TE WHANGANUI - A - OROTU CLAIM (WAI-55)

25 July 1990

A Preliminary Historical Report

Joy Hippolite

Waitangi Tribunal Division

TE WHANGANUI-A-OROTU, NAPIER INNER HARBOUR

The area under claim, Te Whanganui-a-Orotu, also called the

Ahuriri Lagoon, and known as the Napier Inner Harbour, is

purported to have been sold to Donald McLean in the 1851

Ahuriri purchase.

On 17 November 1851 Donald McLean, Land Commissioner,

completed the purchase of the Ahuriri Block from Tareha te

Moananui, Paoro Torotoro, Karanama te Nahu and others.

Approximately 265,000 acres were bought for £1,500, 1000 of

which was paid at the time. The rest, £500, was due on

November 1852. 1

Reserved out of the deed, amongst others, was the island in

Te Whanganui-a-Orotu named Roro-o-Kuri. Also reserved was a

portion of Mataruahou named Pukemokimoki. Provision for a

landing place for Ngati Kahungunu's canoes was also included

in the deed.

On 29 December 1851 Donald McLean, writing to the Colonial

Secretary, reported that;

Tareha and other Chiefs at Ahuriri were anxious to have several portions of valuable land reserved for them on both sides of the Harbour, especially on Mataruahau Island, which they had always considerable reluctance in transferring, from a fear that they might be eventually deprived of their right of fishing, collecting pipis, and other shell fish which abound in the Bay; these rights, so necessary for their subsistence, I assured them they could always freely exercise in common with the Europeans, and in order that they should be fully satisfied on this point a clause has been inserted in the deed to that effect. With reference, however, to the reservations for fishing villages and other purposes, I objected to all of them excepting one pa, in the occupation of Tareha, where some of his relatives are buried, and which he is to retain until such time as the Government may hereafter require the spot faI public improvements, such as deepening or reclaiming some portions of the Harbour. In lieu, however, of these reservations so much demanded by the Natives, and which would materially interfere with the laying off a Town,

1 Volume II, Turton's Deeds p491, Doc #A2.

2

I proposed to Tareha the he, as the principal Chief, on relinquishing all claims to such spots, should have a town section granted to him in any place he might select on the North Spit of the Harbour, which he has agreed to accept, and I hope that His Excellency will approve of this arrangement: I also informed the Chiefs that His Excellency had instructed public reservations to be made, which would most probably include a site for a church, hospital, market-ground, and landing place for their canoes, and that every facility would be afforded them of re-purchasing land from the Government. 2

On 26 February 1853 McLean wrote to the Civil Secretary

reporting:

I have the honour to report to you for the information of His Excellency the Governor-in-Chief that the second and last instalment of £500 for the Ahuriri District was paid to the Natives on the 8th of January last. 3

By a deed dated 13 November 1856 Mataruahou, or Scinde Island,

was purchased from Tareha and two others for the price of £50.

Twenty five of which had been paid by McLean on 11 April 1855 f

the previous year. The remaining £25 was paid on the day of

the purchase by G S Cooper, District Commissioner. Also as

part of the purchase price two Town sections in Napier were

granted to Tareha. 4

Ten years after the initial purchase of the Ahuriri Block

Cooper, in a letter dated the 20 June 1861 to the Chief

Commissioner, reported that Tareha maintained that the lagoon

had not been included in the purchase. According to Cooper,

Tareha stated that he had only sold the land as far as high­

water mark, the rest was his property as it had been under the

2 Appendices to the Journals of the House of Representatives (hereafter AJHR) 1862 C-l, no.lO, Doc #AS(a).

3 MA series 24/16, Native Land Purchase Commissioner Outward Letters, National Archives, Wellington.

4 Vol. II. Turton's Deeds, p.509, see also Deed Receipt no.6 dated 11 April 1855, Mataruahou (Land Adjacent to), p.580, Doc #A8 (a), #A8 (b) .

