OFFICIAL

A Report Commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal

for the Taranaki claim (Wai 143) . concermng

MANUKORIHI

by Suzanne Woodley

June 1995

Any conclusions drawn or opinions expressed are those of the author

Contents: Page No.

1.0 General Bacl{ground 1

1.1 Note about the Author 1

1.2 Evidence 1

1.3 The Claim 1

1.4 Format of Report 2

1.5 Location 2

1.6 Manukorihi Hapu 3

1.7 Pre-confiscation history 3

2.0 Blocl{ History 3

2.1 Confiscation and Crown Grant 3

2.2 Partitioning 4

2.3 Alienations of Manukorihi, 1916-1936 6

2.3.1 Manukorihi 7, 10 and 11 8 Manukorihi 6, 12 and 8

2.3.2 Manukorihi 9 9

2.3.3 Manukorihi 2-3 and 13-16 9

2.3.4 Manukorihi 4 (exchange for Manukorihi 2) 10

2.3.5 Manukorihi 5 11

2.3.6 Payment Procedure 12

2.3.7 Valuation 12

2.3.8 Trustee 15

2.3.9 Manukorihi AlA 16

2.4 Manukorihi Reservation 18

2.4.1 Manukorihi A2 and A1B 18

2.4.2 Manukorihi lA 19

2.4.3 Manukorihi 19 and 20 20

2.5 Manukorihi Urupa 20

2.5.1 Manukorihi 2 (east), 1B1 and 1B2 20

2.5.2 Manukorihi 2 (west) 21

2.6 Manukorihi 17 and 18 - Maori Land 21

3.0 Re-Acquisition of Manukorihi 3-16 and 20 21

Map of the Manukorihi block 23

4.0 Road through Manulwrihi 24

5.0 Compulsory acquisition of Manukorihi for School 26

5.1 Suitable Sites 26

5.2 Preliminary Negotiations 27

5.3 Application to revoke Maori reservation status 28

5.4 Valuations 29

5.5 Change in negotiators 30

5.6 Further Valuations 32

5.7 Ministerial Decision 33

5.8 Protest 34

5.9 Public Works Taking 35

5.10 Compensation 36

5.11 Valuations 39

5.12

5.13

6.0

6.1

6.2

6.3

6.4

6.5

6.6

6.7

6.8

6.9

6.10

6.11

7.0

8.0

9.0

9.1

9.2

10.0

Appendices

Bibliography

Claimants comments

Subsequent Protest

Summary/Conclusions/Issues

Early Acquisitions

Road

Removal of Reservation Status

Negotiations

Comparison

Representation

Other Options

The Principle of Reciprocity

Valuation and Compensation

Further Issues

In conclusion

Sewage and Water rates

Marae Zone

Licensing of Meeting House

The Claim

New Plymouth District Council Response

Manukorihi 17 and 18 - access to

(Document Bank in separate document)

39

39

39

39

41

42

42

43

43

44

44

45

46

47

48

50

51

51

52

52

53

57

1.1 Note about the Author

My name is Suzanne Woodley. I completed a Bachelor of Arts majoring in sociology at Canterbury University in 1987 and am currently working part time towards a History Honours degree at Victoria University. I have been working at the Waitangi Tribunal as a researcher since February 1992. Prior to this I worked as a claims administrator for the Tribunal for eighteen months. I have completed exploratory reports for the Tribunal on the Sewerage Rates claim (Wai 115), the Whangarae 1 C claim (Wai 184), the Manaia 1 C claim (Wai 148), the Manaia 1B and 2B claim (Wai 285), the Tuhua claim (Wai 158) and the Matakana Island claims (Wai 228 and 266). I was commissioned by the Tribunal to produce this report and other Taranaki "ancillary" or discrete claims in August 1993. 1

1.2 Evidence

Evidence has been submitted to the Waitangi Tribunal by both the claimants and Crown on Manukorihi. Moki White for the claimants presented an overview of the block's history and details concerning the Manukorihi hapu on 9 April 1991 at Owae Marae, Waitara. Aila Taylor also presented oral evidence relating to Manukorihi at this hearing. He also spoke with Tribunal researcher Aroha Harris about Manukorihi in May 1991. The Crown has provided a chronological list of events from 1948 to 1971 concerning the acquisition of the Manukorihi road and school. This was prepared by the Maori Land Court. 2

These sources are used for this report as well as material gathered from the Wanganui Maori Land Court, National Archives Wellington and the Department of Survey and Land Information in Wanganui.

1.3 The Claim

The claimants have identified eight issues involving Manukorihi.

Firstly there is the issue of almost 15 acres of Manukorihi being acquired by Rosa Stead in the 1920s. Moki White states that Te Atiawa always claimed that the transfer of title to Mrs Stead was "less than legitimate".3

Secondly there is the issue of land from the reservation being laid out for a road pursuant to section 415 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 in 1955. The road was required to access gravel

2

see appendix 1 for a copy of this commission

The evidence of MoId White is on the Waitangi Tribunal record of documents, Taranaki claim as Wai 143 document D9. The Crown's submiSSIon is on the Waitangi Tribunal record of documents, TaranaId claim, as Wai 143 document E5

MoId White, Evidence concerning Manukorihi, 1991, Waitangi Tribunal Record of Documents, Taranaki Claim (Wai 143), document D9, p 10

1

deposits which had caused the Waitara River to diverge. The divergence was considered dangerous. The road is now, according to the claimants, used to access gravel for profit. The claimants state that they should receive royalties from the extraction of metal as it was their land which is used to access the metal. The claimants also argue that when the land was laid out for a road it was promised by the then Waitara Borough Council that drainage of parts of Manukorihi would be completed at no cost to the owners. This the claimants state, has yet to be done.

The third issue concerns the compulsory taking in 1968 of 15 acres, one rood and 32 perches of the reservation pursuant to the Public Works Act 1928 for the Waitara Intermediate School. The claimants allege that the land was taken against their will and that they were forced into accepting compensation they considered inadequate.

The following four issues concern decisions made by the New Plymouth District Council which affect the Marae at Manukorihi. The claimants argue that they were never consulted on these issues and thus decisions were made without consideration of those most affected. These issues are sewage rates, the licensing of the marae, the zone status of the marae and the registration of the carrying capacity of the marae. The issue concerning the zone status of the marae has implications, according to the claimants, on the development of the adjacent freehold section.

The eighth issue concerns a right of way through the Marae to sections 17 and 18.

Other issues raised include the papanui (lamprey) and eel weirs just below Manukorihi pa and the implications of gravel extraction on the river. 4 These and other resource management issues will not be discussed in this report.

1.4 Format of Report

Background material on Manukorihi, a block history of Manukorihi, (including the alienations of portions of the block to Rosa Stead and the reservation of part of Manukorihi), the laying out of the road through Manukorihi, and the taking of land for a school, will firstly be discussed. This will be followed by the conclusions and issues arising from these matters. After this the issues of sewage and water rates, the marae zone, the licensing of the Marae, registration of the carrying capacity of marae buildings and a right of way to sections 17 and 18 will be discussed. Conclusions and issues will be identified after each of the later five sections.

1.5 Location

The Manukorihi Pa is located at the top of an aproximately 100 foot or 30 metre high cliff above the eastern side of the Waitara River. Manukorihi is often the name used to describe the location of Owae Marae but it is, Moki White states, "the name of the cliffs above the

4 Aroha Rarris, Notes of Visits to Owae Marae to meet Aila Tayior, Ted Tamati and Mold White on 21 and 23 Mat 1991

2

Waitara river to the south of the marae" . 5

The block was originally 25 acres in size when first Crown granted. Its legal description is section 10, Waitara East District, Block 1 Waitara Survey District.

1.6 Manukorihi Hapu

Manukorihi is also the name of a hapu of Te Ati Awa. The Manukorihi hapu is subdivided into three smaller hapu: Ngati Kura, Ngati Uenuku and Ngati Tuiti. According to Moki White these hapu traditionally "occupied and controlled the land on the eastern bank of the Waitara river as far as the Otaraua boundary at Ngangana". Manukorihi was also included in a list of important urupa in the Otaraua rohe reflecting the close relationship between the people of Otaraua and Manukorihi; they share a common ancestor Te Tuitimoeroa.6

1.7 Pre Confiscation History

The traditional history of Manukorihi Pa is examined by Moki White in his submission. Mr White described Manukorihi as the Manukorihi hapu's "main stronghold". Manukorihi was built in pre European times and was one of the biggest pa (49,440 square metres) in northern Taranaki. Mr White estimated that the pa could have accommodated "hundreds if not thousands of people". Mr White also stated that Manukorihi was as a defensive position "virtually impregnable" and that there were never any sieges there. Thus it may have served as a "refuge for the people of Otaraua and later Manukorihi ... in times of stress".7

2 Block History

2.1 Confiscation and Crown Grant

Manukorihi was included in the area of land confiscated by the Crown. It was later included in those lands returned by the West Coast Settlement Reserves Commission. On 6 June 1883 a Crown grant for the 25 acre Manukorihi block was issued to a Waitara chief Enoka

5

6

7

Moki White, Evidence concerning Manukorihi, 1991, Waitangi Tribunal Record of Documents, Taranaki Claim (Wai 143), document D9, p 1

Watson, O'Carroll, Doorbar, Hunt, Nowell, Adds, Otaraua Muru Me Te Raupatu Presentation, Waitangi Tribunal Record of Documents, Taranaki Claim (Wai 143), document D12, 1991, P 4 Moki White and Morgan Moana nui Akiwa Watson submission for the Manukorihi hapu, Waitangi Tribunal Record of Documents, Taranaki Claim (Wai 143), document D15, 1991, P 25 Moki White, Evidence concerning Manukorihi, 1991, Waitangi Tribunal Record of Documents, Taranaki Claim (Wai 143), document D9, p 10

Moki White, Evidence concerning Manukorihi, 1991, Waitangi Tribunal Record of Documents, Taranaki Claim (Wai 143), document D9, pp 1, 3

3

Tatairau, and four others: Eruera Kingi Te Rairo*, Horiana Kingi te Rohutu, Eruera Kingi te Pehi and Aperahama te Hau. 8 The grant stated that Manukorihi was inalienable "by sale, gift or mortgage, or in any other way whatsoever".9

Mr White submitted that Enoka:

... was one of the Manukorihi chiefs who captained one of the waka on the return heke to Waitara from Waikanae in 1848. Aboard his waka "Wikitoria" were four other men, four women and four children. 10

Mr White commented that it was not known whether the four others named on the Crown Grant were the four men aboard Enoka's waka.

There is little mention of the Manukorihi block (Grant No 3883) and Enoka in the reports and appendices of the West Coast Royal Commission. Enoka is reported as requesting a piece of land at Orangi "a little distance from the Waitara River". Enoka reportedly stated that if the land was granted he would live upon it and cultivate it with Horiana, the daughter of William King; Te Rako, the son of Eruera; and Eruera. ll

Manukorihi is however, mentioned by the Native Commissioner Robert Parris in his list of reserves between Bell Block and the Waitara River. Parris stated that the land had not been individualised and would not be. Manukorihi, he said, was to be held as a tribal reserve. 12

2.2 Partitioning

As with all of the West Coast Settlement Reserves, Manukorihi was vested in the Public Trustee. Unlike many of the reserves however, Manukorihi was not leasedY On 16 February 1916 Manukorihi was declared freehold and partitioned by the Native Land Court into the following sections: Manukorihi A, Band 1 - 18. Manukorihi B comprised the area surrounding the urupa and Manukorihi A the area surrounding the Marae. Subsections 1 -18 were all aproximately one acre in size. Three hearings on the matter were held subsequent to 16 February. On 29 September and 1 October 1915 Tawhanga (who was not named as an owner) told the Court that it was proposed that 5 acres of the block be reserved for a papakainga, half an acre be reserved for the urupa, a road be laid out through the block and

8 These names may be spelt incorrectly

9 Manukorihi Crown Grant, volume XI, folio 168

10 Moki White, Evidence concerning Manukorihi, 1991, Waitangi Tribunal Record of Documents, Taranaki Claim (Wai 143), document D9

11 Reports on the West Coast Royal Commission 1880, AJHR 1880, G2, P 30

12 ibid, P 53

13 Manukorihi Certificate of title XII168, Lands and Deeds New Plymouth

4

the block be divided. 14 On 10 December there was further discussion regarding who would receive which portion of the block, who would be listed as owners of the papakainga and urupa and where the road through the block should be located. It was decided that the access road would run outside the kainga reserve and that all those who had been named as owners of parts of the Manukorihi blocks would also be named as owners of the papakainga and urupa. 15

The legislation which allowed the partitioning was the West Coast Settlement Reserves Amendment Acts 1913 and 1914. Pursuant to section 15 of the West Coast Settlement Reserves Amendment Act 1913 the Public Trustee was directed to forward to the Chief Judge of the Native Land Court a list of West Coast Settlement Reserves and owners names. The Native Land Court was then, "without further application or direction", to partition the reserves. Initially this applied only to those reserves which were leased or deemed "unsettled" .16 The West Coast Settlement Reserves Amendment Act 1914, however, brought all West Coast Settlement Reserves, including Manukorihi, under the 1913 Act.

Section 15 of the 1913 Act also stated that land comprised in any partition order was to be vested in the Maori owners. This meant . that land such as Manukorihi was no longer administered by the Public Trustee, although owners could direct that the certificate of title, which was also to be free of all alienation restrictions, be issued to the Public TrusteeY Indeed, the minutes of the partition hearing noted that all of the owners except Heeni Keepa, Wiremu Kingi Keepa and Hemi Kuka wanted their titles for the subdivisions held by the Public Trustee. 18

In addition, section 3 of the 1914 Act stated that when lands were partitioned pursuant to the 1913 and 1914 Acts, the Native Land Court could then "exercise all the powers of exchange, consolidation of interests, laying of road-lines and private ways, appointing successors, or otherwise howsoever which the Native Land Court might exercise in its ordinary jurisdiction" . 19

According to Janine Ford, the impact of partitioning the West Coast Settlement Reserves

14 Taranaki Native Land Court Minute Book No 24, 29 September and 1 October 1915, pp 212, 224

15 Taranaki Native Land Court Minute Book No 24, 10 December 1915, p 283

16 Pursuant to section 21 of the 1913 Act "unsettled reserves" were defined as those reserves subject to short term leases and occupational licenses.

17 West Coast Settlement Reserves Amendment Act 1913, section 15

18 Taranaki Native Land Court Minute Book No 25, 16 February 1916 pp 5-6

19 West Coast Settlement Reserves Amendment Act 1914, section 3

5

under these Acts was the "speedy alienation of land to Pakeha purchasers directly". 20

2.3 Alienations ·of Manukorihi, 1916-1936

Between 1916 and 1936 there were ten alienations of land in the block. It is possible that some of the owners knew that sales were pending. On 7 October 1914 Kaho Heremia wrote to the Native Department that he objected to the taking by Europeans of the Manukorihi block "or reserve" .21

The following is a schedule provided by G G Andrews of the Wanganui Maori Land Court with some additions, of these alienations. Mr Andrews comments that the entries given in the last column are either the dates when the Aotea District Maori Land Board confirmed the sale or when the Native Land Court proceedings to consider the alienation were held:

20 Janine Ford, The Administration of the West Coast Settlement Reserves, 1994, Waitangi Tribunal Record of Documents, Taranaki Claim (Wai 143), 1995, P 85

21 Kaho Heremia to Native Department, 7 October 1915, Manukorihi Pa file, MA 1, 21/3/13, National Archives Wellington

6

Block Vendor Manukorihi No.

