy 3.55 acres along with a squared of (sic) area enclosing approx 10-12 acres bordered
by Minginui Rd & Farm Rd'. The note gave permission for the occupation to continue only
while Mr Smith could continue to farm the rest of the lease as agreed to with the Maori
Trustee. 146 On the basis of this note Judge P J Savage of the Maori Land Court granted an
occupation order to the whanau trust on 8 February 2002. At the same sitting Judge Savage
granted an order confirming the whanau's ownership of Kereru's whare. 147
8.4 Conclusions (b)- The lease of the Te Pahou blocks and the role of the Maori Trustee
The role of the Maori Trustee is questioned by Ms Rona's draft report and by the section of
the Wai 725 Statement of Claim that calls for the return of the Te Pahou blocks to their
owners. Ms Rona questions whether the Maori Trustee acted in the best interests of the
owners in renewing Nigel Bevin's lease given his record of late payments of rent. 148
Ms Rona made particularly strong objections to the fact that the Maori Trustee made no effort
to consult or inform the owners over the renewal of the lease for another twenty-one year
period. The Maori Trustee's office stated that, under the terms of the original lease as the rent
and rates had been paid up at the time of the lease's renewal and as the only breach of the
lease amounted to $300, renewal of the lease was automatic. The Trustee's office therefore
did not consider it necessary to take any steps to inform the owners that the lease had come up
for renewal. The Maori Trustee's office stated that breaches would have to be in the order of
$5,000-$6,000 before they would consider calling a meeting of the owners to obtain their
views regarding renewal of the lease. This would appear to be a case where the Maori
Trustee's actions were legal, but denied the owners any right to voice an opinion or make a
decision on the renewal of the lease. Ms Rona argues that the issue of renewal of the lease
demonstrates the lack of the accountability to the landowners of both the Maori Trustee and
the lessee. 149
144 Hona, 'Draft Report' , p 68
Minutes of Meeting of Owners, Te Pahou 2,3 and 4,13 February 1971, MT 13/1922 Series 1, Maori Trustees
Office, Rotorua
145 H Hona to the Maori Trustee, Rotorua, TW Rutene, 25 October 2001, MT 13/1922 Series 2, Maori Trustees
Office, Rotorua
146 Note by R Smith, Te Whaiti, 18 October 2001, , MT 13/1922 Series 2, Maori Trustees Office, Rotorua
147 Extract from RMB 263, 8 February 2002, fol249, , MT 13/1922 Series 2, Maori Trustees Office, Rotorua
148 Hona, 'Draft Report' , pp 76-78
149 Hona, 'Draft Report' , pp 78-79
T Wi Rutene, Maori Trustees Office, Rotorua, to B Foley, Ministerials Officer, Maori Trustees Head Office,
Wellington, 16 May 1994, MT 13/1922 Series 1, Maori Trustees Office, Rotorua
53
Ms Hona has also expressed her concern that the current lessee, Robert Smith, is not meeting
the terms of the lease. It is not possible from the information available to this researcher for
me to comment on whether the terms of the lease are being met.
54
Chapter Nine: Conclusions
9.1 The five acres of the Te Whaiti School grounds
It has proved difficult in this report to reach any firm conclusions regarding the initial
donation of the five-acre site for Te Whaiti School in 1895.
The official records show the donation as having been made by Wharepapa Whatanui, Pihopa
Tamehana, Hamiora Potakurua and Hiwawa. These official records are, however confined to
the notes made by R J Gill at a meeting held at Te Whaiti on 13 November 1895 and then
written up as a 'Report under "The Native School Sites Act 1880"', in the New Zealand
Gazette of March 19 1896. We do not currently have available any other reports from the
meeting at which this offer of land was made, although it is possible that such records do
exist. Gill's report from 1895 supports the idea that the five Ngati Whare leaders were indeed
the donors of the land. Gill took at face value the assertion that the five leaders were both the
owners and the donors of the land in question. We do not know how fluent Gill was in te reo
Maori or how aware he was of Ngati Whare and Tuhoe tikanga. It is therefore difficult to
judge how accurate his assessment of the situation was.
It is quite likely that the five Ngati Whare leaders were in fact making the donation of the
land on behalf of the wider hapu and iwi of the area. As such it is also likely that they were
not the sole owners of the five acres in question but were in fact making the donation on
behalf of other owners. Rama Te Tuhi may have been one of those with specific traditional
rights over the area in question. There is, however, no contemporary documentary evidence
of any role she might have played in the donation of the land. Oral history may help us to
define her role more precisely. The one thing clear from all accounts is that there appears to
have been no opposition to the donation of this land for a school site.