3

sea when he sold the Ahuriri Block.s

On 16 August 1866 Te Pahou (a peninsular), Te Roro-o-Kuri (an

island reserved out of the 1851 Ahuriri purchase), Te

Ihuoterei and Parapara (islands in the Ahuriri Lagoon) were

investigated by the Native Land Court. An order was made that

a Crown grant be issued to:

l. Paora Torotoro

2. Turuhira Te Heitoroa

3. Maihi Raukapua

4. Hama Paeroa

5. Te Waka Takahari

6. Pera Te Rl..lakowhai

7 . Matiu Te Manuhira

8 . Morehu

9 • Te Waka Kawetini

10. Hoera Paretutu

for Te Ihuoterei, Parapara and Te Roro-o-Kuri islands. This

was issued on the 3 October 1866. 6

In 1869 Te Whare-o-Maraenui Block, that portion of the Inner

Harbour whose boundaries were outside the boundary of the

Ahuriri Block, was purchased by the Crown. 1818 acres were

purchased on 22 December 1869. 7 Ten acres were reserved for

Tareha in the deed.

In 1872 Pukemokimoki (the hill where the moki moki grew) was

removed to make room for a railway.s According to Wilson this

hill was especially reserved when the Ahuriri was sold in 1851

because the moki moki (sweet-scented fern) was much prized by

5 AJHR 1862 C-1, no.74, Doc #AS(a).

6 AAMK 869/202b National Archives, Doc #A7(a).

7 MA-MLP series 6/3 Copies of deeds of sale, Hawkes Bay, National Archives.

8 J G Wilson, History of Hawkes Bay, (A H & A W Reed, Wellington, 1939), p.418.

4

the tribes for miles around. 9

Under the Napier Harbour Board Act, 1874 10 the Ahuriri Lagoon

was vested in the Napier Harbour Board. This Bill was debated

in Parliament (Legislative Council) while Donald McLean was

Native Minister and Member for Napier.

The Hon Mr Stokes, Hawkes Bay explained the bill as;

A Bill to endow the [Harbour] Board with certain lands that might give them some means of improving the harbour as it at present existed. Those endowments were contained in the schedule. There were sundry small blocks of land which had already been voted by the Provincial Council for that purpose and a block containing about 1,781 acres [Whare-o-Maraenui] which had been purchased by the province. There were two other blocks, which he supposed an American would designate as being land possessing extensive water privileges, as the land was at present under the water and would be of little use to the Harbour Board unless a considerable sum was spent in reclamation ... In the early history of the province, when land sales were extensive, and the Provincial Council was first constituted ... in their desire to spend money as fast as they could, they attempted to make improvements in the port of Napier, which was called the Iron Pot. They spent about €10,OOO in improving the Pot, and after they had done so they found that the last state of the Pot was worse than the first. 11

In 1876 further land was vested in the Harbour Board by the

Napier Harbour Board Act, 1876, an act to reserve land as an

endowment for the Harbour of Napier. 12

Following a request from the Harbour Board that land excluded

by Gazette notice from sale for public purposes (Hawkes Bay

Gazette 20 June 1872 and 5 May 1873) be vested in the Board

10 Doc #A4 ( a) .

11 New Zealand Parliamentary Debates 1874, 14 August 1874, pp.592-594.

12 Doc #AB ( c ) .

5

the Napier Harbour Board Amendment and Endowment Improvement

Act, 188713 was passed. 14 This Act amended the description

of the boundaries of the Ahuriri Lagoon Block and gave power

to the Napier Harbour Board to carry out certain works and

improvements upon the reserve. The Act authorised the Harbour

Board to fill up and reclaim the reserve known as Te Whare-o­

Maraenui and part of the Ahuriri Lagoon.

The Napier Harbour Board Amendment and Further Empowering Act,

188915 amended the Napier Harbour Board Amendment and

Endowment Improvement Act, 1887 and gave greater powers to the

Harbour Board to provide for the payment on any loans raised

for the improvements.