7,10 & 11 Wiremu Kingi Keepa

9 Hemi Kuka

6 & 12 Heeni Keepa

2,3,13,14, Kaho Heremia 15 & 16

8 Heeni Keepa

4 Muramura Taituha & Others

5B(part) Pahemata Takutai

5A Ngakawe Komene

3A, 13, 14, 15 Kaho Heremia & 16

20 NIA

Purchaser Amount Paid

Rosa Stead £280

Rosa Stead £140

Rosa Stead £180

Rosa Stead £540

Rosa Stead £40

Rosa Stead £-

(exchanged for No 2)

Rosa Stead £60

Hannah K £50 Sutton

Rosa Stead £90.5

Rosa Stead NI A

Date

(as per the deed)

20 Dec 1916

20 Dec 1916

20 Dec 1916

31 Mar 1917

1 Feb 1918

26 Jan 1926

31 Jan 1928

26 Sept 1930

8 June 1934

23 Jan 1936

As is obvious from the above schedule, most of the land was sold to Rosa Agnes Stead. Her husband, lawyer Charles Rubert Stead, represented her in all these transactions. Mr Stead also represented Hannah Sutton who acquired Manukorihi 5A.

The following is a brief discussion of each of the alienations as recorded in Maori Land Court alienation files followed by an examination of the issues which relate to some or all of the alienations. Firstly though, it is important to note the requirements under the Native Land Act 1909 concerning the alienation of Maori land owned by less than 10 people.

Pursuant to section 217 of the Native Land Act 1909 no alienation of Maori land had effect until it had been confirmed by either a Maori Land Board or the Native Land Court. In most of the above alienations it was the Aotea Maori Land Board that confirmed the alienations. The Judge of the Native Land Court whose district the alienation took place in, was the

7

President of that particular district's Maori Land Board. Section 217 stated that no alienation would be made by the Board or Court unless it was satisfied that:

(a) the instrument of alienation had been duly executed;

(b) the alienation was not "contrary to equity or good faith or to the interests of the Native alienating";

(c) the Maori seller would not "by reason of the alienation become landless" within the meaning of the Act except where the tribunal considering the application was satisfied that the land being alienated was not "likely to be a material means of support" to the Maori seller, and except in cases where the owner alienating the land was "qualified to pursue some avocation, trade or profession, or [was] otherwise sufficiently provided with a means of livelihood" .

(A landless native was defined in section 2 of the Native Land Act 1909 as "a Native whose total beneficial interests in' Native freehold land" were insufficient for his or her "adequate maintenance");

(d) the consideration (if any) for the alienation was adequate (The Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1922 added that the consideration was deemed adequate if it amounted to "a sum equal to the capital value at which the owners' interest is valued under the Valuation of Land Act");

(e) the purchase money had been paid or "sufficiently secured";

(t) no person had acquired the land who was prohibited under the provisions of the Act relating to limitation of area;

(g) the alienation was "not in breach of any trust to which the land" was subject; and

(h) the alienation was not "otherwise prohibited by law" .22

2.3.1 Manukorihl 7, 10 and 11 Manukorihl 6, 12 and 8

Wiremu Kingi Keepa, who owned all of the shares in Manukorihi 7, 10 and 11, sold his land to Rosa Stead in 1916. As the Maori Land Board had to determine whether the alienee was a "landless native" or otherwise, a schedule oflands owned by Wiremu Keepa was prepared. This schedule revealed that Wiremu Keepa owned shares in five other blocks totalling approximately 82 acres. The Aotea Maori Land Board confirmed the alienation of Manukorihi 7, 10 and 11 on 20 December 1916 subject to a further valuation of the block.

22 Native Land Act 1909, section 217

8

Wiremu Keepa declared on 11 August 1917 that he had received £280 for his land.23

Heeni Keepa (the sister of Wiremu) owned all of the shares in Manukorihi 6, 12 and 8. On 20 December 1916 the Aotea Maori Land Board confirmed the alienation of Manukorihi 6 and 12 to Rosa Stead subject also to a further valuation. Confirmation of the sale to Rosa Stead of Manukorihi 8 was made by the Aotea Maori Land Board in February 1918. Prior to confirmation of the alienation of each of these subdivisions a schedule of land still held by Heeni Keepa was made. This indicated that she had interests in five other blocks of land and an undisclosed amount in the South Island. A declaration was made by Mr Stead which accompanied Mrs Stead's application for confirmation of the alienation of Manukorihi 8 dated 11 August 1917. This stated that Heeni Keepa was provided for by her husband, that the land was useless in its present state and that the land was not at present and would not likely be of "material support to Heeni Keepa. (This statement is interesting given that Judge Jack stated at a Native Land Court hearing of 29 September 1915 that Manukorihi was "valuable borough land" .24) Mr Stead added that payment for the land had already been made. Native Land Court records indicate that Heeni Keepa was to receive £100, £80 and £40 for subsections 6, 12 and 8 respectively.

2.3.2 Manukorihi 9

The entire Manukorihi No 9 block consisting of one acre and two roods was awarded to Hemi Kuka at the 1916 partition hearing. Hemi Kuka also sold his land to Rosa Stead. As was usual a schedule of lands held by Hemi Kuka was prepared which revealed that he owned aproximately 131 acres of land. The Aotea Maori Land Board confirmed the alienation on 20 December 1916 subject to a further valuation. The alienation was not completely settled until the end of 1917 when the Public Trustee received for Hemi Kuka £140. 25

2.3.3 Manukorihi 2-3, and 13-16

Kaho Heremia owned all of Manukorihi 2, half of Manukorihi 3 and 26 shares out of 32 of Manukorihi 13-16.26 Ngaia Kuka owned the other half of subdivision 3 and the remaining six shares of Manukorihi 13-16.

In 1916 Kaho Heremia alienated his shares in the above subdivisions to Rosa Stead. A schedule was prepared by the Aotea Maori Land Board of lands held by Kaho Heremia. Kaho Heremia had interests in six other blocks which totalled aproximately 24 acres. The

23 Manukorihi 7, 10 and 11 Maori Land Court Alienation file, MLC-WG 1, 3/1916/317, National Archives Wellington

24 Taranaki Native Land Court Minute Book No 24, 29 September 1915, p 212

25 Manukorihi 9 Maori Land Court Alienation file, MLC-WG 1,3/1916/318, National Archives Wellington

26 Kaho Heremia had succeeded to Wi Ropata's shares in Manukorihi 2 and 13-16.

9

instrument of alienation dated 20 October 1916 stated that Kaho Heremia would receive £410 for his interests. Kaho Heremia declared that he had received £410 from Rosa Stead on 10 October 1917. The Aotea Maori Land Board confirmed the alienation on 31 March 1917 although it was not sent to Mr Stead until 26 October 1917. The delay appears to be because of what the Maori Land Board considered an inadequate receipt. The Court returned the receipt of payment provided by Mr Stead in October 1917 stating that his receipt was a certificate by a licensed interpreter and was not sufficient.

In 1934 Rosa Stead acquired the remainder of Manukorihi 3 (known as 3A) and 13-16. These were the shares held by Ngaia Kura. An exchange order dated 8 September 1933 had vested Ngaia Kura's interests in section 3 and 13-16 in Kaho Heremia. In exchange the successors of Ngaia Kura's interests received Kaho Heremia's interests in Moturoa lA and 1B.27 Kaho Heremia subsequently alienated these interests to Rosa Stead in 1934. The instrument of alienation of the above land to Rosa Stead was dated 26 February 1934 and the confirmation of the sale was made by the Aotea Maori Land Board on 9 May 1934. Kaho Heremia was originally to receive £90 for the land though this was increased to £90, 10 shillings by the Land Board. Kaho Heremia was represented by Mr Stead at the hearing where the exchange of interests was ordered. 28

2.3.4 Manukorihi 4 (exchange for Manukorihi 2)

In 1926 Rosa Agnes Stead began negotiating for the exchange of subdivision 2 (which she had acquired from Kaho Heremia in 1916) for Manukorihi 4 owned by Muramura Taituha, Heeni Mahuika, Wiki Keepa Mahuika, Manuarupe Waite, Te Puaha Mahuika, Tire Waite, Hemi Waite and Hine Mahuika. The owners signed the deed of exchange at various times between June 1924 and July 1927. The Native Land Court considered the application for exchange on 26 January 1928. The Court agreed to the exchange and thus Manukorihi 4 was awarded to Rosa Stead and Manukorihi 2 to seven owners.

It appears that the reason for the exchange was Manukorihi 2 contained an urupa. Mr Stead stated that the owners of section 4 placed "a very high sentimental value on subdivision 2 " . 29 Mr Stead also stated that the Maori owners were happy for the exchange to be a level one, subject to it being free of cost to them. However, he said, Mrs Stead had decided that it would be "somewhat inequitable" and paid them £60.

Indeed Manukorihi 4 was valued at £140 on 17 March 1917 and consisted of an area of one acre and 10 perches. Section 2 was valued at £80 and consisted of an area of one acre and

27 Taranaki Native Land Court Minute Book No 45, 8 September 1933, p 245

28 Manukorihi 2, 3, 13-16 Maori Land Court alienation file, MLC-WG 1, 3/4750, National Archives Wellington

29 Stead & Prichard to Native Land Court Wanganui, 15 June 1927, Waitara East Sec 10 Manukorihi GT 3883 application file volume 1, MA 1, ACC W2140, TAR 479, bundle 38, National Archives Wellington

10

7 perches. 3D The £60 payment was less costs of £9:17:4 which included rates, survey costs, the registration of a partition order, the registration of a succession order, a proportion of the fee on application for exchange, a proportion of the fee on order for exchange and registration of exchange order. Mrs Stead was to pay the cost of the preparation of transfer, stamp duty and registration fee. 31

The exchange was objected to by Ngakawe Komene who owned half of subdivision 5 though it is not known for what reason she did so.

2.3.5 Manukorihi 5

In 1916 Panemata Takutai and Ngakawe Komene owned Manukorihi No 5 jointly. Panemata Takutai sold her interests in Manukorihi No 5 (later known as Manukorihi 5B) to Rosa Stead for £60. The alienation was confirmed by the Aotea Maori Land Board on 31 January 1928.32 The schedule listing other lands held by the vendor indicated that Panemata Takutai owned about 56 and a half acres and her husband about 90 acres.

On 6 August 1928 Manukorihi 5 was partitioned. Manukorihi 5A consisting of 2 roods and 4.8 perches was awarded to Ngakawe Komene and 5B which also consisted of 2 roods and 4.8 perches to Rosa Stead. Mr Damon represented Ngakawe Komene in this instance. 33

Manukorihi 5A was then sold to Hannah Kathleen Sutton by Ngakawe Komene for £50 in 1930. The firm of Stead and Prichard acted for Hannah Sutton. A schedule was prepared listing other land held by Ngakawe Komene. This revealed that he owned approximately 13 acres of the Rimutauteka block and had shares in Manukorihi 17 and Manukorihi A2. The instrument of alienation for Manukorihi 5A was executed on 4 July 1930 and Ngawake Komene received £5 on this day. On 30 July 1930 Ngawake Komene made a declaration to the Aotea Maori Land Board explaining why he was selling the land. He also received £2 on this day. He said:

... I have now left Waitara and permanently taken up my residence on my wife's land at Wahapakapaka, Onaero. I intend to use the balance of the purchase money due to me in purchasing stock to farm this land and wire.

On 24 September 1930 the remaining £43 was paid to the Aotea Maori Land Board.34

30 Valuations of section 2 and 4 prepared by Valuer General 17 March 1917, ibid

31 Registrar Native Land Court Wanganui to Stead and Prichard, 29 July 1927, ibid

32 Manukorihi 5B Maori Land Court Alienation file, MLC-WG 1, 3/2347, National Archives Wellington

33 Taranaki Native Land Court Minute Book No 41, 6 August 1928, P 7

34 Manukorihi 5A Maori Land Court Alienation file, MLC-WG 1, 3/3934, National Archives Wellington

11

2.3.6 Payment Procedure

The payment procedure for most of these alienations should be noted: The vendors received a portion of the payment when they signed the deed or transfer document. It was not until title was issued that the vendor received the outstanding purchase monies.

2.3.7 Valuation

Mr Stead deducted a proportion of the estimated cost of forming a street from the amount agreed to in the transfer documents for the alienations between 1916 and 1918 of Manukorihi 2, 3, 6 - 16 by Wiremu Keepa, Hemi Kuka, Heeni Keepa and Kaho Heremia. The explanation given by Mr Stead for doing this was that Manukorihi was valued in 1916 as though a street had already been formed through the block. The transfer documents however, do not indicate that any deduction was made.

As discussed in the previous section, an order was made to lay a street through Manukorihi at the 1916 partition hearing. This portion was known as Manukorihi 19 and 20. However, the street was never formed.

It is unclear why the valuation was made like this or at whose instigation. Maori Land Court Judge Browne stated in 1928 that there had been an arrangement with the Valuation Department to value the land as aforementioned but that he had nothing to do with the method of estimating the 11 adequacy of the consideration 11 nor did he approve it. 35

However, it is not clear whether the Valuation Department knew of Stead's deduction method. They, and the Native Land Court, certainly did not know how much the owners actually received. In 1928 the Valuation Department requested information from the Native Land Court as Mr Stead had taken exception to the Department's valuation of Manukorihi 2 and 4. Stead believed that the Department had not taken into account the way the other subdivisions had been valued in the past. The Valuer General asked Judge Browne how much the vendors of the other Manukorihi subdivisions had received as payment and as approved by the Maori Land Board, as the government valuation was the same as that recorded in the transfer documents. Judge Browne stated that Native Land Court papers did not show what deduction had been made from the price paid. 36

It is also unclear whether this method of valuation was legitimate and common practice or was peculiar to Manukorihi or the Steads. What is clear is that the owners did not believe that they were told that the cost of constructing the street would be deducted from the price set down in their transfer documents. A letter of 3 November 1917 from Wiremu Keepa and the husband of Heeni Keepa to the Aotea Maori Land Board stated that they had not yet received full payment for their lands (Manukorihi 7, 10 and 11; 6, 12 and 8). The letter said:

35 Manukorihi No 4 Native Land Court Alienation file, MLC-WG 1, 3/1917/165, National Archives Wellington

36 ibid

12

Mr Stead retained £100 from each of us to put in a road through the block. He said he could do this under the deed but we did not understand this when selling. We also find that orders given by Keepa on the purchase money has not yet been settled although we were informed that everything would be squared up at once.37

The Keepa' s asked the Board to question Mr Stead as to why full settlement should not be made. The Board replied on 8 November 1917 that the transfer had been confirmed subject to certain conditions by the Board and advised the Keepa' s to contact the solicitor acting in the matter (Mr Stead). 38

Kaho Heremia too argued that he did not know of the deduction. Almost 10 years after the sale took place, a letter from Kaho Heremia's lawyers Roy, Nicholson and Rennett was sent to the Aotea Maori Land Board. The letter, dated 17 February 1928, stated that the purchase money for Kaho Heremia's interest in subdivisions 2, 3, 13-16 had been uplifted by Kaho Heremia and returned to Mr Stead who had then made Kaho Heremia periodical payments. However, £100 had been retained by Mr Stead for a road. Kaho Heremia argued that he was not in anyway responsible for this road. The lawyers asked for details of this purchase so they could pursue the matter with Mr Stead. The Maori Land Board replied that they had "no knowledge of what happened to the money afterwards". Unfortunately nothing further is on the file which gives any indication as to the outcome of Roy, Nicholson and Rennett's investigations. 39

There was also a disagreement between the Native Land Court and Mr Stead over the purchase price for Manukorihi 9 sold by Hemi Kuka. The purchase price for Manukorihi 9, as entered in the Maori Land Board minutes, was £140 though this was subject to a further valuation. The Court was concerned to receive from Mr Stead an outline as to what the £140 encompassed. From the £140 came:

£40 - -£50.06.02 £32.03.10 £ 1.10.07 £ -.16.03 £ 3.03.10 £11.14.04

Reduction of revaluation Reduction on estimated cost of street Paid in advance to vendor Survey charge Native Rates Borough Rates Balance on settlement40

Mr Stead explained to Judge Browne on 28 September 1917 how the land was valued and the purchase price arrived at. Mr Stead said that the sale had initially been agreed to at the

37 Manukorihi Maori Land Court Alienation file, MLC-WG 1, 3/1916/319, National Archives Wellington

38 Manukorihi 8 Maori Land Court Alienation file, MLC-WG 1,3/1917/379, National Archives Wellington

39 Manukorihi 2,3, 13-16 Manukorihi Alienation file, MLC-WG 1, 3/4750, National Archives Wellington

40 It is unclear why the above totals £139.15.0 when it was supposed to equal £140.0.0.

13

government valuation (£140) but the Court had also requested a provisional valuation. The provisional valuation was also £140. This provisional valuation he said, was made as though a formed and metalled street fronting the section was in existence. When the survey of the block was completed another valuation was made which showed the exact location of the section. This valuation was £100. Stead continued:

The transfer was executed on the understanding that the land was being sold at the government valuation and as that valuation was made as though the street were formed, on the clear understanding also that the cost of the street should be deducted from purchase money. 41

Mr Stead said that the proper price was £100 and from this should be deducted the "proper proportion of the estimated cost of the street". The Registrar of the Native Land Court replied for Judge Browne on 22 November 1917 and told Stead that he had:

'" no right to deduct from the amount payable to the Native Vendor the difference between the sum set out in the Transfer and the Government Valuation. 42

Mr Stead was then instructed by the Court to pay the full amount of £140 to the Public Trustee (as opposed to Hemi Kuka). Though Mr Stead agreed to this he said:

The sale agreed upon was at the Government Valuation and as this was reduced after execution of the transfer from £140 to £100 it's manifestly unfair that the purchaser pay the full amount.43

Mr Stead also argued that the owners had agreed that a portion of the cost of forming the street be deducted from the consideration agreed to. Indeed a declaration was found on the alienation file for Manukorihi 9 dated 4 December 1916 which stated that the owners listed had agreed to sell their interests in their respective blocks and that the cost of forming a street would (among other things) be deducted from the purchase money. The four names listed were Kaho Heremia, Hemi Kuka, Wiremu and Heeni Keepa who were the vendors of Manukorihi 2,3, 6-16. By each of the four names was a gap for their signature. However, a mark (x) is beside the names of Hemi Kuka and Heeni Keepa only. The statement by a licensed interpreter at the end of the declaration also stated that this particular copy of the declaration was a copy of the authority signed by Hemi Kuka only.

