PEKEHAUA PUNA RESERVE HAMURANA SPRINGS ......To my whanau both past and present, especially my uncle...

RECEIVED W~jtangi Tribunal

27 APR 2004 -.. '-~

Ministry 01 Justice WELLfNGTON

PEKEHAUA PUNA RESERVE & HAMURANA SPRINGS

RESERVE

Kere Troy Cookson-Ua BSocSci, LLB

This Report was Commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal for the

Pekehaua Puna Reserve and Hamurana Springs Reserve

Claims (Wai 218 & 219)

February 1996

The Registrar

Waitangi Tribunal

P.O. Box 5022

WELLINGTON

7 March 1996

Tawakeheimoa,

Tarimano Marae

Gloucester Road

Awahou

RE9~~VEO Waltanai Tribunal

27 APR 2004 Ministry of Justice

WELLINGTON

Tena koutou me nga ahuatanga 0 te wa. 0 tatou mate noho mai I te Ao Wairua. Tatou 0 te

Ao Ora kia ora tatou katoa.

We as representatives of Ngati Rangiwewehi make the following recommendations:

(a) That Part Mangorewa Kaharoa 6E3 N02 Pekehaua Puna Reserve and sections 41 & 42 ;

and part section 12 part Mangorewa Kaharoa 7 A2B plus lands and difference of kind be

conveyed back to Ngati Rangiwewehi;

(b) That the Administation of the above lands be entrusted and vested in an appropriate

body with a mandate to administer such by the people of Ngati Rangiwewehi;

(c) That Ngati Rangiwewehi be granted exclusive rights to all freshwater springs within

Mangorewa Kaharoa 6E3 N02 and sections 41 & 42 and part section 12 part Mangorewa

Kaharoa for their own use,recreation, and enjoyment;

(d) That alternative arrangements be made between Ngati Rangiwewehi and the Rotorua

District Council for the continued use of Part Mangorewa Kaharoa 6E3 N02 as a pump site;

(e) That all existing water rights in relation to the lands outlined in para 1 -be reviewed and

alternative arrangements made between Ngati Rangiwewehi and the Rotorua District Council

with a view to Ngati Rangiwewehi receiving part levy for the continued use of any water

intended for public benefit;

(f) That all future water rights, licences and all activ~ties affeCting all resources under and

upon the I~ds outlined in para 1 be regulated by NgJti Rangiwewehi;

(g) That Compensation be paid retrospectively to Ngati Rangiwewehi in relation to:

(i) the use of Part Mangorewa Kaharo~ 6E3N02 from 23 August 1976 to the

present; and

(ii) the injurious affection through loss of goodwill to Hamurana Springs as

a tourist destination between 1896 and the present;

(h) That the Crown forward a written acknowledgement of Ngati Rangiwewehi' s rights

to rangatiratanga over all lands and fresh water springs which are the subject of this

claim along with a written assurance that Ngati Rangiwewehi will be involved in ail

future decisions likely to affect it's interests in relation to these resources.

We would like the Tribunal to note that we endorse th~ inclusion of these recommendations

in Kere Cookson-Ua's report.

Na matou noa,

Na,

Poora Maxwell/7 2 ~7

Karorina Walker 1(.f1/.W~.

Mere Rawinia Ferguson ~ ~ ! Uenuku Fairhall ~

Kahuariki Hancock

(for the Ngati Rangiwewehi Research Team)

Sam Hahunga

Walter Bidiois ~ ,/ 4!LS~"-7

D . Th· ,----tJ;J enrus ompson: ~,M?~

(for the Awahou Marne Execut(ve)

CONTENTS

Map 1: Bay of Plenty Region..... ........... .............. .................... ......... ........ 1 Map 2: Rotorua District. ... " ............................ , .......... ,. .. .. ...... ... ....... ...... 2 Map 3: Part Mangorewa Kaharoa 6E3 N02............................................. 5 Map 4: Hamurana Springs Reserve.......................................................... 6 Map 5: Pukehinahina. .... . .. . .. . ....... . . . ..... . .. . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . ... .. . .. . .. . . ... . . .. 12 Map 6: Puhirua. . . . . . . .. .. .. . . .. .. . . . .. . . .. . .. .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. ... .. . .. ... . . . . . . .. 18

Table 1: Breakdown of SellerslNon-Sellers............................................... 22 Table 2: Breakdown of Original Subdivisions of Mangorewa Kaharoa...... 23 Table 3: Original Owners of Mango rewa Kaharoa No7............................. 25 Table 4: Breakdown of 1897 Subdivisions of Mangorewa Kaharoa N07... 26

Plate 1: Tourists at Hamurana................. ..................... ............................ 43 Plate 2: "Lifting a Hangi Next to the Awahou River"............................... 65

ACKN'OWLEDGEMENTS....................................................................... I STATEMENT OF CLAIM (WAI 218)).................................................... 11

STATEMENT OF CLAIM (W AI 219)..................................................... iii DIRECTIONS COMMISSIONING RESEARCH..................................... lV

EXECUTIVE SUMMARy....................................................................... V1

INTRODUCTION................ ............................................................ ........ lX

1. The Claim.................................................... . .. . .. . . . . .. . .. . ..... ... ... ... .. . .. .. . . .. 3 2. Historical Context: Rotorua Lakes District............................................ 8 3. Mangorewa Kaharoa: Original Award................................................... 14 4. The Government Partition..................................................................... 21 5. Crown Purchase Activities: 1895-1896................................................. 29 6. Gill's Swing Line................... ....................................... .......... ........ ...... 38 7. Taniwha Springs:Taking of Pump Site.................................................. 46 8. Water Resource............. ....................................... ................................ 58 9. Addendum: Compensation........................ ............................................ 54

10 Conclusions & Recommendations....... ..... ....... ..... .... .............. .............. 72

Bibliography...................... ....................................................................... 77

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Completing a project of this nature is always bitter sweet. A sense of relief knowing you've

typed your last page, and yet a tinge of sadness knowing that something else beckons. On

reflection it feels like deja vu for it was one hundred years almost to the day that Ngati

Rangiwewehi left the Court at Ohinemutu suffering a burden they probably carried with them

for the rest of their lives. When I first undertook this research those responsible for giving me

the opportunity probably knew more about my Ngati Rangiwewehi connections than 1. As I

sifted through the material I contemplated the role of my tupuna Matenga Te Waharoa and the

irony of my involvement in this claim became somewhat more apparent. To all of Ngati

Rangiwewehi I extend my deepest gratitude, not only for an experience which has contributed

to my own personal growth and which I will always treasure, but also for giving me the

opportunity to make some contribution to healing past wrongs.

In addition to the specific acknowledgements that follow, I would also like to acknowledge

those ofNgati Rangiwewehi who have gone before me- men, women and children who amidst

what must have been immense frustration, anguish and loss still found the strength to fight this

battle. Some things in life simply endure and it is in your memory that I humble myself.

To my whanau both past and present, especially my uncle Hiko Hohepa and my aunty Te Ao

Huakirangi Waetford for your invaluable support. To those members ofNgati Rangiwewehi

who told their stories. To Sam Hahunga for giving impetus to this claim. To Andrew

Thompson, archivist at the Rotorua District Council for your endless patience. To the

members of New Cardinal Enterprises and in particular Toro and Yvonne Bidiois, Kahuariki

and Rikihana Hancock, as well as Tipene Clarke and Dennis Polamalu for the grass-roots work

which is always invaluable with research of this nature. To Wini Rewiti for your help in the

Maori Land Court, Rawinia Ferguson for your organisational skills, Karorina Walker for your

thoughts, and of course Uenuku Fairhall for your valuable guidance. To Paora Maxwell a

special word of thanks for the humour, goodwill and professionalism you displayed

throughout this whole project. To my partner Mahalia Paewai who despite excessive coffee

bills, late nights and prolonged absences always gave encouragement and support. Finally I

would like to thank: everyone who took part in this report either directly through the research

itself or indirectly through a commitment to have the rights of Maori to te tino rangatiratanga

recognised.

Kere T. Cookson-Ua

l..:. .. .§..?Ji .. R"AnYNGFc ior: myself and for PEKEFD\UA P(iNA TRuS'rEES u:~ . ,

AW~ll:!O\l: Rotorua claim t.o be prejudicially' C!.ffected by the actions

0;' ~;jle r.:rowu. (.1.> In ::.cquiri~.g t=.tle to the -!..ana sur:collIlding our fresh l<la'l:e::

sp:::.!.ug, cOIDlaoul.y 1:.0.0\'111 as Tani'l:lha :springs, by use of the

Pd::lic i'To:;:ks ?-_ct, v.i...thout 'L'ribal sar!ctioIl and approval

(~.::.). ,::1flC after acq-u.iring title to our land. the Cr(lWll the::t

';'ll's·~~ed the :eight to d::!:a'l-/ tl1ater :from o'.lr spriug,t'lithc.ll.i.t.

Tribal sarlction or approva.l (and lI:ithout a \'1ater right) • I ,

i . (.l.i .. i...)t.·~.::!t the Crown only acquired c. water right in November 1990

;

(i.Vi r:::.:'t: t.he. Cro~'!l failed. t.o C'.ssure to the T.;ibe. t:!~e

ll:::.-c:;tric'o::ea and exclll!;ive o·,·mership and !i\.e.llagemsnt of tbl?

r;;;:.=tng water resource uut;l.cr c:.nd !t1.l?on the 1 r.::nd , and. ':'ll

fc:.i1.ing to reg-.llate the use it diluinished o:b.e Tribes use

i:.J"-d -enjQp:leI~t of t.bat resource.

EJ!.1.Lt;:J:0:..:£fi that such action 'J1C!.S and i:; cont:::::-ary t.o the principles

ut L'.le Treaty of i"7D.itangi

day of

Sa:!!l Rilhunga for lIty!'.elf

and o~ behalf of ?ekehaua Puna T=ustoes and Ngati RaL\.gtwcv/flhi 'l'r'ibe

1991

Tbis claim is tiled by Donna M T T Durie-Hall whose address for

ser-vice is at 4th Floor., Druids Cba.mbe~s, ~lo 1 t'loodward street, , ~"el.UIlgton. ph (oq ~99 1195 Fa.-c (04~ 4!J9 2008 DPl

11

J, SI-l'[ ii..!.Jl1JH .. GJi.. j:or myself c\Jld. tor NGAT~Jh.~Gl1';-EWEfLr. oi A·;rahou I

RO\;~)r.Uil cl.aim to be !,'rejw:i.ici.ally a.ifect~d by the actiollS of tho.

C:!:oIJm. ;

(1) ILl. acquil."iu.g title t.o the ITwnurian.,. Sp'rings ReGerve: by

f/' , ,-<-,

buy.i.!J.S indiviciul1.1 interests ':Iii:hollt tr5..baJ. scSnr:tioll 'Jr.

oversight (':')ld ~/i thout the epprlYJaJ. of the Haor':' T ... :llld.

then j?£l.rti t.ioning in".erests to ~~solute pcssesGioD of those gert&~ and

~.:.'. iniJ.5.uq to recogo5 .. ze 1311d a5sure to the T,"J.b..., 'cJJ'J

uIl!:'e:Jt.ri,::ted Cl;Jd e;.:cJ.usive ownership and ml:!.r:agl~mC:!!J.t 07. tb.e

l::p]:i!lg \'/Clter ):esource upon and under t.h.e land

<:i.i:td cIa.i.!:1 t.hat such c.ctioll ';IC:l.S and is cor.trary to the p::i!lC5 .. ple:~

cd !:/I(~ '.treats- of 'i'ie.i·tangi

clay of.

SaJn lia.b.m qa, tor myself

auci on ba!Hltf. of Nc;a1.:i

i i I I I

~. 1991

ri'llis r;J..l.ir,: is filed by Douns. M T T Durie':"'Fiall whose address for '.

5eri.":i.f:l~ is at 4i:h Floor, Druids Ch.:.rr.bers I- No 1 l'j·oodwarci. Stref.lt,

'fIe.Llillq::Ol). Ph (04) 4.~9 1195 Fax (04) ~99 ~~OO·B

DPl

Ul

•

DUPLI CAr£2181219 W AlTANGI TRIBUNAL

CONCERNING

AND CONCERNING

DIRECTION COMMISSIONING RESEARCH

ti).e Treaty ofWaitangi Act 1975

The Taniwha springs and the Hamurana springs claims.

Pursuant to clause 5A(l) of the second schedule of the Treaty ofWaitangi Act 1975. the Tribunal commissions Paora Maxwell of Au'cJdand on behalf of the Ngati Rangiwewehi Research team to complete on behalf of the claimants a research report for this claim covering the following matters:

(a) the coUation and transcription of all available information relating- to the alienation of land included in the Hamurama springs reserve and surrounding the Hamurama springs, and the land surrounding the Taniwha springs

(b) the collation and transcription of all information relating to the way in which the Crown assumed rights to the water from the Hamurana springs and the Taniwha springs

(c) the collation and transcription of all available infomlation leading to the loss to the Tribe of its unrestricted and exclusive ownership and management of the spring water resource upon and under the land. -

(d) the preparation of a comprehensi~e report on all the above factors together with any other matters deemed to be important in determining the ownership and control of the two springs and their water.

2 This commission commences on receipt of written confirmation of the cornmissionec' s acceptance of the terms and conditions of the commission.

page 2. The cornrnission ends ....

IV

3 The commission ends on 10 March 1996 at which time two copies of the report will be filed in an unbound state together with an indexed document bank and a copy of report on disk. ' '

I

4 The report may be received as evidencc and tM commissionee may be cross examined on ~ !

;

• i

5 The Registrar is to send copies of this direction to:

Winnie Rewcti for Ngati Rangiwewehi Research Claimants I

Claimant Counsel Solicitor General, Crown Law Office Director, Office of Treaty Settlements. Executive Officer, Crown Forestry Rcntal Trust

Dated at Wellington this ),1'1'- day of June 1995 .

• r I

A' :t%-~ I //;'I.f/l' ( «til.,· ....... ~" ,_ .,.-.~- ...

Chief Judge E T J Durie Chairperson WAITANGI TRIllUNAL

v

EXECUTIVE Sillv1N1AR Y

Mangorewa Kaharoa is situated on the northern shores of Lake Rotorua and was once an area

comprising just under 43,000 acres. From at least the time of Whakaue right up until the

present Mangorewa Kaharoa has been the tribal area of Ngati Rangiwewehi: Ngati

Rangiwewehi are a hapu or sub-tribe of the early inhabitants of the Bay of Plenty region who

came to Aotearoa on the Arawa waka and now are commonly referred to as Te Arawa.

Throughout this long period of occupation Ngati Rangiwewehi's mana has remained in tact

and this is evident by the fact that at no stage Ngati Rangiwewehi were ever forced off this

land. The main areas of Ngati Rangiwewehi settlement were around Te Awahou on the

western side of the block and Hamurana at the eastern side of the Block. Although settlement

was concentrated around these two areas Ngati Rangiwewehi utilised various resources

throughout the whole block. Both areas of land which are the subject of this claim contribute

not only to Ngati Rangiwewehi's mana and connection to their tupuna, but also their strong

sense of identity as a tribal unit.

Most of the lands within Ngati Rangiwewehi's domain was covered in bush and forest. The

ngahere was a rich source of food and played an integral role in the lives of Ngati

Rangiwewehi. The fresh water springs and rivers within Mangorewa Kaharoa also provided

sustenance for the local inhabitants the most popular of which being eels, kokopu, inanga,

toitoi, koura, and towards the end of the nineteenth century, trout. Today there are a number

of historic sites in and around Hamurana and Taniwha Springs including kainga, urupa,

mahinga kai, and traditional pa sites.

The original investigation of title to the Mangorewa Kaharoa block was brought in 1882 the

result being an award of 42,185 acres in favour ofNgati Rangiwewehi and 28 of its affiliate

hapu. In accordance with Court instructions Ngati Rangiwewehi submitted a list of owners

numbering 386 persons from these 28 hapu. In June 1893 Richard John Gill was authorised

under the Native Land Purchase Act Amendment Act 1892 to begin acting as Native Land

Purchase Officer in the Rotorua district. In June 1895 Gill began purchasing Ngati

Rangiwewehi's interests in Mangorewa Kaharoa, finally acquiring 510 of the 1,543 shares

which equated to approximately one third of the total Mangorewa Kaharoa block. In 1896

Gill applied to have the Crown's interests defined by the Native Land Court. This case

became known as the 1896 Government Partition. Gill asked and was successful in having the

Crown's interests cut out of the eastern side of the block. The result of this case was the

subdivision of Mangorewa Kaharoa into six subdivisions. The Crown was awarded

Vl

subdivision Nol in the eastern portion of the block and which amounted to 14, 185 acres.

Subdivision No's 2,3, and 4 amounting to 12 acres and being within the Crown award were

set aside as urupa for Ngati Rangiwewehi. Subdivision No 5 in the northern portion of the

block amounted to 801 acres which was awarded to the Crown in order to liquidate a survey

lien (£ 180 7s 6d) charged against the land. Finally, subdivision No 6 in the western portion

of Mangorewa Kaharoa comprising the remaining 28,668 acres was awarded to Ngati

Rangiwewehi. An appeal in 1897 resulted in the creation offive more subdivisions and so at

the conclusion of this case Mangorewa Kaharoa was divided up into 11 subdivisions.

Hamurana Springs Reserve containing approximately 86 acres falls within the boundaries of the

original Mangorewa Kaharoa No 1 block awarded to the Crown in 1896. Within this reserve

are fifteen freshwater springs the most notable being Te Puna-i-Hangarua. Part Mangorewa

Kaharoa 6E3 N02 Pekehaua Puna Reserve is an area containing less than an acre of land

forming part of Mangorewa Kaharoa N06E3 N02 which is a subdivision of the original

Mangorewa Kaharoa N06 award to Ngati Rangiwewehi in 1896. Both Hamurana Springs

Reserve and Part Pekehaua Puna Reserve 6E3 N02 are the subject of two separate claims (Wai

218 & 219) dealt with in this report. Ngati Rangiwewehi claim to have been prejudicially

affected by the Crown in respect of the alienation of both these areas of land including all

freshwater springs contained within them.

The issues relating to Ngati Rangiwewehi's grievance in respect ofHamurana Springs centre

around the purchasing activities of Richard Gill between June, 1895 and February, 1896.

Ngati Rangiwewehi claim that their interests in Mangorewa Kaharoa were sold to Gill on the

proviso that the Crown's interests would be cut out of the back of Mangorewa Kaharoa.

Ngati Rangiwewehi's view is that they have valid grievance in terms of the 1896 Crown award

which resulted in them losing control and ownership over their natural resources including all

freshwater springs within Hamurana Springs Reserve.

Ngati Rangiwewehi's grievances in relation to Taniwha Springs centre around the compulsory

acquisition of part Mangorewa Kaharoa 6E3 N02 Pekehaua Puna Reserve in 1966. This land

was taken under the Public Works Act 1928 for the construction of a pump site which has

serviced the Ngongotaha water reticulation scheme from that time up until the present. Ngati

Rangiwewehi views this acquisition as undermining it's right to control not only the lands over

which it has established manawhenua, but also the fresh water spring Te Waro-Uri over which

they and nobody else are the rightful kaitiaki.

VII

Uppermost in the minds ofNgati Rangiwewehi is the desire to maintain control and possession

over their cultural heritage. Ngati Rangiwewehi view the alienation of both areas ofland as

well as the subsequent loss of control over all freshwater springs in relation to them as striking

at the very heart of Ngati Rangiwewehi's identity. These actions according to Ngati

Rangiwewehi constitute a breach of their rights under the Treaty ofWaitangi and the Crown

should be held to account.

viii

INTRODUCTION

Personal

My name is Kere Troy Cookson-Ua. In 1995 I graduated from the University ofWaikato with

a Bachelor of Social Science degree, and in 1996 with a Bachelor of Laws degree. I am

currently enrolled part time completing a Post Graduate Diploma in Public Policy. I have had

research experience working with Crown Forestry Rental Trust, The Law Commission,

various claimant groups, as well as public and private sector organisations. I am now working

full time as a freelance researcher.

The report

This report is directed towards carrying out three main objects, all outlined in the Waitangi

Tribunal's ''Direction Commissioning Research". These objects involved the collation and

transcription of all information relating to: (1) the alienation of part Mangorewa Kaharoa 6E3

N02PekehauaPunaReserve as well as sections 41 & 42 and part Mangorewa Kaharoa 7A2B;

(2) the way in which the Crown assumed water rights in respect of both pieces ofland; and (3)

the loss to Ngati Rangiwewehi of its tino rangatiratanga. The issues arising from this

investigation, as well as any other relevant matters relating to the ownership and control of the

springs and their waters within these defined areas are to be delivered in report form.

Contents

This report consists of a written text presented in a single volume with all information relative

to both claims (Wai 218 & 219) incorporated therein. This volume also includes two

statements of cla.im, the Tribunal's ''Direction Commissioning Research", an executive

summary, an alphabetically listed bibliography, and a number of attached appendices.

Further avenues of study

One of the major difficulties posed by this research was the availability of relevant information.

This was a problem experienced almost throughout all stages of the research and has in various

instances made it difficult to gain a clear understanding of what was happening between the

Crown or its agents, and Ngati Rangiwewehi. The area most affected by this was the issue of

IX

compensation. The lack of information led us to rely on oral evidence which suggested that

no compensation was paid out in relation to the public works taking of Part Mangorewa

Kaharoa 6E3 N02. It was assumed that this was the case given the fact that information to

this effect came from a number of sources including the County Clerk who was directly

involved in the negotiations for the use of Part Mangorewa Kaharoa 6E3 N02 prior to its

taking in 1966 under the Public Works Act 1928. At a very late stage information came to

light indicating that compensation was in fact paid to Ngati Rangiwewehi. However, at the

time of writing it was not clear whether this payment was made in respect of Part Mangorewa

Kaharoa 6E3 N02 or another block in the vicinity ofTaniwha Springs. What is known about

compensation has been included as an addendum. Clearly though, this is an area which needs

more research.

x

Map 1: The region within which Mangorewa Kahaora falls

. . \ .. " ...... ,,,.,.. ~ Moliti Island W . MolUn'u Is/Gnd

1

Map 2: The approximate location of Part Mangorewa Kaharoa 6E3 Nb2 Pekehaua Puna Reserve and sections 41

& 42 and part section 12 Mangorewa Kaharoa 7A2B (Hamurana Springs Reserve)

0-Co .:s '~

~ i'±:::~::i-"T---+_---~t;:{

:r

----------.----.--

: .... !

i ,""/ 1_ t_' • C',",

/. ,l----:-!---t-------f-----"-r-:---- -_.. en

",

.. ~/ .... - "

. ,," .

-+--~-----~~-----r------~ ~ ~'-:~

. ..... ...... :~\. .; ..... "

2

Chapter 1

The Claim

The aim of this report is to provide an overview, a geographical and historical account of events

relating to two areas ofland on the north western shores of Lake Rotorua in the central North

Island. The two areas of land in question are Pekehaua Puna Reserve and Hamurana Springs

Reserve. The legal description for these two pieces of land are part Mangorewa Kaharoa 6E3

No2 Pekehaua Puna Reserve (hereinafter "Pekehaua Puna Reserve") and sections 41 & 42 and

part section 12 and part Mangorewa Kaharoa 7 A2B (hereinafter ''Hamurana Springs Reserve")

respectively.

Pekehaua Puna Reserve and Hamurana Springs Reserve are the subject of two separate claims1

lodged with the Waitangi Tribunal on 20 June 1991. Both claims were lodged by Mr Sam

Hahunga, Taniwha Springs r.:w ai 218) being on behalf of Pekehaua Puna Trustees and

Hamurana Springs Reserve being on behalf of Ngati Rangiwewehi. The block histories and all

issues surrounding the claimants grievances in relation to both claims have been integrated into

the one report. The reason for this is twofold-firstly, both areas of land are subdivisions of

blocks which originally formed part of what is commonly referred to as the Mangorewa

Kaharoa block; and secondly, the affected tribal group Ngati Rangiwewehi is the same party

in respect of both claims.

Pekehaua Puna Reserve is situated near Tarimano marae at Te Awahou approximately 2.5

kilometres north of the township ofNgongotaha on the north western side of Lake Rotorua.

Its parent block is Mangorewa Kaharoa 6E3 No2 (hereinafter "Taniwha Springs"). Pekehaua

Puna Reserve is a lot containing 0:3:36.6 acres and is a triangular section adjacent to the

Awahou stream just below the road where Central Road intersects with Hamurana Road.2 The

Awahou Stream runs through Taniwha Springs into Lake Rotorua, its source being situated

within the block itself. Hamurana Springs Reserve is situated on the northern edge of lake

Rotorua. The lot contains 86:2:05 acres (37.0286 ha) and is a rectangular portion of land

surrounding the freshwater springs at Hamurana (hereinafter ''Hamurana Springs") near the

intersection of Turner Road and Hamurana Road.3 The land surrounding Pekehaua Puna

Reserve and Hamurana Springs Reserve consists of rolling grasslands and is mainly utilised for

pastoral purposes. Taniwha Springs, Hamurana Springs, and all surrounding lands are held to

3

be of great cultural and spiritual significance to the people ofNgati Rangiwewehi who have a

long history of occupation in the area. The freshwater springs within Taniwha Springs and

Hamurana Springs Reserve are intimately connected to one another and this is apparent from

the stories which are part ofNgati Rangiwewehi tradition and have been passed down since

time immemorial. These freshwater springs were once occupied by taniwha renowned for their

role as kaitiaki over the whole ofNgati Rangiwewehi. Hamurana Springs was the home of a

female taniwha named Hinerua while the freshwater springs within Mangorewa Kaharoa 6E3

N02 provided a lair for the famous taniwha Pekehaua. It is said that the fresh water springs at

Taniwha and Hamurana Springs reserves are connected by underground waterways which were

traversed by both taniwha who it is said maintained links between the two waterways by

meeting from time to time on a fairly regular basis.

Both areas of land contribute to Ngati Rangiwewehi1s strong sense of self identification and

mana to the Awahou and Kaikaitahuna rivers as well as all surrounding fresh water springs and

land. Traditionally Ngati Rangiwewehi alone have had sole rights to exercise mana over all

fresh water springs in this area. Their mana is evident by the authority of legal precedents such

as mana, tapu, and rahui etc., which defined people's relationships with natural resources within

Mangorewa Kaharoa and were exercised in accordance with Ngati Rangiwewehi kawa. The

mana of Ngati Rangiwewehi not just over the springs themselves, but also over all surrounding

lands is what forms the basis of these two claims.

Summary

• This claim relates to two areas of land on the Northwestern shores of Lake Rotorua,

Part Mangorewa Kaharoa 6E3 N02 (pekehaua Puna Reserve) and sections 41 & 42 and

part section 12 Mangorewa Kaharoa 7A2B(Hamurana Springs Reserve). Pekehaua

Puna Reserve contains an area of 0:3:3:36.6 acres while Hamurana Springs Reserve

is an area containing 86:2:05 acres.

• Both areas ofland are situate in and around a number of freshwater springs which are

of deep cultural and spiritual significance to the claimants.

4

U1

/.

~ _ .... ,I.IJ.I,

~' . }~ t ~,r

I'" "

I

/. _.or., . .'\ I \ ..... ' '. It .• ,: •

r,;} ~

.1-l 1\1. ,)'

L. IB~=>2

~tz, ~'Y

l'V V

G>

.:' ..

.:oz" JS· zoO

I; /:

..,~' .,,",

if, ,I~ ,1 ..