In 1896 the Harbour Board requested Certificates of Title to

the area. The Under-Secretary of Lands replied to the

Secretary to the Harbour Board that the Act of 1874 vested the

land mentioned in that Act in the Board without conveyance;

and the Act of 1887 only amended the description of one of the

areas reserved. 16

W R Jourdain writing on his Reminiscences of a Civil Servant

recalled a flood in Easter 1897. According to Jourdain three

days of heavy rain had brought down a great flood and;

the outlet at Port Ahuriri being partly blocked by heavy seas the lagoon and adjoining land were covered with flood waters and for miles to the south a huge sheet of water was formed ... The flood waters grew in extent so much that on the night of Good Friday, the land spit five miles to the south of Napier gave way to the pressure and the flood waters swept through the embankment to the sea to a width of seventy yards ... When the flood waters had drained away by the next week it was found that the silt deposited by the flood waters

13 Doc #A4 (b) •

14 L&S 29057, Napier Harbour Board, 1887-1936, National Archives, Doc #A8(d).

15 Doc #A4(c).

16 L&S 29057, Doc #A8(d).

6

had filled the Inner Harbour and reclaimed the swamp area, and with a certain amount of filling in, the new suburb of Napier South was formed with streets, houses, parks, etc., over what was once a lagoon and swamp.17

The Napier Harbour Board Amendment and Endowment Improvement

Act, 189918 amended the 1887 and 1889 acts and gave further

powers to the Harbour Board to deal with the lands described

in those acts. The Napier Harbour Board was empowered to sell

part of the land of Te Whare-o-Maraenui Block and the Ahuriri

Lagoon in order to pay for reclamation and improvements to the

area.

The Napier Harbour Board Exchange of Lands Empowering Act,

190619 enabled the Harbour Board to exchange certain lands

vested in them for other lands.

The Napier Harbour Board Amendment and Endowment Improvement

Act, 191220 amended the 1887, 1889 and 1899 acts and gave

further borrowing powers to the Harbour Board for reclamation

and improvements.

The Napier Harbour Board Empowering and Loan Act, 191421

enabled the Harbour Board to carry out harbour-works in the

inner harbour.

The issue concerning Te Whanganui-a-Orotu appears to have

first been brought before the Native Land Court in 1916 for

investigation of title. 22 The Court decided that under

17 W R Jourdain, Reminiscences of a Civil Servant by "George, It (1938) (Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington) ppll-12.

18 Doc #A4 (d) .

19 Dco #A4 (e) .

20 Doc #A4(f).

21 Doc #A4(g) .

22 AJHR 1948 G-6A, p.l, Doc #A5 (m) .

7

section 432 of the Native Land Act, 1909 it had no

jurisdiction to investigate the title to the area, as it had

been vested in the Harbour Board before 1892. The application

was dismissed. It was assumed however, by the Court, that Te

Whanganui-a-Orotu had been sold to the Crown. 23

On 9 May 1916, Waha Ponga, Aporo te Huiki, and Hiha

Ngarangioue appealed against the decision of 13 April 1916. 24

They approached a Mr C B Morison to represent them in the

Appellate Court, who contacted the Lands Department requesting

to see the deed and plan of the Ahuriri purchase. 25 This

prompted discussion between the Solicitor-General in

Wellington and the Under Secretary for Lands. In a memorandum

dated 25 August 1916 to the Solicitor-General the Under

Secretary stated that the boundaries were described in the

deed to which a map was attached. "This map shows the inner

harbour as being included in the purchase, but from the

description in the deed, it would appear that the inner

harbour is not so included." However he concluded as "the

waters of the inner harbour are unquestionably tidal, the

inconsistency does not seem to be of much importance. ,,26

The Solicitor-General was in agreement. On 28 August 1916 he

replied;

On examining the Deed of Purchase from the Natives of the Ahuriri Block, it would seem clear that the purchase does not include the inner harbour. The description in the body of the deed shows the boundary as following the interior of the harbour. It is true that the plan attached to the deed would, by its colouring, indicate the inclusion of the inner harbour. This, however, I take to be an error and the exterior red line on the plan must be taken to refer merely to the spit of land

23 Native Land Court, Napier Minute Book no.66, p.235, Hastlngs 13 Aprll 1916. COpl~S on mlcrotllm held by Natlonal Archives, Wellington.