Mr Stead also said that the statements of Wiremu Kingi Keepa and Heeni Keepa were incorrect:

... both vendors perfectly understood through out that they were to pay the cost of the new street, and the President has already seen their acknowledgement of this fact. In the case of

41 Manukorihi 9 Maori Land Court Alienation file, MLC-WG 1, 3/1916/318, National Archives Wellington

42 ibid

43 ibid

14

Hemi Kuka44 who has also sold his interest in the block, and whose purchase money was paid to the Public Trustee, the President was apparently satisfied on this point and the other vendors stand in precisely the same position regarding the street. 45

Further:

William Keepa who had given me orders to pay sundry debts totalling a very considerable sum, had on settlement drawn largely on his purchase money and it was then explained to and perfectly understood by him that the balance was insufficient to pay all. Those whose orders were received first therefore received priority and Keepa's complaint is apparently due to the fact that the creditors who were not paid are asking for payment whilst he himself has demanded and received the money from the purchase. Of course the usual method of settlement was followed in each case that is to say the whole of the purchase money was paid to the Natives and they voluntarily returned it after signing receipts and instructed me to make such payments and deductions as had been agreed upon, including the advances above referred to. All payments I undertook to make have been duly made. 46

Mr Stead said too that if the parties were unhappy then they should go through the courts. He added that he had dealt fairly with "these natives ... that they lived in the South Island [and] had a good knowledge of the English language". He also said that the present objections would not have arisen but for the "peculiar way in which the valuation of the block was made, namely as though the proposed street had already been made whilst as a matter of fact the land was unimproved and mostly without road access" . 47

Thus of the £280 Wiremu Keepa received for Manukorihi 7, 10 and 11 (aproximately three acres) £100 was deducted for the road; of the £220 Heeni Keepa received for Manukorihi 6, 12 and 8 (approximately three acres and two roods) £100 was also deducted for the road. One hundred pounds was also deducted from Kaho Heremia's £410 he received for his interests in Manukorihi 2, 3, 13-16 (aproximately three acres). Hemi Kuka though, received the full amount on Judge Browne's insistence.

No indication was given as to what the actual price of forming a street was or how the deduction figure was arrived at.

2.3.8 Trustee

In July 1917 a letter from J H Damon (a solicitor who had represented owners of the Manukorihi block at various times in the past) to the President of the Aotea Maori Land Board created some doubt as to whether the owner of Manukorihi 9, Hemi Kuka, was competent to be selling land without the assistance of a trustee. Mr Damon stated that he was

44 To be discussed in the next section

45 Manukorihi 8 Maori Land Court Alienation file, MLC-WG 1, 3/1917/379, National Archives Wellington

46 ibid

47 ibid

15

a distant relative of Mr Kuka and that Mr Kuka was of "weak intellect". Mr Damon asked that the purchase money for Manukorihi 9 be placed in the hands of the Public Trustee. He said that the Public Trustee had acted for Mr Kuka in the past and gave four Native Land Court minute book references which he said were proof of "a person incapable of looking after himself" .48 (These minutes state that Hemi Kuka and his sister were of "weak intellect" and had spent time in "mental hospitals".)49

However, a letter is also on the alienation file from Matthew Campbell who although his qualifications were not given, was presumably a doctor. The letter to the Court dated 21 September 1917 explained that on 4 December 1916 Mr Campbell had been at Mr Stead's office and examined Mr Kuka. The meeting was called to make a will for Mr Kuka. Mr Campbell stated that he had been informed that Mr Kuka had been "an inmate of a mental hospital". Therefore, he said, he put Mr Kuka through as "searching [an] examination" as was possible considering that Mr Kuka's command of English was "limited and all the questions and answers had to come through the interpreter". Mr Campbell said that as a result of the examination he felt that Mr Kuka's mind was "clear" and that he "perfectly understood the purpose of the will" . 50

In response to Mr Damon's concerns the Maori Land Board asked Mr Stead whether Mr Kuka had received any payment for the land and if he had not, that payment be withheld. Mr Stead replied on 1 August 1917 that a portion of the purchase money had been paid although the balance was withheld "pending issue of his title". Mr Stead also stated that he was aware that Mr Damon was "moving in" on the matter but that Mr Damon had "no authority or proper grounds for doing so" .51

Judge Browne decided that the Court would hear Stead's and Damon's arguments concerning Mr Kuka. However, a perusal of the appropriate Native Land Court minutes has not provided any further details on the matter.

2.3.9 Manukorihi AlA

Manukorihi A contained 5 acres and when first partitioned in February 1916 was awarded to 16 owners. In August 1919 Wiremu Kingi and Heeni Keepa signed a deed which alienated

48 Manukorihi 9 Maori Land Court Alienation file, MLC-WG 1, 311916/318, National Archives Wellington

49 These were:

Taranaki Minute Book 13, pp 89-90 Taranaki Minute Book 14, P 326 Taranaki Minute Book 15, P 229 Taranaki Minute Book 16, P 21

50 Manukorihi 9 Maori Land Court Alienation file, MLC-WG 1, 3/1916/318, National Archives Wellington

51 ibid

16

their shares (they both owned 18 shares out of a total of 100), in Manukorihi A to Mawhaturi Rangimatakite and her husband Manuarupe White. Mr Stead was again involved representing the buyers. A request was made to the Aotea Maori Land Board in September 1919 by the other owners in the block to adjourn confirming the application for alienation until they knew the outcome of their application to have the land reserved as a kainga. The owners also stated that they did not "desire any alienation of the land to be made". Meanwhile in November 1919, Manukorihi A was partitioned into two parts. At the partition hearing there were objections as it was felt by some owners (Kaho Heremia, Ngaia Kura and Ngakawe Komene) that the purpose of the partition was to facilitate the sale by Wiremu Keepa to Manu White (which was in fact what happened). At the hearing Manukorihi A1 was awarded to seven owners of whom Heeni and Wiremu Keepa were two. Manukorihi A2 was awarded to the rest of the owners.52 That same year Maui Pomare was sent a letter from "H.T" who was concerned that Heeni and Wiremu Keepa had sold their 36 shares "in the Pa" to Manu White. The Aotea Maori Land Board however, confirmed the alienation on 8 July 1920 though this was subject to a further valuation being made.

The Court recorded that Wiremu Kingi and Heeni Keepa both initially received £100 for their share in January 1920 although this was increased to £160 each later. A letter was sent by Kingi and Keepa to Dr Maui Pomare in April 1920 complaining that they had not received payment.

The letter stated:

We enclose the reply of the Board to us in the matter of Manukorihi in which lawyer Stead is acting. As you can see there is nothing in it about the money. This lawyer was always bothering us to sign, and when we did sign we waited expecting the money. It appears that this lawyer has himself fixed the value; but we do not understand what he is actually doing.

You will remember that we discussed this matter of the land with you, and it was agreed that it be restricted from sale. But, the Pakeha's have always wanted to buy it, and for a small price. It is the only piece that we-two have in Taranaki for our support. But the present position has been brought about because of the conflicting statements (nuka) of lawyer Stead.53

Stead's response was that he had paid Kingi on 6 January and Keepa on 30 January their £100 before the local postmaster. Stead also commented that Keepa was a "notorious spendthrift". It should be noted that although this letter was located on the Manukorihi A file it may well relate to the Manukorihi 7, 10 and 1 i alienations as well. 54

In 1921 Heeni Keepa and Wiremu Kingi succeeded to the interests of Hemi Kuka. They then

52 Taranaki Native Land Court Minute Book No 28, 5 November 1919, pp 357-359

53 Wiremu and Heeni Keepa to Dr Pomare, April 1920, Manukorihi A Maori Land Court Alienation file, MLC-WG 1, 3/5847, National Archives Wellington

54 Manukorihi A Maori Land Court Alienation file, MLC-WG 1, 3/5847, National Archives Wellington

17

sold these shares to Manuarupe Waiti and Mawhaturi Rangimatakite. The deed was executed on 14 May 1921 and 26 July 1921 and the confirmation of the sale sent to Stead (acting again for the buyers) on 20 January 1922. The vendors received £9.

A proclamation in the New Zealand Gazette of 23 September 1926 declared that 1.59 perches of Manukorihi Al and 2.98 perches of Manukorihi A2 was being taken pursuant to the Public Works Act 1908 for a street. Compensation was assessed at the Native Land Court on 18 January 1928 by Judge Browne. The owners of Al received £1 and the owners of A2 received £1.17.6. 55

At this time (1926) Manukorihi Al was partitioned into a further two parts known as Manukorihi AlA and A1B. Manukorihi A1B, consisting of 1 acre, 3 roods and 03 perches was reserved with Manukorihi A2 (see below).

Manukorihi AlA consisted of 2 roods and 12.4 perches. In 1928 Patutu Rangimatakite (the sister of Mawhaturi Rangimatakite) acquired the interests in Manukorihi AlA held by Mawhaturi Rangimatakite and Manuarupe Waiti. Patutu Rangimatakite acquired the 12 shares (out of 44) for £266.13.4. The alienation was confirmed in 1929.

In April 1948 a portion of the Manukorihi AlA block was sold to James Manu White who was also one of the owners in the block. Piki Parete and Taniwharau Parete were the sellers and received £131 for each of their one ninth share. The alienation was confirmed by the Court on 2 September 1948 which meant that James White held two thirds of the shares in Manukorihi AlA. Mawhaturia Rangimatakite, who owned the other third, alienated his share to James Manu White on 19 September 1950 for £392.56

In 1967 Manukorihi AlA was declared general land, or "Europeanised", pursuant to part 1 of the Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1967.

2.4 The Manukotihi Reservation

2.4.1 Manukorihi A2 and AIB

Although much of the Manukorihi block was alienated a portion was reserved. A request for the reservation of Manukorihi was made in 1919 specifically to prevent further alienations of the block. A letter to Maui Pomare from H Tuhata requested that a portion of Manukorihi be reserved so that further private purchases could not take place.57

In 1926 Manukorihi A2, containing 2 acres, 3 roods and 39.5 perches, was reserved pursuant

55 ibid

56 Manukorihi AlA Maori Land Court Alienation file, 3/6457, National Archives Wellington

57 H Tuhata to Maui Pomare, 8 September 1919, Manukorihi Pa file, MA 1, 21/3/13, National Archives Wellington

18

to section 232 of the Native Land Act 1909. Section 232 stated that when any Maori freehold land was owned by more than ten owners in common, the Governor General could by order in council set apart and reserve any part of that land for the common use of the owners. Manukorihi was set apart for the common use of the owners "as a place of historical interest and a meeting place". 58 This was known as the Manukorihi Pa reservation.

Kaho Heremia and Ngaia Kura, who were represented by Mr Damon, applied to have A2 reserved at a hearing held 20 January 1926. Mr Stead appeared for the Waitara Borough Council at the hearing. At one stage Mr Stead had applied to vest the land in the Native Trustee but this was withdrawn. He then agreed that the area where the marae stood should be given reservation status but that the rest of the area, which was "occupied by Native dwellings in private occupation" should not become part of the reservation but be vested in the owners. Stead considered it unfair to reserve "such a large area" as the Council would be deprived of rates as reservations were exempt from rates. However, Judge Browne interpreted Stead's objection as being "not so much that the reserve is within the boundaries of the borough, as that it is adjacent to the sections Mrs Stead has purchased". The Judge stated that Mrs Stead had "no doubt hoped to purchase the bulk of the remainder of Manukorihi". Although Mr Stead wrote to the Minister of Maori Affairs concerning the matter, all of A2 was reserved.59

In 1932 Manukorihi A1B, containing 1 acre, 3 roods and 4 perches, also became part of the reservation. The reservation was vested in the following trustees who were to administer the trust pursuant to section 26 of the Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1930:

Te Kaho Heremia Hakopa Ngaupaka Ngakawe Komene. 60

2.4.2 Manukorihi lA

Te Manuarupe Waiti N gaira Maui Pomare

On 8 September 1917 Manukorihi 1 was partitioned into two parts - Manukorihi lA and lB. Later 1B was partitioned into two parts - Manukorihi 1B1 and 1B2. In 1951 1B1 and 1B2 were reserved as urupa. 1B2 is still Maori land but 1B1 was declared general land pursuant to part 1 of the Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1967 on 19 May 1969.

Manukorihi lA was vested in one owner - Te Anga Eruini. The schedule prepared by the Court indicated that Te Anga owned no other lands. No other declaration is on the file as to whether he had any other means to support himself. The deed alienating the land to James

58 New Zealand Gazette, 1926, p 2795

59 Taranaki Native Land Court Minute Book No, 20 January 1926

60 New Zealand Gazette, 1931, p 1838-9

19

Edwin was signed on 29 September 1927 and then confirmed by the Maori Land Board on 4 October 1927. The 2 roods and 4.2 perches block was sold for £60. 61 James Edwin was not represented by Mr Stead.

In 1948 Ralph Love and 18 others acquired lA for £55. The Court confirmed the acquisition on 17 September 1948 and in 1962 lA was reserved.

2.4.3 Manukorihi 19 & 20

When Manukorihi was partitioned in 1916 a strip of land was reserved to provide access through the block. The road was to be called Manukorihi Street and to swing "at an angle approaching the Waitara River, if necessary as to allow practicable access to 9 and 10 along the top of the cliff". 62 This was the street Mr Stead wanted the vendors of the various Manukorihi blocks to pay for.