".r "

'7J'cJ

....... -~ ... ..-:. ~'I"d

0:'-

I'I.L.3

( II.L.2057('

-t' .. .. ·~o .. Ma~rev.u Kalzaroa C

Pck~haua - PunCT .,.

d;.;"c.,. c. ~ "''''",> .. J'

"".. of-

.--::. .... ~.... 'Q/or "I'~

-.: "o~

(.801. .:Jr'c:a Sac.

LAND 10 I -~I~E~.

TOTAL AR£'A" Oac.-3ro.-.35·6,P

: .... S~~':[T~"'1 ftVD,,' ;([...6I~.fllLJJ.~

. I.,} 1$.10. 65 ?~

;: ... ::]jJ"i.z::':.:':::::-:':::: 1' .. (11.,.,1 .. ___ ••• _._ .... ___ ..... __ ••••• _

'C,,"(I "oll._.!:!J..~!..f.~J_~ .. ____ _ 1:.f.·.:I..f'£ .................... -... -....... . II ...... ~",1.2., .. §.9.::§L .. . """ ... I.~£,!!.,-'-I.. ...... . .• II ... , I

--:.--.-._------_ ..

0. J . .JX. :P.; 6£3 A.-oZ ~ \ ~

PLAN OF LAND TO.8E TAKEN FOR WATER SUPPLY pUPa,

BEING .PART MANGOREWA KAlIAROA 6£3No2 f'APAKAINCA PEKEHAUA-PUNA RESERVE [

Survey Bloclt & District .... §!::~ ... ~!..LJ?J2T...Q..-f.(!A ..... S ... k.: ........................................... . land Distri, .~~~ .. A.(L~K.~!.:lt.Y.P. ........ local 8ody.&qz:-~ .?!1. .... ff}l!.«!X, .... {Q(!tY.Q.(...:.: 5"lc .9..Q!-:t.i;?!:.~.!.t?.£'2.!.'?£~?... ... Survtytd bY .. !Y..z..M..:'.(;~(!.q.9.!?. ......... D3tt ... t.1.¥.f..:J..;J.§;?:, ..... _-_... .

. ..-..... __ ._--_._-_._-_.. ._-- ---

~ ~ w >-c ~ ~ §

(Jt:I o a ~ po

~ ~ 8 po

0\ trl w Z o N >-c n :r. g. III s:: po

~ po

~ ~

-.-.-~ ~ g-po s:: ~

>-c § po

~ en

~ ~

Map 4: sections 41 & 42 and part section 12 MangorcwaKaharoa 7A2B (Hamurana Springs Rcservc)

~~'Uddq'b'd:ili-f-- ""i-~i :!~f-,-i-'-i+i-'-i+i-/~+~-'-i" --JOt • II .. .. .. • .... III ... _ 1M .... "" ......

.....,.'""" ~,.. ... .. -

" "" ".

6

References

1. see statements of claim in this report at ii & iii

2. see this report at 5


7

Chapter 2

Historical Context: Rotorua Lakes District

The Rotorua Lakes area forms part of a long and narrow volcanic belt that extends in a more or

less straight line from Mt Ruapehu in the south, through Taupo and Rotorua to White Island, and

on via the Kermadec Islands as far as Tonga. 1 This section of the volcanic belt is commonly

referred to as the Taupo Volcanic Zone. The many scenically beautiful lakes are a trademark of

the Rotorua Lakes area which include, the Blue and Green lakes, Taupo, Tarawera, Okareka,

Okotaina, Rotoiti, Rotoehu, Rotoma, and Rotorua. In its natural state the land in and around the

Rotorua district would have composed extensive flats covered with stunted scrub and tussock,

and hills covered with fern, manuka and bush.

The open country of the Rotorua district was difficult to get to right up until the mid-nineteenth

century and the soils were not considered ideal for agricultural purposes. This was largely due

to the lack of cobalt in the soil, which once discovered was found to be the key to successful

farming in the district. Apart from the successful development of farming in the Rotorua area

tourism has and still does continue to develop as a economically viable industry in the area.

Tourism initially flourished last century and for the most part was successful due to attractions

such the Pink and White Terraces which were catastrophically destroyed with the eruption ofMt

Tarawera in 1886. Although the eruption resulted in a great loss to local Maori there were plenty

of other beautiful sights to entice and fascinate tourists. Tourism today is still a major contributor

to the local economy along with agriculture and small industry.

The first major settlement of the Rotorua district occurred with the arrival of the Te Arawa

. people. The Te Arawa People are those people who descend from the Arawa waka and who

occupy the Rotorua Lakes District and part of the central Bay of Plenty coastline?

Ko nga rohe 0 Te Arawa

Ko te ihu kei Maketu e here ana

Ko te kei, takoto rawa

Ki te take 0 Tongariro maunga. 3

8

Today Te Arawa's territory stretches from Papamoa to Atiamuri in the south, across to Kaingaroa

in the east and then north again to Matata. If we look at the geographical distribution of Te

Arawa in and around Lake Rotorua we would find that if we travelled on the inland road from

Maketu we would enter the domain ofNgati Pikiao. Circling the lake from Mourea to Te Ngae

are the lands of Ngati Rangiteaorere and from Te Ngae to Owhatiura the lands of Ngati

Uenukukopako. From there around to the south-western shores to Parawai belong to Ngati

Whakaue apart from Ngapuna which is Tuhourangi. At this point the land is Ngararanui until

just beyond the Waiteti stream where it is Ngati Rangiwewwehi right around to the Waerenga

area ofNgati Parua. 4

The name Te Arawa has been used to denote these people for six centuries. Prior to the corning

of the Arawa waka they were referred to as Ngati Ohomairangi. Reference to Te Arawa as a

tribal entity is normally associated with Tamatekapua who was responsible for a group ofNgati

Ohomairangi leaving their homeland ofHawaiki and travelling to the land discovered by Kupe

Aotearoa. The Arawa reached the coast of Aotearoa in the vicinity of Cape Runaway. At the

time the Pohutukawa tree was in full blossom.5 The canoe sailed to Whangaparaoa then headed

north past White Island to a small island called Te Poito 0 te Kupenga a Taramainuku near Cape

Colville. It then headed south-east to Curvier Island and on to the central Bay of Plenty entering

the river at Maketu. Some members of the original Arawa crew eventually left Maketu while

others, including T amatekapua stayed on.

Whakaue was a seventh generation descendent of Tamatekapua. During his time a great deal

of the Rotorua Lakes District was occupied. Much of the land around the western side of Lake

Rotorua from Te Awahou down to Ohinemutu was occupied by the family of Whakaue and

others. For a time Whakaue lived on Mokoia Island and it was during this period that his son

Tawakeheimoa was born. Tawakeheimo8: is credited with being the ancestor from whom the

whole of Ngati Rangiwewehi descend. Today both young and old cherish the memory of this

great rangatira who is honoured every time one enters Tarirnano marae and sees standing before

them the magnificent whare tupuna Tawakeheimoa.

Tawakeheirnoa left Mokoia for the mainland and married Te Aongahoro. He left Mokoia to live

at Pukekura but after a dispute with Tutanekai left to join his two brothers Ngararanui and

Tuteaiti at Weriweri.

9

Tawaleheimoa N I . T I .. gararanUl utealtl

WhakaueTRangiuru

T HI . upa aranUl

It wasn't long before another dispute broke out and Tawakeheimoa left there and settled on a hill

close to Te Puna-I-Hangarua, building a pa and calling it Pukehinahina. This became a Ngati

Rangiwewehi stronghold and was surrounded by a number of cultivations. 6 This place as well

as Ngahuapiri which was just west of Pukehinahina were both later set aside as waahi tapu.

Another major pa in the area was Puhirua which inherited its name from Ihenga, the grandson of

Tamatekapua after some feathers fell from his paiaka just offshore from this place. Puhirua was

first occupied during the time of Tawakeheimoa. 7 There were also two pa sites of some note in

the vicinity ofPekehaua Puna Reserve. One was Pukerua which stood above Te Warouri and

Ihutu which is said to be the original settlement of those members ofNgati Rangiwewehi who

later inhabited Te Awahou. 8

A number of intertribal battles occurred within Mangorewa Kaharoa including Parikoura, but at

no time were Ngati Rangiwewehi ever driven out of Puhirua. Puhirua and Pukehinahina were

both within the Mangorewa Kaharoa Block. The whole of the Mangorewa Kaharoa block fell

within the authority of Ngati Rangiwewehi. Most of the lands within Ngati Rangiwewehi's

domain consisted of bush and forest lands. Forests were an important source of food in

traditional Maori society. The ngahere provided berries, rats, birds, fern root, pikopik0 9 as well

as material for medicinal purposeslO, toolmakingll and a host of other things. The bush in and

around the Mangorewa Kaharoa was no exception. As has been noted:

[a jt the time Rangiwewehi occupied Puhirua the surrounding country was aforest. Forest lands in those days was considered of great value on account 0;[ hinau berries and birds which the people subsisted on.

Tawa trees were numerous throughout the Mangorewa Kaharoa block. They were also a

valuable food source fO.r N gati Rangiwewehi on account of their berries which were considered

a delicacy.13 The Mangorewa forest played an integral role in the lives ofNgati Rangiwewehi and

was a prime location for bird snaring. 14 Spearing kaka's was especially popular. The

Mangorewa stream situated at the back of the Mangorewa Kaharoa block was well known as a

place for catching eels16 while the Kaikaitahuna which was also a rich food source for local

inhabitants provided kokopu, inanga, toitoi and koura, all being taken in traps, nets and by

torchlight at night.

10

Today there a number of culturally historic sites in and around Taniwha and Hamurana Springs

Reserves.

Summary Points

• The Rotorua Lakes area forms part of the Taupo Volcanic Zone, and apart from the -

successful development of farming, tourism played and import role in the economic

development of this area.

• The first major settlement ofRotorua occurred with the arrival of the Te Arawa people

who are descended from the those who, led by Tamatekapua came to Aotearoa. The Te

Arawa people now occupy a large section of territory within the Bay of Plenty region.

• Ngati Rangiwewehi are a hapu of the Te Arawa tribe and have a very long history of

occupation in the Mangorewa Kaharoa. Ngati Rangiwewehi descended from

Tawakeheimoa who was the son ofWhakaue.

• There were four main pa sites within Mangorewa Kaharoa-Pukerua, Ihutu, Puhirua, and

Pukehinahina. The two main Ngati Rangiwewehi strongholds during Tawakeheimoa' s

time were Puhirua and Pukehinahina.

• There are a number of culturally historic sites within Mangorewa Kaharoa, including two

freshwater springs, Te Waro-Uri which is within Taniwha Springs and Te Puna-i

Hangarua which is within the Hamurana Springs Reserve.

• The land, the ngahere or bush, and the fresh water springs within Mangorewa Kaharoa

were fundamental to the ongoing survival ofNgati Rangiwewehi.

11

Map 6: Pukchinahina and surrounding cultivations ncar Hamurana Springs

LANI)MAIlKS OF TE AltAWA

~'" B +---c--+----: D·--+---E-~

I Mall bound.rift ahawn here '"dlcltt only th. centr.1 Irtl in .... hlch thl named culti"Uonl

t

ItC., .,. lacattd. Orieinal boundarln ululllJ (ollow.d "1lunl (ulur",

2

\

5

1 6

T!' W'h,lt.uruuru

c o 0.

'i'

'--" '--" '-" '--" '--" --!.-'--" '--" '-" '-'" '--" '--" I

'-'" '-" '--" '--" ........, '--' '--" 0

f '" 7~

Te Rotorua.nui.n-Kahumatamomoe \. '-'" '--' (Lak. ROlo",,) '--" '--'

'--" '--" '-'" '--" '--" '-./ '--" '-'" '-./ '--' i '--' ........., '-'" '--' I

i

c

• \,) :n

S III

PI sUe: Originally lorUlled With eauhworb elc. Urupa: Pre .. European lI1d modern . Urupa : Sued on olt?'lnallorlihed PI site. Hous~ sue(s) wllh usoelliled stonge pliJ. S:or.a9~ pus (5U~If'rran'!'.n)-0:1'" or mou'

Map No.

17 * Spring: freoh cold waler. /; Rock: (Under .. aler in some cases.) • •• Seillemem: (Nol necessarily permanenl.) A... Swamp or ~arshy area.

Taken from Stafford, D. Landmarks of'TeArav.·a: Volume One(Auck1and: Reed Publlmin& 1994)

12

References

1. Pullar, W.A. (1981) 1

2. Stafford, D. Te Arawa: The History of the Arawa People (1991) 1

3. Te Awekotuku, N. The Sociocultural Impact of Tourism on the Te Arawa People of Rotorua, New Zealand (1985) 13

4. see Appendix 1

5. supra n2, at 17

6. see Stafford Map 17/3 d in this report at 12

7. see Stafford Map 15/7e in this report at 18

8. Stafford, D. Landmarks of Te Arawa: Volume One (1994) 24

9. Pitt, W.T. (1932) 66; Salmond, A. (1980) 90; and Sinclair, D. (1992) 65

10. Rangihiroa, Te. The Coming of the Maori (1949) 548

11. Firth, R. Economics of the New Zealand Maori (1973) 56

12. Rotorua MB 4/66

13. Rotorua MB 4/31

14. Rotorua MB 4/29

15. RotoruaMB 4/56

16. Rotorua MB 4/30

13

Chapter 3

Mangorewa Kaharoa: Original Award

The investigation of title to the Mangorewa Kaharoa block commenced in 1882 before the court

of Judge Williams. Ngati Rangiwewehi were claimants and outlined their interests in Mangorewa

Kaharoa based on ancestry, gift and permanent occupation. There were also nine counter

claimants representing Tapuika, Ngati Pikiao, Ngati Parua, Ngai Tamaraiwaho, Ngati Rereamanu

and Ngati Teawhai, Waitaha, Ngati Tamahika, Ngati Rehu and Ngati Te Okotahi. Ngati

Rangiwewehi claimed that Mangorewa Kaharoa was ancestral land through the son of

Tawakeheimoa, Rangiwewehi. It was stated during the 1882 case that the land from Waimihia

to Awahou, to Potaka, to Ngahaua and then back to Waimihia was bequeathed by Whakaue to

his eldest son Tawakeheimoa. Land to the south of this was bequeathed to his second son

Tuteaiti, and land to the south again to his third son Ngararanui. 1

Whakaue

Tawakeheimoa

Rangiwewehi

N gati Rangiwewehi claimed that Mangorewa Kaharoa was occupied by the descendants of

Rangiwewehi from his time right up until the sitting of the 1882 case.2 In his time Rangiwewehi

resided at Puhirua3 which was the major pa and headquarters ofNgati Rangiwewehi right up until

the mid 1800's.4 Puhirua was situated on the northwestern shores of Lake Rotorua about halfway

between Taniwha Springs and Hamurana Springs Reserve.5 The building ofPuhirua dated back

to the time ofRangiwewehi and there were no people in occupation when he first went there. 6

The only people known to occupy Mangorewa Kaharoa lands were Te Aorauru who were the

descendants ofUenukukopako's brother Taketakehikuroa. The descendants ofTawakeheimoa

lived peaceably alongside Te Aorauru for at least four generations7 but a quarrel arose between

the two groups during the time ofKereru. Ngati Rangiwewehi were assisted by Te Okotahi,

Turei, Ngati Marukuka, a portion ofNgati Uenukukopako, and others. Some of these early

alliances are important in the sense that they explain the close whakapa connections which were

later established between these groups. Essentially, some of these groups settled and intermarried

14

into Ngati Rangiwewehi becoming associated hapu. This was the first battle fought on this land

between Ngati Rangiwewehi and Te Aorauru. Ongoing tension finally culminated in a battle

which came to be known as Toretiakikauri after the placename where it occurred. 8 Te Aorauru

fled towards the Waerenga and those who remained became subservient to Ngati Rangiwewehi.

From that day forth no-one disturbed Ngati Rangiwewehi's occupation of Mangorewa Kaharoa.

That is to say that Ngati Rangiwewehi were never compelled to abandon Puhirua and seek shelter

elsewhere.9 As Wiremu Mita Hikairo pointed out:

Since Rangiwewehi's times up to the present we [Ngati Rangiwewehi] were never driven from this country but have remained in occupation [own emphasis]. 10

Ngati Rangiwewehi was also involved in a number of disputes with Ngati Whakaue including one

at Pukerua which was a pa site above Te Warouri at Taniwha Springs.ll Many of these battles

were also fought near Puhirua. None of these battles however had anything to do with

Mangorewa Kaharoa Lands but rather were merely trials of strength between two independent

tribes. 12 This was given weight by Pirimi Mataiawhia who gave evidence in the 1882 case to the

effect that:

If two tribes fought and one became annihilated the land of the conquered would belong to the conquerors-that was not the case between Ngati WhakGue and Ngati Rangiwewehi, thej were merely fighting for superiority and not for land 1

A number of skirmishes were fought on these lands but the extent of Ngati Rangiwewehi's mana·

in relation to Mangorewa Kaharoa was always clear. After the conquest at Te Tumu for example

the people of Tapuika were brought back to Kaikaitahuna for fear of reprisals from Ngaiterangi

and lived under the protection ofNgati Rangiwewehi.14 Ngati Rangiwewehi also had occasion

to exercise the right to expel people from this area as was the case when resources were abused15

or hara were committed in relation to the property of others. 16 When the roads were built through

this land in 1871 it was Ngati Rangiwewehi who received payment (£200 per mile) and nobody

else. 17 Ngati Rangiwewehi cultivated a number of areas within the Mangorewa Kaharoa, some of

which are listed on Map 6 in this report. I8 An even more extensive list was given in evidence

dunng the 1882 case. 19

On 10 August 1882 the court delivered it's judgement. Ngati Tamahika was awarded 100 acres

and Ngati Parua cultivations and houses were protected but Ngati Rangiwewehi and it's affiliate

hapu were awarded the bulk of the block consisting of 42,942 acres.20 Ngati Rangiwewehi in

15

accordance with the instructions of the court subsequently submitted a list of owners from 28 hapu

numbering 386 in total. The following is a list of the affiliate hapu who were the beneficiaries of

the 1882 award:

Ngati Wehiwehi 15 owners 6 sold 2 deceased 3 absent 4 on land

Ngati Whakaokorau 33 owners 9" 8" 10 " 6"

Ngati Haura 6 owners 1 " 4" I"

Ngati Te Rangitaukura 4 owners 2" 1 " I"

Ngati Tawake 33 owners 19 " 3" 11"

Ngati Rerenga 3 owners 1 " 2"

Ngati Ngata 11 owners 5" 3" 3'"

Ngati Te Purei 25 owners 12 " 3" 8" 2"

Ngati Hinekahu 7 owners 3" 3" 1 "

Ngati Hinetu 15 owners 5" 3" 7" 3"

Ngati Paraoa 27 owners 9" 8" 6" 4"

Ngati Kurukitu 8 owners 6" 2"

Ngati Turei 7 owners 5" 2"

Ngati Marukuku 12 owners 6" 3" 1 " 2"

Ngati Tuputeroma 4 owners 3" 1 "

Ngati Hinewai 21 owners 7" 3" 2" 9"

Ngati Matangiharara 13 owners 1 " 3" 6" 3"

Ngati Te Okotahi 37 owners 14 " 5" 12 " 6"

Ngati Te Roniu 7 owners 5" 1 " 1 "

Ngati Whiti 6 owners 3" 2" 1 "

Ngati Tamapu(?) 4 owners 3" 1 "

Ngati Riko 26 owners 18 " 5" 1 " 2"

NgatiManuwaeroroa 25 owners 13 " 3" 7" 2"

Ngati Tuwhakahau 10 owners 1" 5" 1 " 3"

N gati Te Mahau 5 owners 2" I" 2"

Ngati Uenuku 5 owners 1 " 1 " 3"

Ngati Turutu 3 owners 3 "

NgatiManuwhakahautehe 2 owners 2"

Ngati Tumahaurangi 9 owners 3" 3" 1 " 2"

These owners held 1,543 equal shares ooequally. An important note to keep in mind is that almost

all the counter-claimants in the original award and most of whom are listed above, were all closely

16

tied by whakapapa links to each other. Although they distinguished themselves from Ngati

Rangiwewehi as sub-tribal units, they are probably more accurately spoken of as whanau groups

within Ngati Rangiwewehi.

Uenu kopako

aue Te Aorauru

Tawak~heimoa

Rangi ewehi N

I, gararanUl

Ke~leru Ng ta .

Orootfrangi ~hakaokorau Te Purei

W 1h' h' e lwe 1

Tamjtera

Te O~otahi. TeRoniu

The whakapapa above shows the tupuna from whom some of the claimants of the 1882

Mangorewa Kaharoaaward descend. There were 28 affiliate hapu within Ngati Rangiwewehi who

received an interest in Mangorewa Kaharoa. This diagram is not intended to be comprehensive

list ofNgati Rangiwewehi owners but rather is a small sample which is noted merely in order to

illustrate the close ties between the different groups.

17

Map 5: Puhirua on the western side of Mangorcwa Kaharoa

LhNI)MhRKS OF TE ARhWh

~A----+----B----~--C--~----D--~----E--~

I

t 2

I 4

I 5

t 6[ '"

7~ s III

OOM I..".."

a • @ :u

Pa sue. Oll9lnaJly fQrUhf'd. with earthworks tIC. UNpa . Pre·europel:l 1:.4 modem . Uru~ Slli!'d on orI9U1allorllht'd p.a she Houn Sllet .. ) wllh auocul.cS slong" 1""1 Slor~?,!,,...~~(sul"t!'II.an ... n)-cnt' cor mor(""

Map No. * Sprin9: rresh cold waler. .A. Rock: (Under Wiler in some cues.)

15 ~:... ~!I:::~t~~~:~~:::~riIY perlnanent.)

171

Taken from Stafford, D. LAndmarks ofTeArawa: Volume One (Auckland: Reed Pubilshing. 1994)

18

Summary Points

• The investigation of title to the Mangorewa Kaharoa block commenced in 1882. Ngati

Rangiwewehi were claimants outlining their interests in Mangorewa Kaharoa based on

ancestry, gift and permanent occupation. Ngati Rangiwewehi faced nine counter

claimants.

• Ngati Rangiwewehi established mana over Mangorewa Kaharoa, evidenced by the fact that

they were never driven off these lands.

• The Court acknowledged Ngati Rangiwewehi's mana and in August 1882 awarded them

and their affiliate hapu 42, 192 acres representing almost the entire Mangorewa Kaharoa

block. Ngati Rangiwewehi submitted a list of 3 86 owners from 28 different hapu.

• Although the 28 affiliate hapu distinguished themselves from each other they can be seen

as whanau of Ngati Rangiwewehi, being connected to each by strong whakapapa

connections.

References

1. Rotorua MB 4/35

2. Rotorua MB 3/232

3. RotoruaMB 3/375


5. see Stafford Map 15/7e in this report at 18

6. Rotorua MB 3/375

7. Rotorua MB 4/42

8. Rotorua MB 3/377

9. Rotorua MB 3/376

10. Rotorua MB 4/36

19

11. see Stafford Map 14/1 b in Appendix 13

12. Rotorua MB 4/38

13 . Rotorua MB 4170

14. Rotorua MB 4/27

15. see "destruction oftawa tree by Ngati Tawana" Rotorua MB 4/31

16. see ''theft of dogskin mat by Ngati Tura" Rotorua MB 4/34

17. AillR [1871] D-l p16


19. see Rot MB 4177-79

20. Rotorua1v1B 4/121-124

20

Chapter 4

The Government Partition

The first government partition was initiated on 10 February 1896 before Judge J.A. Wilson at a

sitting at Ohinemutu. The matter was adjourned until 17 February and then for another week to

the 24 February 1896. Matenga Te Waharoa started out by asking if the Court would dispose of

the government's share before subdividing the balance of the land. 1 The Court consented to this

application and the Native Land Purchase Officer R. J. Gill agreed to the proposal. Gill had

formerly been a clerk to Donald McLean when the Native Office was first established. He

became the de facto head of the Native Lands Purchase Department in 1874 and was appointed

its first Under Secretary in 1879. 2 In June 1893 he was authorised under the Native Land

Purchase Act Amendment Act 1892 to begin acting as Native Land Purchase Officer in the

Rotorua district3 and operated from offices situated at the Rotorua courthouse.4 He could not

speak MaoriS and so was assisted in Court by Mr Foxmaule Carnachan who was an ex

storekeeper from Maketu who had lived in Rotorua since 1882. Carnachan had joined the Native

Land Purchase Department the same year as Gill and by 1902 was an Assistant Land Purchase

Officer. 6

The Mangorewa Kaharoa case was heard on application by the Crown under section 78 of the

Native Land Act 1894 which enabled the Crown to apply at any time to have its interests

partitioned. Gill's approach usually followed a similar format. He would start off by stating the

total number of shares in the block under examination, the total number of owners in the b\ock,

the number of owners selling "wholly or partially," and the number of shares sold to the Crown.

Next would come a request for a partition over a certain number of acres. Then Gill would state

the number of non-sellers, the number of shares they still hold before submitting a deed and list

of non-sellers, showing the remaining shares. The deed and list were normally read out in Court,

and after "challenging objectors," the Court would adjudge the deed and list as either "correct"

or "incorrect". Gill would then ask to receive a particular portion of the parent block (eg "the

eastern side"), sometimes mentioning earlier discussions with the owners. Again, the Court

would "challenge objectors" to the proposed partition. If no objectors rose to the challenge, then

the Court would order the partition, name the new block, and specify its acreage and boundaries

in relation to existing block boundaries. If objectors rose discussion normally followed and if the

Court saw fit necessary adjustments were made.

21

Proceedings followed much the same format in the 1896 government partition of Mango rewa

Kaharoa. In giving evidence Gill stated that between 1895 and 1896 a number of owners had

sold their shares to the Crown. There were 386 original owners in Mangorewa Kaharoa owning

1,543 equal shares which were held unequally. Gill stated that of these 386 owners 142 had sold

to the Crown either partially or wholly. In effect the owners sold 513 of the 1,543 shares which

represented approximately one third of the total block. Of the 386 original owners there were

252 non-sellers still holding 1,030 of the original 1,543 shares. The non-seller's shares

represented 28,751 acres ofland. As such Gill asked the Court to issue an order vesting 14,197

acres in favour of the Crown. The transactions referred to above are most clearly illustrated in

the following way:

Table 1

No. Of No. of Shares Total Acreage Ownership

Owners

Orig. Award 386 1,543 42,949 Ngati

Rangiwewehi

Non-Sellers 252 1,030 28,668 Ngati

Rangiwewehi

Sellers 142 513 14,281 Disposed of to

the Crown

Gill handed to the Court a deed of conveyance to the Crown in support of the above information

and in doing so applied to have the Crown interests cut out of the eastern portion of Mango rewa

Kaharoa. One Kereopa Te Omutu was on the original list of owners and was purported to have

sold his share to Gill. What had transpired was that Gill had paid the wrong person and so the

Court found Kereopa Te Omutu's interest had not been alienated. The Court ordered that the

name of Kereopa Te Omutu be struck of the conveyance to the Crown due to him not having

sold. This had the effect of reducing the area due by 84 acres from the government claim and

increased the number of non-sellers by one to 253.

The government claim was disputed by a number ofNgati Rangiwewehi who argued that there

were numerous urupa within the Mangorewa Kaharoa. These included Pukehinahina7,

NgahuapiriB and Tupakaria.9 Pukehinahina is situated near the great spring Te Puna-i-Hangarua.