24 AJHR 1948 G6A, p27, Doc 4/=A5 (m) .

3 L&S 29057, Doc 4/=A8(d).

26 ibid.

8

lying between the inner harbour and the sea. however that the question is_> of no importance. 27

I agree, practical

He was definitely of the opinion that the "Natives" had no

title to the land citing the Court of Appeal case Waipapakura

v Hempton 33 NZLR 1065 as his evidence. Mr Morison was to be

allowed to see the deed and plan but he was not allowed to

take a copy of the deed or list of signatories.

In 1918 application for investigation of title to the Urewiri

and other islands in the lake was made. The matter came

before Judge Jones at Napier on the 12 February 1918 but could

not be proceeded with because no survey had been made of the

islands. 28

The matter appears to have been brought before Parliament in

1918. 29 According to the petitioners they were advised by Mr

Herries, Minister of Native Affairs, to meet with the Harbour

Board. The meeting with the Napier Harbour Board, which took

place on the 10 May 1918 I was reported in the Hawkes Bay

Herald 24 May 1918. 30

Wahaponga advised the Harbour Board that what they were

concerned with was the land under the water, which formerly

was owned by the ancestors of those representing Ngati

Kahungunu, but now was the property of the Board. He referred

to statements of his ancestors with regard to Te Whanganui-a­

Orotu: "You have the water, I will hold the land." He then

went on to relate that the

27 ibid.

28AAMK 869/202b, Doc :/fA 7 (a) .

29 see petition no. 365/1919, Mohi Te Atahikoia, AJHR 1948 G6A, Doc :/fA 6 (f) and no. 419/1924, Waha Pango, AAMK 869/202b Doc :/fA6 (i) .

30 Doc :/fA8 ( e) .

9

... pipis, kuku, and fish, these are for both pakeha and Maori, and if the Government should at any time desire to make a road across this area, let the matter be dealt with by both parties before action should be taken. We have dealt with the subject for some time, but so far without tangible results. We therefore now approach the members of the Harbour Board as we have ascertained that they are in possession. We have no doubt in our minds that we own the land in the Inner Harbour but we wish to approach the Harbour Board in a friendly spirit so that this difficulty can be adjusted. We know that the Government and the Harbour Board claim that the King is the owner of the tidal waters. The Pakehas arriving in New Zealand found the salt water in the district - it was not fetched by the pakehas. 31

Mohi te Atahikoia maintained that the "Whanga-nui-o-rotu"

referred to the land under the water as well as to the waters

and that when their ancestors sold lands in the district this

particular piece was not sold. "Our ancestors," he said,

realised that "their descendants would require this portion

for their food supply." He went on to add that they had only

just discovered that Te Whanganui-a-Orotu had been vested in

the Harbour Board in 1874. Apparently they were the owners

of the islands in the lagoon only, but even there they were

not consul ted when the Harbour Board took an is land for

railways purposes or built a lighthouse on Urewiri Island.

He referred to Article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi, which he

maintained guaranteed to the Maori their food supply areas,

and pointed out that New Zealand was at this stage fighting

a war over the nullifying of a treaty. The Harbour Board

therefore should consider their rights under the treaty and

consult with the Maori on things affecting their land. 32

Te Roera Tareha confirmed Atahikoia's assertion that they had

only heard recently that the area was vested in the Harbour

Board. He was the son of Tareha who had arranged most of the

sales in the area from 1851-1874 and maintained that his

father would have been "one of the first to protest against

31 Hawkes Bay Herald, 24 May 1918, p.6, Doc #A8(e).

32 ibid.