On 22 January 1926 Judge Brown considered an application from some of the owners of Manukorihi to cancel the order which laid off a roadline through the block. The owners applied to have the southern portion vested in Rosa Stead (Manukorihi 20), the northern portion (Manukorihi 19) vested in the owners of the Manukorihi block, and that Manukorihi 19 be declared a reserve and form part of the Manukorihi reservation. The Court agreed to the resolutions and they were so ordered. 63

On 12 July 1962 it was declared that Manukorihi 19 (along with Manukorihi B and lA) was, pursuant to section 439 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 to become part of the Manukorihi reservation.

2.5 Manukorihi Urupa

2.5.1 Manukorihi 2 (east), IBl and IB2

In 1951 Manukorihi 1B1 and 1B2 were reserved as urupa and in 1952 part Manukorihi No 2 containing 2 roods was set apart as a Maori reservation for the common use of Te Atiawa as a burial ground. 64 However, Manukorihi 1B1 was later "europeanised" subject to Part I of the Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1967 on 9 April 1969.

Part of Manukorihi 2 (known as the eastern moiety) was reserved for the common use of Te Atiawa as a burial ground in 1952.65

61 Manukorihi lA Maori Land Court Alienation file, 3/2351, National Archives Wellington

62 Taranaki Native Land Court Minute Book No 25, 16 February 1916, pp 5-6

63 Taranaki Maori Land Court Minute Book No 47, 22 January 1926, pp 352-355

64 New Zealand Gazette, 22 May 1952, page 898

65 New Zealand Gazette 1952, p 898

20

2.5.2 Manukorihi 2 (west)

The remainder of Manukorihi 2 (known as the western moiety) was alienated for $1650 on 9 December 1968 by the Maori Trustee. The land was alienated pursuant to section 109 of the Rating Act 1925, to the Mayor, Councillors and Citizens of the Borough of Waitara. 66

Section 109 of the Rating Act 1925 states that if a rating charge granted under the act remained unpaid for one year the Court may order that the land, subject to the consent of the Native Minister, be vested in the Maori Trustee. The Maori Trustee could then sell the land vested in him.

It appears that there were six owners of Manukorihi 2 (western moiety) at the time of the taking, one of whom was James Manu White. It was stated in 1970 that the other five owners had died "many years ago" and for a considerable period the rates on the property were paid by Mr White. When Mr White died the rates were paid for one more year only. The land was then vested in the Maori Trustee and sold on the application of the then Waitara Borough Council for non payment of rates. In 1970 the Court ordered that the proceeds of the sale be paid to the trust account of Emma Manu White. 67

2.6 Manukorihi 17 & 18 - Maori Land

Manukorihi 17 and 18 are situated behind Manukorihi A where the Marae is located. Manukorihi 17 was vested in Tomai Komene in 1916 and Manukorihi 18 vested in Taiapo Komene in the same year. This land is still currently Maori land.

3.0 Re-Acquisition of Manukorihi 3-16 and 20

By 31 July 1939, Horace Thorn Sly, an Auckland builder, had acquired from Rosa Stead sections 3-16 and 20 for £1000. On 23 November 1945 Ralph Makere Love, Hemi Bailey and Harry Matuku acquired the above sections from Horace Sly for £1200. Moki White in his submission stated:

Love, Bailey and Matuku secured a mortgage for the purchase of the block with the Taranaki Maori Trust Board. Although registered as a mortgage, the £1200 was an actual grant. 68

Indeed the Taranaki Maori Trust Board loaned Te Atiawa £1000 to purchase sections 3-16 and 20. The purchase price was £1250. An attachment to the Taranaki Maori Trust Board's 1945-46 budget recorded that Judge Dykes of the Aotea District Maori Land Board visited Manukorihi and "felt that the acquisition of the property would be of great material benefit

66 Manukorihi 2 Maori Land Court Alienation file, 3/5127 volume 2, Maori Land Court Wanganui

67 Taranaki Maori Land Court Minute Book No 78, 10 September 1970, p 49

68 Moki White, Evidence concerning Manukorihi, 1991, Waitangi Tribunal Record of Documents, Taranaki Claim (Wai 143), document D9, p 8

21

to the tribe and to the Manukorihi Pah reservation". The Board stated too that the loan would benefit Te Atiawa and the people of Taranaki:

Besides its historical value, the property will offer an opportunity for an extensive housing programme under the general Rehabilitation scheme of the Board. It also offers ample space for recreational purposes for the benefit of the children. 69

The Board approved the loan on the proviso that it was secured under certain protective measures. The Board took over the mortgage with the property as security. The idea of the loan, the Board stated, was to "ease the hardship on the Atiawa tribe created by the terms of the purchase". The Board accepted Te Atiawa's proposal to pay the board back at £100 with interest per year. A perusal of the relevant available Taranaki Maori Trust Boards Annual Accounts reveals that the board was paid £212 in the 1955-56 financial year for the Manukorihi Pa loan. Because the other relevant accounts are not available it is difficult to assess whether the loan became a grant or not.

On 20 May 1948, pursuant to section 5(2) and 6 of the Maori Purposes Act 1937, Manukorihi 3-16 and 20 (the area purchased by Te Ati Awa) consisting of an area of 17 acres, 1 rood and 26.2 perches, was included with Manukorihi A2 and A1B as part of the Manukorihi reservation. 70 The reservation was later administered under the provisions of section 439 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953.71

Taiapo Komene, the sole owner of Manukorihi 18, had requested on 4 May 1936 that Manukorihi 18 be included in the Manukorihi Reservation. Judge James Browne did recommend that the 1 acre, 12.5 perch block become part of the reservation pursuant to section 298 of the Native land Act 1931 and Section 103 of the Native Purposes Act 1931. However, this was later deemed impracticable without an amendment to the Act.

As at the end of 1964 the nineteen trustees of the Manukorihi reservation were:

Potete Hotu Jack Kapinga Kake O'Carroll Mere Puata David Keepa Koro Pue Charles Bailey 72

Pehimana Tamati Tuku Bailey Whakahau Harris Harry Thompson BarneyRattenbury Aila te Teira

Rakaherea Pomare James Nicholas Ralph Makere Love Ted Healey William Mouri Graham Moki White

69 Explanatory notes of Secretary of Taranald Maori Trust Board attached to Taranald Maori Trust Board Budget for year ending 31 March 1946, Taranald Maori Trust Board Estimates file, MA 26/5/4 Part n, Te Puni Koldri, Wellington

70 New Zealand Gazette, 20 May 1948, p 588

71 New Zealand Gazette 1962, p 1113, New Zealand Gazette 1948, p 588

72 Manukorihi Pa Trustees list, Waitara Intermediate Ministry of Works file, PW 43/143/0, DOSLI Wanganui

22

Urupa -

M aori Reserve

Land laid out for road (1963)

mmmm ~:::::::::::::::::::::::::I

r::::z:::Ll

Erosion in Waitara River ~

Land taken for school (1968)

Maori land

G eneralland

r······ . .........

2 (East) ---i--f;.~~

2 0Nest) ---+-----,~~"","" B (Urupa)

15

14 ~~~~---__ 1201----__ _

13

12

7

11

River Bank - 191 6

River Bank - 1962 ---

LOCALITY PLAN

Manukorihi

23

4 Road through Manukorihi

On 17 October 1956 an application by the Waitara Borough Council pursuant to section 415 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953, to layout a road through part of the Manukorihi block was heard by the Maori Land Court. The application was made, according to Mr M Smith of the Waitara Borough Council, because of difficulties experienced by the council in clearing a very heavy deposit of shingle from the Waitara River. Heavy rains had caused the deposit which in turn had diverted the channel of the river causing "a grave menace" to Waitara. The Soils Conservation and Rivers Control Council considered that the deposit should be removed as soon as possible. However, the only practical access to the deposit was through Manukorihi Pa and a small part of the adjacent European block owned by Mr W A Joll.73

Mr Smith told the Court that pursuant to the powers of the Soils Conservation and Rivers Control Council, notice that the land was to be used as access to the deposit had been served on the Pa trustees and Mr Joll. However, the Soils Conservation and Rivers Control Council did not have the power to compulsorily require the cartage of metal across privately owned lands. Thus it was proposed that either an arrangement be negotiated between the Council, the Trustees and Mr JOll or the Council take the land under the Public Works Act. Mr Smith stated that, in anticipation of legal access being obtained, and with the verbal permission of the trustees and Mr Joll, the Clifton City Council, in consultation with the Waitara Borough Council, formed a roadway and began to remove the deposit. An arrangement was then made with Mr Joll to purchase his piece of land which the roadway ran over. 74

Mr Smith also told the Court that the trustees had shown a readiness to "co-operate" in view of the roadway being "for the benefit of both the Borou.[ough] and the County". He said that a meeting had been held at Manukorihi Marae where the people had endorsed the actions of the Trustees and had agreed to the road being laid out. Three conditions were agreed to at the meeting:

.. That the County will properly construct and maintain the roadway from North St to Manukorihi Road and will install and maintain cattlestops and gates for the purpose of protecting stock which may be depasturing on Manukorihi Pa land.

.. That the Council will effectively drain the whole of the subdivisions over which the roadway is taken.

.. That the Maori owners will have the use of Manukorihi Road which is not required for the roadway - for grazing.75

The Mayor of Waitara, William Yardly, who had attended the meeting with the people of Manukorihi, also attended the hearing. He concurred with Mr Smith stating that he had also discussed the proposal with Ralph Love (a trustee) who was happy for the road to proceed.

73 Taranaki Maori Land Court Minute Book 65, 17 October 1956, pp 118-125

74 ibid

75 ibid

24

He also said that he did not know of any objections to the proposed roadway. He commented that the council would bear the cost of forming, metalling and channelling the road and that no cost would fall upon the Maori owners. He also remarked that the land concerned was set aside by the trustees as a sportsground "to avoid liability for rates" . 76

Harry Matuku, one of the trustees of Manukorihi said at the hearing that the Maori people agreed to the roadway being laid out and the conditions outlined by Mr Smith. Mr Matuku stated that the drainage which would be carried out by the council during the construction of the road had been a problem to the owners in the past and that they appreciated that the deposit constituted a danger to the town. Mr Matuku also said that no compensation should be paid for the land. Mr Matuku was supported by Pehimana Tamati who also said that all the owners agreed to the road.

There were no objections to the road at the hearing. Thus the Court recommended to the Minister of Works under section 421(2) that the land comprised in the roadway be a road or street. 77

The order laying out the roadway was dated 21 December 1955. The area of land used for the road totalled 1 acre, 3 roods and 33 perches. The land concerned was:

Part Sub. 3 adjoining North Street containing 1 rood, 3.7 perches Part Sub. 4 adjoining North Street containing 1 rood, 6.7 perches Part Sub. 5 adjoining North Street containing 1 rood, 6.9 perches Part Sub. 6 adjoining North Street containing 35.1 perches Part Sub. 7 adjoining Manukorihi Road containing 3.2 perches Part Sub. 8 adjoining Manukorihi Road containing 3 roods, 2.7 perches Part Sub. 9 adjoining Manukorihi Road containing 14.7 perches78

The order reiterated the conditions outlined at the Maori Land Court hearing. No compensation was to be paid to any person in respect of the roadway.

Eight years after this order, preparations were made to declare the land a road pursuant to section 421 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953. The District Commissioner of Works (Wanganui) drew the Commissioner of Works' (Wellington) attention to the conditions outlined in the Maori Land Court order of December 1955. The District Commissioner commented:

It seems to me that those conditions will not apply - they may, of course, have already been fulfilled - once the proclamation under section 421 issues and although it also seems to me that we need not be concerned you may think otherwise and so I am referring the matter to

76 ibid

77 ibid

78 Recommendation for Proclamation of a Road way as a Public Road, 21 December 1955, Ministry of Works file called Streets: Waitara - Road through Manukorihi Blocks, ABKK, PW 5114543, National Archives Wellington

25

yoU. 79

On 30 May 1963 the area was declared a road pursuant to section 421 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953. 80

Nothing further has been located in response to the above letter. Thus it is difficult to assess its exact meaning. That is, whether it meant that after the declaration the conditions no longer applied; or that it meant that the fulfilment or otherwise of the conditions did not have to be taken into account in the declaration process and was not the concern or responsibility of the Ministry of the Works.

The New Plymouth District Council have stated that the Manukorihi Road was constructed by the Waitara Borough Council with side drains. Currently the New Plymouth District Council maintains the road and the drains on a regular basis. The road is also "effectively fenced to prevent stock wandering onto the road". 81

However, as stated the claimants believe that this drainage has not been done. They also argue that the trustees did not all agree to the road being formed and that they are entitled to royalties from the current extraction of gravel from an area of land near Manukorihi. The only way to access the gravel is by the road in question.

5 Compulsory Acquisition of Manukorihi for School

5.1 Suitable site for a school

In December 1963 the Department of Education asked the Ministry of Works on behalf of the Taranaki Education Board to acquire land for the purpose of the Waitara Intermediate School. The Board suggested land owned by J E Wanldyn as a possible site. The Ministry of Works reported to the Board that the site was "somewhat isolated from existing development" and that a site more centrally located was preferred. However, as the Borough was "growing more quickly than was expected prior to the 1961 census" and as further rapid growth was anticipated, the Ministry of Works felt that the proposed site would not "remain isolated for long". The Board agreed with the Ministries view and negotiations with Mr Wanldyn began. Mr Wanldyn's land was valued in January 1964 at £300 per acre but Mr Wanldyn was not interested in selling at this price. He would only sell at £500 per acre. Mr Wanldyn claimed that he made over £20 per acre per annum farming and that it was not in his best interests to sell for less than £500 per acre. As a consequence the Ministry of Works

79 District Commissioner of Works (Wanganui) to Commissioner of Works (Wellington), 26 April 1963, ibid

80 New Zealand Gazette, 30 May 1963, p 736

81 New Plymouth District Council to Waitangi Tribunal Division, 30 May 1994

26

told the Board that no further progress could be made on the matter. 82

In 1964 negotiations began between the Taranaki Education Board and Ralph Love for the purchase of part of the Manukorihi Reservation for the Waitara Intermediate School and an additional space for the Waitara High School. It appears that the Education Board initiated the negotiations. Ralph Love is recorded in Maori Land Court minutes as stating that the Education Board approached "us". 83 The District Land Purchase Officer for the Ministry of Works in Wanganui was R A Lynch. He represented the Education Board in the negotiations. When negotiations began, Ralph Love represented the trustees of the Manukorihi reservation. Mr Love was one of 19 trustees and considered by the Education Board to be the "chief trustee" . 84

At this initial stage, the area of Manukorihi that the board was interested in was Manukorihi 2 to 18 and 20 although subsequently Manukorihi 2, 17 and 18 were not required. All these sections were at the time (1964) part of a proposed residential section subdivision scheme. This had not been finalised though it had been approved in principle by the Waitara Borough Council. Mr Love stated at the beginning of the negotiations that the original intention for the land (presumably after he helped acquire it in 1948) had been to revoke the reservation status, subdivide it and sell the main block for housing purposes. Mr Love said however, that the years had changed the need for the Manukorihi reservation and that the need for housing had disappeared; "hence, the proposed sale" .85

The sale had its conditions. Officials involved with the negotiations noted in October 1964 that Mr Love and the people of Manukorihi wanted to preserve the traditional aspects of the site: to erect a memorial - possibly on the road reserve, to reserve a small portion at the back (which the Historical Society were also interested in) and to keep the urupa's reservation status. The board said they were happy to do this. 86

5.2 Preliminary Negotiations

In January 1965 Mr Lynch told Mr Love that in order for negotiations to proceed, the trustees should ensure that they had the legal authority to sell. This would entail the removal of Manukorihi's reservation status as land set apart as a reservation pursuant to section 439 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 could not be sold or leased by the trustees of the reservation (unless the lease or occupation license was granted with the consent of the court for any term not exceeding seven years). Mr Love replied that before the reservation status could be

82 Ministry of Works file entitled Schools: Waitaralntermediate, AAQU, W3428, PW 3112718, National Archives Wellington

83 Taranaki Maori Land Court minute book 75, 1 June 1966, pp 193-5

84 Waitara Intermediate Ministry of Works district file, DO 43/143/0, Department of Survey and Land Information, Wanganui

85 ibid

86 Ralph Love to Ministry of Works, 14 January 1965, ibid

27

removed a common agreement to sell the land for educational purposes would have to be reached. Mr Lynch stated that he was prepared to negotiate a price prior to the revocation if Mr Love was satisfied that the court was likely to agree to it. 87

In July 1965 Mr Lynch asked the Maori Land Court whether it was in order for him to negotiate solely with Mr Love. 88 Up until that stage discussions concerning the acquisition of the land had been with Mr Love only. The Deputy Registrar of the Wanganui Maori Land Court M S Byres commented that Manukorihi Pa was one of the most important in the country and it was "difficult to appreciate that the people were willing to place the whole of their affairs in the hands of one trustee". 89 He stated that Mr Love was only one of 19 trustees and that it would be unwise to negotiate solely with him. Mr Byres "earnestly recommended" that a meeting of all the trustees of the reservation be called to consider the proposal. 90 Mr Lynch told Mr Love of the Court's advice but said that before negotiating with the 19 trustees as a whole he would like to give Mr Love the opportunity to revoke the reservation status of Manukorihi. 91

5.3 Application to revoke Maori reservation status

On 2 March 1966 an application was made by Mr Love to the Maori Land Court pursuant to section 439 (5) of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 to revoke the order in council of 20 May 1948 which set apart Manukorihi 3 - 16 and 20 as a Maori reservation. Mr Love requested that the land be vested in himself and Hare Matuku as they were "the survivors of the persons in whom the said land was vested before it was constituted as a Maori reservation" . The grounds outlined by the applicant for the revocation were: The land was no longer required for the purpose for which it was set apart, the land was required by the Crown for education purposes and it was "expedient to vest the land in not more than two persons so that negotiations with the Crown may be facilitated". 92

On 1 June 1966 the application was considered by Maori Land Court Judge Davis. When Mr Love asked that the land be vested in two persons he agreed that the court may want to impose conditions on these two people. He stated that the Pa trustees had all been told of the hearing, "I telegraphed yesterday", he said. Mr Love told the Court that the trustees had held a meeting 18 months prior and had decided to proceed with the sale.