This was a Ngati Te Purei urupa and amongst those buried there are Te Horotu, Tokotoko and

22

Tokotoko's wife Te Areropiki. lO The only dated burial at Pukehinahina came one year after the

1896 partition and was that ofNgatote Wharekawa who died on 12 January 1897Y Ngahuapiri

is a Ngati Kereru urupa east of Kaikaitahuna and Pukehinahina. 12 Some thirty persons were

buried there13 including Te Wharau and his wife Te Marohiro.14 Tupakaria was also Ngati Kereru

and is situated at the far eastern end of Mango rewa Kaharoa between Te Niho-o-te-Taniwha and

Lake Rotorua. 15 It is said that this name was given by Ihenga as a result of a boastful thought he

had while passing the place.16 By agreement it was resolved to set aside three reservations within

the limits of the Crown award. These three reservations were to be inalienable and taken

absolutely by Ngati Rangiwewehi. In the case ofPukehinahina and Ngahuapiri 5 acres were to

be set aside for each and in the case of Tupakaria 2 acres was to be set aside. This further

reduced the Crown interest from 14, 197 acres to 14,185 acres. Gill also argued that a partition

should be made in favour of the Crown to liquidate a survey lien due to the government of £ 180

s 6d. An order was made in relation to this survey lien amounting to 801 acres. This was made

in favour of the Crown and was made in addition to the 14,185 acres already made in its favour.

On 27 February 1896 the court ordered that Mangorewa Kaharoa be partitioned into six

subdivisions. These partitions were as follows:

Table 2

Mangorewa-Kaharoa Area(acres) Owners Designation

No.1 14,185 Crown -

No.2 (pukehinahina) 5 Patoromu Ngamaunu Urupa (absolutely

Nikora Tutengaehe inalienable)

Matenga Pitini

No.3 (Ngahuapiri) 5 Haumia Haimona Urupa (absolutely

Taimona Hapimana inalienable)

No.4 (Tupakaria) 2 Taimona Hapimana Urupa (absolutely

Matenga Te Waharoa inalienable)

No.5 801 Crown Survey Lien

£180 7s 6d

No.6 28,668 279 persons ofNgati -Rangiwewehi

MangorewaKaharoa 1 contained 14,185 acresY It was bounded on the west by a swinging line

commencing from a point 20 chains west of the mouth of the Kaikaitahuna stream.

23

One year later in 1897 an appeal was lodged in respect of the 1896 Crown award before Judge

HF. Edgar at Rotorua. The appeal was brought by Haimona Te Awe, Matenga Pitini and Hehe

Hakopa on behalf of 21 persons from the following hapu:

N gati Te Purei

N gati Te Okotahi

N gati Whakaokorau

N gati Kereru

Ngati Te Rangitaukura

7 persons

6 " " " 5 " " " 2 " " " 1 person

Mita Taupopoki who himself was not an owner appeared for Ngati Te Okotahi, Ngati Te Purei,

Ngati Whakaokorau, and Ngati Kereru. His involvement in this case was due to his wife's

connections to the affected groups. The basis of the appellants case hinged on their assertion that

the 1896 award resulted in the loss of traditional kainga because many of the non-sellers had no

other lands apart from those within the Crown award. Ownership of the springs at Hamurana

were also grounds for appeal. Gill contended that the natives had not suffered an injustice by the

1896 award of the springs to the Crown. However, thiswas disputed by the appellants who

insisted that the award would deny them the use of their traditional fishing grounds which were

the primary source of kokopu and koura. Is

Mita Taupopoki asked that the appeal be read in Maori but the Court declined to proceed with

the appeal unless this was withdrawn. Mita Taupopoki withdrew this request and the case

proceeded. Mita Taupopoki. began the appellants case by outlining all the urupa within the Crown

award. This included urupa not set aside in 1896. Richard Gill objected on the grounds that the

issue of urupa' had been carefully considered by the Court in 1896 and the reserves viz

Pukehinahina, Ngahuapiri and Tupakaria were made with the consent of everyone present. Mita

Taupopoki responded by saying that only Matenga Te Waharoa had agreed. Urupa not dealt with

in 1896 and outlined in the 1897 appeal included Pekapeka, Te Riparoa, Te Nukuohakoma and

Orangikahui. Matenga Pitini took over where Taupopoki left off, outlining all the cultivations

and kainga within the Crown award. Nohoroa Paora gave evidence in relation to other culturally

significant areas within Mangorewa Kaharoa. Evidence was also tendered by Hehe Hakopa,

Matenga Te Waharoa and Richard Gill. Mita Taupopoki summed up the appellants case by

saytng:

We do not deny the purchase by the Crown. The Treaty of Waitangi said the Crown was to have the exclusive right to purchase. That treaty does not say that the

24

Crownis to purchase kaingas-but only such lands as the proprietors are disposed to sell. But the possession of their lands are confined to the owners so long as they wish to retain them. This clause of the treaty is not being properly carried out by the officers of the Crown,19

The Court aclrnowledged that Maori may belong to several different hapu but decided to adhere

to the lists made during the original investigation in 1882. This meant that of the 21 appellants

referred to above only ten of them had an interest in lands within the Crown award, 3 belonging

to Ngati Te Purei; 4 to Ngati Te Okotahi; 2 to Ngati Whakaokorau; and 1 to Ngati Te

Rangitaukura.20 The Court found that the eastern side of the Hamurana stream had been and still

was occupied and cultivated by Ngati Te Purei who as non-sellers were entitled to return to their

settlement. Thirty-three acres was therefore given to the following eight persons:

Table 3

Name Shares

l. Matenga Pitini 5

2. Rangikahiwa Pitini 5

3. Te N garara Pitini 5

4. Kipihana Pitini 5

5. Ngatote Wharekawa 7

6. Tapapa Moengaroa 4.75

7. lritana Hoani 4.75

8. Ngaketerau Ngatiti 2

The area awarded to the above persons was bounded by a line drawn inland from Te Koko-I-a

Rehua due north 12 chains, then by a line to the Pukehinahina reserve, by that reserve, by a line

from that reserve to the Waitarere stream, by that stream, the Kaikaitahuna stream and the lake. 21

This award was to be called Mangorewa Kaharoa No 7. The significance of the judgement was

that it did not carry with it any rights over Hamurana Springs or any approach up Kaikaitahuna

stream. What transpired from the award of Mangorewa Kaharoa No 7 was that the swing line

set during the 1896 case at a point 20 chains west of the Kaikaitahuna was moved to a point 35

chains west of the river mouth. On 6 March 1897 the Court issued various orders in respect of

Mangorewa Kaharoa?2 As a result of the purchases and partitions outlined in the last two

chapters the following ownership of blocks emerged:

25

Table 4

Block No. Total Acres Owners

No.1 14,182 1 Owner (Crown)

No.2 (Pukehinahina) 5 3 Owners

No.3 (Ngahuapiri) 5 2 Owners

No.4 (Tupakaria) 2 2 Owners

No.5 801 Survey Lien

(Crown)

No.6 26,909 279 Owners (Ngati

Rangiwewehi)

No.7 33 8 Owners

No.8 360 3 Owners

No.9 649 5 Owners

No. 10 (Pukuohakoma) 1 3 Owners

No. 11 (Otarau) 2 4 Owners

Mangorewa Kaharoa No 8 was bounded. by a line due north from the extreme north eastern

corner of Maraeroa Oturoa block and by a line thence due south to the northern boundary of

Maraeroa Oturoa block.23 Subdivision No 9 was bounded on the south by Maraeroa Oturoa, on

the east by Mangorewa No 7 40 chains on the north by a line parallel to the southern boundary,

and on the west by a line parallel to the eastern boundary while subdivision No 6 included the

remainder of land not included in all other subdivisions.24

The 1896 Government Partition was significant in a number of ways. As already mentioned the

Crown was successful in having its interests in Mangorewa Kaharoa cut out on the eastern side

of the block and in doing so were given legal title to an area of land which contained a number

of culturally historic sites. This included kainga, pa sites, mahinga kai and urupa. This occurred

despite the fact that Ngati Rangiwewehi argued rigorously throughout the case and all subsequent

appeals that their interests were sold on the basis that non-sellers would retain lake frontage. Just

as significant was the fact that ownership ofHamurana Springs passed into Crown hands. One

year later Ngati Rangiwewehi tried unsuccessfully during the 1897 appeal to prove their rights

of ownership over the springs.

26

Summary Points

• The first government partition was initiated in 1896 by the Crown's Native Land Purchase

Officer Richard John Gill under section 78 of the Native Land Act 1894.

• In 1895 Gill commenced purchasing Ngati Rangiwewehi's interests in Mangorewa

Kaharoa which amounted in total to 1,543 equal shares held unequally. By February 1896

Gill had purchased 513 of these shares from 142 owners representing 14, 197 of the

42,949 acres contained within Mangorewa Kaharoa.

• The result of the 1896 case was that the Court issued orders cutting Mangorewa Kaharoa

into six subdivisions. This consisted of a 14,185 acre area to the Crown, 3 areas of land

set aside for urupa and collectively amounting to a 12 acre area, 801 acres also awarded

to the Crown in liquidation of a £ 180 7 s 6d survey lien charged against the land, and the

remaining 28,668 acres awarded to Ngati Rangiwewehi and 28 of its affiliate hapu.

• In 1897 Ngati Rangiwewehi appealed the 1896 decision on the grounds that there were

a number ofkainga, traditional pa site, mahinga kai, and urupa throughout Mangorewa

Kaharoa which the 1896 award did not account for, and that there were a number of

people who had interests in the Crown area only.

• Five more subdivisions were created (2 of which were urupa) including Mangorewa

Kaharoa which had the effect of moving the Crown's sWing line from 20 chains west of

the Kaikaitahuna river mouth to 35 chains west of the river mouth.

• Both cases failed to fully account for a number of culturally significant sites while the

1897 case failed to recognise some of the appellant's whakapapa ties to the five hapu

central to the case, and did not include the ownership of the freshwater springs in its

award.

References

l. ~DRW MB 36/70

2 ..... ~1it~":'~9W of Justice (1995) 279 ""." , ,,:~

,,~.'

27

3. Moore, D. & Quinn, S. Alienation of Rotomahana Parekarangi Lands within the Whakarewarewa State Forest (1994) 38

4. New Zealand Cyclopaedia Vol 2 (1902) 804

5. National Archives MA-MLP 1/34

6. supra n 4, at 804

7. Rotorua"ME 36/88

8. Rotorua "ME 36/94

9. Rotorua"ME 36/98

10. Rotorua"ME 23/232


12. see Stafford Map 17/3d-e in this report at 12

13. ibid., at 55


15. see Stafford Map 19/4a in Appendix 20

16. supra n 6, at 128

17. New Zealand Gazette 1897, p1747


19. Rotorua:MB 23/343-344

20. Rotorua:MB 23/348


22. Rotorua:MB 23/376-377



28

Chapter 5

Crown Purchase Activities: 1885-1896

Hamurana Springs Reserve is situated on the northern edge of Lake Rotorua 13.5 kilometres

from Rotorua city. The land on which Hamurana Springs Reserve is situated is relatively flat,

gradually rising away from the lake towards the northern margin of the Rotorua Caldera and is

subject to a moderate climate. The name Hamurana is the Maori transliteration of the biblical

'Smyrna', the famous Greek city founded by Alexander the Great in Asia minor, and referred to

in the Book of Revelation as one of the Seven Churches. 1 The name Hamurana presumably came

about as a result of the missionary influence in and around the area. A church called Raorikia

was built on the east side ofKaikaitahuna under the direction of Thonias Chapman.2 Chapman

was a CMS lay missionary who came to New Zealand in 1830 and founded three mission stations

in Rotorua and one at Maketu. Hamurana originally referred to an area close to the edge of Lake

Rotorua just west of the Kaikaitahuna and prior to Pakeha contact this area was known as

Tahuna-a-Pukeko? Today the name Hamurana refers to the whole area in and around Te Puna-i

Hangarua.4 Although Te Puna-i-Hangarua is the most notable fresh water spring within

Hamurana Springs Reserve there are a number of others including Kauaenui, Rewarewa, Te Ana,

Punapekapeka, Pekapeka and Te Tawa-i-Opori. 5

Today Hamurana Springs Reserve is landscaped with grass, redwood and indigenous vegetation.

The reserve is bounded on two sides by Hamurana and Turner Roads with agricultural and

rural/residential land, Maori reserves, and esplanade reserve adjacent to the remaining

boundaries. 6 There are at least 15 springs which discharge a large volume of very high quality

water, of which a small portion is diverted for domestic and farm use. The majority of this water

however flows directly into Lake Rotorua. All waterways and wildlife are protected under the

Wtldlife Act 1953 which also allows the use of boats to be restricted. The reserve land originally

formed part of an extensive area being Mangorewa Kaharoa No 1. In 1908 586 hectares in Block

V Rotoiti Survey District including Hamurana Springs was reserved for scenic purposes under

the Scenery Preservation Act 1903 as part of the Rotorua North Scenic Reserves. The

reservation over most of this land was later revoked in 1912 but an area of 34.7347 hectares

around Hamurana Springs remained reserved. This area was brought under the Tourist and

Health Resorts Control Act 1908 with control vested in the Minister of Tourism. 7 The main

portion of the reserve was classified as a recreation reserve in terms of the Reserves Act 1977g

29

and Hamurana stream was declared a wildlife refuge. 9 A number of minor boundary adjustments

have taken place over the years and the present area of the reserve is 37.0286 hectares being part

of Mangorewa Kaharoa 7A2B Block and parts Section 12, Sections 41 & 42 Block V Rotoiti

Survey District. Hamurana Springs Reserve was originally set apart specifically to protect the

natural springs which in the late nineteenth century were a major tourist attraction in the area.

Over the years Hamurana Springs Reserve has continued to be developed for tourist use and for

outdoor recreational activities.

The main grievance Ngati Rangiwewehi have in relation to the alienation of Mangorewa Kaharoa

No 1 and hence Hamurana Springs Reserve, centres around the activities of the Native Land

Purchase Officer R J Gill. In terms of the research to this report information relating to Gill's

wider activities were found in MAlMLP files but no direct references were found to the

Mangorewa Kaharoa purchase. Lands and Survey files (Auckland), Lands and Survey Land

Development Branch (Rotorua) files, and Lands and Deeds files also failed to reveal any

historical evidence relating to Gill's purchase of Mangorewa Kaharoa. Some of the evidence

contained in this chapter therefore draws upon sources which relate to Gill's wider activities in

the Rotorua area generally.

In 1897 Mangorewa Kaharoa No 1 was included in a proclamation which was gazetted as follows:

Whereas bi: section two hundred and fifty of "The Land Act, 1892' (hereinafter termed "the saia Act'), it is enacted that whenever the Governor is satisfied that any Native lands acquired by Her Majesty in any way, or purchased out of any sums authorised or to be authorised to be issued and expended in the purchase of lands in the North Island of New Zealand, arefree from Native claims and all difficulties in connection therewith, he shall by Proclamation declare such lands to be Crown lands, subject to be sold and dealt with as in the said Act is more particularly mentioned: And whereas the lands hereinafter mentioned have been purchased out of sums so authorised to be issued and expended as aforesaid:

Now, Therefore, I, John Mark, Earl of Ranfurly, the Governor of the Colony of New Zeafand, being satisfied that the lands enumerated in the Schedule hereto are free from Native claims and all difficulties in connection therewith, do hereby, in pursuance and ~xercise of the power and authority vested in me by the said Act, proclaim and declare the lands so enumerated as aforesaid to be Crown lands, subject to be sold and dealt with according to the prOVisions of the laws regulating the sale and disposal of Crown Lands in force in the lfff1d districts in which they are respectively situated.

30

Clearly, the Governor General was satisfied that R J Gill's purchase of Mangorewa Kaharoa No 1

was free from Native claims and difficulties. However, nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact the purchase of Mangorewa Kaharoa by Gill was shrouded in controversy. Central to

N gati Rangiwewehi's present claim over Hamurana Springs Reserve are the activities of Gill

prior to the 1896 Government Partition. When Gill began purchasing the Maori interests in

Mangorewa Kaharoa the lands which had been awarded to the 28 hapu in 1882 were not defined

on the ground. As already mentioned above, the judgement in the 1882 case saw 42,942 acres

in the Mangorewa Kaharoa block awarded to Ngati Rangiwewehi. Ngati Rangiwewehi submitted

a list of 386 owners to the Maori Land Court and 1,543 equal shares were held unequally

between these owners.

Gill began his purchasing on 5 June 1895 using Deed Form No 4. He witnessed each signature

as the Justice of the Peace and his assistant Carnachan witnessed as translator. By February 1896

Gill had purchased 510 of the 1,543 shares from 143 owners equating to approximately one third

of the original award. They paid €9,663/10s/6d in total for the 510 shares. l1 One of the main

arguments here is that Ngati Rangiwewehi has been prejudicially affected by the actions of the

Crown because the acquisition oftitle to Hamurana Springs Reserve was the result of rigorous

purchasing activities of Gill which themselves were carried out without tribal sanction or

oversight. The fact that N gati Rangiwewehi' s interests in Mangorewa Kaharoa were purchased

without tribal sanction is a crucial point which cannot be overlooked. In fact the acquisition of

one third of Mangorewa Kaharoa was achieved only because Gill was able to approach members

of the Ngati Rangiwewehi on an individual basis. In essence Gill's purchasing activities

undermined Ngati Rangiwewehi's right of te tino rangatiratanga in controlling the disposition of

land over which they exercised mana whenua. Ngati Rangiwewehi's view is that had the Crown

recognised it's tino rangatiratanga Gill would have entered into negotiations for the purchase of

Mangorewa Kaharoa with Ngati Rangiwewehi and not its individual members. After all, in 1882

MangorewaKaharoa was awarded first and foremost to Ngati Rangiwewehi. Gill's purchasing

activities were tantamount to nothing less than a total disregard ofNgati Rangiwewehi's mana

and status as a fully fledged tribal entity.

During the 1896 Government Partition Gill asked that the Crown's interests in Mangorewa

Kaharoa be partitioned off on the eastern side of the block by a swinging line running northwards

and southwards having a fixed point at the shore of Lake Rotorua 20 chains west of the mouth

of the Hamurana stream, and extending to the northern boundary of the land under partition in

such a way as to cut off the area required on it's eastern side. Gill's justification for asking the

Court to partition the Crown interests on the eastern side of the block was that this portion of

31

land was almost deserted. 12 This has always been a contentious matter, right up until today.

These concerns stem from Ngati Rangiwewehi assertions that at the time that Gill was purchasing

its interests in Mangorewa Kaharoa the understanding of Ngati Rangiwewehi sellers and non

sellers was that the Crown's interests would not be partitioned in such a way so as to incorporate

lake frontage. As pointed out by Paatoromu Ngaamaunu during the 1896 case:

It has been understood amongst us-the non sellers and the sellers-that the Government was to get the back country and tFt the non-sellers were to retain the frontage to the lake. 3

Of course Gill denied all knowledge of any such agreement. But all Ngati Rangiwewehi

settlements, cultivations, urupa and fishing grounds etc from Waimihia right across in an easterly

direction to Tupakaria were situated close to the lakefront and this raises questions about the

evidence given by Gill. Given the fact that all the sites culturally and spiritually significant to

Ngati Rangiwewehi were more or less fronting the lake it is absurd to suggest that Ngati

Rangiwewehi would have sold their interests knowing that the laying of a north/south line from

the lake to the back boundary would inevitably jeopardise their rights of occupation. The strength

ofNgati Rangiwewehi's resolve to preserve their urupa, fishing grounds, cultivations and kainga

was clearly evident in both the 1896 and 1897 cases. It is inconceivable that these interests would

not have been paramount in the minds of those contemplating selling their interests. Gill himself

admitted this by stating that long before the case came to Court Ngati Rangiwewehi had proposed

that whatever area was purchased by the Crown, their interests, that is the Crown's interest,

should be cut offby a line east and west. However, Gill denies ever having agreed to this. But

Gill wasn't in a position to negotiate on his own terms. After all the Crown wanted the land and

Ngati Rangiwewehi had it. Furthermore, Gill's master was the Crown. Ngati Rangiwewehi on

the other hand were answerable to nobody but themselves.

Paatoromu Ngaamaunu's assertion that MangorewaKaharoa was sold on the provision that non

sellers would retain lake frontage was also given weight by others. Under cross-examination

Matenga Pitini stated that he was not at the 1896 case because:

the tribe had arranged that the land at the back [of the block] should go to the Crown. Matenga [Te Waharoa] was to attend the Court to carry out the arrangement. But when Matenga came to confer with Mr Gill, Mr Gill proposed that the division line should run north and south [ own emphasis] .14

Gill's credibility is further undennined by the evidence given by Matenga Te Waharoa during the

32

Mangorewa Kaharoa appeal process. Under questioning from Mita Taupopoki, Matenga Te

Waharoa stated that it had been claimed that two of the Ngati Rangiwewehi sellers from Te Puke

had been telegraphed by Gill prior to the 1896 case and offered 1,000 acres ofland if they went

to Court and supported the Crown's case. 15 Matenga Te Waharoa stated that he subsequently

found out that this statement was false. The matter was not enquired into any further and so the

accuracy of the statement made by the Te Puke sellers was never really established. However,

Matenga Te Waharoa did say that upon hearing the statement he believed it to be true. 16 This not

only says something about the role he played as a Crown supporter throughout the 1896 case,

but also the character of the Crown's Land Purchasing Officer and the lengths his colleagues

believed he was capable of going to in order to acquire Ngati Rangiwewehi land.

Given that Gill had been the Under Secretary of the Native Lands Purchase Department he was

considered one of the Department's best. But his appointment had raised complaints from Te

Arawa and Te Puke that he should be replaced by Gilbert Mair who could speak Maori. 17 One

of the trademarks of Gill's approach to purchasing Maori land in the Rotorua district was the

speed with which his transactions were carried out and signatures obtained in order to divest

Maori of their land interests. IS Expediency appears to have guided Gill rather than the interests

of Maori owners. The case of Kereopa Te Omutu described in Chapter 4 can probably be

attributed to this attitude. Whether this was an unintended oversight on Gill's part or just a case

of "willful blindness" it is impossible to say, the point being that Gill did not act within the

contractual framework which defined the manner in which he was obliged to deal with Ngati

Rangiwewehi-this being the Treaty ofWaitangi.

Evidence suggests that Ngati Rangiwewehi in all probability did sell on the proviso that they

maintained lake frontage. This being the case Gill's actions constitute a breach of good faith and

the Crown is responsible on account of not fulfilling its fiduciary obligations to Ngati

Rangiwewehi. Gill argued that most ofNgati Rangiwewehi were in occupation at the western

end of the block. This may have been the case but in saying so a couple of points are worth

noting here. The back part of the block was virtually unoccupied and so the Crown could have

taken as agreed without trampling on the mana ofNgati Rangiwewehi. At the time of the award

Ngati Rangiwewehi had pre-existing rights, that is Treaty rights, which the Crown did not

possess. In virtue of Article II of the Treaty Ngati Rangiwewehi had the authority to exercise

control over the whole of Mango rewa Kaharoa so long as it was their wish to possess it.

A number of Ngati Te Okotahi and Ngati Te Purei had interests in the Crown award. Some had

sold to Gill but others had not and in virtue of their unwillingness to sell naturally wanted to

33

continue to occupy within the Kaikaitahuna area. This was their right and obviously a right which

the Crown was obliged to guarantee. The ability of Ngati Rangiwewehi to exercise

rangatiratanga over their resources goes to the heart of the N gati Rangiwewehi' s mana as a tribal

entity, but when the Court issued its orders on 27 February 1896 Ngati Rangiwewel>..i's Treaty

rights were breached. Article II reads " ... Ko te kuini 0 Ingarani ka whakarite ka whakaae .ki....nga

rangatira ki nga hapu ki nga tangata katoa 0 Nu Tireni te tino rangatiratanga 0 0 ratou whenua

o ratou kainga me 0 ratou taonga katoa". This guarantee of rangatiratanga over resources

extended not just to Ngati Rangiwewehi as a tribal group but also to all their respective families

and individuals. It is therefore not enough to justify the Crown award simply by stating that

'most' ofNgati Rangiwewehi were living in the western portion of Mangorewa Kaharoa. The

non-sellers then, possessed guaranteed rights of possession and ownership which the Native Land

Court were obliged but failed to uphold.

The impact of denying the fundamental principles which underpin the Treaty of Waitangi has

resulted in a failure on the part of the Crown to actively protect the interests of Ngati

Rangiwewehi and guarantee to them the unrestricted and exclusive ownership and management

of the spring water resource at Hamurana Springs. Furthermore, its failure to protect the Treaty

rights ofNgati Rangiwewehi is also evident if we look at the way the Native Land Court dealt

with the case of Mangorewa Kaharoa. Even if Gill's purchasing activities were somewhat

questionable Ngati Rangiwewehi could have reasonably expected that the situation would be

remedied by the Native Land Court which was a creature of statute. This was significant in the

sense that the Native Land Court was established by the Crown who was bound by the Treaty to

guarantee Ngati Rangiwewehi's rangatiratanga over their resources. The Native Land Court's

failure to protect the urupa, kainga, pa sites and mahinga kai was a clear breach of good faith.

In fact the Native Land Court was responsible for completing the process of disenfranchisement

started by Gill and eventually leading to the social, cultural and economic deprivation ofNgati

Rangiwewehi. Although totally unjust, the decision of the Court in 1896 and 1897 was not at all

surprising given the fact that Henry Sewell had commented in 1870 that:

The object o/the Native Lands Act [which established the Native Land Court] was twofold: to bring the great bulk of lands in the Northern Islands within the reach of colonisation and to destroy the principle of communalism on which the Maori social system was based 19

Clearly, the fragmentation ofNgati Rangiwewehi's land base was achievable firstly, because of

the work of Crown agents, and secondly because of the assistance these agents received from

a Crown agency. This whole process led to a breach ofNgati Rangiwewehi's Article II rights

34

and it is Ngati Rangiwewehi's view that responsibility must be attributed to the Crown.

Traditionally, Ngati Rangiwewehi supplies were obtained by food gathering, cultivation and

fishing throughout Mangorewa Kaharoa. It provided materials for all aspects of daily life

including materials for clothing, building, toolmaking and fuel etc. But Mangorewa Kaharoa was

not just valued as a source of food and raw materials, it was also valued because it gave Ngati

Rangiwewehi a sense of permanence and connection with their ancestors.

Wham ngarongaro te tangata, toitu te whenua! or People perish, but the land is permanent. 20

Mangorewa Kaharoa provided a turangawaewae, a place that all future generations ofNgati

Rangiwewehi could feel a sense of belonging, a sense of identity. The mana of Ngati

Rangiwewehi was bound up with Mangorewa Kaharoa. This affinity to the land is easily

discerned from the evidence given Ngati Rangiwewehi rangatira during the 1882 and 1896

cases. Natural features such as hiils, rivers and other natural landmarks were taken to be

boundaries and those who gave evidence could recite these landmarks with meticulous

precision. Ngati Rangiwewehi's whakapapa and history are identified by reference to many of

these features. The term "whenua" covered so many important concepts-the placenta of a new

born child, the lining of the womb during pregnancy, by which the descendants of Ngati

Rangiwewehi were nourished. It was also the term used for land, the body of Papatuanuku,

the provider of nourishment for Ngati Rangiwewehi and all its descendants. Mangorewa

Kaharoa was not just a resource, not just part of life, it was life itself. It is not surprising then

that Ngati Rangiwewehi still feel a strong sense of pain over the loss of Mango rewa Kaharoa

even today.