10

the present arrangement had he been aware that our title to

those ancestral fishing grounds would have been taken from

us." He asked that the title to the lands under the water be

returned to them. 33

According to the petitioners the Chairman of the Harbour Board

stated "that it is to be admitted that the Lake belonged to

the Maories. ,,34

The Napier Harbour Board and Napier High School Empowering

Act, 191835 provided for the acquisition by the Napier High

School Board of a portion of Te Whare-o-Maraenui reserve for

a site for a Boys High School.

The appeal concerning the investigation of title to Whanganui­

a-Orotu was held in Hastings on the 11 April 1919. Wahapango

and Aporo appeared and withdrew their appeal. The appeal was

dismissed. 36

The same year Mohi te Atahikoia and 47 others petitioned

Parliament claiming a portion of the sea called Te Whanganui­

a-Orotu and the land known as the Puketitiri Reserve.

According to this petition the tribe had arranged with McLean

that the land under the water should not be taken as well as

the water because of the food in the sea, an important food

resource for the tribe. 37

This petition was referred to the 1920 Native Land Claims

Commission.

33 ibid.

~ petition no. 419/1924, Doc #A6(i).

35 Doc #A4 (h) .

36 Napier Minute Book no.63, p.212.

TI Petition no. 365/1919, Doc #A6(f).

11

The Native Land Claims Commission although sympathetic to the

Maori claimants found that the lagoon had been included in the

original purchase. 38 The Commission maintained that "it was

made clear to the Natives that the Crown was buying the land

and their interests in the harbour. ,,39 However the

Commission also stated that by the deed "dated the 17th

November, 1851, the Natives sold to the Government the land

bordering on the harbour. The boundaries as shown in the deed

skirt along the interior line of the harbour, but do not

include it. ,,40 Despite this the Commission concluded that the

area had been sold, but doubted whether the Maori appreciated

the full effect of the dealing, or its "effect on the fishing

rights they were so anxious to retain. ,,41

On 20 February 1922 application to the Native Land Court for

investigation of title was made in respect of: Matawhero;

Tuteranuku; Te Awawaka; Te Roro-o-Kurii Poroporo and

Tirohangahe; Urewiri or Kouriwiri Islands in Te Whanganui-a­

Orotu. 42

This application came before Judge Gilfedder on the 5 August

1924. It was found that Roro-o-Kuri island, reserved for

Ngati Kahungunu out of the original deed, was now owned by

David Milne CT 38/550.~

In the same year, 1924, Waka Pango and 18 others petitioned

Parliament alleging that the Whanganui-a-Orotu Lake had

wrongfully been included in the sale of the Ahuriri Block and

praying for restitution. According to the petitioners the

38 AJHR 1921 G-5, Doc #A5 (1) .

39 ibid, p.14

40 ibid, P .12.

41 ibid, p.14.

42 AAMK 869/202b, Doc #A7(a) .

43 ibid, Napier Minute Book, no.72, p.209.

12

Lake had been a means of support for the tribe from the time

of their ancestors right down to the present. It had been the

custom to obtain eels, pipis and other fresh water food from

the Lake. The petitioners claimed that the Lake had

inadvertently been included in the sale but upon application

to McLean had been excluded from the deed of sale. 44 This

petition was referred to the Government for consideration by

the Native Affairs Committee. 45

In 1929 a certificate of title under the Land Transfer Act was

issued to the Napier Harbour Board for the area called Te

Whanganui-a-Orotu and known as the Napier Inner Harbour. 46

On the 3 February 1931 an earthquake hit the region. The

earthquake had the effect of raising the level of the bottom

of the Ahuriri Lagoon. The area covered by water was

converted to an area of dry land.

Following the earthquake the Napier Harbour Board Empowering

Act, 1932-3347 was passed to give control of land, which was

formerly islands in the lagoon, to the Harbour Board. The

majority of these islands were Native land the title to which

had never been investigated, ascertained, or determined. They

were Uruwiri, Poroporo, Tirowhangahe, Tuteranuku, Awa-a-waka

and Matawhero. The remaining three were Roro-o-Kuri, now

owned by Europeans, and Te Ihuotikei and Parapara, both now

owned by the Napier Borough Council, the Hastings Borough

Council and the Hawke's Bay County Council. The Act gave the

Harbour Board power to either buy the islands or to take them

under the Public Works Act, 1928.