87 Ministry of Works to Mr Love, 26 January 1965, PW 431143/0, DOSLI Wanganui

88 Ministry of Works to Mr Love, 6 July 1965, ibid

89 Maori Land Court to Ministry of Works, 28 July 1965, ibid

90 Maori Land Court Wanganui to Ministry of Works, 28 July 1965, ibid

91 Ministry of Works to Mr Love, 11 August 1965, ibid

92 Application for recommendation to revoke Maori Reservation, Maori Land Court records relating to acquisition of Manukorihi lands received from Crown Law Office, 3 July 1991, Waitangi Tribunal Record of Documents for Taranaki Claim (Wai 143), document E5 appendices

28

James Nicholas (the Chairman of the Manukorihi Trustees) also attended the hearing. He said that he endorsed Mr Love's statement and that a unanimous decision had been made at the meeting of trustees. He said that the trustees had decided that two trustees would negotiate and then the matter would come back to the people for the decision. He said too that all the trustees had been told of the hearing. Also present at the hearing was Hori Matuku (Thompson), David Keepa and Pehinawe (Percy) Tamati. Mr Nicholas explained that the trustees had decided to put money into government bonds and that the income was to be used for the Marae. He also mentioned the building of a memorial.

Judge Davis seemed to be concerned that the proposal was only the wish of a small number. He said that the matter was one for the trustees as a whole and not just for two or so trustees. However, he recommended that as soon as the order in council revoked the 439 status, the Court would make an order under section 438 vesting the land in the trustees of the Manukorihi Pa upon trust to negotiate for and effect a sale to the Crown for education purposes. 93

On 5 October 1966 the order was signed by the Minister which vested pursuant to section 438 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 the Manukorihi reservation in the following trustees:

Potete Hotu Jack Kapinga Kake O'Carroll Mere Puata David Keepa Aila te Teira Charles Bailey

Pehimana Tamati Tuku Bailey Ralph Makere Love N ITed Healey Koro Pue Moki White

Rakaherea Pomare James Nicholas Whakahau Harris Harry Thompson William Mouri Graham Barney Rattenbury

Potete Hotu and Harry Thomson were the only new trustees. The secretary Mrs Kearns from the section 439 trust was not included in this list.

The land was vested in the trustees subject to the trust entering into negotiations with the District Commissioner of Works at Wanganui with the object of agreeing to sell to the Crown the land for education purposes. After this agreement was obtained, consent to the sale from the Court was to be sought. Subject to the consent being obtained, the proceeds of the sale were to be held by the Maori Trustee for the benefit of the members of the Te Ati A wa Tribe 11 as the Court shall hereafter determine 11 .94

5.4 Valuations

With the section 439 status removed, negotiations for the purchase proceeded. The negotiations were drawn out and there was much disagreement over valuations and price.

93 Taranaki Maori Land Court Minute Book No 75, 1 June 1966, pp 193-5

94 Order Vesting Land in Trustees, Waitara Intermediate Ministry of Works District file, DO 43/143/0, Department of Survey and Land Information, Wanganui

29

Initially the trustees advised Mr Lynch that they would accept £600 per acre (aproximately £9000 ($18,000)in total) for Manukorihi. Mr Lynch was also told by the trustees that in view of the large number of owners, the sale would have to be considered by a meeting of owners under Part XXIII of the Maori Affairs Act 1953.95 Mr Lynch replied that the area concerned (15 acres 1 rood and 32.3 perches) had been assessed as a hypothetical subdivision and valued by a special government valuation on 15 June 1965 at £5150 ($10,300).96 Mr Lynch said that he was:

. .. prepared to deal on this basis or alternatively to negotiate if the vendors supplied acceptable valuation evidence supporting a higher price. 97

At the request of the owners, registered valuer Percy C Smith, valued the 15 acres, 1 rood and 32.3 perches at £6685 ($13,370) This included £1100 for the cottage and £950 for improvements. The valuation, dated 7 March 1967, worked out at aproximately £431 per acre although by deducting the improvements and cottage the land itself was valued at £300 per acre. Mr Smith investigated the proposed subdivision plan and observed in his valuation statement that the costs and expenses connected with the development of building sites on the land would be high, that considerable time would be required to find purchasers for the large number of sections and that considerable capital would be required for the immediate outlay. He also noted that it had been difficult to obtain much evidence of the sale of comparable small blocks in the Waitara Borough. 98

The lawyer acting for the trustees, N F Simpson of Morison, Taylor and Co, wrote to Mr Lynch in April 1967 and advised that the trustees were prepared to use Mr Smith's valuation of £6685. Mr Simpson also stated that Mr Love had been authorised by the trustees to negotiate a settlement though it would have to be approved by the majority of trustees.99

5.5 Change in negotiators

On 25 May 1967 Mr Lynch was advised that the trustees of the Manukorihi Pa had withdrawn their authority for Mr Love to conduct negotiations on their behalf and would be appointing a special committee for that purpose. The trustees also advised that they were not prepared to rely on the valuation of Percy Smith and would be offering further evidence as to value. The contact person given to the department was Mrs E Kearns, the secretary for the Manukorihi Trustees. lOO Mr Lynch responded by offering $8500 to the trustees.lOl

95 Morison, Taylor & Co to Ministry of Works, 15 March 1967, ibid

96 Valuation Department to Ministry of Works, 15 June 1965, ibid

97 Valuation New Zealand to Ministry of Works, 15 June 1965, ibid

98 Percy C Smith, Registered Valuer to Morison, Taylor & Co, 7 March 1967, ibid

99 Morison, Taylor & Co to Ministry of Works, 21 Apri11967, ibid

100 Morison, Taylor & Co to Ministry of Works, 25 March 1967, ibid

30

It appears that it was at this stage of proceedings that the trustees began to consider selling the land privately. However, Mr Lynch commented in a letter to the trustees that the terms of the section 438 trust meant that the suggestion by the trustees to sell the land privately was not within the authority of the trust. That is, the sale of the land was limited to the Crown for educational purposes only. 102

On 21 August 1967 Mrs Kearns advised Mr Lynch that the committee were "unanimous in its disapproval" of his $8500 offer. The committee felt that the land was worth much more than was offered. Mrs Kearns said that the committee questioned the departments $800 per acre valuation compared with the calculation of two privately owned adjacent sections of $1500 per acre (Manukorihi 17 and 18). She stated that if a satisfactory figure was not agreed upon the trustees would "revert to other measures which would meet with the approval of the people" . 103

Mr Lynch told the trustees that the valuations of Manukorihi 17 and 18 at $1500 per acre were "relatively high because they could be sold off as individual building sections". Thus, he said, an acerage comparison was not a valid argument. Further:

The governments proposal to buy the back land, leaving the Trustees to sell off the frontage without getting involved in costly development works, would, I am sure, enable the Trustees to realise a much higher overall return than they could possibly hope to gain any other way. 104

He urged the trustees to reconsider.

On 9 October Mr Lynch told the trustees that the Taranaki Education Board had because of the delay, begun to investigate alternatives to the Manukorihi site. He said too that if the trustees lost this opportunity of selling then the whole purpose of the Maori Land Court order of 1 June 1966 would be defeated.105

On 21 November 1967 the Manukorihi Pa Trustees advised Mr Lynch that they had decided to cancel all further negotiations with the department. They regretted that no agreement was reached. The letter concluded that it was in the interests of the people that they were unable to accept the proposal. 106

101 The area concerned in this instance was just 13 and a half acres. (It is not clear why it was reduced in this one instance.) Note that the New Zealand currency was changed to decimals on 7 July 1967. £1 was equivalent to $2.00.

102 Ministry of Works to Manukorihi Trustees, 21 July 1967, Waitara Intermediate School Ministry of Works District file, DO 43/143/0, DOSLI Wanganui

103 Manukorihi Pa Trustees to Ministry of Works, 21 August 1967, ibid

104 Ministry of Works to Manukorihi Trustees, 24 August 1967, ibid

105 Ministry of Works to Manukorihi Trustees, 9 October 1967, ibid

106 Manukorihi Trustees to Ministry of Works, 21 November 1967, ibid

31

5.6 Further Valuations

A further valuation was requested by the Ministry of Works in January 1968 as they felt that recent sales of comparable land in the Waitara area would give a better indication as to value. When completed in November 1968 by the Valuation Department, this valuation gave the current market value of the 15 acre, 1 rood and 32.3 perch area as $15,000 (including the cottage on part lot 9 valued at $2200) This was aproximately $1000 per acre and almost twice as much as Mr Lynch had offered just six months prior in July 1967.107

As Mr Lynch was aware of the probable results of the revised valuation, he asked Mrs Kearns in January 1968 for the opportunity to discuss the matter further with the trustees. lOB A meeting was held and on 23 January the trustees advised Mr Lynch that they were unable to accept his offer of $15,000 or the departments maximum figure of $16,000. The trustees stated that they stood by the figure of $25,000. 109

The Commissioner of Works in Wellington was then advised of the situation in a letter of 29 January 1968 from the District Commissioner of Works (Wanganui). The letter stated that there was no evidence to support the price of $25,000 except for a valuation obtained by the trustees from a rural valuer E R Harford. Mr Harford's valuation, the Commissioner said, was "based on a hypothetical subdivision and was in several respects demonstrably in error". (It was not stated what these errors were.) Thus, the Commissioner felt unable to recommend the higher figure of $25,000. The letter stated that compulsory acquisition under the Public Works Act could not be entertained as the land was a Maori reserve and the land would "revert to reserve if no sale eventuated". The site, the letter continued, was also "ideally suited", no other government requirements for land in Waitara were known of and "payment of a premium price in this instance would not have any major adverse effects on other purchases in the area". 110

The Commissioner of Works (Wellington) P L Laing replied that in fact there was no legal obstacle to taking the land under the Public Works Act although there "may be problems locally such as hardship to the owners in connection with the use of this land as Maori Reserve". Mr Laing also endorsed the opinion of Mr Lynch that it was unacceptable to pay the price fixed by the trustees. Mr Laing said that if the trustees remained at the price of $25,000 then they would have to be persuaded to consent to the sale of the land subject to the price being determined independently by the Land Valuation Court. If this failed then it would be necessary to either consider compulsory acquisition, consider another site or defer the decision. 111

107 Valuation Department to Ministry of Works, 11 November 1968, ibid

108 Ministry of Works to Manukorihi Trustees, 15 January 1968, ibid

109 Manukorihi Trustees to Ministry of Works, 23 January 1968, ibid

110 District Commissioner of Works Wanganui to Commissioner of Works Wellington, 29 January 1968, ibid

I11 Commissioner of Works (Wellington) to Department of Education, 1 February 1968, ibid

32

5.7 Ministerial Decision

The matter then reached Ministerial level. The Minister of Education was told by the Assistant Director General that there seemed little prospect of an agreement on price and that other options such as "compulsory acquisition, selection of an alternative, deferment of the proposal indefinitely or the possibility of taking by consent with compensation to be determined by the Land Valuation Court" may have to be considered. The Minister was also told that there was a possibility of an alternative site two blocks away from the high school though the Manukorihi site was much preferred. Therefore, the Assistant Director General said, the Department could not recommend compulsory acquisition "in view of the availability of alternative land". Further:

It is unfortunate that the acquisition of the site is taking so long to settle. However, compulsory acquisition is out of the question, and furthermore, since the need to begin building the intermediate school is not urgent (when compared with other school projects throughout New Zealand) pressure on Ministry of Works to purchase at a price which the Land Purchase Officer considers to be too high would not be justified. 112

After a meeting between the Taranaki Education Board and the Minister of Education on 2 February 1968, the Minister of Education wrote to the Minister of Works and asked that he authorise the spending of $25,000 to acquire the Manukorihi site. The Board had argued, according to the Minister, that the Manukorihi site offered many advantages from both a educational and financial point of view. The site could be used not only for an intermediate school but as an extension to the High school whose size was well below normal standards. The Board argued that it could be more economical in the long term to purchase the land at $25,000 because if they were unable to acquire Manukorihi the Board would then have to purchase two sites, one for an intermediate school, and a further seven acres for the extension to the High School. The Minister of Education's letter concluded "alternatively, the possibility of compulsory acquisition may need to be looked at". 113

The Minister of Works replied on 9 February 1968. He said that three meetings had been held with the trustees who were not anxious to sell "except at a price which cannot be recommended". He criticised the valuations made for the trustees stating that they were "based on an erroneous belief that the land could be subdivided and all sections sold in three to four years". The other two valuers who supported the price of $15,000, he said, were convinced that in W aitara this subdivision would be totally uneconomic and that the supply of residential land was "more than adequate to meet the slow demand which Waitara experiences". The letter concluded that as the Crown had numerous dealings in land every year it could not depart to the extent desired by the trustees from the market price "without repercussions elsewhere". The position was covered by legislation which limited the amount of compensation payable to the amount which the land would realise on the open market. Thus he could not advise that the Minister of Education incur expenditure of $25,000. Other

112 Assistant Director-General (Admin) of Education, 2 February 1968, Ministry of Works Head Office file entitled Schools: Waitara Intermediate, AAQU, PW 3112718, National Archives Wellington

113 Minister of Education to Minister of Works, February 1968, ibid

33

possibilities he said, were compulsory acquisition or the acquisition of a less suitable site two blocks away from Manukorihi.114

A meeting was then held on 14 February 1968 between the Minister of Works, the Minister of Education and officials from Education, Treasury and the Ministry of Works. It was noted prior to the meeting by an official that it was unlikely that Treasury would agree to paying $25,000. It was at this meeting that it was decided that the Manukorihi site was a "far superior site to any alternative" and that it would be taken compulsorily under the Public Works Act.