As already mentioned the 1896 case failed to take into account all the urupa and ancient pa

sites or wahl tapu outlined by Ngati Rangiwewehi. The term "wahi tapu" is generally thought

ofin modem society as a "sacred place". But even the translation oftapu as sacred does not

capture the full essence of the ancient urupa and pa sites scattered allover Mangorewa

Kaharoa. In the minds of Ngati Rangiwewehi the deep spiritual value of their wahi tapu

transcends mere sacredness. Various legislative mechanisms have been used to protect

culturally important sites but these have often been ineffective for Maori purposes because:

there is one standard for sites of significance to New Zealanders as a Whole, and other lesser standard for sights oj significance to Maori people. 21

35

Essentially the contract entered into in 1840, namely the Treaty ofWaitangi, meant that the

Crown was to actively protect the rangatiratanga of Ngati Rangiwewehi over their taonga,

including their waahi tapu and ancient pa sites. The indifference characterised by Gill and the

Native Land Court towards Ngati Rangiwewehi's cultural and spiritual values constitutes a

breach ofNgati Rangiwewehi's right to have their taonga protected.

Summary Points

• Gill began purchasing Ngati Rangiwewehi's interests in Mangorewa Kaharoa using

Deed Form 4 on 5 June 1895 with the help of his Maori interpreter Mr Carnachan.

They purchased approximately one third of Mango rewa Kaharoa in consideration of

£9,663 lOs 6d.

• Evidence suggests that Ngati Rangiwewehi's interests were sold on the proviso that

they would retain lake frontage.

• Gills purchasing activities undermined Ngati Rangiwewehi's right to te tina

rangatiratanga over controlling the disposition oflands which they exercised mana over.

Expediency took precedent over actively protecting the interests ofNgati Rangiwewehi

and his failure to treat with Ngati Rangiwewehi as a tribal unit amounts to a breach of

good faith implicit in the Treaty ..

• Mangorewa Kaharoa was held to be of deep cultural and spiritual value to Ngati

Rangiwewehi, it gave them a sense of belonging, a sense of identity. The mana ofNgati

Rangiwewehi was bound up with Mangorewa Kaharoa.

• The Native Land Court was obliged, but failed to uphold the non-sellers Article II

Treaty rights. Its failure to guarantee Ngati Rangiwewehi's rangatiratanga by protecting

urupa, kainga, mahinga kai, and pa sites effectively disenfranchised Ngati Rangiwewehi,

leading to social, cultural, and economic deprivation.

• The indifference characterised by both Gill and the Native Land Court constituted a

breach ofNgati Rangiwewehi's right to exercise rangatiratanga as well as a breach of

their right to have their taonga protected.

36

References

1. Reed, AW. Legends of Rotorua and the Hot Lakes (1958) 73

2. Rotorua 11B 23/311

3. Stafford, D. Landmarks ofTe Arawa: Volume One (1994) 20

4. see DOSLI Plan S.O. 44025 in this report at 6

5. see Stafford Map 17 3/a-d in this report at 12

6. Department of Lands and Surveys, Hamurana Springs Recreation Reserve Draft Plan (1985) 1


8. New Zealand Gazette 1982, pl098



11. See Deed (Form No 4, Front Sheet) DOSLI file No 1953/ei

12. Rotorua MB 36/96

13. Rotorua:ME 36/75

14. Rotorua :ME 23/271



17. see Te Tupara & 12 others ofOhinemutu NLP 111894/101 and Takaanui Tarakawa & others 1/1894/85 MA 1134

18. see Moore & Quinn Report (1993) 47-48

19. New Zealand Parliamentary Debates Vol IX 1870 p269

20. Asher & Naulls (1987) 3

21. Manukau Report (1985) 62

37

Chapter 6

Gill's Swing Line

Another issue of contention in relation to the Crown's 1896 award was the positioning of the

swing line. As already mentioned, Gill asked the 1896 Court to partition off the Crown's

interests in the eastern end of Mango rewa Kaharoa. Gill proposed that the western boundary

be bounded by a swing line fixed at a point 20 chains west of the Kaikaitahuna river. The idea

was straightforward. The northern, eastern and southern boundaries were already in place

being the external boundaries of the Mangorewa Kaharoa which had been fixed as a result of

the original award in 1882. The southern boundary was of course the lake front. The theory

was that a line (fixed 20 chains west of the mouth ofKaitkaitahuna) would be swung until the

Crown's entitlement fell within the northern and eastern external boundaries of Mango rewa

Kaharoa, the lake front, and the swing line which ran in a north-south direction from its fixed

point on the lakefront to the back (northern) boundary. This whole idea of a swing line was

dreamt up by Gill himself without any consultation with Ngati Rangiwewehi. One possible

explanation for this becomes clearer if we look at the political climate at the time of the

purchase, and Gill's purchasing activities within the broader context of other actitiivies

happening in Rotorua during the same period.

Rotorua was blessed with a number of scenic attractions including hot and cold water springs,

mud pools, geysers as well as a number of lakes and waterfalls. Principle among these were

the legendary pink and white terraces at Te Wairoa which were first seen by Pakeha eyes in

1840.1

The Terraces, geysers, and other thermal wonders ... were the magnets that drew the first visitors. Their fascination was voiced abroad by scientists such as Dieffenbach and H ochstetter, by missionaries and by pofiticians. 2

The growth oftourism was also stimulated by the visit of Prince Alfred, the Duke of Edinburgh

in 1870.3 Hotels and accommodation houses sprang up advertising extensively in newspapers

and the first guide book of the period, Guide to the Hot Lakes was published in 1872.4 Maori

in the Rotorua area were immediately alert to the possibilities of generating income from

making their natural resources accessible to Pakeha tourists. Tuhourangi for example charged

tourists for rowing them across lakes Tarawera and Rotomahana to see the Terraces. 5 Charges

38

ranged from approximately £2 a person per day to £5/8s for a party of eight per day.6 Other

cost were incurred such as entry fees once on site as well as charges for taking photographs etc.

were additional again. The spectacular resources of the thermal district became not only of

intense interest to the colonial travellers-turned-settlers but also for the Crown who recognised

that the Arawa people were deriving large benefits from the tourist industry.7 In 1878 the

question of purchasing land in the Rotomahana Parekarangi area was raised in Parliament

because of the great desire that the Government should possess land in the area in order to

increase accommodation for tourists. 8 Two years later the F enton-Whakaue Agreement was

signed resulting in the establishment of the Rotorua township.9 The same year the Thermal

Springs Districts Act 1881 was passed, its long title couched in the following way:

Whereas it would be advantageous to the colony, and beneficial to the Maori owners of the land in which natural mineral springs and thermal waters to exist, that such localities should be open to colonization and made available for settlement: And it is expedient that powers should be given to the Governor enablin¥ him to make arrangements for effecting that object ... 1

The Act had passed into law on 24 September, two weeks later the Rotorua township was

defined as a district under it,ll and yet another two weeks later the district expanded another

646,790 acres. 12 Thegovemment shifted its focus to Whakarewarewa lands which were it

managed to acquire in 1896. The Crown was keen to purchase these lands because it was a

prime tourist destination which had proven its potential since its beginnings in the early

1880's.13

Things were happening on the north side of lake Rotorua as well. As early as 1889 Ngati

Rangiwewehi had set up a toll gate at Kaikaitahuna14 and were paddling tourists up to the

springs. Hamurana was described as the gem of Rotorua's beauty spotS.1S From the late

nineteenth centuIy tourists travelled to Hamurana by launch. Rowboats would meet the launch

and ferry tourists to Te Puna-i-Hangarua. This spring was the main attraction and was

featured in all tourist guides advertised by local hoteliers. Tourists were intrigued by the water

pressure from the spring which was so great that the coins which were thrown in by the

visitors refused to sink, spinning while seemingly suspended in the water before gracefully

lodging in the embankment. 16 In 1890 there were 2,500 "officially" reported tourists to

Rotorua.

Back in 1882 the outside boundaries of Mango rewa Kaharoa were determined by the Courts.

The fact that it was to be fixed at a point 20 chains west of the mouth of the Hamurana stream

39

meant that Hamurana Springs was always going to fall within the boundaries of the Crown

partition. In 1897 Mita Taupopoki alluded to the possibility that Gill's insistence on including

Hamurana Springs in the Crowns partition may have been due to their desire to secure the

revenue from tourism. 17 Although none of the documentation obtained in respect of this report

explicitly says that this was in fact the case, if we look at the impact tourism had on Crown

purchasing activities in the Rotorua area during that period, the better view would be that the

potential of Hamurana as a tourist attraction would have been in the mind of Gill when he

purchased Ngati Rangiwewehi' s interests in Mangorewa Kaharoa. Of course Gill himself was

involved in the purchase ofRotomahana Parekarangi and Whakarewarewa lands which were

considered because of competition for tourist dollars and instructions by settlers to purchase

"as much as possible of the lands around the lakes" .18 The Department of Lands mentioned

Hamurana Springs in its 1896 Annual Report:

At Rotoroa, the well-known Hamurana cold springs have also been acquired, together with considerable area around them. These springs are the source of attraction of tourists, and their acquisition will do away with the tolls hitherto charged Sight-seers by the Maoris. 19

Ngati Rangiwewehi have always maintained that Crown interest in Hamurana Springs was

partly due to its status as a tourist attraction and it is suggested here that a contextual analysis

of the situation as it was in the 1890's tends to support Ngati Rangiwewehi's claims. It is

therefore contended here that tourism was one of the forces influencing Gill's decision to ask

for a swing line in the first place. After all, even the sitting Judge recognised that the area in

and around Hamurana springs was "probably the most valuable in the whole of the

Mangorewa Kaharoa block", 20 and if the judge recognised this it must also have been clear to

an experienced astute Land Purchase Department official like Gill.

Given the economic potential ofHamurana Springs just before the tum of the century as well

as the subsequent development ofRotorua as a tourist resort right up until the present time,

it is clear that the failure of the Crown to recognise Ngati Rangiwewehi's rights of ownership

over the fresh water springs at Hamurana has prejudicially affected the claimants long term

economic interests. While Ngati Rangiwewehi were in a position to exercise these rights the

tribal group was benefiting as a whole. It is well known that apart from providing a living for

individual members ofNgati Rangiwewehi, money from the tourists was given back to the

tribe for tangi, marae up-keep, and hui etc.21

40

Of the major concern in relation to the ownership of Hamurana Springs was the loss of an

important resource and the impact this loss would have on the physical and spiritual well-being

of all the people of Ngati Rangiwewehi. The significance of the fresh water springs and

surrounding waterways in and around Hamurana as a food source for the people of Ngati

Rangiwewehi cannot be overstated. Te Puna-i-Hangarua was a prime spot for catching

kokopu.22 Fish were caught in the Kaikaitahuna using torches and fish pots while inanga was

caught using nets. 23 One of the fears alluded to by Nohoroa Paora was that the government

would make rules preventing Ngati Rangiwewehi from exercising their traditional fishing

rights. We now know with the benefit of hindsight that Nohoroa Paora must have been a

person with incredible foresight. Ngati Rangiwewehi had a valid claim to the whole of

Mangorewa Kaharoa based on take taunaha, take tupuna, take raupatu, and take tuku or

discovery, descent, conquest, and gift. Under customary land tenure asserting these rights was

dependent on

The 1896 Crown award had the effect of disenfranchising members of Ngati Rangiwewehi,

some of whom had no interests outside the Crown award. Some of these people were non

sellers who were forced off their land unwillingly. Such actions were clearly in breach of the

Treaty of Waitangi which guaranteed all the tribes of New Zealand full exclusive and

undisturbed possession of their forests, fisheries and other taonga so long as it was their wish

to do so.

It is difficult to assess the economic loss Ngati Rangiwewehi has suffered as a result oflosing

a resource which has tourist potential, particularly if we are wanting to translate that loss into

monetary terms based on today's standards. What we do know however is that economic

deprivation can impact on people's lives in a number of ways. Of course the correlation

between land loss and the low socio-economic status of Maori is well documented. This has

meant that Maori are often under resourced in areas such as health, housing, and employment

etc., leading to a number of societal problems.

Another matter which is associated with the effect of Gill's purchasing activities on Ngati

Rangiwewehi's economic position is the loss of lake frontage. In 1896 the value of lake

frontage would have been obvious. Firstly, the Tauranga Direct Road running from Tauranga

across the Mangorewa Gorge was opened in 1873.24 Ngati Rangiwewehi had constructed the

8 mile section from Te Rerenga to the edge of the Mangorewa forest for £ 1600.25 They also

constructed the portion of road from the edge of the forest to Waiteti. This road is still in the

same place today and it is easy to take this for granted but in 1896 the value ofland close to

41

the lakefront would have been much greater than back country in virtue of one's ability to

transport things, and to do so having total accessibility to the coast. The value oflakefront

land would have also been more sought after because of its recreational value, that is for

fishing, boating and swimming etc. The freshwater springs in and around the Kaikaitahuna

would have provided plenty of water and the lake would have provided alternative access to

the township of Rotorua. The situation is much the same today, lakefront housing being

prime real estate. In fact lakefront property is approximately three time the values of back

country land in and around Hamurana?6 So it can be seen that in loosing the opportunity to

retain their lake front kaingas Ngati Rangiwewehi have suffered a significant loss at the hands

of the Crown.

If this wasn't enough Ngati Rangiwewehi have suffered a double blow. During 1895-96 when

Gill was purchasing Ngati Rangiwewehi's interests in Mangorewa Kaharoa he paid the owners

5 shillings per acre27 well below that paid for Whakarewarewa (7s/6d)28 and well below the 6

shillings per acre paid for Maori land at that time?9 Some land such as Whakarewarewa N03

sec2 sold for as high as 10 shillings per acre?O A shilling an acre may not seem a lot but this

translates to an overall net loss to Ngati Rangiwewehi of over £700.

The low price paid for Ngati Rangiwewehi's interests in Mangorewa Kaharoa is also reflected

in the 801 acres taken as payment of the survey lien which was a charge against the land of

£180 7s 6d. Ngati Rangiwewehi is aware of the fact that strictly speaking Mangorewa No 5

is not part of the present claim, but there are grievances over the alienation of Hamurana

Springs Reserve relating to Mangorewa Kaharoa NoS because Mangorewa Kaharoa No 5 was

created as a result of the alienation of Mango rewa Kaharoa No 1. As mentioned, the alienation

of Mangorewa Kaharoa was itself a major issue of concern for Ngati Rangiwewehi,

particularly with regard to their claim over Hamurana Springs Reserve. In essence the Crown

paid £180 7s 6d for 801 acres ofland, which like the price paid for Mangorewa No1, was also

below the average price paid for land during that period. It is not surprising then that Ngati

Rangiwewehi feel a sense of injustice over the survey lien. This sense of injustice is also felt

in virtue of the fact that the non-sellers were penalised as a consequence of a process that they

never wanted to be a part of in the first place. This added insult to injury, not only were the

rights of the non-sellers to rangatiratanga over their lands totally disregarded, but they also had

to pay for it and on average more than what £ 180 7 s 6d would have bought anywhere else

at that time. So the non-sellers with interests in lands within the Crown award were forced. off

through no fault of their own. Looking back at Ngati Rangiwewehi's grievances in 1996 it

seems obvious that in considering (1) the difference in value between Ngati Rangiwewehi's

42

lakefront properties which they had prior to the Crown award, and the land they received as

a result of the Crown award; and (2) the loss of income through the alienation of the

freshwater springs at Hamurana; and (3) the disproportionately high cost of liquidating the

survey lien; it is clear that even the return of the whole of the Hamurana Springs Reserve

would not be commensurate with the loss Ngati Rangiwewehi has suffered. However, this is

a matter which is better dealt with during the post-report stage.

Ngati Rangiwewehi's view then is that the Crown award in respect of the Mangorewa Kaharoa

block unfairly prejudiced their ongoing economic interests. Again we use the Treaty as a point

of reference. The concept of rangatiratanga clearly includes the right to derive economic

benefits, a right which in this case the Crown has totally ignored.31

Summary of Points

• A major issue in terms ofNgati Rangiwewehi's grievance over Hamurana Springs

Reserve was the use of a "swing line" in defining the area which the Crown was

entitled to.

• One of the motivating factors contributing to the use of the swing line was the

emergence ofHamurana Springs as a tourist attraction in the late nineteenth century.

This is evident if we look at Gill's activities in the broader context of what was

happening in Rotorua generally. This is inconsistent with the Crown's obligation to

give paramountcy to the interests of the Maori owners.

• A major concern in relation to the loss ofHamurana Springs is the impact this has had

on the physical and spiritual well-being ofNgati Rangiwewehi.

• The concept of rangatiratanga clearly includes the right to derive economic benefits.

The failure of the Crown to recognise the mana ofNgati Rangiwewehi and uphold

their Article IT rights over Hamurana Springs Reserve has prejudicially affected the

claimants long term economic interests.

• The liquidation of the survey lien was unfair because it penalised the non-sellers who

should not have to bare the burden of survey requirements which were the result of

others actions.

43

Plate I: Tourists at Hamurana Springs

National Library of New Zealand

References

1. Moore.& Quinn Report (1993) 3

2. Steele, R Tourism (1980) 10

44

3. Ibid., at 11

4. Te Awekotuku, N. (1985) 46

5. Spencer's Illustrated guide to the Hot Springs of Rotorua and Taupo (1885) 23

6. The Newest Guide to the Hot Lakes by a Man Constantly in Hot a Man Water (1885) 13

7. New Zealand Parliamentary Debates 12 Sept [1881] 522

8. Bay oj Plenty Times 10 August, 1878.

9. see Appendix G in Stafford, D. (1991) 527

10. Thermal Springs Act 1881

11. New Zealand Gazette 13 October 1881 at 1267

12. New Zealand Gazette 27 October 1881 at 1375

13. Moore & Quinn Report (1993) 37


15. Steele, R. "Tourism" in Rotorua: 1880-1980 (1980) 21

16. Anonymous, Rotorua: New Zealand's Wonderland (1906) 25


18. NLP 92170 in Archives MA-MLP 1149 15 August, 1893

19. AlliR [1896] C-l, pg viii

20.. see Judgement, RotoruaMB 23/351



23. RotoruaMB 23/292

24. Stafford, D. (1991) 503

25. AJHR [1871] D-l, at 16

26. pers Comm. Tom Carr, Valuation New Zealand (Rotorua Branch) 1 February, 1996

27. AJHR [1896] G-3, at 2

45

28. Moore & Quinn Report (1993) 40

29. Kawharu, LH. (1977) 26

30. AJHR [1896] G-3 pg 6

3 1. Ministry for the Environment (1993) 11

46

Chapter 7

Taniwha Springs: Taking of Pump Site

There are sixteen springs within Mangorewa Kaharoa 6E3N02 known collectively as Taniwha

Springs.l The Awahou river springs from a great pool known as Te Warouri (The Dark

Chasm). Taniwha Springs has great spiritual and cultural significance for the people ofNgati

Rangiwewehi. It was once the home of the great Taniwha Pekehaua who was slain by Pitaka

and his associates? Stories like the killing of Pekehaua contribute to Ngati Rangiwewehi's

strong sense of self identification and mana to the Awahou stream and surrounding frt:sh water

springs. The freshwater springs at Te Awahou are contained within Mangorewa Kaharoa 6E3

N02 PekehauaPuna Reserve while the area ofland which is the subject of this claim (Wai 218)

is a subdivision of this block being Part Mangorewa Kaharoa 6E3 N02 Pekehaua Puna

Reserve.

Ngongotaha has been serviced by a public water supply since 1924. Prior to 1966 springs

situated 2.5 kilometres west of the township were utilised to provide a gravity supply. By

1950 growth had outstripped the capacity of the street reticulation and various measures such

as the installation of booster pumps were taken to increase the capacity of the water supply

to the township ofNgongotaha. However, by 1964 concerns about the source of supply and

delivery of water emerged. Throughout 1964 there were restrictions placed on the use of

sprinklers within the Ngongotaha water supply area3 pursuant to Rotorua County Council

Water Works By-Law No 10 .. Draw-off limits were stretched to capacity by an influx of

holiday makers over the 1964 summer break.4 These concerns prompted the Ngongotaha

County Council to commission a report by its county engineer R.S. Martin exploring the

possibility of an alternative water supply for the area. Six sites were looked at which were as

follows: (1) Awahou Tributary 1; (2) Awahou Tributary 2; (3) Waiteti Stream; (4)

Ngongotaha Stream Tributary; (5) Te Ahipukahu Stream; and (6) Taniwha Springs.s The

upshot of the report was that it recommended the abandoning of the existing source of supply

in favour of an alternative source and pumped storage supply from Taniwha Springs on the

Awahou river.

At least as early as September 1964 the Ngongotaha County Council had entered into dialogue

with Mr P E. Leonard over the issue of an alternative source of water. 6 On 2 September 1964

47

the County Engineer Mr R. S. Martin wrote to Mr Leonard stating that the Council had

decided to go ahead with a water supply improvement loan for Ngongotaha. He asked that

Mr Leonard put this before the Awahou people as a preliminary to negotiations with the

Council. As early as November 1965 dialogue was entered into with Mr Leonard who

represented the owners of subdivision 6E3N02 (pekehaua Puna Reserve) in an effort to gain

the consent .of owners to carry out work which would lead to the realisation of those

recommendations outlined in the county engineer's 1964 report. This is clear from a meeting

which took place on 1 November 1965 between Mr P.H Leonard, Councillor S. Williams, Mr

RS. Martin (County Engineer), MrN.W. McCormick (County Clerk), and Mr E.H. Campbell

(Assistant County Clerk).7 At that meeting the County Clerk produced a plan showing the

location of an area required (0:3:36.6) and stated that he would like to start work early in

January 1966. Mr Martin stated that the draw offwould not affect the main spring and that

the setting up of the pump would not detract from the scenic value of the reserve. Mr Leonard

was to meet with the Pekehaua Puna Trustees and get back to the Council. At around about

the same time a poll was taken of ratepayers on the proposal of the Rotorua County Council

to raise a loan for the purpose of providing improvements to the water supply at N gongotaha. 8

Those in favour ofthe proposal won 77 to 51. Notification of sanction to loan $69,500 was

gazetted in August 1965. 9

On 9 February 1966 the Rotorua County Council advertised the proposed execution of a

taking under the Public Works Act 1928.10 This took place before Ngati Rangiwewehi had

a chance to fully consider the Council's proposal and report back to the Council. At the time

Pekehaua Puna Reserve was subject to a lease. On 23 February 1966 the solicitors for the

lessees (Taniwha Springs Ltd) sent a letter to the Maori Land Court stating that they were

intending to lodge a formal objection to the proposed taking within 40 days of the public

notice of 9 February. The lessees objections to the land passing to the Rotorua County

Council were: (1) severance of the ownership of the spring would adversely affect the water

flow; (2) the viewing pond which was an improvement made by the lessee and important

attraction would be affected by the waterflow being detrimental to the lessees; and (3) that

there would be a reduction in the value of the reserve as a whole. The general thrust of the

letter was an appeal for the lessors to join the lessees in objecting to the Council's proposals.

On 25 February the Deputy Registrar Mr HP. Martin responded to the lessees correspondence

stating that he had forwarded a copy of the letter to Mr Pakake Leonard who was the

chairman of the Committee of Management for the Proprietors of Pekehaua Puna Reserve

Incorporated.

48

The taking of Mangorewa Kaharoa 6E3N02 containing 0:3:36.6 acres was effective as of 22

December 1966. This was carried out without the consent of Ngati Rangiwewehi. The

gazette notice read as follows:

Pursuant to the Public works Act 1928, I, Brigadier Sir Bernard Edward Ferguson, the Governor General oj NI{W Zealand, hereby proclaim and declare that the land described in the Schedule hereto is hereby taken for waterworks and shall vest in the Chairman, Councillors, and Inhabitants of the County of Rotorua as from the date hereinafter mentioned: and I also declare that this Proclamation shall take effect on and after the 22nd day of December 1966. 11

By October 1966 the Ngongotaha County Council had commenced clearing secondary growth

in and around 6E3No2 to create an access road to the proposed pumping site. On 3 November

1967 the works became operative. On 1 April 1969 the Bay of Plenty Catchment Commission

granted a "notice of existing use" of water pursuant to section 21(2) of the Water and Soil

Conservation Act 1967. The legal right claimed by the County Council was pursuant to the

Counties Act 1956. The capacity of the spring was originally gauged at 2220 gallons per

minute. The grant allowed for an average draw-off of 580 gallons per min and up to a

maximum of 990 gallons per minute.

Outlining the way in which this area ofland came to be alienated is relevant here in the sense

that it provides a point of reference when considering the nature of the relationship which

existed between Ngati Rangiwewehi and the relevant local authority around the time of the

public works taking. The Rotorua District Council carries out various functions which are

delegated by central government through legislation. The inclusion of s8 in the Resource

Management Act 1991 is an acknowledgement that the obligations of the Crown towards Maori

also properly rest with local authorities. After all the Crown can not circumvent its Treaty

obligations by conferring an inconsistent jurisdiction on the Rotorua District Council. In this

light we argue here that the Rotorua District Council is an authorised agent of the Crown and

as such assumed all the obligations which would have fallen squarely on the Crown had the

Crown not otherwise delegated the functions in question to the local authority. This being the

case Ngati Rangiwewehi can reasonably expect that if in carrying out its functions the Council

acts ina manner that gives rise to a Treaty grievance, then the Crown is responsible for these

acts through agency.

The Council might for example do an act or acts which is or are sanctioned by statute. Even so,

such an act may give rise to a valid grievance by Ngati Rangiwewehi. Ngati Rangiwewehi's

49

view is that in such a case the Crown is responsible for these grievances even if they are not

intended. Ngati Rangiwewehi should not have to bare the burden of grievances just because

the Crown has failed to formulate legislation in such a way so as to effectively protect the

interests ofN gati Rangiwewehi. In other words the Council may have alienated Pekehaua Puna

Reserve in a manner which was totally consistent with the legislation defining its power, it may

have the legal capacity to act in this way but the point here is that this does not relieve the

Crown of its obligation to actively protect Ngati Rangiwewehi's Treaty rights. The Rotorua

District Council is a Crown agent which as such has an obligation to protect Ngati

Rangiwewehi's interests and this is so irrespective of whether legislation legally sanctions an

action inconsistent with its Treaty rights. Therefore, Ngati Rangiwewehi need only prove a

breach by the Council of its Treaty obligations and a prejudicial affect on Ngati Rangiwewehi

in order to hold the Crown responsible for the Councils actions. The question then becomes,

was the nature of Rotorua District Council's actions such that it gave rise to a grievance by

Ngati Rangiwewehi. To establish this it is necessary to look at the way the Rotorua District

Council alienated Ngati Rangiwewehi's interest in Taniwha Springs.

The right of the state to take private land for public purposes evolved out of western legal

tradition. When it emerged some six hundred years ago it reflected the balance between the

prerogative power of the English sovereign and the increasingly powerful landowning gentry. 12

The principle was eventually imported into domestic law within Aotearoa and was gradually

introduced as an integral part of the various public works provisions during the late nineteenth

century. What was significant in terms of the early development of public works provisions

here in Aotearoa was the existence of Maori people who clearly had prior rights of ownership

to land which were recognised by the Crown and protected under the Treaty ofWaitangi.

Although the Public Works Act 1928 was a consolidation of previous legislation it became the

principal public works Act for over half a century until it was revised and replaced by a new

Public Works Act in 1981. The Public Works Act 1928 conferred power on the Crown or local

authorities to acquire land for public works either by compulsory taking or by agreement for

purchase. The definition of "public work" under the 1928 was similar to previous legislation

and included any survey, railway, tramway, road, street, gravel pit, quarry, bridge, drain,

. harbour, dock, canal, river-work, water-work, and mining and associated work.