" Petition no.419/1924, Doc #A6(i).

45 AAMK 869/202b, Doc #A7(a).

46 AJHR 1948 G-6A, p.1, Doc #AS(m).

47 Doc #A4 (k) .

13

The same year Hori Tupaea and others petitioned Parliament for

redress in respect of the area in light of the earthquake.

The petitioners claimed the boundaries of the block of land

sold did not include, but skirted the shores of the lagoon.

The Native Affairs Committee referred the petition to the

Government for inquiry. 48

Under section 27 of the Maori Purposes Act 1933 Hori Tupaea's

petition was referred to the Native Land Court for inquiry and

report. The Chief Surveyor in a letter to the Under Secretary

for Lands wondered whether the Crown and the Harbour Board

should "join forces in presenting a reply to the petition. ,,49

He was of the opinion that with regard to the deed in Turton's

volume there appeared little doubt as to what the owners

intended. Although, he admitted, "in following the place

names, as given in the description, on the plan the boundary

of the land passes along the back boundary of the Whanganui-o­

roto." This however was unimportant because, "further on in

the deed it is recited that the lands were given up with their

seas f rivers, etc. ,,50 According to him the case did not

appear to be a difficult one and rested on two main issues:

( 1 )

( 2 )

Does the deed make it clear beyond doubt that the owners parted with their rights to Whanganui-o-roto provided they take equal rights with Europeans to fish from the waters and take shell fish from the beds etc? I think it does. That being so, then the Crown's authori ty for vesting Whanganui-o-roto in the Harbour Board is Halsbury's Laws of the England second addition volume section 973/975.

The Crown Solicitor was not so sure. The Parliamentary title

to the bulk of the land vested in the Harbour Board by the

Acts of 1874 and 1887 was he agreed "impregnable." The nine

islands excluded from the endowment were a different story.

~ Petition no.240/32, Le 1/1948/301, National Archives, Doc #A6(j).

~ 7 March 1934, L&S 29057, Doc #A8(d).

50 ibid.

14

Three had been Crown granted in 1866. The remaining six were

of;

small value and the Crown would not be greatly concerned to lose them, if no greater issue were involved. What is sought by the petitioners however is not so much a declaration of present right to land as a decision which will ground some strong moral claim against the government for compensation for the loss of land the native rights in which as they maintain their ancestors had never agreed to surrender.

He continued;

with all respect to the late Solicitor-General's opinion, I doubt if Waipapakura v Hempton (1914), 33 NZLR 1065, goes as far as he suggests; once the law has recognised the assertability of Native rights in the demesne lands of the Crown, which no doubt it has done -Nireaha Tamaki v Baker (1901) A.C561 - it is difficult to find a good ground for excluding any land over which the Crown has imperium, dominium, and mesne ownership and which it might grant to a subject, whether it be land covered by air or covered by water, whether the covering water be river, lake, or sea, whether tidal or not, and whether the land be above, within, or below the foreshore strip. 51

He just trusted that "such important issues [would] not be

raised on the present reference." He did not think "the risk

that the Judge may grant the Petitioners a favourable report"

very great. Such a report would have to run counter to the

findings of the 1920 Commission.

The inquiry commenced on 19 April 1934, being heard before

Judge Harvey. 52

The Court directed its attention to two main questions. The

first issue was whether the area had been included in the 1851

sale of the Ahuriri Block. The Crown's case was that it was

included in the deed of sale made on 17 November 1851.

51 15 March 1934, L&S 29057, Doc #A8(d).