On 23 February 1968 Mr Lynch advised the trustees that as the price set by the trustees had not been agreed to the land was to be taken under the compulsory provisions of the Public Works Act. If agreements on price could not be agreed to by negotiation, compensation would have to be decided by the Land Valuation Court. Mr Lynch's letter concluded:

I trust that this decision will not prevent negotiations continuing with the Trustees on the same basis of mutual respect and understanding as in the past. 115

The District Commissioner of Works C G Beale later stated that the Public Works Act was the only "practicable method for the Crown to obtain title". 116

5.8 Protest

A newspaper article dated 22 March 1968 stated that the trustees of the Manukorihi Pa were prepared to "fight to the end" to prevent the compUlsory taking of the 15 112 acres for the Waitara Intermediate School. The article reported that the Minister of Education Mr Kinsella stated that a recent valuation had "put the trustees price at about 50 % higher than the Government valuation", that the "price of the land appeared to be the only problem" and that "the trustees appear to have no objection to the land being used for a school". Mr Kinsella added that the rights of the trustees were "fully covered" as they could take the matter up with the Maori Land Court. He continued:

This is the only suitable piece of land for the proposed intermediate school in the area, and obtaining this site means a great deal to the town ofWaitara and the Maori people ..... it was very important that all future intermediate schools were built next to secondary schools.1I7

The Taranaki Education Board chairman Mr G B Harvey was also quoted. He said:

... the board had always considered the site next to the Waitara High School to be the only

114 Minister of Works to Minister of Education, 14 February 1968, ibid

115 Ministry of Works to Manukorihi Trustees, 23 February 1968, Waitara Intermediate Ministry of Works District file, DO 431143/0, Department of Survey and Land Information, Wanganui

116 District Commissioner of Works to Commissioner of Works, 30 May 1968, ibid

117 Taranaki Herald, 22 March 1968

34

suitable one in WaitaraYs

The Secretary - Manager of the board Mr P Mercer stated that the school was needed by 1971 and asked Mr Kinsella if he would give "immediate authority to prepare plans if the land was obtained by the board" .

The article also examined the feelings of the Manukorihi trustees. The chairman of the trustees Mr J Nicholas stated that they were prepared to "fight the government to the end over the land" and that they "intended to go through all available legal channels to prevent this injustice". In the article Mr Nicholas explained how the land had been valued privately. They were told that "on rural valuation it was worth not less than $25,000 ... [and that] private owners of the two acre area between the high school and the trusts land had been offered $1500 an acre". By the time they had been offered $15,000 by Mr Lynch, the trustees felt they had been "mucked around with for so long ... [that they] were not prepared to accept a penny below" their valuation. Mr Nicholas also stated that he could produce evidence of two year old land valuations of $1300 an acre in Waitara which were now worth $3000 an acre. 1l9

5.9 Public Works Taking

Taking the land under the Public Works Act had been suggested as early as August 1965. The District Commissioner of Works E A Flynn stated that as the trustees under section 439" of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 did not have the power to sell, then the land should be taken under the Public Works Act "with the consent of the Trustees" and the Department of Maori Affairs. Compensation would be negotiated under the provisions of the Public Works Act. 120 The Maori Affairs Department replied that if the Ministry of Works proposed using the Public Works Act then the Ministry should "retain the initiative in all negotiations with the owners" . 121

On 28 March 1968 notice was given that pursuant to the Public Works Act 1928, 15 acres, 1 rood and 32 perches of the Manukorihi block was to be taken for the purpose of a school, Waitara Intermediate. The area was more specifically part Manukorihi 3A, 3B, and Manukorihi 4 to 16 inclusive and Manukorihi 20. 122 Notice of the intention to take the land was also served on the occupiers of the cottage on the land. 123

liS ibid

119 ibid

120 Ministry of Works to Department of Maori Affairs, 2 August 1965, Waitara Intermediate Ministry of Works District file, DO 43/143/0, DOSLI Wanganui

121 Maori Land Court Wanganui to Ministry of Works, 5 August 1965, ibid

122 New Zealand Gazette, 28 March 1968, p 504

123 Ministry of Works to District Commissioner of Works, 8 May 1968, Waitara Intermediate Ministry of Works District file, DO 43/1/43/0, DOSLI Wanganui

35

Under the provisions of the Act, objections to the taking could be heard within 40 days of the notice. A hearing would then be held to hear the objection. On 23 April 1968, in a letter from the Minister of Works to Mr Middleton of Monaghan and Middleton, the new firm of solicitors representing the Manukorihi trustees, the Minister noted that while the trustees raised "no objection to the taking of this land for Educational purposes" there was concern over the "quantum of compensation offered" . 124

Almost four months later, on 15 August 1968, the Governor General consented to the taking125 and in September the Governor General proclaimed and declared that the land from the Manukorihi block was, as from 16 September 1968, taken for a school. 126

5.10 Compensation.

In May 1969 $15,000 was paid in compensation to. the trustees. This $15,000 payment was made on the basis that it was an advance, made without prejudice, subject to a final determination as to the amount of compensation due to the owners, and that on final settlement the owners would be entitled to interest from the date when the land was taken. Both before and after this payment was made, there was much discussion and disagreement between the trustees, the valuers, and Mr Lynch over just how much the land was actually worth.

In June 1968, (prior to the $15,000 payment), the land was valued at $24,735 by a private valuer H F W ooffindin. This valuation was made at the trustees instigation (but is not on the file).127 In October 1968 a valuation was completed by Jack Preston Morgan at the instigation of the Ministry of Works. He valued the land at $15, 100. Mr Morgan estimated that the period required to develop the proposed 71 allotments would be 7 years. His valuation was also based on the belief that in the next 5 years there would be no upsurge in demand for residential sections in Waitara. The average number of vacant residential sections sold per annum in the Waitara area was 12 which contrasted with the hypothetical 71 allotments available. Mr Morgan said that he did not consider that the land would be sold at block value if placed on the open market. 128

Prior to another valuation being completed, a meeting was held to discuss the valuers respective valuations. This was attended by Mr Middleton (the solicitor acting for the trustees), Mr Lynch and the valuers. It is not clear from the record whether these discussions achieved any sort of compromise.

124 Minister of Works to Monaghan and Middleton, 23 Apri11968, ibid

125 New Zealand Gazette, 15 August 1968, P 1344

126 New Zealand Gazette, 12 September 1968, p 1555

127 Monaghan & Middleton to Ministry of Works, 13 June 1968, Waitara Intermediate Ministry of Works District file, DO 43/143/0, DOSLI Wanganui

128 Jack Preston Morgan to Ministry of Works, 10 October 1968, ibid

36

C J Ryan made the next valuation though no valuation figure is recorded. This was at the instigation of the trustees and made independently of other valuations. Mr Ryan estimated that it would take five years to sell the sections involved.

Mr Middleton interviewed the ex Mayor of Waitara Roy Yardly who agreed with the contention of Woffendin and Harford (who had valued the land at $25,000) that there was a great shortage of freehold land in Waitara and that during the last 20 years there had been no comparable subdivision. Mr Yardly had noted that many prospective purchasers of freehold land in Waitara were diverted into taking leasehold land in the area or else sought sections in or near New Plymouth.

Mr Middleton argued that it was misleading of the Ministry of Works valuer to base his estimate on the time taken to sell freehold sections in Waitara as there were insufficient freehold sections in the Waitara area to compare with. Mr Middleton asked Mr Lynch to reconsider his offer in view of C J Ryan's valuations and the comments of Mr Yardly. He said that if Mr Lynch was prepared to split the difference between the respective valuers assessments of time, he could "possibly persuade" his clients to accept that figure. 129

Mr Lynch replied with an offer of a further $3000. He argued that the demand for subdivisions was strictly limited, that the block was a marginal proposition for subdivision and was too big in relation to the section demand to attract speculator interests. It was therefore necessary to relate selling time to valuation. He felt that the lack of comparable sales of similar blocks made it difficult to secure conclusive valuation evidence. Therefore he would not agree to $25,000. 130

Mr Middleton advised Mr Lynch that Mr Harford had completed another valuation. This valuation was on the basis that it would take five years to develop and sell Manukorihi. His valuation was $20,300. Mr Middleton also stated that as there was a known shortage of freehold land in Waitara they could not accept the offer of a further $3000. However, he would advise the trustees to accept $5000. 131 Mr Lynch replied that this was not possible as he could not accept that disposal of the land would only take five years. Mr Middleton then argued that he could not advise the acceptance of $18,000 which represented a payment of about $1100 per acre which was the same price paid for land outside the borough. They also argued that Mr Lynch had offered £750 ($1500) for swamp land in prior negotiations. The trustees could not reconcile this with Mr Lynch's offer. 132 Mr Lynch again replied that he was unable to support $20,000 and offered $18,000 stating that "the value of the block was governed by the economics of subdivision" and unless the subdivision showed a profitable return, that the land was capable of subdivision did not enhance its value. In fact,

129 Monaghan & Middleton to Ministry of Works, 22 January 1970, ibid

130 Ministry of Works to Monaghan & Middleton, 19 February 1970, ibid

131 Monaghan & Middleton to Ministry of Works, 26 March 1970, ibid

132 Monaghan & Middleton to Ministry of Works, 22 June 1970, ibid

37

he said, "the rating liability would tend to depress values". 133

Again Mr Middleton replied that the trustees would not accept the $18,000 and would be taking the matter to court. Again they contended that there was a very severe shortage of freehold land. 134 A month later they advised Mr Lynch again, that the trustees would accept $20,000.

Finally in November 1970, the sum of $20,000 was agreed on and a further $5000 was paid to the trustees via the trust account of Monaghan and Middleton, $15,000 having being paid out previously. 135 The offer was considered by a full meeting of the marae trustees. 136

In Mr Lynch's letter to the District Commissioner recommending the $20,000 figure, he commented that the claimants had based their valuations on the sub divisional scheme which would yield 71 sections. However, he said, he did not consider that this was the best approach to valuing the block as a higher return was possible from "a limited subdivision and disposal of the remainder of the block". He continued:

Such a procedure would be acceptable to the Borough Council and I am concerned that if the case goes to Court there would be a good prospect of this method of realisation becoming known to the claimants. 137

Mr Lynch also noted that, since the taking, the demand for freehold residential land in Waitara had been "buoyant and prices have firmed considerably". He noted that while this did not have any legal significance it would "tend to predispose a Court" (Valuation Court) in the claimants favour. Crown purchases in Waitara he said, had been few and "payment of a small premium for this block would be unlikely to prejudice future dealings to any extent". However:

. .. on the basis of the offer now under consideration this premium is too high and I have reason to believe that a counter offer would have some prospect of acceptance. 138

He considered that as the offer of $18,000 had been rejected the maximum he could recommend was $20,000. 139

133 Ministry of Works to Monaghan & Middleton, 29 June 1970, ibid

134 Monaghan & Middleton to Ministry of Works, 15 July 1970, ibid

135 Ministry of Works to Monaghan & Middleton, 16 October 1970, ibid

136 Monaghan & Middleton to Mr Lynch, 18 November 1970, ibid

137 Lynch to District Commissioner, 18 August 1970, ibid

138 ibid

139 ibid

38

5.11 Valuations

5.12

The following is a summary of the valuations completed during 1968 on Manukorihi (15 acres, 1 rood and 32.3 perches):

Valuer Date Amount

District Valuer (for Crown) 11 January $15,000

J Morgan (for Crown) 12 September $14,800 amended verbally after discussion to ... $17,000

ER Harford (for claimants) 12 September $24,300 revised after negotiation to ... $20,300

H F Wooffindin (for claimants) 12 September $25,000

Claimants comments

Aila Taylor who was a trustee at the time of the sale, has stated that the trustees did not agree to the land being taken and the amount of land taken. He said they only agreed to the compensation of $20,000 under duress. The claimants state that the trustees sought a legal opinion from Middleton & Co and were advised to "take the $20,000 and run as a last ditch option". It was, the claimants state, "too great a risk to take the case to the Maori Land Court" .140

5.13 Subsequent Protest

A letter was sent to the Ministry of Works in October 1971 by the Heeni Turoa Trust Committee stating that September 1971 was the first the Trust had heard of the taking. A Mrs Haeta for the trust went to the Maori Land Court on 8 September and opposed the case. Nothing further has been located on this matter in the Maori Land Court Minute Books of this period.

6.0 Summary/Conclusions/Issues

6.1 Early acquisitions

Manukorihi is of special significance to the Manukorihi and Otaraua hapu of Te Ati Awa. It was made inalienable when the Crown grant was issued in 1883. The Native Commissioner Robert Parris stated in 1880 that it would be held as a tribal reserve and not individualised. It was administered by the Public Trustee up until 1916 when the land was

140 Aroha Rarris, Notes of Visits to Owae Marae to meet Aila Taylor, Ted Tamati and Mold White on 21 and 23 May 1991

39

vested in the Maori owners.

Mariukorihi was also partitioned in 1916. The partitioning of Manukorihi facilitated a series of alienations over a period of aproximately twenty years of 15 acres to Rosa Stead. Partitioning enabled individuals to sell their interests in Manukorihi without taking into account the tribal view. There were those in the hapu who were concerned about the alienations. This was reflected in their desire to reserve Manukorihi A2 and AIB (almost 5 acres or one quarter of the block) in 1926 and 1932. Although Mr Stead objected to some of the land forming part of the reservation, Judge Davis of the Maori Land Court believed Mr Stead's objections arose because the reservation status prevented Mrs Stead from acquiring more of Manukorihi.

Rosa Stead was represented in all the transactions by her husband Charles Stead. Some of the actions of the Steads are questionable. Mr Stead claimed that the owners had agreed that because the land had been valued as though a road had been built through the block, a proportion of the price of the road would be deducted from the purchase price. The purchase price was the government valuation, and the same price agreed to in the transfer document and approved by the Aotea Maori Land Board. The owners however, claimed that they did not know that a portion of the amount agreed to would be deducted to pay for a road. When Kaho Heremia received payment for his land he returned it to Mr Stead so that he could be paid the proceeds in instalments. Ten years later he complained that he had not received the full amount.

The amount deducted in each case was £100 which was almost half of the £220 paid to Heeni Keepa, almost a third of the £280 paid to Wiremu Keepa and almost one quarter of that paid to Kaho Heremia. It may be that Mr Stead based the deduction on the amount of land sold as each seller alienated aproximately three acres of land. Hemi Kuka who sold one and a half acres of land was supposed to have had £50 deducted (as well as a £40 revaluation reduction) from the £140 promised in the transfer documents. Although the owners stated that they did not know of the deduction the Native Land Court was aware though it did not know exactly how much and how it was worked out. The Valuation Department also did not appear to know how this deduction system had worked. 141

In Hemi Kuka' s case the Court insisted that he be paid the full amount as agreed to in the transfer documents. However, the Court did not ensure the same for Kaho Heremia or the Keepas, despite its obligation under section 217(e) of the Native Land Act 1909 to ensure that full payment was made to the owners. This was probably due however, to Kaho Heremia and the Keepas returning their money to Mr Stead after he had paid them so Stead could either pay the owners instalments or payout the money to their debtors. This made it easier for MR Stead to keep the amount he claimed was for the road. Thus the Court may have felt it had met its obligations by ensuring that the owners had received payment and did not have to involve itself in any subsequent transactions with the proceeds money.

The evidence also suggests that a degree of pressure was placed on the owners of Manukorihi

141 See Manukorihi No 4 Native Land Court Alienation file, MLC-WG1, 3/1917/165, National Archives Wellington

40

to sell and that some owners required the proceeds of the sale to payoff debts (including rates) and/or to provide a regular income. 142

Another questionable action by Mr Stead was his dealings with Hemi Kuka who had spent some time in a psychiatric hospital. It is difficult to assess whether Mr Damon's complaint, that Hemi Kuka should not have been negotiating the sale of land or receiving the purchase money, was valid especially given the statement by Mr Campbell. In the end the purchase money was vested in the Public Trustee.