9.2 The land for the Police Station site
In the case of the donation of land for the Police Station site I was unable to locate any written
evidence of how the Crown acquired this site beyond the initial 1899 notice of the land being
taken under the Public Works Act 1894.
Written records of oral accounts from Ngati Whare in the 1950s clearly show that there was a
belief among them that the land had been gifted to the Police around 1895, on the condition
that it should be returned to Ngati Whare when no longer needed by the Police. Rama Te
Tuhi's claim to have been the donor of this land is the only claim I have found where a donor
is actually named. Despite this fact, the only evidence that Rama Te Tuhi was the donor of the
Police Station site is the Director of Education's letter of 8 August 1938, in which her claims
regarding donations of land are set out. This one letter, making a claim to have donated the
land over forty years earlier, does not offer very substantial proof of original ownership. Once
again oral history may provide extra evidence to back up Rama Te Tuhi' s claim of ownership.
Given that the land has now been returned to Ngati Whare the only potential Treaty issues
appear to be whether the land has been returned to the right people and whether any
compensation should be paid to the descendants of the original owners.
55
9.3 The Urewera Commissions and the individualisation of shares in land
With the investigation of titles by the Urewera Commissions, the lands that were part of the
Urewera District Native Reserve were divided into a large number of blocks. Individuals were
allotted shares in these blocks. The second Urewera Commission awarded the ownership of
the Te Whaiti block to Ngati Whare and Ngati Manawa, cutting Tuhoe out of owning any
shares except through connections with these other iwi. The Treaty issue involved here would
appear to be the determination of whether or not Tuhoe had rights to any lands in the Te
Whaiti area and therefore whether the Urewera Commissions' actions deprived Tuhoe of their
rights to Te Whaiti lands.
The individualisation of title, with shares being apportioned out to each individual, allowed
the piecemeal sale of land by individual shareholders for a variety of reasons. The Crown
chose to ignore any gatekeeping role that the General Committee could have performed. In
1914, the Crown chose instead to allow the Native Land Purchase Board to commence direct
purchases of undivided shares from individual owners in the Urewera District Native Reserve.
W H Bowler pursued a policy of trying to buy as many shares as possible from the Te Whaiti
block. The individualisation of shares in land, followed by a policy of aggressive purchasing
of shares, encouraged the alienation of land.
The division of the Te Whaiti block into Te Whaiti 1 and Te Whaiti 2 was a move that
facilitated an easier sale of the Te Whaiti 2 block, as the majority of shareholders in this block
did not live on or near the land in question. The separation of Ngati Manawa and Ngati Whare
shares did not have any basis in traditional usage, but appears to have been an arbitrary
decision on behalf of the Native Land Court.
The Crown further encouraged the alienation of land by preventing development on those
blocks of land in which they owned shares. Maori owners were made to account to the
Crown, as a fellow shareholder, for any profits made from a block in which the Crown also
owned shares. This factor, combined with the lack of financial or other forms of support for
the development of Maori land, encouraged Maori to see the sale of their shares in land as the
only way to raise any capital. Through such actions, non-sellers such as Rarna Te Tuhi were
left in a position where they were forced to accept the Urewera Consolidation scheme in order
to get clear title to some of their lands and therefore have a chance of making a living from
them.
The Crown's actions in carrying out all these processes need to be seriously examined in the
light of Crown responsibilities under the Treaty of Waitangi.
9.4 The Urewera Consolidation Scheme
No evidence has been uncovered to show that Rama Te Tuhi or the members of her whanau
supported or lobbied for a consolidation scheme for the Urewera lands. It appears likely that
this scheme was something they had to accept whether they liked it or not, in order to gain a
clear title to some of their lands. Through this scheme Rarna Te Tuhi and her whanau lost title
to some of the most valuable forest land in the Te Whaiti region. The area of land they ended
up with, the Te Pahou block and the Group F land in the Te Whaiti residue, was a much
smaller area than the Te Whaiti block they originally had shares in. Furthermore the land that
went to the Crown contained some of the most valuable forests for timber in the Te Whaiti
area.
56
A particularly suspect practice on the part of at least some representatives of the Crown,
Urewera Commissioner R J Knight for example, was that of continuing to buy up individual
shares while the consolidation process was going on. The Te Pahou blocks were directly
effected by this through Wharerimu Te Tapuke selling his shares in Group F before the
boundaries of the Te Pahou block were drawn up. This share sale would have meant that the
land area to be granted to Group F was considerably reduced, as Wharerimu Te Tapuke
owned over one tenth of the original Group F shares.