52 However the Judge's report was not received until 1948, AJHR 1948 G-6A, Doc #A5(m).

15

The Court in its report dealt at length with this question and

concluded that most of the area was never sold by the tangata

whenua. 53 In reaching that conclusion the Court differed from

the view of the 1920 Native Land Claims Commission. The 1851

deed was in Maori and the Judge suggested that the 1920

Commission's finding may have been based on a bad and

incorrect translation. The Judge also pointed out that the

Counsel for the claimants in 1920 was not allowed to make a

copy of the original deed.

The Court then dealt with the second issue. If it was

established that most of Te Whanganui-a-Orotu had not been

included in the sale to the Crown, did the tangata whenua have

any rights in the area when it was vested in the Harbour

Board? In Judge Harvey's view this depended on whether the

area was an arm of the sea or whether it was inland non-tidal

water. If it was the former, as the Crown asserted, then it

would belong to the Crown, "subject perhaps to fishing and

possibly other rights of the Maoris ... 54 In the latter case,

it would have belonged to the Maori as part of their tribal

territory.

Due to lack of evidence the Court felt unable to decide on

this issue. It concluded that the Maori had some just and

equitable rights at the time it was vested in the Napier

Harbour Board, but they had failed to establish just what

those rights were to the Court's satisfaction. The Chief

Judge proposed therefore that the petition be referred to the

Government "for further consideration."

In 1934 an agreement was entered into between the Small Farms

Board and the Harbour Board for the development of the area.

UndeI the Small Fanus Act, 1932 33 the NapieI Harbour Board

and the Crown (acting through the Minister of Lands) arranged

53 "bOd 2 1 1 , p. .

54 "b" d 2 1 1 , p. .

16

for the development of the Ahuriri Lagoon Reclamation of 7,500

acres, for the purposes of the Small Farms Act. The

Commissioner of Crown Lands, Napier was to supervise the

development work for the Small Farms Board. The Small Farms

(Relief of Unemployment) Amendment Act, 1933,55 section 2

allowed for the Ahuriri Lagoon area to be developed for

subsequent letting in small subdivisions to small farmers.

The agreement took the form of a lease (dated 3 May 1934)

whereby the Harbour Board leased the Lagoon area,

approximately 7,500 acres, to the Crown at a "peppercorn"

rental (1/- per acre) for a term of 21 years (from the 31

March 1934) with a right of renewal for a further term of 21

years. The Crown was to develop the land for small farms

purposes 1 the Harbour Board being charged with all expenditure

by the Crown on the development work together with any

interest, the Harbour Board then being allowed credit for all

revenues derived by the Crown from the lands. The Crown could

not be dispossessed of any part of the lands until it had been

reimbursed of its expenditure on development either by

revenues received from the lands or by payment from the

Harbour Board. 56

On 17 June 1936 Sainsbury, Logan and Williams, Solicitors,

wrote to the Secretary of the Napier Harbour Board advising

that on 8 June 1936 orders of the Native Land Court were made

under section 6 of The Napier Harbour Board Empowering Act,

1932-33. 57 These orders on maturity, six weeks from 8 June,

were to have the effect of vesting the legal estate of the six

islands - Urewiri r Tirowhangahe, Tuteranuku, Awa-a-waka and

Matawhero - in six persons as trustees. They were;

1. Te Roera Tareha

2. Puke puke Tangiora

55 Doc #A8 ( f) .

56 T 52/804, National Archives.

57 L&S 29057, Doc #A8 (d) .

17

3. Mepera Makuiterangi Erihana

4. Paora Kurupo

5. Hori Tupaea

6. Keita Pahi

The Board had the power under the 1932-33 Act to take the

islands under the Public Works Act. The solicitors

recognising that these islands had appreciated in value as a

result of the earthquake and that the Board had been

"instrumental in moving that Trustees should be appointed,"

recommended that the Board should negotiate with the Trustees

over the islands. 58 In the event the islands were taken under

the Public Works Act in 1939. 59

In 1945 Paneta Maniapoto Otene and 13 others petitioned

Parliament praying for inquiry into their rights in respect

of the Ahuriri Lagoon following the Earthquake of 1931. The

petitioners outlined that the Maori had never given up their

rights to the lagoon. They then went on to say that now that

the lagoon had become dry land of "enormous potential value"

they were entitled to recognition in the value of land which

they had never alienated. 6o As the Judge for the Native Land

Court inquiry was still preparing his report this matter was

'sub judice' and the Native Affairs Committee had no

recommendation to make.