In view of the above discussion on the nature of the alienations to Mr Stead, it can be asked whether the Native Land Act offered sufficient protection to Maori as promised by the Treaty, by ensuring that the alienations were fair and equitable.

6.2 Road

In 1956 an application by the Waitara Borough Council pursuant to section 415 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 to layout a road through parts of the Manukorihi block (almost 2 acres in total) was accepted by the Maori Land Court for no payment. The Maori Land Court minutes on the matter, give the impression that the Marae trustees agreed (with three conditions) to this. However, Aila Taylor argues that some of the trustees saw the situation differently.

Mr Taylor stated that there was conflict among the trustees over the laying out of the road and that it was some of the older trustees who told the District Council that they could use the land if need be. Mr Taylor was a councillor for the Waitara Borough Council at the time. He believes that the application process by the Council was intimidating for the trustees and that the "kaitiaki aspect" was totally overlooked. He blames "European orientated mechanisms", that is, Maori Affairs and Maori Land Court processes, which allowed the transaction to take place. 143

A second concern of the claimants relating to the laying out of this road, is that the Clifton County Council (now the New Plymouth District Council) has allowed the extraction of metal from section 18, a recreation reserve near to Manukorihi, and royalties are charged. The claimants state that the road was intended as access only and that the Maori owners do not receive any royalties from the gravel extraction nor share any of the benefits the Council derives from charging royalties. 144

Thirdly, the claimants argue that the drainage which was promised by the District Council at the application hearing in October 1956 has not been done. These conditions were included

142 Wiremu and Heeni Keepa to Dr Maui Pomare, April 1920, Manukorihi A Maori Land Court Alienation file, MLC-WG 1, 3/5847, National Archives Wellington

143 Evidence of Aila Taylor, Waitangi Tribunal D Hearing, Tape 3, Waitangi Tribunal Division, Wellington

144 Aroha Harris, Notes of Visits to Owae Marae to Meet Aila Tayior, Ted Tamati and Mold White on 21 and 23 May 1991

41

in the Maori Land Court order laying out the road. The New Plymouth District Council however, state that side drains were constructed when the road was formed. 145 It is possible that the owners and the then Waitara Borough Council had different expectations as to what was meant by the Council's promise to "effectively drain the whole of the subdivisions over which the roadway" was taken. It is unclear why the District Commissioner of Lands stated in April 1963 that the department need not be concerned with the fulfilling of the conditions once the proclamation was issued. 146

6.3 Removal of Reservation Status

In 1948 Manukorihi 3-16 and 20 were included in the existing Maori reservation attached to the Manukorihi Pa. The area was later reserved under section 439 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953. Manukorihi could not be sold while being subject to this section of the Act.

In 1964 negotiations began between the Taranaki Education Board, and a trustee of the Manukorihi reservation (Ralph Love), for the purchase of part of the reservation for a school. In order to proceed with the purchase, the reservation status pursuant to section 439 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 had to be removed. Mr Lynch, the land purchase officer, wanted the reservation status revoked prior to commencing negotiations with all 19 trustees. The application to remove the section 439 status was brought by two trustees though they stated they had the support of the other trustees from a meeting held 18 months prior (late 1964). At the revocation hearing Judge Davis was concerned that the proposal was the wish of a small number and not a trustee initiative. Despite this, it was ordered that the section 439 order be replaced with a section 438 order which vested the land in the trustees of the Manukorihi Pa upon trust to negotiate for and effect a sale to the Crown for education purposes.

The removal of the reservation status was an important step in the process towards alienation. The protective function of a section 439 trust which prevented the alienation of the block had been removed. The new section 438 order stated that it was the intention of the trustees to negotiate to sell part of Manukorihi to the Crown for a school. For such an important step to take place it would be imperative that it was supported by the Marae trustees as a whole. However, it is not clear how widespread the support for the revocation was.

What is clear, is that although several people were involved in these preliminary negotiations, the decision to sell would come from the trustees as a whole. However, the decision making power of the trustees was taken away by the imposition of the Public Works Act.

6.4 Negotiations

The preliminary negotiations for the purchase of the Manukorihi block were between Mr

145 New Plymouth District Council to Waitangi Tribunal Division, 30 May 1994

146 see District Commissioner of Works (Wanganui) to Commissioner of Works (Wellington), 26 April 1963, Ministry of Works file called Streets: Waitara - Road through Manukorihi Blocks ABKK, PW 5114543, National Archives Wellington

42

Love for the trustees and Mr Lynch for the Crown. After the section 439 trust was revoked the trustees decided that a committee would continue the negotiations with the Crown.

There were disagreements as to price from the time the land was first valued. By November 1967, after a series of valuations, the Manukorihi trustees cancelled all further negotiations with the Department. Despite a further offer from Mr Lynch of $15,000, which was almost twice as much as he had offered previously, the Trustees still would not agree, stating that their price was $25,000. The Chairman of the trustees was quoted as stating that at this stage the trustees felt they had been "mucked around" with for so long that they were not prepared to accept a "penny below" .147

The matter then went to Ministerial level where it was decided that the Crown would take 15 acres of Manukorihi compulsorily under the Public Works Act 1928.

6.5 Comparison

Prior to the negotiations with the Manukorihi Trustees, the Ministry of Works began negotiating with JEW anklyn to purchase his land to use for the Waitara Intermediate School. Mr Wanklyn's land was valued at £300 per acre but Mr Wanklyn thought that his land was worth much more (£500 per acre) and rejected the Ministry of Works offer. The Ministry of Works told the Education Board that they could not make any further progress and would not pursue the matter.

Manukorihi was also valued at an amount rejected by the owners or trustees of Manukorihi. However, instead of the Ministry of Works pursuing other options when no agreement as to price could be reached, the land was taken compulsorily under the Public Works Act.

This comparison raises a question in view of the Crown's obligation under article 3 of the Treaty of Waitangi to extend to Maori all the rights and privileges of British subjects:

• Why did Mr Wanklyn have the right to refuse to sell his land when his negotiations with the Ministry of Works reached a stale mate; when the Maori trustees, who also did not agree to the price offered by the Ministry of Works, had their land taken compulsorily?

6.6 Representation

The decision to take the land compulsorily was made at a meeting between the Minister of Works, the Minister of Education and other officials. Thus the interests of the Education Department and the interests of the Ministry of Works were represented by their respective Ministers and officials at the meeting. However, when this final decision was made no one was in attendance to represent the interests of Maori. Is this absence of a representative at this level contrary to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi given the Crown's obligation to actively protect the interests of Maori?

147 Taranaki Herald, 22 March 1968

43

6.7 Other Options

There are contradicting views as to whether an alternative site could have been used for the Waitara Intermediate School and whether the acquisition of land for a school at Waitara was an urgent matter or not.

The Chairman of the Taranaki Education Board was quoted as stating that the Board had always considered that the Manukorihi site was the only suitable site in Waitara. The Secretary-Manager of the Board said that the school was needed by 1971. Mr Kinsella, the Minister of Education, also stated that it was the only suitable site and added that it was "very important that all future intermediate school were built next to secondary schools". 148

Prior to these statements, and the land being taken, the Assistant Director General of Education indicated that the need for an intermediate school was not urgent and that an alternative site for a school could be pursued, although this site was "less suitable". However, because the Manukorihi site was a "far superior site to any alternative" it was taken compulsorily under the Public Works Act.

This raises a question:

et Should more consideration have been given to the other site, given the Assistant Director of Education's view that it was available and the matter not urgent, and the inability to reach a settlement acceptable to both sides?

6.8 The Principle of Reciprocity

The Waitangi Tribunal has discussed the implications of the Treaty on the compulsory acquisition of land by the Crown. In its ancillary claims report the Ngai Tahu Tribunal states that because of the conflict between the "Crown's guarantee in article 2 of the Treaty of 'te tino rangatiratanga' or 'the full exclusive and undisturbed possession' .... over their lands, on the one hand, and the right of 'kawanatanga' or 'sovereignty' conveyed to the Crown in article 1 on the other", the circumstances of each public works taking must be taken into consideration. However, "the task of weighing up the public interest against the guarantees stipulated in the Treaty is not necessarily achievable in all cases". This is given that the passage of time since the taking in question may be lengthy and that sometimes only limited information is available. 149 Questions to consider then are:

et Is the taking of Manukorihi for a school a case where it may be feasible to determine whether the public interest was greater than that of the owners? That is, was the need for a school greater than the need for an economic or tribal base for the Maori owners?

148 Taranald Herald, 22 March 1968

149 Waitangi Tribunal Ngati Tahu Ancillary Report (Wai 27) (Brooker & Friend Wellington, 1995) p 367

44

.. Is there sufficient information to determine whether the public interest was greater than that of the owners?

Another is whether the Maori interest has been given "proper weight". That is, was any consideration given to the treaty and Te Atiawa tino rangatiratanga at all when the Crown took Manukorihi for a school.

The Waitangi Tribunal has also stated:

Given the clear and unequivocal terms of article 2 ... it would seem that:

.. if the Crown wishes to acquire Maori land for a public work or purpose, it should first give the owners notice and seek to obtain their consent at an agreed price;

.. if the Maori owners are unwilling to agree, the power of compulsory acquisition for a public work or purpose should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances and as a last resort in the national interest; and

.. if the Crown does so seek to acquire the use of Maori land for a public work, it should do so by acquiring a lease, license, or easement, as appropriate, on terms agreed upon with the Maori owners or, failing agreement, by appropriate arbitration. Should there be exceptional circumstances where the acquisition of the freehold by the Crown is considered to be essential, Maori should have the right to have that question determined by an appropriate person or body independent of the Crown. 150

6.9 Valuation and Compensation

Once the land was taken compensation was assessed on the basis that the owners would receive the sum that the "property would realise if sold on the open market by a willing seller to a willing buyer". It has been stated that this is "somewhat at odds with the concept of compulsory acquisition for the obvious reason that the seller is not usually willing to sell their" land. 151

In essence Mr Lynch and the valuers used by the Crown argued that there was little demand for residential sections in Waitara and that as subdivisions they would take a long time to sell on the open market. It was also argued that the value of the adjacent sections should not be taken into consideration as the reason why their value was high was because they could be sold off as individual building sections. The valuations used by the trustees however, argued for a higher price based on the perceived scarcity of subdivisions in the Waitara region and therefore a significant demand. They claimed that the valuations of adjacent sections (17 and 18) at $1500 per acre was a valid argument for a higher price.

150 ibid, pp 10-11

151 Sharyn Green Waiohau C26, (Waitangi Tribuna11993), p 26

45

An agreement was finally reached in November 1970 that $20,000 would be paid in compensation. This was almost three years after the land was taken and six years after negotiations first began. The claimants now state that they were forced into accepting this amount and that they felt they had no other option but to accept. 152

Under the Public Works Act the trustees had the option of having their compensation assessed by the Maori Land Court who had the same powers in this respect as the Valuation Court. However, the claimants have since stated that they thought that taking the matter to Court was "too much of a risk" .153

Mr Lynch commented to the District Commissioner in his letter of 18 August 1970 which recommended that the $20,000 be approved, that he did not want the matter to be considered by the Valuation Court as the Court may value the land differently and increase the value. He said that he was concerned that if the case went to Court the trustees would find out about another method of valuation which may yield a higher return. He thought too the Court would take into consideration the then current "buoyant" demand for land in Waitara. Mr Lynch feared that the Valuation Court would find in the Trustees favour.

The principle of partnership as established by the Court of Appeal in the New Zealand Maori Council case, requires Pakeha and Maori partners to act towards each other in good faith. A question to consider then is:

.. Did Mr Lynch and those in receipt of his letter of 18 August 1970 act in good faith towards Maori by withholding information which could have increased the amount of compensation awarded to the trustees?

6.10 Further Issues

There has been some concern expressed by the claimants about the role of the land purchase officer Mr Lynch. Aila Taylor stated that when he told Mr Lynch that they wanted the reservation status reinstated Mr Lynch told him he would not allow it. The fairness of allowing Mr Lynch to negotiate both the sale (where no agreement as to price could be reached resulting in the compulsory acquisition of the land) and the compensation can also be questioned. Mr Lynch also made the comments as discussed above.

Aila Taylor in his oral submission to the Tribunal spoke of the "kaitiaki aspect". He stated that he and others saw their role as kaitiakitanga or as the guardians of the land but that this was overlooked when the road was laid out through Manukorihi and when the land for the school was taken. He blames this on "European orientated mechanisms" - the Maori Land Court, the Maori Trustee and Maori Affairs.

152 Aroha Harris, Notes of Visits to Owae Marae to meet Aila Taylor, Ted Tamati and Mold White on 21 and 23 May 1991

153 ibid

46

6.11 In conclusion

The Tribunal has identified the Treaty principle of reciprocity. That is, the cession by Maori of sovereignty to the Crown was in exchange for the protection by the Crown of Maori rangatiratanga. The Tribunal has also identified the principle of partnership which requires Pakeha and Maori partners to act towards each other reasonably and with the utmost good faith. A question is then:

• Did the Crown act reasonably and in good faith, and protect Te Atiawa rangatiratanga, by compulsorily taking Manukorihi after failing to negotiate a purchase, and paying compensation of an amount the claimants now state they felt forced into accepting?

47

7 Sewerage and Water rates

In 1991 the Manukorihi Marae Trustees became liable for an "Uniform Annual Drainage Charge" of $2320.00. This tax comprised $145 per pan/urinal (16) connected to the sewage system. Pursuant to section 7 of the Rating Powers Act 1988 a Local Authority (in this case the New Plymouth District Council) can charge rates for water supply, refuse collection and disposal and for sewerage disposal to those normally exempt from rates such as schools, churches and marae.

The trustees objected to the lack of consultation between them and the New Plymouth District 'Council over the issue. They state they were not told in advance that they were liable for the rates. 154

A claim on a similar matter has also been lodged with the Waitangi Tribunal by the Apumoana Marae Committee. Claimant Bernie Hornfeck also accused the local authority (in this case the Rotorua District Council) of introducing the rates without any consultation with iwi. As a service agency, he stated, the marae did not handle the sort of money required. The Apumoana Marae was taken to Court for the nonpayment of rates by the District Council. The charge was abandoned as pursuant to section 184 of the Rating Powers Act 1988 the collection of rates from trustees of any Maori Land is prevented if the trustees are unable to collect any income from the land. As the trustees said they had no bank account, and no money to pay for rates, the case was dropped. 155

The Apumoana Marae used section 184 of the Rating Powers Act 1988 as their defence when they were taken to court for the non payment of rates. Under the present law there are options available to Local Authorities to exempt such rates as affect both the Apumoana Marae and the Manukorihi Marae. These are sections 179(1), 182 and 189.

Section 179 (1) gives any Local Authority the power:

'" if it thinks fit, [to] remit either wholly or in part, or postpone for such time as the local authority thinks fit, the payment of any rates in respect of Part 1 of the Second Schedule to this Act.

Part 1 of the Second Schedule includes Maori reserves under section 439(12) of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 (now section 338 of the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993). Section 179(1) is relevant to Manukorihi Marae as it not only covers Maori Reservations pursuant to section 439 of the Maori Affairs Act, but it is also applicable to "all rates" including sewerage rates.