The Crown took forty-eight acres from the land that would otherwise have been designated to
the Te Pahou blocks, to pay for the costs of roads in the Te Whaiti area. The building of
arterial roads was the responsibility of the Crown. It only became a legal responsibility for
Urewera Maori through the Urewera Lands Act 1921 ~ 1922. The Te Whaiti section of the
Rotorua to Waikaremoana highway had been built in the 1890s for strategic regions and was
then maintained and extended as a tourist road, rather than for the benefit of Te Whaiti Maori.
The Minginui road was built in the 1920s to provide access for a Pakeha farmer and later
extended to provide access to timber. Again access for Maori was not a major consideration.
The taking of land to help pay for roading appears to have been yet another exercise by the
Crown to acquire as much land as possible in the Te Whaiti area (and in the Urewera in
general).
The seventy acres of land taken to pay for the survey of the Te Pahou block seems to have
been part of a process aimed at gaining more land for the Crown. Rama Te Tuhi and her
whanau had no choice other than to go along with a scheme they did not devise in order to
gain a clear title to some of their remaining traditional lands. The Crown benefited from this
scheme by gaining their own clear title to the land they had acquired in the Urewera. For this
scheme to be implemented it was necessary to carry out a considerable number of surveys.
The way the scheme was structured Maori ended up paying for all the surveys of their own
lands. Their payment to the Crown was in land, the only resource most of them had. The
Crown's imposition of the Urewera Consolidation Scheme and their forcing Maori to pay for
roading and surveys in land need to be examined to determine whether they are breaches of
the Crown's responsibilities under the Treaty.
9.5 Rama Te Tuhi's donation of land
In the case of Rama Te Tuhi' s gift of 2 acres 2 roods of land for a playing field for Te Whaiti
School, the Crown were very willing to accept this gift. They were not, however, prepared to
accept the conditions that Rama Te Tuhi sought to attach to the gift of land. Judge Harvey of
the Maori Land Court at Rotorua made a decision not to meet these conditions, but Mr Voice,
a Public Works official who gave evidence to the Court, stated that the Government
departments concerned had already come to the same decision.
It should be noted that the Crown was quite happy to pay compensation for the land and did
so. The problem that arose here was that the compensation was paid to the Waiariki District
Maori Land Board. There is a strong possibility that none of the compensation money found
its way through to the descendants of Rama Te Tuhi, especially given the fact that at the time
the compensation money was paid, in 1949, her successors had not yet been named.
57
The issues of compensation payments and of the recognition of Rama Te Tuhi's gift through
the formal naming of the Te Whaiti School playing field need to be considered in any
investigation of the Te Pahou claim.
9.6 The Police Station site
On the evidence available at present it is not clear who was the original donor of the land
which became the Police Station site. More proof of Mrs Te Tuhi having been the original
donor of the site needs to be provided before it can be argued that the Crown should recognise
her gift or compensate her whanau.
9.7 The lease of the Te Pahou blocks and the role of the Maori Trustee
A number of issues are raised by the events surrounding the lease of the Te Pahou blocks. The
initial decision to lease the land was perfectly legal in the context of Part XXIII of the Maori
Affairs Act 1953. It seems clear that this Act itself should be examined in the light of the
Treaty of Waitangi. The Act allows that a minority of owners with a minority of shares can
alienate an area of Maori land, as long as that group holds the majority of shares at a legally
constituted meeting of landowners. There is a serious argument that Part XXIII of the Maori
Affairs Act 1953 denies a large number of Maori land owners the ability to retain control over
their lands.
The decision of a small group of Te Pahou landowners to lease the block to the Presbyterian
Church Property Trustees raises the issue of Crown support for the Presbyterian Boys Farm
School, later called the Pukekohu Farm. The Crown were quite ready to provide cheap land
for the establishment of the Presbyterian Farm school, no doubt with the idea of helping
Maori, but seem to have been more reluctant to provide direct economic assistance for the
development of Maori land in the Te Whaiti area. Stronger Crown support for the
development of Maori land around Te Whaiti could well have meant that Te Pahou land
owners would not have seen the need to lease out their land to be developed by someone else.
The Crown showed a distinct lack of support for local Maori to develop their land. This can
also be contrasted with the Crown support for Pakeha farmers and loggers as shown by the
building of an access road for Mr McPherson in the 1920s.