Part 2 of the 1928 Act outlined the taking procedures and included protections such as the right

to receive notice and the right to object to takings. The compulsory taking procedures outlined

in Part 2 ofthe Act required the following: (1) the Minister or local body had to have a survey

50

made and a plan prepared showing the lands to be taken as well as all owners and occupiers; (2)

the plan had to be lodged for inspection in the relevant district in some convenient place; and

(3) a notice had to be published once in the New Zealand Gazette and twice in local newspapers

stating where the plan was open for inspection and giving a general description of the proposed

works and lands to be taken. Any affected persons could lodge an objection within 40 days of

the first publication, could be heard by the Minister or local authority and could present

supporting evidence.13 Ifno objections were made, or after listening to objections the Minister

or local authority still felt it was expeditious to go ahead with the works then the Governor

General could, notwithstanding the execution of certain formalities, issue a taking

proclamation. 14

There are a number of issues related to the public works taking of Taniwha Springs which are

significant here. Ngati Rangiwewehi did not give their consent to the taking of land for the

pump site. The claimants are adamant on this point despite the fact that no formal objections

to the Council's proposal for the taking ofPekehaua Puna Reserve have been found in the

Rotorua County Council's archives, Maori Trustee Office files, or Maori Land Court records.

What is clear is that the Rotorua County Council did consult with Mr Pakake Leonard about

the use of an area of land within Mangorewa Kaharoa 6E3 No 2 and that for all intents and

purposes relations were amicable. The position in November 1965 was that Mr Leonard was

g-oing to approach the Maori owners and outline the Council's proposals for a pump site at

Taniwha Springs. On 27 January 1966 the Rotorua District Council instructed its solicitors that

the Council had decided at a meeting on 25 January to proceed with a compulsory acquisition

under the Public Works Act. The memorandum went on:

I think it would be courtesy, of course, to notify ... Mr P.H. Leonard on behalf of the Maori owners, tliat this course has been taken, due to the many legal difficulties which arise if the matter is left to provide consent and negotiation. 1

This memorandum indicates that the course of action adopted by the Council was done so in

an effort to avoid legal difficulties which were likely to arise if consent was sought through a

process of negotiation. But the Tribunal has made it clear that proposals such as public works

takings cannot be justified for reasons of convenience. 16 Of importance to N gati Rangiwewehi

is the fact that the Crown is obliged to avoid acting in a manner which is inconsistent with the

rights enumerated in the Treaty. What this means is that the Rotorua County Council is

51

constrained by Treaty from pursuing a proposal merely for convenience sake. Another

important is point that the taking ofPekehaua Puna Reserve without tribal sanction is a breach

of Article IT of the Treaty which requires the consent ofNgati Rangiwewehi to any disposition

ofland in which it has interests. 17

The fact that the public works taking was set in motion without the tribal sanction of Ngati

Rangiwewehi is important here and raises a number of issues which must be addressed.

Environmental planning is the responsibility of local authorities under modern resource

management law. In this way it can be seen that there is a host of local authority initiatives

which the Rotorua County Council could embark on that have the potential to impinge on the

rights and interests ofNgati Rangiwewehi. Ngati Rangiwewehi's traditional kaingas, pa sites,

burial grounds and mahinga kai are all situated within the confines of the Mangorewa Kaharoa

area. N gati Rangiwewehi therefore have a legitimate treaty interest in terms of any local

authority decisions which might affect these areas.

It is Ngati Rangiwewehi's view that because they have a legitimate Treaty interest the Council

has an obligation as Ngati Rangiwewehi's Treaty partner to consult with them where any

decision is likely to affect Ngati Rangiwewehi's interests. In 1840 the Treaty ofWaitangi

defined the relationship which was to exist between the Crown and Maori and in particular the

way in which decision making was to be shared between the two parties. The Treaty provided

for a distribution of power which at the very least requires the Crown to consult with Ngati

Rangiwewehi where policies and procedures are likely to affect its interests. Ngati

Rangiwewehi maintains the view that in order to achieve the balance of power contemplated

by the Treaty the Crown must approach all dealings between themselves and Ngati

Rangiwewehi with a real commitment to real and meaningful dialogue. In many cases especially

where the object is ...

... [tlo achieve a reasonable compromise it is preferable that there be consultation with the tribe rather than have the tribe resort to ob/tction processes, or even protests and demonstrations. .

Prior to the 1966 public works taking ofPekehaua Puna Reserve there was limited consultation

between Ngati Rangiwewehi and the Rotorua County Council. However, we are of the view

that this was not genuine consultation as there is no evidence to suggest that the method of

consultation adopted by the Council ever extended beyond dialogue between the Council and

Mr Pakake Leonard. The Crown's implicit duty to protect in Article IT of the Treaty, which

binds the Crown and by necessity all its agents, is a duty to "actively protect". In discharging

52

its duties in relation to water supply proposals in the mid to late 1960s the Rotorua County

Council was required to do more than enter into dialogue with one member of Ngati

Rangiwewehi. At the very least they were obliged to meet with Ngati Rangiwewehi 'kanohi

ki te kanohi' or face to face, to discuss their proposals pertaining to the use ofPekehaua Puna

Reserve. Because the Rotorua County Council did not do this they had no right to proceed

with a compulsory acquisition. 19 Failure to genuinely consult is a failure by the Crown to

recognise Ngati Rangiwewehi's rights to te tino rangatiratanga?O The Crown's duty to actively

protect the interests ofNgati Rangiwewehi necessarily includes an obligation to recognise their

tribal rangatiratanga. Because the consultation process adopted by the Rotorua County Council

was not genuine consultation Ngati Rangiwewehi was prejudiced in its ability to present their

views and have them heard in the planning process.

Ngati Rangiwewehi does accept that there is a public benefit to be gained in specific takings of

land for public works purposes but in conceding this Ngati Rangiwewehi assert that they have

special rights over and above the interests of the general public in virtue of the Treaty of

Waitangi. Ngati Rangiwewehi therefore makes a distinction between treaty rights and other

kinds of legal entitlements held by the general public at large. Ngati Rangiwewehi have a

"right" to the fresh water resource at Taniwha Springs while the residents ofNgongotaha have

a mere "privilege" to the resource?l Clearly there are a number of competing rights which need

to be considered in relation to the compulsory taking of Pekehaua Puna Reserve but as

mentioned previously such consideration requires conceptualising these "bundles of rights" as

a hierarchy of rights in which those of the tangata whenua should be given considerable weight

and only give way to the rights of the general public where it is absolutely necessary. Seen in

this light Public Works takings should only be constituted as a "last resort" in extreme

circumstances ..

There is evidence to suggest that the Rotorua County Council considered alternative pump sites

which could be used as a water supply for the Ngongotaha water reticulation scheme although

it is not clear how serious this consideration was. What is clear is that Pekehaua Puna Reserve

was more than just a 'preference'. Once the choice as to a site had been made the possibility

of using the other sites initially considered was never revisited. Ngati Rangiwewehi would

therefore assert that on this basis the Rotorua County Council would never have entered into

negotiations over the use ofPekehaua Puna Reserve in utmost good faith. This appears to be

a fair assessment of the situation because it is clear that the Council was never open to the

possibility of an alternative site even just as a contingency should negotiations with Ngati

Rangiwewehi fail to produce an agreement over the use ofPekehaua Puna Reserve. Ifin fact

53

this was not the case at the time the Council would have attempted to negotiate an agreement

over the use of an alternative site rather than preceding with a compulsory taking under the

Public Works Act 1928. The "last resort" argument is one which is given weight not only by

past Waitangi Tribunal findings but also Public Works legislation enacted subsequent to the

1928 ACt.22

A related issue is that where Maori land is required for a public purpose and negotiations fail

as is clearly the case with Pekehaua Puna Reserve provisions should enable a compulsory

taking for a specific use of land which is a partial interest like a lease or easement rather than

full freehold title.23 Ngati Rangiwewehi believes that the Crown did not have to take the

freehold title for Pekehaua Puna Reserve in order to use this land for waterworks purposes.

An alternative to a compulsory taking could have been negotiated if the Rotorua County

Council had acted in good faith towards Ngati Rangiwewehi as its Treaty partner. This would

have at least left open the possibility that the interests of the community as a whole, that is their

rights to an adequate town water supply system, could have been met while at the same time

discharging their Treaty obligations. The issue then is not that part Pekehaua Puna Reserve was

compulsorariIy taken for the purpose of public works but rather that part Pekehaua Puna

Reserve was compulsorarily taken for public works purposes when it need not have to have

been.

Because the Council never went beyond exclusive dialogue with:Mr Leonard it is clear that

there was not a serious intention on the part of the Council to negotiate an agreement with

N gati Rangiwewehi. This could have been done both easily and effectively by invoking the

provisions of Part XXIII of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 and calling a meeting with the Iwi?4

The failure of the Council to "actually consult" amounts to a failure to act reasonably and in

good faith towards its Treaty partner who in this case is Ngati Rangiwewehi. The fiduciary

duty which the Treaty ofWaitangi imposes2s is founded on trust and confidence in each other,

particularly where one party is in a position of power or has the capacity or ability to dominate

or influence its Treaty partner.26

The actions of the Rotorua County Council in respect of the 1966 public works taking were in

no way fair, reasonable or proper bearing in mind the spirit of the Treaty. As has already been

mentioned, in acting the way it did the Council failed to show that at any time prior to the 1966

taking that they were willing to change their proposal if negotiations with Ngati Rangiwewehi

broke down. None of the evidence gathered in preparation of this claim suggests that a formal

process for dealing with Ngati Rangiwewehi was ever developed by the Council. Any

54

consultation which took place in respect of Taniwha Springs was largely restricted to informal

dialogue between Mr Newton McConnick who was the County Clerk and Mr Pakake Leonard.

It appears that in addition to not developing a consultation framework the Council also failed

to stipulate a time frame within which consultation was to take place. A year had lapsed

between the time that Mr Leonard agreed to put the Councils proposal to Ngati Rangiwewehi

and the date when the public works taking was gazetted, although less than two months by the

time the Council had resolved to take the land under the public Works Act. This might seem

an adequate time frame within which Ngati Rangiwewehi had to consider, absorb and respond

to the proposal they were being asked to consider. However, the Rotorua County Council

failed to provide sufficient information so as to allow Ngati Rangiwewehi to make an informed

assessment ofthe proposal and determine an appropriate response. This last point is an issue

which has hampered our investigation throughout the preparation of the report. Many of the

claimants today are not clear what the Council's proposals actually were back in 1965 and are

not clear about the process which led to their lands being alienated. Clearly, this is the result

of poor community consultation, a failure which the County Council is totally responsible for.

Two final points which Ngati Rangiwewehi take issue with. The first is the fact that the

Council entered onto the land. The land was not alienated until 22 Deqember 1966 but the

Council was clearing bush and excavating for road access as early as the 14 October. The

second, is the fact that at the end of the day the legislation which made provision for the taking

of Pekehaua Puna Reserve does itself stand in stark contradiction to the rights of Ngati

Rangiwewehi under Article II. This second point is a matter which has been raised and

discussed in the past by the Tribunal. We therefore do no more than note it as one of a long

list of objections in relation to this particular public works taking.

The failure of the Council to act in a manner which acknowledged and maintained the Treaty

rights ofNgati Rangiwewehi highlights the fact that the Crown failed through the legislative

process to protect its interests. This raises the question of whether local authorities are the

appropriate bodies to for example, monitor the environmental impact of ongoing activities

involving natural resources, assess on an ongoing basis the impact of specific resource consent

proposals, carry out various licensing matters as well as all the other functions reasonably

expected oflocal authorities. Ngati Rangiwewehi would assert that the role of the Rotorua

local authorities is one which has traditionally been assumed to be appropriate without sufficient

consideration being given to the possibility that the Council may not be the best vehicle for

achieving the goals and objectives which underpin good environmental· management systems.

Some of the reasons for this assertion will be put to the tribunal in the following chapter but it

55

i15 sufficient at this point to state that if we are to give effect to the Article II rights ofNgati

Rangiwewehi then there needs to be a power shift which reverses the process of

disenfranchisement by returning to Ngati Rangiwewehi control over their resources.

Summary of Points

• In 1964 a report was commissioned by the Ngongotaha County Council to look at the

possibility of an alternative water supply for the Ngongotaha water reticulation scheme.

The report looked at a number of sites recommending the abandoning of the existing

source of supply in favour of an alternative source and pumped storage supply from

Taniwha Springs.

• In September 1964 the Council decided to go ahead with a water supply improvement

loan for Ngongotaha and Mr Leonard was asked if he would put this before the

Awahou people as a preliminary to negotiations with the Council.

• In November 1965 the Council entered into dialogue with Mr Leonard in an effort to

gain the consent of the Maori owners to enter onto the land to carry out work which

would lead to the realisation of the Council's proposal for the use ofPekehaua Puna

reserve as a pump site. Mr Leonard agreed to meet with Ngati Rangiwewehi and get

back to the Council but the Council resolved to take Pekehaua Puna Reserve before

Ngati Rangiwewehi had a chance to fully consider the matter.

• At no stage between November 1965 and December 1966 did the Council attempt to

put its proposals directly to Ngati Rangiwewehi, instead preferring to negotiate through

Mr Leonard. The Council failed to provide sufficient information for Ngati

Rangiwewehi to make an informed assessment of its proposal, a formal consultation

process was never developed, and a time frame within which consultation was to take

place was never stipulated. This process did not constitute "genuine" consultation, and

a failure to genuinely consult was a failure to act reasonably and in good faith towards

Ngati Rangiwewehi.

In December 1996 Pekehaua Puna reserve was taken under the Public Works Act 1928

without the consent ofNgati Rangiwewehi. The Taking of the pump site without tribal

56

sanction is a breach of Article II of the Treaty which requires the consent of Ngati

Rangiwewehi to any disposition ofland in which it has interests.

• The Public Works Act 1928 is inconsistant with Ngati Rangiwewehi's Article II Treaty

rights. The Rotorua County Council was a Crown agent given the fact that it's

functions were delegated by central government and it does them no good to hide

behind legislation which is inconsistent with the Treaty of Waitangi.

• In 1964 the Council considered a number of alternative pumpsites which could have

been used for the Ngongotaha water reticulation scheme. However, once the Council

had settled on Pekehaua Puna Reserve as the preferred site, from that point onwards

they were never open to the possibility of utilising any other site even as a contingency

should negotiations for the use ofPekehaua Puna Reserve fail to produce an agreement

with Ngati Rangiwewehi. In this instance the Council failed to meet its obligation to

act in good faith towards Ngati Rangiwewehi.

• Given that the Council was ~ot open to the possibility of using an alternative pump site,

the taking ofPekehaua Puna Reserve was not a matter of "last resort" or an "extreme

case" where a Public Works taking would be justified.

References

1. Reed, A.W. Legends of Rotorua and the Hot Lakes (1958) 74

2. Stafford, D. Te Arawa: A History of the Arawa People (1991) 71

3. see Daily Post 11 December, 1964 in Rotorua District Council Archive No RCO 001-0166

4. see Daily Post 7 January, 1965 in Rotorua District Council Archive No RCO 001-0166

5. Rotorua District Council Archive No RCO 001-0169

6. memo date 2 September, 1964 from R.S. Martin (County Engineer) to Mr Pakake Leonard in Rotorua District Council Archives

7. Minutes of Meeting dated 1 November, 1965-E.H. Campbell (Assistant County Clerk) in Rotorua District Council Archives

8. see Daily Post 29 June, 1965 in Rotorua District Council Archive No RCO 001-1325

57

9. New Zealand Gazette 5 August, 1965, No 43, p1251

10. see memo dated 8 February 1966, Rotorua District Council Archive No RCO 001-0169

11. New Zealand Gazette 1966. No 82, p2228

12. Marr, C. Public Works Takings: 1840-1981 (1994) 14

13. Section 22 Public Works Act 1928

14. supra n 2, at 118

15. see memorandum dated 27 January, 1966

16. Turangi Township Report (1995) 285

17. Report of the Waitangi Tribunal on the Orakei Report (wai 9) (Wellington, 1987) 6

18. Manukau Report (1985) 125

19. Ngati Rangiteaorere Report (1990) 46-48

20. Mohaka River Report (1992) 70

21. for the application of 'rights-privilege' distinction see United States v State of Washington. 384, F Supp 312, 332 (1984)

22. see Public Works Act 1981

23. Marr, C. Public Works Takings of Maori Land: 1840-1981 (1994) 24


25. New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General [1987] 1 NZLR, 664


58

Chapter 8

Water Resource

Statutory powers relating to water supply and river control have vested in local authorities from

the early days oflocal government. However, the first comprehensive system to control water

utilisation was under the Water and Soil Conservation Act 1967. The 1967 Act established a

system of water rights in place of the common law rights to use water and discharge waste.

Almost all the powers in the 1967 Act related to "natural water" which was defined under s 14:

"Natural Water" means all forms of water, including fresh water, ground water, artesian water, sea water, geothermal steam, water vapour, ice, and snow that are within the outer limits of the territorial seaa of New Zealand; but does not include water in any forwhile in any reservoir (not being an aqui{ier) under the control oJ a public authority and used mainly for the water supply purposesq( that public authority, or in any pipe, tank, or clstern.

NgatiRangiwewehi's ownership of the fresh water springs at Hamurana were last confirmed

by the Native Committee in 1894 who vested the springs in Kahawai and Makuini. 2 However,

these rights were effectively lost on the passing of Mango rewa Kaharoa N01 to the Crown.

While Ngati Rangiwewehi considers that ownership, control, and use of their traditional

waterways are central to this claim they recognise that in respect of the Kaikaitahuna and all

fresh water springs within the Hamurana Springs Reserve, the Crown assumed rights to the

water within the reserve when it took legal title to Mangorewa Kaharoa 1 in 1897. It was at

this time that Ngati Rangiwewehi lost its rangatiratanga over the spring water resource at

Hamurana. The arguments over the loss of Mangorewa Kaharoa No 1 have already been

discussed so it will suffice to say that it is Ngati Rangiwewehi' s view that given the fact that the

loss of Mango rewa Kaharoa No 1 was the result of a Treaty breach, N gati Rangiwewehi' sloss

of control over the spring water resource at Hamurana must necessarily also constitute a breach

of its rights under the Treaty ofWaitangi.

The Water and Soil Conservation Act did however apply to Taniwha Springs. A notice of

existing use was issued pursuant to s 21(2) on 1 April 1969, the right to take water being

derived from the Counties Act 1956. The 1967 Act controlled the use by Ngati Rangiwewehi

of its lands by vesting all rights to natural water in the Crown. The Act states that:

59

Except as expressly authorised .. the sole right to dam any river, stream, or to divert or take natural water, or discharge natural water or waste into any natural water, or to discharge natural water containing waste containing waste on to land or into the ground in circumstance which result in that waste, or any other waste emanating as a result of natural processes from that waste, entering natural water, or to use natural water, is hereby vested in the Crown subject to the provisions of this Act. 3

The s21(1) vesting was a breach of Ngati Rangiwewehi's rights to control the freshwater

springs at Taniwha Springs. Apart from s 21(1) the most significant aspect of the Water and

Soil Conservation Act for Ngati Rangiwewehi was the fact that there was no requirement

contained within its provisions compelling the Crown to consult with them over any decisions

resulting in the issuing water rights. This is the case not only where water rights were issued

by the Crown to other parties, but also in the case of Crown water right applications. Given

the fact that at no stage Ngati Rangiwewehi were consulted with regard to the taking of natural

water from Pekehaua Puna Reserve, it is clear that decisions affecting water use have been

made without considering their views. This too was a breach ofNgati Rangiwewehi's Article

II rights and it does no good to hide behind the inadequacy of the 1967 legislation. The

spiiritual and cultural values ofNgati Rangiwewehi's associated with Te Warouri and the

Awahou stream should still have been considered when making a decision on the taking of

water from Pekehaua Puna Reserve.4

The Maori world view, and in particular perceptions about their own relationship to the

environment is not uncommon amongst indigenous people of the world but is unique in the

context of Aotearoa to the extent that it largely differs from the view of the dominant Pakeha

culture. Maori tend to have a holistic view of the environment which recognises the

interrelatedness and independence of all living things. Acknowledgement of the whakapapa

links tying humans to Papatuanuku in part explaining peoples attachment or affinity with the

environment. Not surprisingly natural elements like water are seen as taonga or treasures.

Within Ngati Rangiwewehi Taniwha Springs is a taonga. The people ofNgati Rangiwewehi

have grown up alongside the springs-the springs have always been there, as long as Ngati

Rangiwewehi have been there. Ngati Rangiwewehi identify themselves with the river, their

turangawaewae is Awahou the same name as their river. The Awahou which emerges out of

the depths ofTe Warouri has its own mauri or essence and through its mauri, water means life.

The importance of the river to Ngati Rangiwewehi becomes abundantly clear when you talk

to the local people.

60

The water ... the giver of life for the existence of all humans. The importance of this water Te Awahou is that it has a spirit which is embodied in the whole area in which it travels throu$..h the land. .. in essence it is the tika1}ga of the hapu oJ Ngati Rangtwewehi. It transfers itself through the whenua on both sides of the awa through a whanau Ngati Mohi, Ngati Hakopa as it journeys on it's course to Rotorua-nui-a-kahu, the great lake of Rotorua ... [Tjhis river Te Awahou has a mana that is a mana of great importance, the spirit inside of it is still alive this day I talk to you. From time immemorial as far back as I can remember .. .it has been said by myoid people that it is through this river that life springs forth Jor the tribe ... [TJhe water is the life of the people, therefore ... our tupuna .. ,made his kainga T awakeheimoa ki te taha I te awa.

The deep cultural and spiritual significance of freshwater springs within Pekehaua Puna

Reserve to the people of Ngati Rangiwewehi is reinforced by many stories which have been

passed down through the generations since time immemorial. Te Warouri was the leer of

Pekehaua, a taniwha which was notable for being responsible for the disappearance of various

travelling parties from Waikato and Patetere to Rotorua. 6 The Tribes inhabiting the Rotorua

district heard of this and a party about three hundred and thirty strong went to Te Waro-Uri to

confront Pekehaua.7 A party of volunteers, the most notable being a chief named Pit aka

. descended to the depths ofTe Warouri in a taiki, fastened a rope round Pekehaua who with the

help of great numbers of incantations was dragged to the surface, hauled ashore and there set

upon and slaughtered.

The key to understanding the disappearance of the various war parties referred to above lies in

acknowledging that Pekehaua played a vitally important role for Ngati Rangiwewehi as kaitiaki

of the Awahou. Referring to Pekehaua it has been said that. ..

[ijt was a taniwha that travelled the river. It's sole purpose in terms of conveying itself back from the lake to it's humble abode within the waha of the puna of Taniwha Springs was that he assumed the joe Of looking after the tribe, the iwi, Ngati Rangiwewehi.

Pekehaua's presence is still very much evident today, Ngati Rangiwewehi still very much

associate Taniwha Springs with the infamous monster Pekehaua, in fact Taniwha Springs is still

often referred to as Pekehaua. Other important kaitiaki are associated with Taniwha Springs.

It has been known to happen that a certain log circumnavigates the Awahou of it's own accord

running against the current of the water. Upon this log sits an old kuia and it is said that the

61

appearance of this kaitiaki is a tohu signifying the impending loss of a great chief of Ngati

Rangiwewehi. When recounting old memories people who grew up in the Awahou area almost

inevitably breach the subject of their experiences at Pekehaua Puna Reserve, whether it was

fishing, playing in the surrounding bush or hiding from the ranger, they all have a story to tell.

Taniwha Springs has always had an important recreational value children growing up in the area

who regularly fished, played and swam in and around the springs. Given all the activity centring

around the Awahou river and freshwater springs it is interesting to note that there have never

been any drownings in the river. But the Taniwha Springs is important to the people ofNgati

Rangiwewehi in other ways. It was at one time full of koura and its banks were normally lined

with an abundance of watercress. In 1888 150 brown trout were introduced into the Awahou,

Ngongotaha and, Utuhina rivers and flourished over the next ten years.9 In recent times then

the Awahou has also provided a constant supply of trout.

The negative effects of introducing trout into the waterways and the inevitable supplanting of

our native fish was given thorough consideration in the Rotorua Lakes Case in 1908. However,

trout were also responsible for enhancing the profile of Taniwha Springs. The tranquillity of the

river and freshwater springs was at one time renowned, not just within the tribe of Ngati

Rangiwewehi but worldwide and this is evidenced by the thousands of tourists who have over

the years travelled to Awahou to experience the magic of Taniwha Springs. One modem

marvel at Taniwha Springs which attracted a lot of interest was a rainbow trout called

"Harvey"who resided in the Awahou until a flash flood washed him away in 1956. Harvey

could be seen through the windows of a viewing pond which was built into the banks of the

Awahou river and he was very unusual in the sense that he possessed both male and female

organs. Of most interest to the visitors however was the fact that Harvey changed colour at

feeding time. Ordinarily Harvey was dark green or dark reddish brown in front and yellow

green on the rear half of his body. At feeding time Harvey would become light green allover

and continue changing colour until he was light in the front and dark at the rear. After about

five minutes Harvey would change back to it's normal colouring.

As mentioned earlier, the people ofNgati Rangiwewehi have grown up with the freshwater

springs, grown up next to the Awahou stream, it is their life. As a result of this affinity Ngati

Rangiwewehi have with the Taniwha Springs area they are extremely sensitive to subtle

changes in the environment. Ngati Rangiwewehi can recall when the current in the Awahou

stream was too strong to stand up inlo, when kaura, trout and watercress were abundant: ll

62

There was' an abundance of food We never needed to go beyond our river for anything-for crayfish. .. watercress. There was just an abundance trout, you name them, from fingerlings to toitoi 's, to cockabullies, to brownies, to rainbows, to jackfish, we had it all. 12

But a lot has changed since then, the water level has dropped and the river is not so swift,

there are a few trout but not much else, even the watercress has largely gone. Ngati

Rangiwewehi have a whole range of statuses for water which derive from the environmental

and social realities they have found themselves in over the years of occupation upon the lands

at Mangorewa Kaharoa. These range from "waiora" which is the purest fonn of water to

"waimate" which has lost its mauri or life force. Ngati Rangiwewehi have acquired a

knowledge base or rationale for living with, rather than opposed to their natural environment.

In essence this is a science which has been developed over time and passed down from their

tupuna as a tool for ensuring that Papatuanuku's bounty is looked after. Ngati Rangiwewehi

believe that the quality of the waters in the Awahou river have deteriorated over the years but

would never have lost its value as a food resource had Ngati Rangiwewehi retained control of

these resources.

Water has traditionally been viewed as a treasured resource throughout the geothermal lakes

district. Hot water springs were used for cooking, bathing, therapeutic relaxation and were

the primary source utilised to extract 'kokowai' or red ochre which was a valuable commodity

used in the exchange of goods within traditional Maori society.13 Freshwater springs can be

utilised in a variety of ways as well. This has certainly proved to be the experience of those

living around Awahou. The employment of freshwater was used for the endowment oftapu

or mana. Protecting people by practices involving the use of water is common and forms part

of the fabric in Maori society. A well known whakatauki which indicates the special qualities

of water is ... "Me pewhea? Me kawe rawa ia ki te wai, .kia wehe te tapu, ka takakau au" or

"What is there to do? Naught else but to be taken to the waters to remove the tapu, and thus

set me free" .14

The term ''taonga'' is used in the Treaty of Waitangi and denotes "all things treasured"

including both tangible and intangible things, most easily conceived of as resources which are

capable of incorporating a range of economic, spiritual and cultural associations. IS Using this

definition it is apparent that the·freshwater springs, the river, the mauri of the river, the flora,

fauna and a host of other tangible and intangible resources are the taonga of Ngati

Rangiwewehi. The tenn ''taonga'' evokes an obligation to "tiaki" or care for such resources.