Section 182 is also relevant to the Manukorihi Marae. It states that:

154 Manukorihi Pa Trustees to New Plymouth District Council, 22 February 1991, Waitangi Tribunal Record of Documents, Taranaki Hearing (Wai 143), document D5A

155 Suzanne Woodley An Exploratory Report Commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal concerning the Sewage Rates Claim, Waitangi Tribunal Record of Documents, Sewage Rates Claim (Wai 115), AI, 1992, p 4

48

The Governor General may from time to time, by Order in Council made on the recommendation of [the] Maori Land Court and with the consent of the local authority in whose district the land is situated, exempt any Maori freehold land liable to rates from all or any specified part of those rates. 156

What is not clear is whether the consent of the Local Authority must first be sought followed by the recommendation of the Maori Land Court or visa versa. Regardless, it may be one way for Marae to seek exemption from rates. Under Section 189:

A local authority may, if it thinks fit, remit the payment of any rates due on Maori freehold land '" either wholly or in part, or may postpone the payment of any such rates for such time as it thinks fit. 157

Dr K A Palmer has commented on section 189 that:

This general discretion recognises perhaps, that where Maori land is subject to multiple ownership, there may well be problems and unfairness in expecting the rate liability to be met, and a broad discretion is given to remit or postpone the rates. As a matter of principle, a Local Authority owes a fiduciary duty to rate-payers, to act reasonably in their interests, but on the other hand, to balance against their interests, the interests of other persons in the community and the general statutory objectives of the Local Authority. 158

Dr Palmer also raised the question of whether in exercising this discretion, a Local Authority should take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and "the general objective of retaining Maori Land in Maori ownership". 159

The following is an extract from my report on Apumoana Marae claim which is also directly relevant to the Manukorihi situation:

The sewage rates system appears to have been introduced on a user-pays basis on the premise that certain properties may be rates exempt but should nonetheless pay for certain services. An issue is whether the assessment of the rate on the number of toilets is appropriate when the toilets are not necessarily used regularly or even occasionally. It is a feature of marae that they be designed to cater for large crowds, and yet large crowds may be present only rarely. For most of the time the toilets may be little used. Therefore there may be a need to change the way the sewage rate is determined. The rate could be based on estimated usage instead

156 Rating Powers Act 1988, section 182

157 Ibid, section 189

158 Dr K A Palmer Maori Land and Rate Liability, University of Auckland, 1987 quoted in Suzanne Woodley An Exploratory Report Commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal concerning the Sewage Rates Claim, Waitangi Tribunal Record of Documents, Sewage Rates Claim (Wai 115), AI, 1992, p 7

159 Ibid

49

of a set figure per toilet. 160

8 Marae Zone

The Manukorihi reservation and the adjacent Maori owned freehold sections have been zoned "Marae" by the New Plymouth District Council. More specifically the areas zoned "Marae" are Manukorihi A1B, A2, lAB, 17, 18, 19 and part Manukorihi 2. All of the area zoned "Marae", apart from Manukorihi 17 and 18, which Mr White described as "undeveloped", form part of the Manukorihi reservation. Generally, the New Plymouth District Council states, "the zoning permits Marae related uses but restricts other uses" and provides for the settlement of Maori land, the development of Marae, a broader range of land use, for example Kokeri, and alternative types of housing. 161

There is a concern by the claimants that with its Marae zone status, the area can only be used for certain purposes such as kohanga reo and that the development of the adjacent freehold sections (Manukorihi 17 and 18) may be restricted. The New Plymouth District Council states in its Marae Zone Scheme Statement that:

In general, development controls and performance standards are reduced as much as possible in order to allow Marae Zone occupants the opportunity to meet their own needs in their own way, subject, to health, safety and other matters controlled under statute, and bearing in mind the potential impact of any Marae development on adjacent SITES [emphasis in textV62

The intention of the Marae Zone, according to the New Plymouth District Council, is to:

. .. provide a broad set of development controls and performance standards that will allow Maori Trustees flexibility to develop Marae land in accordance with their own cultural needs. Generally, in the application of performance standards and developmental controls, each separate area identified as a Marae Zone shall be treated as a single SITE [emphasis in textV63

The Council has provided a list of land use for the Marae Zone. These are divided into three categories: Predominant use, conditional use and "not provided for in this zone". Predominant uses of the marae zone (excluding coastal, airport and urban protection areas) includes meeting, dining and sleeping houses, ablution blocks, multi skills training centres, kohanga reo, home occupations, reserves, urupa, signs, minor soil conservation and erosion control works, extensive and intensive pastoral farming and horticulture, nurseries, buildings

160 Suzanne Woodley An Exploratory Report Commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal concerning the Sewage Rates Claim, Waitangi Tribunal Record of Documents, Sewage Rates Claim (Wai 115), AI, 1992, p 7

161 Report of Planning and Environmental Services Manager, New Plymouth District Council, 25 March 1994

162 New Plymouth District Council Zoning Plans and Ordinances, March 1994

163 ibid

50

accessories to extensive or intensive pastoral farming and horticulture (excluding dwelling units), one produce stall, schools and cottage and craft industries. Conditional uses included factory farming and public utilities and essential services. 164

The ordinance relating to the Marae Zone discusses the restrictions covering a Marae Zone. These include such aspects as the location and height of buildings, signs, parking, loading and vehicle access, landscaping, screening and maintenance. 165

The claimants state that true representation and participation in the decision making processes, such as when the above portions of Manukorihi were zoned, should occur. 166

The New Plymouth District Council state that the extent of the zoning was agreed with the Marae Trust. 167 It is not known who was involved in defining the nature of a Marae zone.

9.0 Licensing of Meeting House

9.1 The Claim

On 28 March 1991 the Manukorihi Pa Trustees were advised by N I Morris of the New Plymouth District Council that pursuant to section 628 of the Local Government Act 1974 the Manukorihi Marae, called Ko Iharoa - A Maui, had to be licensed at a cost of $64.00. Mr/Ms Morris stated that under section 628 a building designed to hold 100 people or more people had to be licensed. The Council used the measure of one person per square metre to measure the capacity or number of persons the building can hold. As the meeting house was able to hold more than 100 people licence was required.

It appears from Mr/Ms Morris's letter that the licensing fee was waived in the past by the North Taranaki District Council who were then responsible for the area where the Marae was located. However, Mr/Ms Morris stated that under section 628 the Marae could not be exempt by the New Plymouth District Council. The letter also stated that the records passed on from the North Taranaki District Council to the New Plymouth District Council did not show any reason why the fee was waived in the past. 168

Section 628 states that no one can use any building which accommodates 100 or more persons for public meetings or public assembly, a public theatre, music or dancing hall or

164 ibid

165 ibid

166 Aroha Harris Notes of Visits to Owae Marae to Meet Aila Tayior, Ted Tamati and Mold White on 21 and 23 May 1991

167 Report of Planning and Environmental Services Manager, New Plymouth District Council, 25 March 1994

168 New Plymouth District Council to Manukorihi Pa Trustees, 28 March 1991, Waitangi Tribunal Record of Documents, Taranaki Hearing (Wai 143), document D5A

51

for any public performances or public amusements unless it is licensed. Subsection (2) notes that the license requirement applies to all buildings used for the purposes of public worship "except that no licence fee shall be payable in respect of any building exclusively used for such purposes" .169 Churches, it would appear, would therefore be exempt.

The claimants argue that they were not consulted on this matter.

9.2 New Plymouth District Council Response

Section 628 of the Local Government Act 1974 was repealed by section 92 of the Building Act 1991. This Act came into force on 15 February 1992. However, the Council states:

'" regulation 11 of the Building Regulations 1992 contained the proviso that where an existing building was required to be issued with a Compliance Schedule under section 44 of the Building Act it was to be licensed up until such time as the Schedule was issued. We believe that there is not a requirement for a Schedule to be issued [in this case] and therefore there would have been no further licensing requirement after 15 February 1992.170

Thus the last license fee paid by the Manukorihi or Owae Marae expired on 30 September 1991. 171

10 Manukorihi 17 and 18 - access to

Manukorihi 17 and Manukorihi 18 are located next to the Manukorihi Marae. These sections are Maori land. Moki White noted that up until recently there was no right of way to Manukorihi 17 and 18 apart from through the marae grounds. According to Moki White, when Maori Affairs proposed building pensioner flats on Manukorihi 18, a private right of way was built behind the marae. The road, according to Mr White, is on marae property.

However, those requiring access to Manukorihi 17 and 18 and the kohanga reo, still have to go through the marae ground. They are unable to use the road behind it as it is fenced off for Ngaia family use only. The Ngaia family own a neighbouring freehold property and paid for the road. It would be preferable, Mr White states, if those needing access to Manukorihi 17, 18 and the kohanga reo could use it too. 172

No further information has been located on this matter. It may well be a matter for the Maori Land Court to consider.

169 Local Government Act 1974, section 628(2)

170 New Plymouth District Council to Waitangi Tribunal Division, 24 November 1994

171 ibid

172 Aroha Harris, Notes of Visits to Owae marae to meet Aila Taylor, Ted Tamati and Mold White, 21 and 23 May 1991

52

Appendices:

1. Summary of Manukorihi block history

2. Terms of Commission

3. Map showing whereabouts of Te Ati Awa ancillary claims completed by author

53

Appendix 1

Summary of Manukorihi blocl( history and current status

AlA Declared general land pursuant to part 1, 1967 Act in 1969

A1B Reserved 1932 Part of Marae Zone

A2 Reserved 1926 Part of Marae Zone

B Reserved as urupa

lA Reserved 1962 lAB - Part of Marae Zone

1B1 Reserved as urupa 1952, declared general land in 1969

1B2 Reserved as urupa 1952

2 (east) Reserved as urupa 1952 Part of Marae Zone

2 (west) taken for rates in 1968

3 Alienated 1917/34 Reacquired 1948 Taken 1968 4 Exchanged 1926 Reacquired 1948 Taken 1968 5 Alienated 1928/30 Reacquired 1948 Taken 1968 6 Alienated 1916 Reacquired 1948 Taken 1968 7 Alienated 1916 Reacquired 1948 Taken 1968 8 Alienated 1918 Reacquired 1948 Taken 1968 9 Alienated 1916 Reacquired 1948 Taken 1968 10 Alienated 1916 Reacquired 1948 Taken 1968 11 Alienated 1916 Reacquired 1948 Taken 1968 12 Alienated 1916 Reacquired 1948 Taken 1968 13 Alienated 1916 Reacquired 1948 Taken 1968 14 Alienated 1916 Reacquired 1948 Taken 1968 15 Alienated 1916 Reacquired 1948 Taken 1968 16 Alienated 1916 Reacquired 1948 Taken 1968

17 Maori Land Part of Marae Zone

18 Maori Land Part of Marae Zone

19 Reserved 1962 Part of Marae Zone

20 Alienated 1936 Reacquired 1948 Taken 1968

54

3 -2\

Appendix 2 WAITANGI TRIBUNAL

CONCERNING the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975

. AND. CONCERNING Wai 143 claims

DIRECTION COMMISSIONING RESEARCH

. . . .

Pursuant to clause 5A(1) of the second schedule of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, Suzanne Woodley of Wellington is commissioned to prepare research reports concerning the following matters in respect of the Taranaki claims:

i)· Th,e twenty-three ancillary claims lodged to date by the claimants

ii) Twentieth Century alienations

This commission commenced on 1 July 1993 and ends on. ·30 March 1994 at which time the work completed (in word pe~fect;format) will be filed. The filing date however is subject to amendment in the light of other urgent tasks which may be allocated to the commissionee. .

The report may be received as evidence and the commissionee may be cross examined on it.

The Registrar is to send copies of this direction to

Wai 143 Claimants Crown Law Office Crown Forest Rental Trust Phillip Green . National Maori Congress NZ Maori. Council Suzanne Woodley

Dated at Wellington this 2D~ day of August 1993

Chief Judge ETJ Durie· Chairperson ' WAITANGI TRIBUNAL

55

Appendix 3

WAITARA

TB ATIAWA ANCILLARY CLAIMS

Completed by Suzanne Woodley

June 1995

56

Bibliography

Unpublished Primary Sources

Files Manukorihi A Maori Land Court alienation file, MLC-WG 1, 3/5847, National Archives Wellington

Manukorihi AlA Maori Land Court alienation file, MLC-WG 1, 3/6451, National Archives Wellington

Manukorihi lA Maori Land Court alienation file, MLC-WG 1, 3/2351, National Archives Wellington

Manukorihi 2 Maori Land Court alienation file, 3/5127, volume 2, Maori Land Court Wanganui

Manukorihi 2, 3, 13-16 Maori Land Court alienation file, MLC-WG 1, 3/4750, National Archives Wellington

Manukorihi 4 Maori Land Court alienation file, MLC-WG 1,3/1917/165, National Archives Wellington

Manukorihi 5A Maori Land Court alienation file, MLC-WG 1, 3/3934, National Archives Wellington

Manukorihi 5B Maori Land Court alienation file, MLC-WG 1, 3/2347, National Archives Wellington

Manukorihi 6 and 12 Maori Land Court alienation file, MLC-WG 1, 311916/319, National Archives Wellington

Manukorihi 7, 10 and 11 Maori Land Court alienation file, MLC-WG 1, 3/1916/317, National Archives Wellington

Manukorihi 8 Maori Land Court alienation file, MLC-WG 1, 3/1917/379, National Archives Wellington

Manukorihi 9 Maori Land Court alienation file, MLC-WG 1, 3/1916/318, National Archives Wellington

Manukorihi Reserve Maori land Court file, MLC-WG 1, 3/5847, National Archives Wellington

Manukorihi Pa file, MA 1, 2113/13, National Archives Wellington

Ministry of Works file entitled Schools: Waitara Intermediate, AAQU, W3428, PW 3112718,

57

National Archives Wellington

Ministry of Works file entitled Streets: Waitara - Road through Manukorihi Blocks, ABKK, PW 5114543, National Archives Wellington

Taranaki Maori Trust Board Estimates file, MA 26/5/4/, Part 11, Te Puni Kokiri, Head Office, Wellington

Waitara East Section 10 Manukorihi GT 3883 application file, volume 1, MA 1, ACC W2140, TAR 479, bundle 38, National Archives Wellington

Waitara Intermediate Ministry of Works District file, DO 43/143/0, Department of Survey and Land Information, Wanganui

Maori Land Court Minute Books Taranaki Maori Land Court Minute Book No's 13, 14, 15, 16, 24, 25, 28, 41, 45, 47, 65, 75,78

New Zealand Gazettes 1926, 1931, 1948, 1952, 1962, 1963, 1968

AJHR's Reports on the West Coast Royal Commission 1880, AJHR 1880, G2

Legislation Local Government Act 1974

Maori Affairs Act 1953

Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1967

Maori Purposes Act 1937

Native Land Act 1909

Public Works Act 1928

Rating Powers Act 1988

Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993

West Coast Settlement Reserves Amendment Act 1913 and 1914

Other Manukorihi certificate of title, volume Xl, folio 168, Land and Deeds, New Plymouth

Correspondence between Tribunal staff and New Plymouth District Council, 30 May 1994

58

Taranaki Herald

Unpublished Secondary Sources

Janine Ford The Administration of the West Coast Settlement Reserves, 1994, Waitangi Tribunal Record of Documents Taranaki Claim (Wai 143), document K?

Aroha Harris Notes of Visits to Owae Marae to meet Aila Taylor, Ted Tamati and Moki White on 21 and 23 May 1991

Dr K A Palmer Maori Land and Rate Liability, University of Auckland, 1987

Watson, o 'Carroll , Doorbar, Hunt, Nowell, Adds, Otaraua Muru Me Te Raupatu Presentation, Waitangi Tribunal Record of Documents, Taranaki Claim (Wai 143), document D12, 1991

Moki White and Morgan Moana nui Akiwa Watson Submission for the Manukorihi hapu, Waitangi Tribunal Record of Documents, Taranaki Claim (Wai 143), document D15, 1991

Moki White, Evidence concerning Manukorihi, 1991, Waitangi Tribunal Record of Documents, Taranaki Claim (Wai 143), document D9

Published Secondary Sources

Report of the Waitangi Tribunal on the Ngati Rangiteaorere Claim (Wai 32), Brooker and Friend, 1990

Report of the Waitangi Tribunal on the Ngai Tahu Ancillary Claims (Wai 27), Brooker and Friend, 1995

Sharyn Green Waiohau C26, Waitangi Tribunal Research Series, 1993

Suzanne Woodley An Exploratory Report Commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal concerning the Sewage Rates Claim, Waitangi Tribunal Record of Documents, Sewage Rates Claim (Wai 115), A1, 1992

59