The Napier Harbour Board and Napier Borough Enabling Act,

194561 enabled the Napier Harbour Board and the Napier

Borough Council to enter into an arrangement for the

development and subdivision of certain lands belonging to the

Board for the purpose of providing areas for housing and the

59 New Zealand Gazette 1939, p.2673, Doc #AS(g).

w Petition no.82/1945, Le 1/1945/12, National Archives, Doc #A6(k).

61 Doc #AS (h) .

18

expansion of the borough of Napier. Some land in the Ahuriri

Lagoon was involved. 62

In 1948 Ahere Hohepa and others petitioned Parliament

regarding the Ahuriri Lagoon, now dry land. They asked the

Government to pass legislation vesting the area in them and

their people. 63 The Native Affairs Committee recommended that

the petition be referred to the Government for

consideration. 64

In 1950 the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Act, 1950,M

under section 31, allowed for the partition of land, which was

formerly part of the Ahuriri Lagoon, between the Crown and the

Napier Harbour Board.~

Following the presentation of Judge Harvey's report on the 25

June 1948, Ihakara Rapana and 121 others petitioned Parliament

in 1965, citing the Judge's report as further grounds of

protest. The petitioners asked that the Government would

restore the Te Whanganui-a-Orotu land to the Maori people.

The Native Affairs Committee reported, with Sir Eruera

Tirikatene dissenting, that they had no recommendation to

make. 67

On the 17 March 1988 a claim was filed with the Waitangi

Tribunal by Te Otane Reti and four others representing the

62 L&S 29057 { Napier Harbour Board, 1936-1974{ National Archives.

63 Petition no.26/1948 r Le 1/1948/18, National Archives, Doc #A6 (1) .

64 AJHR 19 4 8 1-3, p. 7 .

65 Doc #A8 ( j ) .

~ see also AAFD 811/62b Land Development, Ahuriri Lagoon, National Archives.

~ Petition no.1965/48, Le 1/1965/13 r National Archives r Doc #A6 (m).

19

various hapu of Ngati Kahungunu. They claimed that they were

prejudicially affected or likely to be prejudicially affected

by legislation concerning Te Whanganui-a-Orotu. The claimants

asked that the title and rights to Te Whanganui-a-Orotu be

restored to the hapu represented by them.

The Hawkes Bay Harbour Board Empowering Act, 1989 was assented

to on 28 September 1989.

This Act allowed the Hawkes Bay Harbour Board to sell any

land, or interest in any land, vested in it pursuant to the

Napier Harbour Board Act 1874 or Napier Harbour Board Act

1876.

Local Government restructuring has seen the transfer of Hawkes

Bay Harbour Board assets to the Hawkes Bay Regional Council,

Napier City Council and new port company.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. Primary Sources

1. Official files held by National Archives Wellinton

Maori Affairs-Head Office files

Maori Affairs-Land Purchase Department files

Lands & Survey files

Legislative Department files

Treasury files

Native Land Court-Napier Minute Book

2. published

Appendices to the Journals of the House of Representatives of New Zealand

New Zealand Gazette

New Zealand Parliamentary Debates

New Zealand Statutes

Turton, Henry, Maori Deeds of Land Purchase in the North Island of New Zealand, Vol II.

Hawkes Bay Herald

B. Secondary Sources

Jourdain, W R.,

Wilson, J G,

(Alexander Wellington)

Turnbull Library,

Reminiscences of a Civil Servant by "George" (1938) (Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington)

History of Hawkes Bay (A H & A W Reed, Wellington, 1939)