This responsibility rests with Ngati Rangiwewehi and Ngati Rangiwewehi alone. This

63

assertion is made in light of the fact that kaitiakitanga is exercisable in virtue of mana which

derives from the whenua. But Ngati Rangiwewehi are the only group which can validly claim

to wield manawhenua in relation to Mangorewa Kaharoa lands. Therefore, the active exercise

of power in a manner beneficial to these resources which kaitiakitanga entails, most

appropriately rests with Ngati Rangiwewehi. In essence kaitiakitanga is closely connected with

rangatiratanga, a term also connected to the exercise of mana. What this equates to is the

ability of Ngati Rangiwewehi to control these resources in accordance with its own cultural

preferences. This is what the Treaty ofWaitangi guarantees Ngati Rangiwewehi, and this is'

what Ngati Rangiwewehi is seeking in relation to the freshwater springs, Awahou river and

the land subject to the 1966 public works taking.

Clearly, past decisions made by the Crown and its agents have had the effect of depriving

Ngati Rangiwewehi of not only the resource but also practising their customs. Ngati

Rangiwewehi has been forced to obey laws which have arbirarily restricted their access to

their mahinga kai which undermined Ngati Rangiwewehi's manawhenua leading to breaches

of its Treaty rights. The issuing of fishing licences is one example of this, N gati Rangiwewehi

finding it offensive that decisions are made in relation to the resources over which their mana

rightfully extends. Ngati Rangiwewehi are of the view that the last persons to be affected by

the operations of the law should be the people with a treaty-based interest.16 Article II of the

Treaty imposes an obligation on the Crown to protect the rangatiratanga of Ngati

Rangiwewehi over their resources but the opratives of the local authority as well as the

statutes which govern it, excluded any protection for Ngati Rangiwewehi and their taonga.

This is clear ifwe look at the fact that the planning aspects of the Water and Soil Conservation

Act for example failed to embody any specific requirements obliging local authorities to take

into account Ngati Rangiwewehi's interests when applying for water rights. 17

Ngati Rangiwewehi proclaim a unique relationship with Pekehaua Puna Reserve and

Hamurana Springs Reserve. Their tupuna lived and died on Mangorewa Kaharoa, they lived

and died defending it. Their dead are buried on Mangorewa Kaharoa and stand as enduring

symbols ofNgati Rangiwewehi as a tribal entity. Their mana over the whole of Mango rewa ,

Kaharoa is what forms the basis ofNgati Rangiwewehi's right to exercise kaitiakitanga over

both areas of land. Ngati Rangiwewehi's view is that they are the ones who have traditional

customary rights in relation to this land, it is their legal prescriptions which underpinned

traditional resource management systems, it was their resouce management system that

ensured that resources were protected. The Treaty of Waitangi guarantees their right to

exercise rangatiratanga in accordance with their own cultural preferences and it is on this basis,

64

the Treaty ofWaitangi that Ngati Rangiwewehi seek to have the ownership and control of

their lands and all freshwater springs within them returned.

Summary Points

• Ngati Rangiwewehi's ownership of the freshwater springs at Hamurana were lost on the

passing of Mango rewa Kaharoa into Crown hands in 1897. The vesting of Mango rewa

Kaharoa No1 in the Crown resulted from a Treaty breach, therefore the subsequent

ownership of the freshwater springs are also the result of a breach.

• Pekehaua Puna Reserve on the other hand was subject to the Water and Soil

Conservation Act 1967 which had the effect of vesting rights to control Pekehaua Puna

Reserve in the Crown.

• The Act restricts Ngati Rangiwewehi's access to mahinga kai, deprives Ngati

Rangiwewehi from practising their customs, undermines Ngati Rangiwewehi's rights to

control and possession of the freshwater resource, and hence breaches Ngati

Rangiwewehi's Treaty rights.

• The 1967 Act contained no provisions compelling the Crown to consult with Ngati

Rangiwewehi over any decisions resulting in the issuing of water rights. This also was

an effective breach.

• The freshwater springs in and around Pekehaua Puna reserve and Hamurana Springs

Reserve. The term ''taonga'' evokes an obligation to tiaki or care for freshwater

resources. Kaitiakitanga is exerciseable in virtue of mana which itself derives from the

whenua. Ngati Railgiwewehi and Ngati Rangiwewehi alone hold exclusive rights to

exercise mana in relation to resources within the Mangorewa Kaharoa. Therefore they

are the appropriate body to be overseeing natural resources, not the Rotorua District

Council.

65

Plate 2: "Pulling oul a haugi next to ilie Awahou River"

National library of New ~ea/and

References

1. Section 14 Water and Soil Conservation Act 1967

2. See Rotorua MB 36/80

3. see s21(1) Water and Soil Conservation Act 1967

4. see decision in Te Weehi v Regional Fisheries (HC., Christchuch M662/85) 1985

5. pers comrn. Hori Flavell, November, 1995

66

6. Reed, A.W. Legends of Rotorua and the Hot Lakes (1958) 75

7. Stafford, D. Te Arawa: A History of the Arawa People (1991) 70

8. pers comm. Hori Flavell, November, 1995

9. Burstall, P. The Introduction of Freshwater Fish into Rotorua Lakes (1980) 117

10. pers Comm. Hikairo Paul & Simon Maxwell, November, 1995

11. pers Comm. Meihana & Marcia Tuhakaraina, November, 1995

12. pers Comm. Hori Flavell, November, 1995

13. Stokes, E. Taupo Sewerage Disposal Options: Maori Perspectives (1991) 37

14. Love, M. Maori Issues and Water: Going into the Future with a Clear View of the Past (1990) 5

15. Ministry for the Environment, Taking Into Account the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi: Ideasfor the Implementation of Section 8 Resource Management Act (1993) 12

16. Boast, RP. Whakahokia te Mauria Conference June, 1990

17. Marr, C. Public Works Takings of Maori Land: 1840-1981 (1994) 139

67

Chapter 9

Addendum: Compensation

The compensation provisions for the compulsory taking of land for public works were

contained in Part 3 of the Public Works Act 1928. In general the 1928 Act contained similar

provisions to past public works legislation. Provisions for the acquisition of land by agreement

were contained in s32 which allowed the Minister of Works or a local authority to enter into

an agreement for the taking or purchase with the land owners. Under the Act land required

for public works purposes could be acquired by agreement or compulsory acquisition.

Compensation could be determined either by agreement or by having a determination made by

the Compensation Court under Part 3 of the Act. On being satisfied that an agreement was

sufficient the Governor General could go ahead and issue a proclamation taking the land.

Land taken by agreement was still deemed to be 'taken' under the Public Works Act but

normal provisions regarding compensation did not apply under s32 unless specifically provided

for. Compensation certificates registered the details of agreements and the amount of

compensation to be paid. The Maori Trustee was responsible for claiming compensation for

Maori land in multiple ownership under a 1962 amendment. l

At the time of the public works taking ofTaniwha Springs Mangorewa Kaharoa 6E3 N02 was

leased by Taniwha Springs Ltd. The proprietors ofTaniwha Springs Ltd (''the lessees") tried

to negotiate a subleasing arrangement with the Rotorua County Council over the use ofland

for the pwnp site. However the Solicitors acting for the Council advised their clients that this

avenue would lead to future complications? When it was clear that these negotiations were

not going to lead to an agreement the lessees lodged an objection to the taking in March 1966.

This was done within the required 40 day objection period beginning on 9 February when the

proclamation was published in the Daily Post.3 The lessees operated a tourist venture, the

main attraction being trout pools and specially built viewing pond. Their objections to the

Council proposals focussed on the impact of pump site construction and water draw-off on

their operation. In June 1966 the Government Tourist Bureau asked the Department of

Scientific and Industrial Research (''DSIR'') to assess the potential impact of draw-off (approx

6,000 galslhour) on the springs and adjoining area. The DSIR reported that the draw-off

would not adversely affect the local environs.4 The lessees lodged a statement of claim for

68

$5,574 with the Council in 1967 claiming that the public works taking and subsequent

construction of pump site had effected: (1) the goodwill of the lease; (2) the attraction of the

resort; (3) the character of the environment; (4) possibilities of development; (5) private water

supply and a host of other things. 5 The Council responded by contracting in the services of

an independent valuer6 in order to provide information which would help the Council better

assess appropriate levels of compensation. From this it was decided that the lessees claim was

unrealistic.7 Negotiations continued for some years but eventually broke down. The issue of

compensation was to be decided by the Land Valuation Committee and a hearing was

scheduled for 13 November 1970.8 On 11 November 1970 the Rotorua District Council's

solicitors informed them that an agreement had been reached and that the matter need not

proceed to the hearing. 9

In early 1969 Ngati Rangiwewehi had instructed their solictor to inspect Taniwha Springs with

a view to assessing the monetary loss sustained by the public works taking. He had instructed

his clients that the Council had accepted an independent valuation and the most Ngati

Rangiwewehi could expect would be $6,000.10 Finally, in August 1976 a settlement was

reached between Ngati Rangiwewehi and the Council, the amount of compensation negotiated

and agreed to being $4,200. 11 On top of this there was $75 for the valuation, $300 towards

the cost of the Maori owners Counsel, and $2,233 in interest accrued from 22 December 1966

to 22 August 1976. The Council Treasurer asked permission to underwrite an account

amounting to $723.91 (Ngati Rangiwewehi Marae Trustees) as well as a second amounting

to $ 81.67 (Mr P.R. Leonard)Y

The issue of compensation however has raised more questions than it has answered. It is clear

that the Awahou Marae Committee lodged a claim for compensation in respect of the County

Council's taking of part of Taniwha Springs, that a figure of $4,200 plus interest was settled

on, that was acceptable to the Awahou Marae Committee, and that the Council was in a

position to payout the amount resolved at 15 January 1976.13 Awahou Marae minute books

suggest that this was paid out and that half the compensation was paid to Manoeka, a branch

of Ngati Rangiwewehi in Te Puke. 14 It also appears that the Trustees of Pekehaua Puna

Reserve signed a release and discharge of all or any future claims or demands for

compensation. What is unclear however, is what specific area ofland this compensation relates

to. A memorandum to Ngati Rangiwewehi's solicitor in February 1969 refers to the

assessment of compensation in relation to an area containing one acre of land. 1s This area was

taken by the Council for water supply purposes but Part Mangorewa Kaharoa 6E3 N02 is less

than an acre. Apart from the lack of information obtained in relation to compensation, much

69

of the confusion surrounding this issue lies in the fact that most of the documentation relating

to compensation makes references to "Taniwha Springs Compensation" thereby leaving much

to speculation. There seem to be no references to specific blocks.

The issue of compensation is an area which clearly needs to be looked at further and so we are

not in a position at this stage to argue the merits of compensation paid in this case. In saying

this however, it is the view ofNgati Rangiwewehi that the uncertainty surrounding the issue

of compensation does not in any way detract from its claim over Pekehaua Puna Reserve. In

fact the loss of control of a priceless natural resource with inherent spiritual and cultural value

is what is at issue here and no amount of compensation can ameliorate the loss suffered by

Ngati Rangiwewehi. This is evident if we look at the perceived value of Pekehaua Puna

Reserve as a "taonga i tuku iho". To gain any appreciation ofNgati Rangiwewehi's loss it is

necessary to look at the value ofPekehaua Puna Reserve on their terms, within the context of

their experiences.

Summary Points

• In 1969 Ngati Rangiwewehi instructed their solicitor to inspect Taniwha Springs with

a view to assessing the monetary loss sustained by the public works taking.

Compensation amounting to $4,200 plus interest was paid out in 1976 and Pekehaua

Puna Trustees signed a release and discharge of all future claims or demands to

compensation.

• The lack of information obtained in relation to payment of compensation does not

warrant debate at this stage but Ngati Rangiwewehi is of the view that any uncertainty

surrounding the issue of compensation does not detract from the validity of their

grievance in relation to Pekehaua Puna Reserve.

• What Ngati Rangiwewehi are clear about with regard to compensation is that no amount

of monetary compensation can ameliorate the loss they have suffered as a result of the

public works taking in 1966.

References

1. Public Works Amendment Act 1962

2. Memo dated 25 January, 1996 from Urquart Roe & Partners to the County Clerk

70

3. Memo dated 16 March, 1966 from E.M. Urquart & Lee (solicitors for lessees) to Urquart Roe & Partners (solicitors for Rotorua County Council).

4. Memo dated 17 June, 1966 Rotorua District Council Archive No RCO 001-0170

5. Rotorua District Council Archive No RCO

6. Memo dated 18 August, 1967 from L.M. Sole to Urquhart Roe and Partners

7. Memo dated 6 August, 1969 from Uraquart Roe and Partners to the County Clerk

8. see "Notice of Hearing" dated 6 October 1970 in Appenx in Rotorua District Council Archives

9. see memorandum dated 11 November, 1970 in Rotorua District Council Archives

10. see Awahou Marae Committee minutes dated 30 March, 1969

11. Rotorua District Council Archive No 18, file 96 dated 24 August, 1976

12. Rotorua District Council Archive No 18, file 96 dated 24 August, 1976

13. Maori Trustee Office Archives, Vol 1 13/1614 pl13

14. See meeting Awahou Marae Committee dated 17 October, 1976

15. see memorandum dated 1 0 February, 1969 in Appendix 14

71

Chapter 10

Conclusions & Recommendations

In lodging a claim with the Waitangi Tribunal, Ngati Rangiwewehi claim to have been

prejudicially affected by the Crowns actions in relation to the alienation of part Mangorewa

Kaharoa 6E3 N02 Pekehaua Puna Reserve, and sections 41 and 42 and part section 12 and

part Mangorewa Kaharoa 7 A2B. Ngati Rangiwewehi's point of reference in terms of its

grievances over the above two pieces ofland is the Treaty ofWaitangi. In assessing the merits

ofNgati Rangiwewehi's grievances, two fundamental questions arise. Firstly, in its dealings

with Ngati Rangiwewehi, did the Crown fulfill its obligations under the Treaty and secondly,

if any breaches did occur, was Ngati Rangiwewehi prejudicially affected by them?

In terms of the alienation ofHamurana Springs Reserve, the critical period was between June

1895 and February 1896 when Richard Gill was purchasing Ngati Rangiwewehi's interests in

Mangorewa Kaharoa. What we do know about Gill's purchasing activities was that his

approach was to negotiate with individuals, rather than treating with Ngati Rangiwewehi as

a whole. Having acquired approximately one third of Mango rewa Kaharoa Gill applied to the

Native Land Court in 1896 to have the Crown's interests cut out of the block. He asked, and

successfully argued to have the Crown's interests cut out of the eastern side of the block. His

justification for this proposal was that most ofNgati Rangiwewehi were occupying lands on

the western side of the block in and around Te Awahou. In 1897 Ngati Rangiwewehi appealed

the Crown award which amounted to 14,185 acres. Grounds for appeal were that the 1882

Court had failed to take into account a number of culturally historic sites. The ownership of

the fresh water springs at Hamurana were also grounds for appeal.

In discharging his duties Gill was obliged to respect and give effect to Ngati Rangiwewehi's

right to rangatiratanga. His failure to treat with N gati Rangiwewehi undermined their rights

to rangatiratanga in controlling the disposition ofland over which they exercised mana. It was

also argued by the appellants that both sellers and non-sellers had disposed of their interests

on the proviso that the Maori owners would retain lake frontage. Gill denied ever being a

party to such an agreement. However, evidence tends to support the appellant's assertions on

this point. Firstly, Paatoromu Ngaamaunu's evidence was corroborated by others including

Matenga Pitini. Secondly, it is inconceivable that Ngati Rangiwewehi would sell its interests

72

knowing that the laying ofa north/south boundary from the lakefront to the back of the block

would be likely to jeopardise important sites like urupa, kainga, mahinga kai, pa sites, and of

course, the fresh water springs at Hamurana, most of which were close to the lake. Finally,

Gill could not have had much bargaining power at the time, and as such would not have been

in a position to dictate the terms of sale. After all, Ngati Rangiwewehi were in possession of

the land. Nonetheless Gill's approach proved to be very effective. But expediency seems to

have taken precedent over the interests of the Maori owners, which ought to have been

paramount in light of the Crown's obligations under the Treaty ofWaitangi. Gill's failure to

recognise the mana of Ngati Rangiwewehi by contracting with individuals amounted to a

failure to act in good faith towards them as Treaty partners.

The Native Land Court also played an important role in dispossessing Ngati Rangiwewehi of

their lands. Throughout its whole involvement in the Mangorewa Kaharoa case the Native

Land Court. failed to uphold Ngati Rangiwewehi's Article II rights. The Native Land Court

was obliged to make determinations in such a way so as to actively protect Ngati

Rangiwewehi's use and control of Mango rewa Kaharoa lands and waters to the fullest possible

extent practicable. However, the refusal of the courts to recognise many culturally significant

sites within Mangorewa Kaharoa was a clear indication that they failed to carry out their

fiduciary obligations and protect Ngati Rangiwewehi's taonga. The fragmentation ofNgati

Rangiwewehi's land base came about firstly, by the activities of Gill, and secondly, by the

operations of the Native Land Court.

It is clear that Ngati Rangiwewehi were prejudicially affected by the above actions. Some

factions ofNgati Rangiwewehi, and more particularly the non-sellers with interests in and

around Hamurana, were forced out of their kainga and off the land against their will. But the

Treaty guaranteed to Ngati Rangiwewehi their full, exclusive, and undisturbed possession of

their lands, forests, fisheries and other taonga so long as it was their wish to do so. Non

sellers were affected in other ways. For example, non-sellers were unfairly subject to the

survey lien which was charged against the land despite the fact that they were not a party to

selling. In essence non-sellers were apportioned a share of the costs accrued by the actions

of others.

Hamurana was a well known tourist destination prior to the Government award in 1896.

While it was in Maori ownership Ngati Rangiwewehi were receiving substantial benefits from

ferrying tourists up the Kaikaitahuna. The Crown was well aware of Hamurana Springs

potential as a tourist destination and evidence suggests that this was a factor in Gill asking the

73

1896 Court to define the Crown's interest using a "swing line" fixed 20 chains west of the

Kaikaitahuna river mouth. The positioning of this swing line ensured that the fresh water

springs would fall within the Crown's Award resulting in the loss of an important economic

resource for Ngati Rangiwewehi. Los of rangatiratanga over the freshwater springs also

constituted a breach ofNgati Rangiwewehi's Article 2 rights which entitled them to derive

benefits of capital and income from these resources. The fresh water springs themselves, as

well as the Kaikaitahuna river were also important as a food resource and contributed to Ngati

Rangiwewehi's strong sense of identification with the Mangorewa Kaharoa. Clearly the loss

of control over their lands and fresh water springs around Hamurana resulted from the

Crown's actions which prejudicially affected Ngati Rangiwewehi's interests, and ultimately led

to their social, cultural, and economic deprivation.

Pekehaua Puna reserve is also an area which is culturally significant to Ngati Rangiwewehi,

the alienation of which was achieved by quite different means. After a number of problems

with the Ngongotaha water reticulation scheme the Ngongotaha County Council as it was

known then, resolved to go ahead with a water supply improvement loan for Ngongotaha, with

a view to using Pekehaua Puna reserve as a pump site, and the fresh water springs as a source.

The Council wrote to Mr Pakake Leonard asking him to put this to Ngati Rangiwewehi as a

preliminary to negotiations with the Council. In November 1965 the Council entered into

dialogue with Mr Leonard in an effort to gain the consent of the Maori owners to carry out

the necessary work. It was resolved that Mr Leonard would meet with the Pekehaua Puna

Trustees to discuss the matter and would get back to the Council. In January 1966 the Council

decided to take Pekehaua Puna reserve under the Public Works Act 1928 in order to avoid

legal difficulties which would arise from trying to obtain consent from the owners through

negotiation. The following month the Council advertised their proposed taking and the taking

itself came into effect in December 1966.

Fundamentally the Public Works Act 1928 is inconsistent with Ngati Rangiwewehi's Article

II rights which guaranteed them possession of their lands so long as it was their wish to do so.

However, Ngati Rangiwewehi recognise that public works are intended for public benefit and

may be justified in extreme circumstances as a matter of "last resort". This was not the case

with the taking of Pekehaua Puna reserve though. The Council looked at a number of

alternative pump sites, but once they had settled on Pekehaua Puna reserve as the preferred

option they closed their minds to the possibility of using another site. The circumstance

surrounding this particular public works taking was not exceptional, that is, it was not a matter

74

of national importance, and it was clearly not a taking of "last resort" because the Council had

resolved to take Pekehaua Puna reserve prior to any negotiations.

Article II of the Treaty imposes an obligation on the Crown to consult with Ngati

Rangiwewehi over matters affecting their interests. But at no stage prior to the public works

taking did the Council ever deal directly with Ngati Rangiwewehi. They failed to provide

N gati Rangiwewehi with sufficient information to make an informed assessment of the

situation, they failed to put in place an effective consultation framework within which

negotiations could take place, and they failed to specify a time frame within which the matter

was to be resolved. The Council was obliged to actively protect Ngati Rangiwewehi's

rangatiratanga, and "active protection" requires "genuine consultation" with the affected tribal

authority. In failing to genuinely consult, the Council breached it~ fiduciary obligations to

Ngati Rangiwewehi which required them to act in good faith towards Ngati Rangiwewehi as

its treaty partner.

The taking ofPekehaua Puna reserve under the Public Works Act 1928 in order to avoid legal

difficulties is a breach of the Treaty which constrained the Council from pursuing a proposal

merely for convenience sake. This is a negligent exercise of power and the ensuing disregard

of its Treaty obligations is a matter which Ngati Rangiwewehi finds offensive. No less

offensive is the Council entering onto Pekehaua Puna Reserve and carrying out excavations

tWo months prior to acquiring the land. A further issue for Ngati Rangiwewehi is their loss

of ownership and control over the waters within Pekehaua Puna Reserve, which was the result

of a legislative process which failed to protect Ngati Rangiwewehi's interests. Legislation like

the Water and Soil Conservation Act 1967 which contained no provisions requiring the local

authority to consider or consult with Ngati Rangiwewehi which making decisions over the use

of the fresh water resource at Pekehaua Puna Reserve also constitute a breach of Ngati

Rangiwewehi's Treaty rights. Clearly the Crown cannot avert its Treaty obligation simply by

passing legislation inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty ofWaitangi. Nor can it confer

an inconsistent jurisdiction on any agency carrying out functions delegated by central

Government.

Given the fact that in respect of the alienation of Pekehaua Puna Reserve and Hamurana

Springs reserve the Crown clearly failed on a number of counts to comply with the terms

implicit in the Treaty ofWaitangi to the detriment of Ngati Rangiwewehi, there is a clear

obligation on the Crown to make redress. In light of this, the following recommendations are

submitted for consideration by the Tribunal:

75

(a) That Part Mangorewa Kaharoa 6E3 N02 Pekehaua Puna Reserve and sections 41 & 42

and part section 12 part Mangorewa Kaharoa 7 A2B plus lands and difference of kind be

conveyed back to Ngati Rangiwewehi;

(b) That the Administation of the above lands be entrusted and vested in an appropriate body

with a mandate to administer such by the people ofNgati Rangiwewehi;

(c) That Ngati Rangiwewehi be granted exclusive rights to all freshwater springs within

Mangorewa Kaharoa 6E3 N02 and sections 41 & 42 and part section 12 part Mangorewa

Kaharoa for their own use,recreation, and enjoyment;

(d) That alternative arrangements be made between Ngati Rangiwewehi and the Rotorua

District Council for the continued use of Part Mangorewa Kaharoa 6E3 N02 as a pump site;

(e) That all existing water rights in relation to the lands outlined in para 1 be reviewed and

alternative arrangements made between Ngati Rangiwewehi and the Rotorua District Council

with a view to Ngati Rangiwewehi receiving part levy for the continued use of any water

intended for public benefit;

(t) That all future water rights, licences and all activities affecting all resources under and

upon the lands outlined in para 1 be regulated by Ngati Rangiwewehi;

(g) That Compensation be paid retrospectively to Ngati Rangiwewehi in relation to:

(i) the use of Part Mangorewa Kaharoa 6E3N02 from 23 August 1976 to the

present; and

(ii) the injurious affection through loss of goodwill to Hamurana Springs as a

tourist destination between 1896 and the present;

(h) That the Crown forward a written acknowledgement ofNgati Rangiwewehi's rights

to rangatiratanga over all lands and fresh water springs which are the subject of this

claim along with a written assurance that Ngati Rangiwewehi will be involved in all

future decisions likely to affect its interests in relation to these resources.