The lack of accountability of the Maori Trustee to the owners of Te Pahou has been raised as
a major issue in Hiraina Hona's draft report. The claimant expresses the concern that the land
owners have very little say in what happens to their land once it is under the administration of
the Maori Trustee. The fact that the Trustee automatically renewed the lease of a lessee who
had on several different occasions been threatened with legal action due to rent arrears, raises
the question of whether the Maori Trustee was acting in the best interests of the landowners.
A major concern of the claimant is over lack of consultation, especially when issues such as
the renewal of the lease arise. It should be noted that the landowners were not even informed
of the renewal of the lease. The claimant has also expressed a major concern that the lease as
it exists denies the landowners access to their own land.
58
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Unpublished
LINZ Wellington
Plans
ML6612
ML6717
ML 16298
ML 18130
ML 13762/1
ML 13762/2
SO 21910
SO 23014
SO 38214
LINZ Hamilton
Plans
Plan B 86
National Archives Wellington
Files
Maori Affairs
MA 1 2114A School Sites
MA 1 29/417a, Urewera Lands Scheme, Balneavis file, 1920-1925
MA 1 29/417 Part 1 Urewera Consolidation 1921-1924
MA 1 29/417 Part 1 Urewera Consolidation 1924-1928
MA 1 28/417/1 Urewera Consolidation roading 1927-1957 Tuhoe Trust Board file
Lands and Survey
LS 16/2914 Minginui Road
Works
W w2108 311412/1 Te Whaiti Native School land 1938-1957
AAQU w 3428 311412/1 Te Whaiti School lands 1985
ABWN 6095 w5021161736 Ruatoki-Ruatahuna Road
Native Land Court/Maori Land Court minute books
Rotorua minute book 90
Rotorua minute book 92
Rotorua minute book 115
Whakatane minute book 27
National Archives Auckland
Education
BAAA 1001l628a Te Whaiti School
E 39/2011110 (BAPP 5113/1368b Auckland NA) Te Whaiti School Residence legalisation
Works
BAAS Acc A269 33e 25/14 Minginui Road 1947-1952
AATE Acc A934 299a 34/30 Vol 1 Te Whaiti 1934-1946
59
Maori Trustees Office Rotorua
MT 13/1922 Series 1 Te Pahou 2, 3, and 4
MT 13/1922 Series 2 Te Pahou 2, 3, and 4
LINZ Hamilton
6900/133 (20/133) Te Pahou
6900/487 (20/487)Vol1 Te Whaiti Block 1906-1931
6900/487, (20/487)Vol2 Te Whaiti Block 19310nwards
Waiariki District Maori Land Court Rotorua
Files
Block Order File 689, Box 621 Te Pahou 2, 3, and 4
Memorial Schedule 104B, Te Pahou 2,3 and 4, Waiarild MLC, Rotorua
Te Pahou 1-4 Court Correspondence Closed File
Minute books
Urewera minute book 1, Consolidation Commission, 1921-1923
Urewera minute book 2A, Consolidation Commission 1923-1925
Presbyterian Archives, Knox College, Dunedin
GAl75, 99/12/36 Church Property Trustees, Pukekohu farm Te Whaiti
Published Primary Sources
Appendices to the Journals a/the House a/Representatives (AJHRs)
New Zealand Gazette
Reports
S K L Campbell, 'Land Alienation, Consolidation and Development in the Urewera, 19121950', Urewera Overview Project, CFRT, 1997
P Cleaver, 'Urewera Roading', draft report, CFRT, 2002
H Hona 'Scoping Report for Wai 725: Te Pahou blocks, Te Whaiti', Waitangi Tribunal, 1999
H Hona, 'Draft Report on Te Pahou Blocks claim', CFRT 2001
A Miles, 'Te Urewera', Rangahaua Whanui Report, Waitangi Tribunal, 1999
K Neumann and J Hutton, 'Ngati Whare and the Crown', Draft Report for CFRT 2001
Theses
R Wiri, 'The Prophecies of the Great Canyon of Toi: A History of Te Whaiti-nui-a -Toi in the
Western Urewera Mountains of New Zealand', Phd thesis, University of Auckland, 2001
Published works
E Best, Tuhoe: The Children a/the Mist, Vols 1 and 2, Auckland, 1996
Te Whaiti School Reunion: Labour Weekend 1988, Te Whaiti School, Te Whaiti, 1989
60