76

BmLIOGRAPHY

The following is a list of primary sources which provi~ed relevant background information to

the matters inquired into in this report:

Rotorua Minute Book 3; Rotorua Minute Book 4; Rotorua Minute Book 5; Rotorua Minute

Book 6; Rotorua Minute Book 7; Rotorua Minute Book 23; Rotorua Minute Book 36;

Rotorua Minute Book 44; Rotorua Minute Book 45

The following is a list of government publications which provided relevant background

information to matters inquired into in this report:

Appendices to the Journals of the House of Representatives: 1871;1896; Department of

Survey & Lands Information (Hamilton): file 201188 Vol I; file 20/188 Vol II; file 201188 Vol

III; file 201188 Vol IV; National Archives: MA-:MLP 1/34; NLP 92/70 in MA-MLP 1/49;

BAAZ series 1108; BAHT A675; BACT series files; New Zealand Gazettes: 1881; 1897;1910;

1966; 1978; 1982; New Zealand Parliamentary Debates: 12 September, [1881];

The following is a list of unpublished material which provided relevant background

information to matters inquired into in this report:

Awahou Marae Minute Book, 31 August 1958-30 March, 1969

Awahou Marae Minute Book, 19 April 1971-20 May 1979

Boast, R.P. Whakahokia te Mauria Conference, June, 1990

Te Awekotuku, N. The Sociocultural Impact of Tourism on the Te Arawa People of Rotorua,

New Zealand (unpublished, 1985)

Moore, D. & Quinn,S. Alienation of Rotomahana Parekarangi Lands within the

Whakarewarewa State Forest (unpublished, February 1994)

77

RotoruaDistrict Council Acrhives: RCO 003-0309; RCO 001-166; RCO 001-167; RCO 001-

168; RCO 001-169; RCO 001-170; RCO 001-1176; RCO 001-1175; RCO 001-0526; RCO

001-1447; RCO 001-0765; RCO 001-0855; RCO 001-0857; RCO 001- 0858; RCO 001-1324;

RCO 001-1710; RCO 001-0171; RCO 001-1210; RCO 001-1223; RCO 001-1325; RCO 001-

1336; RCO 001-1337; RCO 001-0865; RCO 001-1751; RCO 001-1188; RDC: 008-1319;

026-0919; 029-493; 026- 1240; 008-1319;

The following is a list of newspaper articles which provided relevant background information

to matters inquired into in this report:

Bay of Plenty Times 10 August, 1878

Statutes

Counties Act 1956

Land Act 1892

Native Lands Act 1862

Native Lands Act 1865

Native Land Act 1894

Native Land Purchase Act Amendment Act 1892

Public Works Act 1928

Public Works Act 1981

Reserves Act 1977

Resource Management Act 1991

Scenery Preservation Act 1903

Thermal Springs Districts Act 1881

Tourist and Health Resorts Control Act1908

Town and Country Planning Act 1953

Town Planning Act 1926

Water and Soil Conservation Act 1967

Wildlife Act 1953

78

Huakina Development Trust v Waikato Valley Authority [1987] 2 NZLR

New ZealandMaori Council v Attorney-General [1987] 1 NZLR

United States v State of Washington 384, F Supp 312 (1984)

Tribunal Reports

Report of the Waitangi Tribunal on the Te Maunga Railways Land (Wai 315) (Wellington,

1994)

Report of the Waitangi Tribunal on the Drakei Claim (Wai 9) (Wellington, 1987)

Report of the Waitangi Tribunal on the Mangonui Sewerage Claim (Wai 17) (Wellington,

1988

Report of the Waitangi Tribunal on the Manukau Claim (Wai 8) (Wellington, 1985)

Report oftheWaitangi Tribunal on the Mohaka River Claim (Wai 119) (Wellington, 1992)

Report of the Waitangi Tribunal on the Turangi Township Claim (Wai 84) (Wellington, 1995)

The following is a list of published sources which provided relevant background information

to matters inquired into in this report:

Anon. The Newest Guide to the Hot Lakes by a man constantly in Hot Water (Auckland:

Wilson & Horton, 1885)

Anon. Rotorua: New Zealand's Wonderland(1906)

Asher, G., & Naulls, D. Maori Land (Upper Hutt: Wright & Carman Ltd, 1987)

Burstall, p, The Introduction of Freshwater Fish into Rotorua Lakes in Boyd, Jet al (eds)

Rotorua: 1880-1980 (Rotorua: H.A. Holmes Print Centre, 1980)

79

Crengle, D. Taking into Account the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi: Ideas for the

Implementation of Section 8 Resource Management Act Wellington: Ministry for the

Environment, 1993)

Department of Lands and Surveys, Hamurana Springs Recreation Reserve Draft Plan (Dept

of Lands and Surveys: Hamilton, 1985)

Firth, R. Economics of the New ZealandMaori (Wellington: Government Printer, 1973)

Kawharu, I.H. Maori Land Tenure: Studies in a Changing Institution (Oxford: University

Press, 1987)

Love, M. Maori Issues and Water: Going into the Future With a Clear View of the Past in

The Institute of Professional Engineers (eds) (Wellington: Institute of Professional

engineers, 1990)

Marr, Cathy. Public Works Takings of Maori Land 1840-1981(Treaty ofWaitangi Policy

Unit, December 1994).

Marsden, M. God, Man and the Universe: A Maori View in King, M. (ed) Te Ao Hurihuri

(Auckland: Reed Publishing Group, 1993)

Marsden, M. The Natural World and Natural Resources: Maori Value Systems and

Perspectives in Resource Management law Reform: A Review of the Laws for Managing

Air ,Land and Water Use and Mining (Wellington: Ministry for the Environment, 1988)

New Zealand Cyclopaedia Vol 2 (Auckland District, 1902)

Ngata, A NgaMoteatea Vols 1-3 (Auckland: AH. & A.W. Reed, 1959)

Pitt, W. Land Tenure in Tairawhiti Maori Association (eds) Proceedings of the Tairawhiti

Maori Association pp 15-24 (Gisbome: Gisbome Publishing Co Ltd)

Reed, AW. Legends of Rotorua and the Hot Lakes (Wellington: 1958)

Rangihiroa, Te. The Coming of the Maori (London: Whitcombe & Tombes, 1949)

80

Salmond, A. Eruera: the Teachings of a Maori Elder (Wellington: Oxford University Press)

Sinclair, D. Land: Maori View and European Response. In King, M (ed) Te Ao Hurihuri:

Aspects of Maoritanga, pp64-84 (Auckland: Reed Publishing Group)

. Sinclair, D. Land Since the Treaty. In King, M (ed) Te Ao Hurihuri: Aspects of Maoritanga,

pp84-104 (Auckland: Reed Publishing ~oup)

Spencer's Illustrated Guide to the Hot Springs in Rotorua and Taupo (Auckland: Murray &

Spencer, 1885)

Stafford, D. Te Arawa: A History of the Arawa People (Octopus Publishing Group: Auckland,

1991).

Stafford, D. Landmarks of Te Arawa (Reed Publishing: Auckland, 1994).

Steele, R. Tourism in Boyd, J. et al (eds) Rotorua: 1880-1980 (Rotorua: H.A. Holmes Print

Centre, 1980)

Stokes, E. Mokau Maori Cultural and Historical Perspectives (Hamilton: University of

Waikato, 1988)

Stokes, E. Ngamanawa: A Study of Conflicts in the Use of Forest Land (Hamilton: University

ofWaikato, 1983)

Stokes, E. Taupo Sewerage Disposal Options: Maori Perspectives (Hamilton: University of

Waikato, 1991)

Ward, A. A Show of Justice: Racial Amalgamation in Nineteenth Century New Zealand

(Auckland: Auckland University Press, 1995)

81

DOCUMENT BANK

111 Map showing Te Arawa hapu in and around Lake Rotorua in Te Awekotuku, N. The Soicocultural Impact of Tourism on the Te Arawa People of Rotorua, New Zealand (Hamilton: unpublished Thesis, 1985)

2/1-2 Mangorewa Kaharoa subdivisions

311 1897 Appellate Court Orders

4/1 Mangorewa Kaharoa No 1 DOSLI Plan (Hamilton) file 153/a-I

5/1 1899 Partition of Mango rewa Kaharoa 6E3

611 1905 Partition of Mangorewa Kaharoa 6E3 N02

7/1 1897 Appellate Court Orders in respect of Mango rewa Kaharoa N05

8/1 MangorewaKaharoa No 5 DOSLI Plan (Hamilton) file 153/a-I

9/1 Urupa on DOSLI Plan S.O 5343c

1011 Extract from New Zealand Gazette 21 December, 1966 p2228

·1111 Extract from New Zealand Gazette 3 October, 1968 p1709

1211 Rotorua District Council Archives No 18/96

13/1 Awahou area in Stafford, D Landmarks of Te Arawa: Volume 1 (Singapore: Reed Publishing, 1994)

14/1 Letter dated 10 February 1969 in Rotorua District Council Archives

1511 Tourist guide charges in Payton, E.W. RoundAbout New Zealand (London: Chapman & Hall, 1888)

16/1 Tourist guide charges in Anon. The Newest Guide to the Hot Lakes by a Man Constantly in Hot Water (Auckland: Wilson & Horton, 1885)

17/1 Tourist guide charges in Anon. Spencer's Illustratedl Guide to the Hot Springs of Rotorua and Taupo (Auckland: Murray & Spencer, 1885)

18/1 Guiding licence in Te Awekotuku, N. The Sociocultural Impact of Tourism on Te Arawa People of Rotorua, New Zealand (Hamilton: Unpublished thesis, 1985)

19/1 Internal memorandum dated 20 Oct 1980 in Rotorua District Council Archives, File No 66/2/110

20/1 Map showing Tupakaria and surrounding area in Stafford, D. Landmarks of Te Arawa: ValOne (Singapore: Reed Publishing, 1994)

... r"

! ! i i I

I I !

(to Xaketu)

NGATI PI KlAO

NGATI RANGIWEHEHI

NGATI • ,NGARARANlI I )

P~raw~d

Ha..uurana

ROTORUA

Mokoia Is.

~

:te Nqee,

NGATI UENUKUKOPAKO

Ohit1e:llu !u~"v . NGA TI , ~~. • Nqapuna

NGA r I ,- -~€fTh~J ~ -- --,- .-~ -I'IHAKAU~ ,q-

HHAKAUE TUHOURANGI . . {fj , I.'hakare"'arewa : OIO.REYJ.. NGA TI WHAKAUE -! . . - ..

,NGATI , KEA AND TUARA

&I'IER~ ~ ~Te ~o~O.'Cl.Y.MiI ,Wairoa

• . IlIb'Oll4q1tG/

-- --- - ------- --------

NGATI TARAWHAI

~~ 4'64l'/~h'V

, "o/,f: 4tO

TE' ARAHA - :' HAPU SUBTR IBES AND APPROX 1l1ATE -BOUNDAR I ES- i-- ..

I I I I-

! I

.. i

! I

I I

~

~ "'d

~ ~ .....

• - ..

•

•

I i I

\

l I

I

r

, t

! t ~ j:' ~ . , r '1.'

APPENDIX 2 • -- - "-~4

~:-;.L. CQurt 3-colllinl/"'.

~

lit (liL(J~1S.JJ2CL~~/;~J~::': J.~ LOC K-;',l/Ilill:,cci.

! I.·, Tltr Scludult, within r~fr,.r~d to. , ~. ~~----------------------

Fin, ColuDIIl. , Third COIWWl.·

, ... -----------~!------,

r-~.o.11_ _________ N_am_"_. ____ _ Rela.tive Intere:,t.

, Pu, declared , iulLli~Da.ble.

I

/} l~( n:r~11 {t ~C'1.. J .... /{,C( It.~<-"t f' ~ / 'n :.11- (-'JU/In. -f<nrr (>./ ) l '(T ('C (( tn ('ole dc(( Ilt('( (( :M1a.Ae".j

• .: : J ! ~~h.c (1 £TJ. (n~'TI't) {r. (u fl(1(ll~/-r:() /,{d- tl( (Ii~Tl.cU0~" I

, j: I _ ... ')("t ("("ll..,fn 1'~') (Zo(" (t ("~'/h ... f)«', (. ... r(C l'n;ITcct£cr,: r;:..:_ !

~ (I t~ .. , III t'" " . tI ("( ft (/\.-\ l(L" \,(1,

-/lln.tt .... vO

C'1.., t;:f.O n/,ct.,'! r·(7..·

:rr /.

~Tn

I , I ,

. I

.~ (}r-uu t..A 0' 1~' , , I

i, I I _ '

13(1 {( .... \0,~.c<,. RrtJ n .:Jll'l 11..« (n';,~ (U'/, cu Ir~("{,) frt«~lJ- Ji''W:ltI/ (.r

(t/- cftc r{,t~\I- tnt. d" 71('"\{{,. 'f,.n. ... ,,~. ~r7~'1<t~("'lltlta_.4h-;;(I/l~\..' {1'4h~ 1,\ h-'\He(~cl· tn{ d,e ("nF'I'l\' 6(tw ... ~d..cl"lf ('Of tl1 ("t/\1(J01 fUN:!':X("\~\'("vl~t't_7Lo-f b(~C'f': ... {n.~A<.p.c('e'\:"'1 (i:''-l.~- r;.. t.,~[r'Y1/, h... ~I)

71(t-ut-Ulc,~lf"'( If d n r ~ (T.~ ~'\.) /8/ Gr 7'1/' I'Jj !c-f.r:+ .vr/cPrt( 1 (1.(, (and

It·"...ct~". fut ... ~t( 1ft(. n,,·\'({· {t. (, ... :Gh.t11' Jol a .. \ t.,: e((,~-.rf( I.; r!,i-:'(),C1II'.1.'

n~ -n <'lei, .-Sa J. (t",,·~'Jl &,(;.( c: ('/ J c; e d (0; ( 0' a'r~<l •• '1(' { (( C''lr.f ~t'l'((~1rd, ..J('\~':, {1(1'l (- (i (-c: ««'n ~r1'r;'l. (r tI,;- ("'~("U'?1'.

I "f (ftc:

i 0'1 (It,'c\.. I? (1 1'1 ~ (,(,te/r ({ /(, -n {(i, .

a&lA~h-'t.., {£ Rn!trct('w.

~_ ,,1 /rt~u.

[:--17 +

-....:.------------________ -L.....:~:...._'_' ------.J..--..;..~·"~,~·ir • WIlla Ih. l&aad II luoJI .... bl •• lb. proporlloullal ... II •• boa1~ bo th ...... '" IllIo ooh._ , • [ . _ " ~"i"

'J , .• ~ ,/ ' "!'.,~,\,; ,

__ .i.-_ .. ~ __ ... .4 .... ..... _-

APPENDIX3 '

1\\iT;-(lf~E:

t (/. :,( :·A,. /WI ;. / -....

'~.

. IN ,L.C.-IiO.

, .7, "The NnLin~ 1;1l11l1 Conrt; Ad, IbU4."

{(hl\r a" E; , III lhe ),'!lti\-b ~ court"1 :.

"'n\\" Znaln.nu ._lILa"ll! .. rt·I.<:.<5!Il,,-:~X/~dl fr~!:!:f!.J~ "'-.<:'( .. n", ... : ... h .. , , 1 . ( I •

A:<r.0·ll U I.e .: Distrkt. J' . . .

nil the ,Jay c;r In c l'1 cf.. I. . . . • HiO").. ... . .,. r. .

. ,,"' .. .. I"!(~'m.:,, ~!:,('\'~' ".'J'l~ ~" IA~.f.-·,J. J.:V '1':.kVL~1i()H ~1b~~J'/.,.~m~;E~quire~,JIlt1ge;, .. " anu ... )(( ,)"Yl.L 5 't ~ (c..f~ .' ,. . ... ! , ~\ssess~r:

: . : ...... ,';'

'., '" "

.', "

."

','"

. '" I t,

Wi-IEHEAS !l :)Iiui5Ll'r of tlw em",;) 11115 h:'retu(orc: ;1~JlIi~li tci tho. Court to '. i

ascertnill the. iUl.crest (if ILlI)') aCljllirerl I,)" 1f"I' ,\flljeiity .in. limd' knowll nil

.: " .~ ~

. ':" "

Upou )'c:lllinl{ tho Buit.! :\pplicatioll, IIIHl IIP')ll. hcarilll{ I

J . '/ • I L.t'!-""" (/} i·U.t'.. (

the parties. IT IK ' , {\

f •

. ' m:nt:ut 01111 .. 111::0 A:lD m:cr.,\];}:1t tlult Her lIIajesty haN, ·in .. Yltck part of the ~I\id' . ,

lanc1 ns is ,lclilll'ntcli in (.11l! l)lnll i:III()I'~('(l IWl'eoll, c~·lIl.ninill:: //.;IJ! ,'i,:-I.D .. '

al/(I ,olrich part' is lIcrrb!J //(/I/I(rl

Ilcquin!cl nn estute of inheritunce ill fl'(l·silllpk·.· .j

Order in lnonr or .U:l1.-&c. 78, N.t",C. A~', 1

" ......

.!

I 'I ,

APPENDIX 4

J .J

I.

NGATIPAIIIKO 8Lfo

NIiAT/PAHIKO SL~

~H3-l,

MANGOREWA KAHAROA WI·

1+.181 _ o. 0

T£TIIHE'KE or

r£ WA£R£NCA 8'-

.~

'~)~~~-. - .. __ ......

• •

•

• •

•

r

U r· J

\ )~ \ ,

APPENDIX 5

] n ~ la- ~\":;'." 1 I ,: t ,','

:'\. '" /.. :",::,: .. ",-.f{ ct.l{ 1 "-I ('lA/"rI\ • •

.!\.~(:cr.(( I~. I'i·tri'·l .

~(eLl.( q~'~~~' ~ ~~ ifJ H. {;

l:,.i.·t &r ~v 'df"71:" e~ .. I' ---It CUt -<:'4

i . \ i f.>(-

', .. :!

.1.J..T it <;tlill)! .,i th .. (.',)llTt hela' :It ,. Cd Jrt-U ~

on till' gtf.. ,],iyol': .... -f..jvv .. J.. ].':"'1'. b~rOjI'" ~{Ju ( ~ ~ t:r..1-J 4 ~ r1-..v , E<'luir .. , .J\1.1::~, 811.1 ./o/.aJt{.....1t~ ~ :1~ .. \~.>~~i\.JI.:

It ii. a~ Jr,rl (,f tit':' ,;ai,) I'af.t irioll, hm'ehy .)1·.1.· ... ·,1 ;\11.1 .1~.·lnr·,·.1 lhnt til ... . " aa;;.d..,..:l>~.

Fr.r.1 en <RCED:

~t"'\·t"l';ll ~ilth·l"'~ 1I;lII it",l ill lJw fh~!oi[ {'oluulll of th .. ~,!IIt4ltdt* in h'llb II? ri lIt l'f.oOIi.

RIl,1 thE-r .. ill ,)111"1"",,.1 1',."111 "'he {(~('h.:"~ .... ",~, • ..r • .;.C? ~ I.dh ill "',,"j, .... • lre the O\\jlt"I".": '11' tJwr purr of tilt' ~:till ian.I, cl~:,t:lillhl':.!' /' ~ ,.

whir·1t 1m .... 1)11 "'III'}, PilltuilJlI. h~J' IIIUIH.,d i,y iJw (""nri

hi I II iI. i .1 'i

p nt' gf t I. Ie.,,' 't" 1 " I!. ",!, l' J! .). '" .1. 'I,j •. i 1"" I" I • l

!~chttl ... ' ... H .\,i' , ... ~ rI,l. : t •• "J.I t .... • ~! r I i

.\~ will,,· .. 11:,\ hllllll .. ( _ ,'1/.('( •• ,~! .(', (I /I I

E-;'li1ir,· •. 111.].: ... 1111.1 tl,,' !~III oi rl:.· C'>'lrl.

J

.hll:,:.: •

... _1

.As witnBSll .

,. r .-

..

...A"t..f ~

APPENDIX 6

~~lflT1Tl0N ! I i I I. (Hl1T.E 38.)

OR Ot=:: f~. . /J4

/;>('r.'/ 1/ ". .(/' ~J ..

TIlt' Na(il'C La1ld :Act, },:!09.

Ilf TIm NATIVE LAND' COUlIT, I

N ElY ZE.u~UID.

of

AT a. sitting of the Conrt held n.t. 1-,( .

on the 10 7 dlly of j . /. '- /,/ 4

.::C~.~~ .~ O_'\~c~

[N.L.C.-'--(l.

, 1!?1:z...

i' Ii; i~, n~ pl',rt of the s:t.id partition, lIefelly crde.T~a. r.nd declared f;h::.t tho

llevdml pcrr;ona wholle nalIle!! o.ppcmr·ill tho urab column of t.l:o li(\h~dnlt1 {1!Jorscd

hereon or nllne::tcu hcr~to, a.nd tlleroin numbel'c;d [j'OL'J'OIlU ~o tJJ,\..--.-·L, ....... --tv:...-:[ •. ,....·( , i

both iDclu:;i'le, '11'0 tlle" ,?'i'In(;rs; ill the 'l'C\!~";ive sharcJ or proportion!) SI:!; "nt.

in the second column of t.1i~ :J:l.id sclled:nle, oC that part 0; Lhe .r.lud In.!lc1, t coutn.illing

I~t. ," :: .....

1 0 . . : ~.~ .. : ::"

APPENDIX 7 :

iN.L.C.-{jO,

"The ::-rlltiYe Lllllll Court Ad, 1SH·L"

~~ .. /('«.(,;, In the ~!ltive,,~Collrt'l :

. ,.. . ~0. ~/ - /' A l' ~ Kew Zealand, :';//I:.i:7.·"7O""t~'(r:t:t''''V\LC/.'t~~_'CI.-! "

tt~/o'1:((ct· District.) i .'

A.l' a silting of the Court 1i~111 at ,A'o./c:n « a/

011 the ,..1( :.-.: 11:. ,lityor ," ..A<Oa. "( r.A.-I , UIO 7, {' ,:¥e~.t! ~I ~ l'..<'<' ,{ ,-c..". ,.F~.qf'': n,.., rI ~

bE'fore 1 ,';t!,""'1 -<1 t ... ..JJ~'<._.,/c-I;.r.t ..... P'\/ r, Esquire; Judge,r

nn.} • .!Ie......; ,C~.e 7'.,: i: , Assessor:

WHEHEAS a :llinister of the ;CrolVll !Ius ;1 .. 'r~tC)rore apl'lie<1 to the Conrt to • I.

ascertain the interast (if allY): acqnired by Her )[Iljesty in land known as

,~a/tr<"<~""" -«~,( a."(.<>.::/ '. 1

in the District oC • ~.q/irt.t4'~: ~. I. •• • ',:. ~

Upon reading the said application, lIud upon hearing the part~T'"~·...t.

HEIlED\" OJIDEnED oLllD DECI •. ,REIl tha.t Her )flljesty blls, in <Itch part of tbe said . ~.;:

land as is delineated in the phin in'\orseu 'hereon, containing l»tJ I ~(.a I and lu/ti~h part ;, hertbJl l/allull

( ~'I;-.~;x..-r/~''''<:H«-/ ("..4~ .J-" I . .

" , ... . . "I .:t,.-) ,1( • . '; ..... ,'-.... • (.. l, :). , (

.' ,'Judge.

_. . -- 't! r:-', ·h,./L. . ( .. :: , ~... ~

,~ . ' :

. '-

1 1 t

t ! I

..... _ .• _ . ___ •. ao_. - ~-"---' .... ' -

APPENDlX8

/

.... ---_._--------

.~

r.

~~1,~::'C=~lfntr4n.~"l J-i..eJ-l,..BvoJc.~IQf.4 ..PO.'f1. -t'!l T"~~ _

..Ji.--.r.-~.l!.-" P"9·/f·r~ ;; .. ,

.Jl«p _..,zu.4 'I:::-...,.uL.. .. /I .. -~'-..J.. n' . ./" ~7 ;. . .. .. .

Zp 1""';...;:./02_ . ~ -P:-~" tr.r, '1-~/

'.I~ Gc.'.rt...a. ~ _ ,~.,,_ .;._'"'" c.#..-J trf."1 ~ ... : I ~ JI ... /~"Y.f);'t,:,"~~ -- ~~~/J._. r! -," r.

APPENDIX 9

BLKS Y",,,,oIX ROTOIT I

"

....

.:.~ It :,'7.o.c:.-,-( , '.f.} ~_tri-C .

• I~ ~'~;'!f'" ! .. ~ "::.' .:.: .:.,:.-.: ,.~'.

~~+:.':~ ~" i

i1

~~~~~~~AW __ .~.~--~'

: .... :"·:'? .. l~·~ o ~ .~~,·"b "

\·'.I:,;.~ .. ,.i· ... ~Y.·

N~.3

Y·.

"

APPENDIX 10.

Extract from HZ. G<I:;I'II('. 21 Dec. 1966. Nt). 82. p:lgc 222H.

LUlld Tukl!1I for W"tulVorks ;11 JJI(lck 'XII. RofOrllll Survey Dis/rict. /{uCOr/iU Coullty

D13RNARD FERGUSSON, Governor-General I\. PROCLAMATION

I'URSUANT to the I'ublie Works Act 1928. 1. Drig:ulier Sir Bernard EdwOlrd l~ergussoll. the Governor-General or New Z.eal.md. hereby proclaim lIlIti declare thaI the Innd described in the Schedule hereto is hereby t;lken [ur \\'alerworks and shall vest in tho Chairman. Coullcillors, and Inhabitants oC the County of Roloru:l as ;rtlm tho (!;Ilc ·hercinllfter mentioned; and I also declare that this I'rodnmution shall Inkq clrect un and after Ihe 22nu uay of December, 1966.

~ : SCHEDULE

Soum AUCKLAND 'LAND 'DI!>'-Iucr .ALL Iho5C pieces or land. situntctl in llIock XII; RotQrua Survey District, dcscribcd :IS follows: A. It. p. Ucing; 1 031'9 Part Mangorewa KaharonGR;:I No. 2118 IlIock;

coloured blue on plan M.O.W. 20721 (5.0. 43201). . . •

o :I 36'6 Part Mangorewn Knharoa GE 3 Ntl. 2 I'apakningal'ekchnua-l'un:l Reserve; cCllolirctl yellow 011 plan' M.O.W. 20722 (S.O. 43202):

As Ihe snme are mure p:utic:uIOlrly dclinentctl un the plan~ mark.cd :Inti l'oluureu :IS :lIIUI'Il mentilllled anti dt:p'l~i(cll in the ollica lie tho Minister "I' Wurks :It \Vallinl:loll. :

Given under ·the h:uuJ ,,1' ! lis E.~ccllimcy tha GovernorGcneml, :Inti issuetl under the Seal oC New ZC:llantl, this 20lh day of Octl,lll:r 1966. ,

[l..s.J . J'URCY U. ALLIlN,i Minister uC Works. GOD S.\VU 'mll QUI!EN(

(P.W. 5J/140{J: D.O. 23/0/45) .

It.. D. OWIH. (loves_al PI Int., • WcUlarc"", New Zc&l&Ad

APPENDIX 11

.£:1Ir.ct from N.Z. Gd:<ltc, 3 October 1968, 1'10.61. P'lCC 1109

Ccmsenliltl: (fJ Ita;.rittlt of Lomrs by Cerro;n Local A mhoritirl

PU~SUANT lo section 3 of the Loot Authoritiu Loans Act 1956 (,,. .mended by .cetion 3 (I) 01 dIe 'L"""I Authori. tic. Lu~n~ An'cnument Act 1961), the undersigne><.l Assisl· ant Sccrct:lry tu the Treasury, "aing under Jlowers delega.ted 10 (he Secr~t:"y to the Treasury by the Minister of Finance, hereby consents to the borrowing by the local authoritie, menuoned in Ihe Schedule hereto oC the Whole or any part oC the r"speetive .muunts specified in that Schedule.

SClleD.~LE

Local Authority :lnll Name oC Loan Amount

Consented io S

Auckland Recion.1 Authority: Ilulk Water Supply Lo:u\ No. 2J, '1968 _ 2,800.000 Transport (Redemption) ·Lo.n No.7, 1968 _ 82,000

·Dlenheim 'Uorough 'Council: Pensioner Housing ., Lo.n '1968 __ _ _ 23.600

Christchureh City Council: Town Hall Lo.n

H~';'~l~on CiiY Cou~i1: RaiiW.y nM!:" >La;:'; 1,800,000 No.2, -1968 _ _ _ _ 200,000

Heathcote County Counen: Renew,,! Loan ('Memorial Highway) 1968 _

Hult V.Hey Dr.in.gc Doard: Gr:lC:cfi.ld Trad~ 2.139

Wastes Sewer Lo,n 1968 _ __ 520,000 }<a;kohe Dorough Council: Pensioner Housing Loan 196M _ _ _ __ Levin 'Dorough Council: Sewerage Lolln 1%8 Lyttclton Harbour Uoard: Redemption Loan

>No.3. ,19(,8 _ _ _ _ Morrinsville nuttlllgh Council: Waterwurks

Renew,,\ Lo.n 19611 _ -Mount -Ro.kill Dorough Council:

Roads Completion Redemption Loan 2-'0. I, 1968 __ _ _ _

Roads Completion Redemption Loan No.2, 19611 _ _ _ _ North Shore Drainage Board: Oxidation Pond

Periphent DrllinllC" Loan 11968

2'.000 39,000

550.000

54,760

80,000

21,000

265,000 Northland Harbour Board: Repayment Loan

No.7, 1968 _ _ _ _ '122,000 Opoliti Borough Counal: Stall' Housing 'Lo .. n 1968 _ _ _ ,,_ Opotiki County Council: ltikutaia Water Supply Loan 19611 _ _ _ _ Poverty Bay Eledrie Power"" -Doard: Renewal

Loan No. 2. 1968 _ _ _

X - Rotorua County Council: Neonlot"h. Waler Supply 5upplcmenlary 'Loan 'I96K

Taranaki Harbours lIoard: Loan No. 18, 1968 1'c Kuiti 110rou&h Council: ,llrillgcRcp!accment

Redemption Loan U6& __

B,OOO

53,000

76,000

13,900 700,000

7,700 WRncanul City Counci\: Whanlanul City Drldgc

Loan 19611 _ _ 220,000 WeHin,ton City Council:

Genenl Property Purcha.sc anll Site Improve. ment Loan 1968 _ _

One-way Tramc System Loan 1968 Wellingtun Harbour Uoud: .

200,000 200,000

lfarbuur Works -Loon No.5. 1968 400.000 'Harbour Workl Loan No.6, 1968 700,000 D3ted at Wellington this 25th day or SCPlcmbcr 1968.

1. D. -!.;ANG, Assistalll Secretary to the Treuury. (1'.401416/6)

APPENDIX 12 ;

/

'?-f.: .: -:' ~ ,: ;-,':, .... .. ' 'I'

i'~ . I.' .~--==-

,; ... ~ .. ~,"

··'···-·-·--.... -·-----·-··-~--rV(~I----~rl,: .. ·---·--.. --·----

i. aJRTS 5. TENDER3 & QUOTES 2. MINUTES OF COMMITTEES 6. TOWN PLANifDIG

9. 10.

RURAL HOUSING rARTITIONS &

SU D UIVISIOIlG Glmi!:RAL

3. INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE 7. BUILDING IlWPE1JTION 4. rolr0:7TIC MATTERS &: RATING

No. -if- (( 8. FEllCING APrLICATIONS 11 .

211th AUWlsl;, 1976

FILE NO. 3...10- From Urquhart, Roe ani Partners advisinr; the fmn had nmr

Tan1 wha Springs

Corrpensation

received an aclmowledp;ement from the '!'nJsl;ees appointed oy the

Maori Land Court re Taniwha Springs Compensation and that '!'nJstees

had also sip;ned a release arxl discharp;e of all or any future clairlls

or derrands for cOlTpensation. Maori land Court confirmed trot it

was not necessary to obtain ~V fUrther approval to the settlement

arrangements throup.;h the ~t:lori land Court. ,---------------------Amount of compensation negotiated & a~reed to REC~IVED:

$4,200.00

Valuation 7).00 _________________ C._o_n_t_r_i_b_u_t_i_o_n __ towards Cou~n~s~e~l~s _______________________ __

fee for the Maori Owners as ----------------~~----adVised . ____ ~3~0~0~.~0~0 ____________ ___

________________ ~T~nut~e~r~e~s~t~r~r~DID-22IJ2 166 t~~~~,~7~G----------------------9 2/3rd years at 5~% ?,233.0~0~ __________ ~

SoliCitors fees 426,50 ------------~B-alance ======--:;:1;::, 7:-,-:2:-3-;:-~~. 5:-::_0

From the C.Treasurer requesting permission to write off the follOl~in~

accounts Trustees of NBat1 RanBiwewet1 Mara~e ____ _ P.R. Leonard

CAIlfUED:

ACTIon TAKEN: RE.PLY vmITTEN:

~~ , ,>-"'\....;\:. ItcCer Cor AClill.". I" ., .. -·····-----:---1 {" .-. . :hr

CowlLy CII:rk ,:=0 _. . _ •.. '::3::::;!:;;; -.

OTHER:

i,

i I j

I' :1 I' il It I' '.1 !, \

I

~ , j

1 I ,

\

I \

\

APPENDIX 13 !

,.----~.- .. -.-... --------.-- .....;-_.--_.- ~ .. - .... ,-,._---- ,,_.-_.,.

L"NtlMAKKS or TE AKAWA

[]

• ® :u

170

----+----B----~---C----+----D----+-~~

a Ihul"

c: {Pttke(ua or tPekeb.u~ o Otd:eikohung&

"'.I"' ....... f~ Aong.lhof'O

/ ... -.:~_~_.;;~~ .. £!·F:;~:~~~i::'--····C"--'-

~§:l~t/)~=-t~~ / .... J, ..

h \It .. tng ........ T .... Ik~ :;/

~(11H ROAa

PI." •. Ouq,nally IO-ruhed with earlhworks erc. Urupa : Pre·European .lind modern. U,,,pa : SI'ed on on9inal foruhed pa .ile, Houte Sll~(') w"h auoci.laed "o.rag_ pitJ:. Slo. age Plls (Iub'e"aneln)-ont or mortf'. ,

Map No.

14

'--" '--" '--" '--" "--" Te Rotorua-nui-a- '--"

"--" Kahumatamomoc",,-, '--" (1.01.0 ROlo",a) '--'

........., '--' '--" ""-' '--"

",

~ * Sprinq: Fr.shcold \Ya(ar. Al Rock ~ (Under water 1n some cue,.) ••• St!lUement: (Not necessau'y porm&nenl.) A- Swamp or MII.hy area,

5 III

,. L '.

"'1'

o'sul1:!.v~,. SOlicitor, FC!lt.:J:1 !itroetp ~a~I1:,)"'TI\ ..

DO<1ZO Si:,

APPENDIX 14 "

.' I

. !

, Ao 1.n:t::-"..lctec:! b7 :Iou· r h.:lv", ins'r,-a!=tod T!!.:t.!.!7!:J..::. S]'J,=:1:.!!;:;:- T~ur1zt .'

p,o::oX"t ~t~l n v:!.C'';7' ~o ·as:::o:r:1.nr. th'l :O';;l9t::lt7 !oso Gt:ot.:.:l:1.;d .bj'~ tho~:~·'". 1:::.",rt oor.,e!"':% duo- ~Q' tho t~d..c.; o~ O!lO' c.c~. oZ 161!lu i.!lcluciL~G T::I.:d.t1b..:1~ S!lr:i:l;:;" .... ~:; 't!t~ nO,toreD. COll~t)"" C\)U:l~ :0::" t!1.:l PU.:'"?Oso ·o.t 1J~,;],bU::;.hi.:l;; -0.. ::~t.~r :'\1:?p}J .. ' I lU::'7o:J. ox::::.::1.n9d v:1=:1.Qt!: ~G:pact.a a! tho 10:1.0 ::.nd co':t:::i~"1'" t"'~lt 0. cl.=.i.::l O:::X· tl10 bJ1~1a o( :!.nju.r.!.o'Cl:l arrect!.on tilrou:th 1.0:1"'" "r ~"I!-nll to tho Resort. = D. rc=1.~ or tho 1.oa:: ot th .. T<1::>.:1~a S~=i:;, .~~l~ h~.e t~o bQ$: C~C9 0: OUCC~r.B.

~ 1 0:=:0 Cf.7nt;ou.:'" ::!.:::t.i1:l.l7 e:u::,. :-a~~ ~tjt Gtoebol' c.idU:lr,:.. ~ a~ n~c:1.r1ed c.:\t.e l'ud.nlJ" br~cl!en. C'l:n .. ~ fre;] Co:tbzoru. ito"d' " • '. .

("·t':t':'rnl: cor.i::t.!:1.n ~~tL!.;;ha. S1'Z-UO -c!lic!! ic t~~ ~~CQ:ld~!7 !.air ~~ T~'d!a. aft.ar -;:;hi.:!J tho ~o~!=~ Roco:-t. 1.:: 1!.:::od.

Th:t!l ~"'l":i.n~ 1c "Ghe ~~ 'SOl!4CU °c:.o the Ar.ruu:.:: !i!:.r9at"l 'C"h.1c!l runs th..."";uZ,h the rGl:lort •.

O:1t t.ro :':ollom.ni; r.:c~c:lor-::9~t -;or!~

Co.) =-o::-:::';!:! n.n ace=::!) :-O:t~ t.o 'tll!J (b). ;;::-cc~cd a pt.!!:1~ s·;D.~io~ , (::)

(rl)

:r::nC9C orr t:'"l o:-:.a o::.c:"o a,:,~a ".-:1.t:t n hi.~~ n~t~;~.!1':: [Anco o::cont cbt)ve thA ot!"::::!!3 nhn:\l ~ k1. ::, !"-n' t.., !:'~.'''C:l '\1:1:1 UU?"l o.!"octod ClotU"Q1 :tont

~. '('he 'r::raitih:l S3'=-i:1s:! '=::,.~ C.:ln no lO:l::;IJ= ;ba .. 00;1:: :tnt! thQ °La~o~d att~caed ~o it ~U3~ ia:c oucn o~· 1~~ ~~~~e ~ ~n o.~t=ac:t1o!l to Tot!ri:itr.: •.

Cr09S.

2. 1":'-:: :ai: ~[11:' O!?!'":1..:l;~:: nc-:.r th;t l::\r:~() '!-=t:t.1\,'ha Sp~g oro bj ~iu:.:.!i~170:l or "'10;;;; lit.';lo ::;co:\;Lc VU'Jo .. si.:.:11&l.r :;!1r!.~3::: c,';r\, OJ; sllen on O.:1:::r :I:~.mG in '~ho o.~a.

!~,,:;t ~! ~.!.:.~ nd:!cd .'l~~:-;;1"~!Oil t~"" r.~7a to r:.ho reDon p~£or to tho 10c3 of' tho 0:18 o:1C:"3 of 1c..n:!; h~ nO!T bee~ los~. Thc:le =Tlt""~;=, = tlfiU :l:; 'l':1:liu-!la Sp:1::r.. r:n°.,. ~!"!?!" to t:Je ir.o~nll.o.~:!,:)n or tile pUll:d,!Jj!: nene:" :-..::::-t or ~ho ~nC:fJrul :torr 7,nol=d buon CC~~3. :ro~ "he o:!. ... ':~ ')! ~ha ~!J::' !::t7i;.",,1.;'tl':.1IJn,. o.nd tbo' :-;nt';~!! .:,/

_ or it. 'Chich eM bo Ma:;-d Uy t.1l I';"!,."tt7 :rnt"dn "=7. 'hl1ve COI:I';'l19t:01.:r'r c!1c.:t;Q.d tl:a :l.t:=:2~,hcro in t.fti= '?Ol:t \) r ~luj Ro!!!:ort' a cround:::l:

I

'='r.~1-:;h:1 ~..,ti.r.r." '1"1 r't-.:t i!~:";'~7':: O;1:l:'.!t..'1~·" a tot:'..!. a':04 ot' Q!'r'lr:l::1t!.:1to17 15 nern::; !.a t.\iO ~itl":: - JC~.it 'i::':l:'ri I.n':\sr.t~.

(l'~) A i>~~c':t. 10 ~c:roo bOi:1(: !':\·~nC;":r'A r.~hr:l:: G~ 3 iTo. 2 p:l,:o..:::\1.r..co. (P'.1!:~:":~u l'ltT'lIl '1a::z;:';'o)

",1''1:':'.:'0 ;!l. :;0::::: i"r.J:J l.~·.1.·]'l ~:-:i.ti. ::. ~.: :1:'; or t"c:lo":':ol for :'!~o --- !urtl,,,:- 21 :;:H\t- :-c:"1od. :10 cO"~~'~!'::-.!l':.· .. o-=: ::0')4' 1~P':'07·:!::C'~~'::.

A'\~1!~l rant. $2'3. ~l:t:: :"il~. j:i - ~',)~:11 t".:!·;:;.ra~ !'.:l.

~ on r'l:\Q':"i:11.to bl! r3~~9;;~ed at ~ of: c~.,:L:;c:~ v:-:lt.lO ::0::' by Govo~n:tt Vo.lu:l~1·':'l ::t. d:'~~ or ::"':r.!:~l.

ron!lrl:!.::':.;!:: CQ:t,';o.!;:.:: ~ .. • .. 0 ~:t': ;t. '~'::"l~.!!'~'; -=1.~j:. (I."~Qcl:tld ::0.,:: ~n~ aot~e~c::' ~~or\t ::h"d

Tn"l r.;'o~ (~nr:.",:1) o-n~! it,,:': nhod

I ;

: i I !;

E.W. Payton, . Round About New Zealand, (London, Chapnan & Hall, 1888), pp.130-131.

gh'en t11cm their dinners. So they. quietly paddled on,'

sayin'g wc should be sCI'crill hours latc, and th:\t. they werc not going to hurry themselves. . TIVO of our party

were: annoyed at this, ~ they wish ell to sta~t back for: Ohinc:mutu by daylight, ·so I told thcm if thcyreally ,

wanted to get there carly;. th~ best thing 'would be to . ' promise: the mcn a bottle of s:um if they rOlVed well. '. , This' wc did, and ihey changed their casy paddle into '

a sharp, swinging strokc at. once, and kept it up till , we got back to \Vairoa. Going'aeross TarOl\~era they kept singing in turns, all joining in at thc cnd of a ,"crse,

and keeping timc with their oars. ,The Maoris ·are

excellent musicians in their wa)" and keep timc in a

manOlcr that woult! put to shame many a European

-- chorili;party;-Tarawera looks grand by the evening light, and' c\'ery

o~c of our pa'rty enjoyed the yopge back across the lake.

Our-two impatient friends, who wcre cyidently doing as

much louring as thcr could in a givc.l timc, started

back to Ohinemutu by daylight. and were happ},. The natil-es' charges in connection wi ,h this sight

seeing arc rather higb. and during mr \'isit 'the ~hicf.~ met in solemn conda\'e to considcr the expediency of

still further raising them, They know they haye a good paying property in th!;" terraces, and know that a

------- -- .----

feIV shillings extra will not stop the tourists II"ho hal'c

cOllJd ~creral hundred miles purposely 10 sec Ihcm i so

lhe)' fleece strangers in 0\ most exemplary m~nncr. The

,charge fur being rowcd across Lake Taralrera l'aries

frulll £'J. 10 £1 per head, according to the number of

1'a.s~el1gers; and :\s generally all the boatmen han to do is to sit still nOll steer the boat an(l sing songs, as the

boats can usually be sailecl most of the way, it is a nice

c,ts)' 11':1)' ur gettinG mone),. Then there are the guide's rl'C (I :1..1.), fees for :\(lmi~,~ion to terraces, (Jnoe up the

I\aiwab, cal1uc lin Hutomahana, ami rarious other little

char!l('~. ingeniously introcluced, which m:1y run up the'

'hy's ~xpensc3 to SOllle £1. or £3 morc for each

per~lll1. Bllt it is dlc:lp i\t any price. The sight is

·--;,;ai,;ifi~~n-t. anti (1I')I:lt is more valued by man)' tourists)

uniqlle. 1\0 one knOll'S holV long the terTilc~s hare been

ill csi~tcnce. Eren men of science do not \'Cnture to . cIII;gll\~n" u:; :t~ l~ how long that constant streAm of

w:llcr ha~ HOII'ed Mer the$c fairy-like structures, e\'Cr

kl"il1gcnat arler coat of silica, till lhe present gigantic 1Il:l~~ b'l~ heen .formec\. Dy boring through the m:lSS :tlld lillllillg Ihe thickness :tn idea might be formed of it ~ a~c i hilt [ doubt if the 1\1 :loris \\'o\lh1 allow. of

Ibi~ •. CI'CII rllr scientific purposes, so ~Jcrcu do they . h"hl Tc 'I'Mat:(.

~ ~ ~ ....... VI

APPENDIX 16 :

TIle Newest Guide to the Hot Lakes by a Han Constantly in Hot Water. Wilson and Horton, 1885, Auckland, p. ,13:

tho cburch and Did m\S~'o!, .':Alion, w!lero OAPt.. W o.y .. nd his. f'lmily now.re.sido i it wu !ormerlylho residenc. of tho Rov. lIr: Sp<ln~r; who tint oCcupicci. i~ over lhirty YO"'I. aEro. . :F:rom the church," masruticont view uf Lnl:.o Tuawer .. cl1l1 :bo obttLined. Having slept at WairoA, tho.boLt will b. in reAdin ... 'to lako YOI1

&cross to Il.olomo.hUlA .. bout 1 a.m. ned mornIng. . Tho dil:tanco fro!" 'tho' hOlel U; 0,0 I;"'ding iJ .. bouL three-quArl.cra 'oi" .. mllo. The lI[Aoria CArry down L1l you mAy require. Cor. lho trip. The;o is a printed fixed ~ul.D oC chArge. hnncing ~p in tho hotel, .~ . tho lourist need not bo .Crud of being swindled by tho ].[aori., but· ~ .hould adviso ,o,:eryono ju~L!:" ItAyo the wi,olo ma.lter ;;. ~[r: McltAc', band. who. will A"",Ang. ,.vcrylhing, (or y~,!, pAy. ti). Maori., et.!.,i a.nd put it ill the ~UL ,. ,.:no chllescs ira," ,oroSling I:a\cc.Ta.r:r.wc .... to the Tcmr.c",,'uo I1S under:- ' . : .

.1I 001 Y on e FlUscn !lor

.. r.our n aix n. .......

. " ..

·T···

:'£Ld. 2 0 0

'.2 .G 0 i 7 0

~':' ,: 417,"'P'-5 1 O. JI JOVeD tJ ":-,.

'" ~i~i.~. .... ". ,.. . ...:,; Ii 8 O·

':'The':;'om':"odious wh.lebo":t:i~· pulled by fro.:n Cour to au sW-,w .. ~1ri.o~u'ioccording.to Lho !lumber or pa.sscngo"," .. Th"~. i. also ~ '!u;the~ {ea of 1Ii .. ibilliDgs {or. tho guide, ",,!,ioh' is' divideci·, ";';·ong.t ih. party; aad ioai. "3 .. ·, or- i.. per heod .'for "lhii" Cai:io,;';an tJ,a' K"'\V~ ... lrca.m .. nd· croning 'I...ka nolomo.haa~:

, fro';" l~o'WbiLo to lh. Pink .Tcrr~dc, but KAlo lb. :;uido' ,~ill !.A.ko · mod; jc .. lou~ c~o tb .. i yov .l.I'e' not rohbed. Firat·oC · ... ll proTido · you;"elt\,iU. a.n old pdf'oC Qools or alippcn,'Q tbo \Y~rm .... IlLor i. , conslallUr·trickliDit ol'crthcHornees, a.nd iC you go with a good pal:' ' , o'f boola lhcy'~ill not be 'lforih:mDch OD your return. . ~0W', having

c~'b~rkcd for tho. Terr"~DothiDg CAn ho mor.l'lcllSIInttlu>D lbo pull ! a~r','. 'LAka' Tu,,-wcnr., tha distlrnr<l' i"only .~1'Dn. 11i!I:.II, And thO',

I!1ftjnrily 01' '"urisLa."i'li·it "'~ra twiee u 10ng, ... tho loh.ori.i !coop · Lho,lI. DUlIised &in'Sing 'thair .'lfoir~:~e. longs' ~,thay'keop .. tim~ .. W'iU;

i I

!

\ , I

j

Spencer's Illustrated. Guide to the Hot Springs of Rotorua (llld Taupo. (Auckland. Hurray & Sp~ncer. 1885), pp.22-23.

D t ~ d C . Cr •• k Clnol and Qa n . rolf', Pa.ddJou ..

.£ 'i.. d. .£ •• d. For ono penon I .... ~·IO 0 0 13 ~ Fo; t ... o penoo...... 3 0 0 0 15 0 For tbreo: pe'noM 3·10 0 .... 0 11 6 Forfour penon •. ·•• , 0 0 0 0 zo·rlivlpenooi, .. '" 10 ·0 ... ·1 2"G Foraixpenon ..... '6.0 0 .... , 1· Ii 0 For le.en·. per.oo. 5 10. ·Il·... I 7 Ii Fotei~htpenoo.... G 0 '0 .,i )·10' 0 For nino p.non.... G 10 0 : .. , ) l~

To!..I,

£. .. , 'd, . 3 !l' 6.

3 '16 ' 0

f 7' ,G. IS 0: ,0

IS 12. 6

6':,6 :0.. 6 I7" 6 ' 7 10, 0 8 ,2 6·

. r •

Not mo~ci thnn nino persona t~n 10 takoo In ana pnrty; .

Licensed guide. will be convcyed Erea ir, tbo bo~t. ~nd . .C1!1o .. , : They Ara authorised t~' thnrgo lor Going to Roto, .: .

mahu:. .... lOs.; lor go'ing to Wairoll Waterlall-Ooo I,enon, ll. i two or rQoro'pen~m, 6d, e4eb. : ' .' " . '.

. Vilitors mu~t' provide tbernsclve. ,rith ti~l:~bi ,i'hleb', "ill bo issued by Maika Kepa, th~ Seer.uri'to the Cow- " mittce, . , .

: The Abo," ehuS9 Arl inelusi\'e, lind .isitors aro ""roed . that no othen ILrI aulhorised,nor aro they required to aupply .: "

the ron'ers with lead, Oivin!; intoxicllting liquors to nlltives '

i. expmsly p;ohibitcd by l:1w' in th~ Rotorull Distric~, Any 'penoo dnwu;;ing; drll~vlng, C!~ writing on t1l1i Tarr~ces will ':.' , ba prosecuted.' ", ,

.' . "VI KEI?.A. TE RANGIPUARUHE,

. Approved W, ROLLESTON,

JU&y I, 1884.

Chllinnllll of Cornmittee. .. MAl KA KEP AI :

Secro14ry.

It i • .i'l'porlnnt 10 rnnko ~. carly 31~rt if tho day h 'to

bo got .Ihrough lvithout hurry, 'Six or ci&M personl is tho

wo.t ~o~\'cnicnt' R!,d economical. number (or OnB parly •

: ACter 'tartin,::, tho 6rsl h.ll,mil~ is gecu!,icd in getting clear

·.~f tho long lTinding irm' of:L.ko Tarnwern, nnd lhon Lhou~, lix mile! 10 ri point nl tho rar lido·or thb l.ke, rouad ... hieh

tho boat turn. to tho iiSh~ ':"hich· is lhen mn to bli anoth.r· ,Io'og irm 'oC .T",';werll..: Ju~t.'round tho point is a Maori

vill.s'; ",hero .: hAlt). freqlienlly.mld,o I~ proeur ... Idt of kOllr". or r~Il1"n;, or," ~it oE fruit 'ia tha lensoa, peaches or cherrie., . Then another 'lour 'miles Ilnd To Al'ild i. rellched"

.: M~or1 Tilloso "t tho hcn4 o( Tomwerll.. This i. tho eod of th~ journey by bo~t, ,lho rut,is b, ...... olk or nbou~ ono mile and o,hoU, or el;o by ':Ilnoo lip 'lla creek, whicb i. preCemble,

~ th.'liu~ light of tho Whito.Terrne. i. 'not so dbnfpoiotin;:

from tho crock tis Irolldh~ top'pl tho hill whero you lint .eo it j( you "'0.1", S~ppo.o you' (;0 b, <:;I.no. the nllti .... havo to poID'g~irist·~ ';'~pid ·cu~~·~i ~lt' tho \'·"y,.nd it ~1ke~ Cully

hnIE:&n.!tour, NothiufP'I·tjoulnr is leen until)'ou get nearly,

'.. 'to tho end,o! tho erctk, wh.~ tho' ~noa r~un'll ... b.ad .. od tb. Whit. Ter~aeo i; beror. lOU. ' , . , • . , .. ,. ._4.· •

.THE WHITE h:RRACE,

,Tho, nlllh·e. en!l !~ T~ .'~am14, ",hiell melln. tattooed . · .. oek, Ilnd if it iJ exnmined tho lIlur~inbl Ilra in pb.ce. aecn

to bo os resulnr IU t4l~oin's,' rin~ very IIllleh resemul. it too,

,Tho 'Moo·ri. run tho co.l\oo in.~ ~th. bailie, 1011 get ou>. and 100\ld on ",hilt'; ia riolly tho exteRlled Coot 9( tho tel'..,.e",

',And n~"; th~ iote'mting pn:;t oC tho day's sight-ccin:;' com·

• 1Il0nc~l. 'Illo tom~o il diffi~ul~ to d';~ribe, bec.1UJO thoro b

!loll!in;; in ri~turo to c0!:lP"'o it to, It is "OlIlclhing H\.:e nn

~ ~ ~ ....... -l

<Ii 7-o E o z 8

APPENDIX 18!

-i , \ !

APPENDIX 19

•. : :;':" ~OTORUA DISTRICT COUNCIL R~f ............................. . 'f";". \.. . : .... 1.Q ••• R£E9.e •. L. ............... 19 R.Q .... .

'.=RNAL MEMORANDUM TO .. E.~~.'E~.~.~! ... ~~J.~.~.t:I.~~.~ .. J:~~.!~.~ .. ~ ... !?!~0..~.t:J.0.~.?) ... FILE NO. 66/2/110 - M. MOHI, MAXlvELL ROl\D, l\1'll\IJOU RE: ....................................................................................................................................... .

The water main down Maxwell Road is 25 ~n in diumete~ Dnd was installed in May 1968 to service the Rangiwewehi Maroc. The supply was installed by agreement between the County Council and the late P. Leonard as a preliminary consideration in respect of compensation claims by the Maori owners of Taniwhu Springs. The compensation cl<lim subsequently becnme very protracted and was finally settled,as a cash sum of $7,235.50 in 1976 without consideration of the supply provided to the Rangiweweh~ Marae. The claim to recover the cost of the pipeline was. unsuccessful and as there was a social need for an improved water supply to several of the households in the area, it was decided to allow further connections <lnd to permit this, the line was extended down Gloucester Road beyond the mnrue and a brunch was laid in Maxwell Road. The Norks contribution of $130.00 per applicant was set to recover the costs. 'I'his was done in April 1976.

13 properties are now connected to.this line and it has reached the stage where any additional connections will affect the \'Inter supply to these properties. .

r As per my memorandum to you dat~d ~ October 1900 regarding t Mrs Waetford's connection to the Rotok<lwa extension of the I

Eastern Suburbs water supply, I feel it is essential we hold il I' discussion with the District M<ln<lger as soon as pos~i~lc to I. discuss the upgrading of extensions to urban water supplies beyon~ I the ,urban division boundaries. i

If Mr Mohi is given approval to erect <l dwelling down H;-axwcll Road, he will wish to connect to the l\wahou line. 1\s was mentioned above, this line has insufficient capacity to service any more properties and until a decision is made on how any upgr<lding works will be paid for, I recommend: th<l t Hr Mohi' s application be declined. :

G.S. Bell DIVISIONAL ENGINEER WATER

\

APPENDIX 20

LANDMARKS OF TE ARAWA

~A---+---B--~--C--~--D~'--+---E--~

\

I 3

What,koKOPU

Okuraklfwhfrh Bush

OpOptl1t f 8ush

6\ ','\'

7~ 1

'-" '-" ',-" '-" I '-" '---' '-" '-" '-" '-" ~ '-"

'-" '-" '-" '-" '-" i '-" '-" '-" Te Rotorua.nui.a.Kahumaiamomoe

s 111

'-" '-" (Lake Ro'oNa) '-" '-" '-" '-" '-" '-" '-" '-"

'-" '-" '-" '-" '-" '-" '-" '-"

o 0,.., h.".. ... ,1

a • o '" ...

Pa .u.: Originally tOrlUied with .arthwork> elc. Map No. Urupa : Pre.European and modem. IIrupa: Sited on originallortUled pa .It.. 19 Hous. sUe(s) with usocialed storage pill. Sloroge pUs (.ublerranean)-one or more .

ok, Spring: fresh cold water. A Rock: (IInder walerinsome cues.) 111.8 SelUemen\: (Not nece .. uily permanent.) .!!k- Swamp or marshy area.

PEKEHAUA PUNA RESERVE HAMURANA SPRINGS ......To my whanau both past and present, especially my uncle...

Documents

Transcript of PEKEHAUA PUNA RESERVE HAMURANA SPRINGS ......To my whanau both past and present, especially my uncle...