" THA T MOST DIFFICUL T AND

THORNY QUESTION."

THE RATING OF MAORI LAND IN TAURANGA COUNTY

"Native land shall be liable for rates in the same manner as if it were European land."

Section 102 of the Rating Act 1925

Report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal for Wai 215 -

Tauranga Moana District Inquiry

By Marinus La Rooij

4 April 2002

CONTENTS

Contents.. .. ....... ........ ....... .. ... .......... ..... ...... . ....... .... ... . ... ... p.2 List of Tables.......................... ........ ..... .. ... ... ...... . ...... ...... . p.3 List of Plates. ................ ...... .............................................. p.4 List of Graphs.... ....... ......... ................. . ........ .... ........ . ..... ... p.4 Acknowledgements......................... ... ............ ..... ........ . .. ..... p.4 The Author............................. ...... ............ ... ....... ........ ..... p.4 Abbreviations..... ........ . ................... .......... ......... ........ . ... .. p.5

INTRODUCTION. .. . . . .. . . .. .. . . .. . . . . .. ... . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. .. p.6 The Claims.. .................................... .............................. ... p.7 Scope of the Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. p.1O Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p.12 Terminology.. ............... .................................................... p.13 Content Summary............. ..................................... ......... .... p.14

SECTION A 'By Hook or by Crook' - Maori Land & Rating in Tauranga during the Nineteenth Century........ ..................................................... p.16

Twentieth Century Attempts at Reform........................ .............. p.23 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. p.30

SECTION B The 'Big Stick' - Maori Land Rating during the Inter-war years......... p.31

Government Policy from 1924................................................ p.34 Role of the Native Land Court.. ........... ........ ....... ............ . ...... .. p.35 Problems of Policy. ............. .................. .......... ....... ........ ... ... p.39 Administrative Problem of Multiple Ownership....................... ...... p.44 Reactions to the 1924-25 Legislation...................................... ... p.45 Rating & the 1930s Economic Slump.............. ........ .................... p.47 A Dismal Symmetry - Rates & Council Services............................ p.56 Summary....................................................... .................. p.59

SECTION C A 'Tantalising problem' - Rating Maori Land in Tauranga from 1945 ....... p.61

Changing Role of the Maori Trustee .................................... p.72 Town & Country Planning....................................................... p.74 Summary ........................................................................... p.79

SECTION D Rating in Tauranga from 1958............................. ................... .... ... p.81

Soloman Kanapu - Maori Rates Clerk. ... . ............ .. .... ... ............ .. p.82 Receivership Leases & Management of Vested Lands ...................... p.86 Opposition from Maori..... ..... ....... ........... . ..... ................ ......... p.90 Difficulty of Finding a Lessee ................................................... p.91 Council's Pragmatic Approach .................................................. p.93 Troubled Leases of Mangatawa 9A2 & Ranginui 9B ........................ p.95 From Lease to Sale............................................................... p.99 Summary ........................................................................... p.105

2

SECTION E 'Playing it tough' Rating during the 1970s................................... ... p.106

Prichard-Waetford Inquiry ...................................................... p.106 Rating Act 1967.......... ......... ......... ........... ...... ....... ............... p.107 Problem of Valuation Increases ................................................... p.1U Matakana & Rangiwaea Islands ................................................ p.121 Ongoing Rating Problem. ........................................................ p.123 Summary ............................................................................ p.124

SECTION F Rating & Urban Growth ............. ................................................... p.125

Whareroa ............................................................................ p.127 Maungatapu & Hairini ........................................................... p.132 Public Works Disruption .......................................................... p.135 Valuation Problem. . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. p.136 City Council Rating........... ............................ .................... .... p.138 The Maori Trustee.............................................................. ... p.140 Summary ........................................................................... p.144

CONCLUSiON..................... ............ ........................................ p.146

BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................... p.150

List of Tables

Table 1. Payments made in 1886 under Crown & Native Rating Act 1882......... p.21

Table 2. Tauranga County Council Native Rate Collection 1912-22 .................. p.32

Table 3. Tauranga County Council Native Rate Collection 1923-33 .................. pA2

Table 4. Tauranga County Council Rates Written-off 1949-54 ........................ p.63

Table 5. Assessments & Collection of Rates by North Island Counties 1949/50 ... p.64

Table 6. Rates Collected on Maori Land in Tauranga County 1946-52 .............. p.70

Table 7. Rates Struck & Collected on Maori Land by Riding - 1957-60 ............. p.81

Table 8. Blocks Leased for Rate Arrears 1949-69 ....................................... pp.88-89

Table 9. Blocks Leased for Rate Arrears & Subsequently Alienated by Sale ........ p.104

Table 10. Rural Blocks Alienated by Sale in which Rates a Factor 1961-70 .......... p.109

Table 11. Tauranga County Council Rates 1966-82 ...................................... p.116

Table 12. Rates Owing on Whareroa Blocks - 1959-61.. ................................ p.128

Table 13. Mount Maunganui Borough Council Rates 1966-81 ......................... p.130

Table 14. Tauranga City Council Rates 1966-8l.. ........................................ p.138

Table 15. Urban Blocks Alienated by Sale in which Rates a Factor - 1959-83... ... p.143

3

Plate 1.

Plate 2.

List of Plates

Tauranga County: Urban Areas & Ridings 1980........................... p.11

'Fortune's Favourite'................. ........................................ ... p.49

Plate 3. Maori Land in Tauranga County - 1950.............. ....................... p.62

Plate 4. 'ForSale' ............................................. ............................. p.114

Plate Sa. City and Borough Boundaries Changes 1945-80............................ p.126

Plate 5b. Urban Expansion 1945-1980: Time Elapse................................ ... p.134

Plate 6. Urbanisation of Maori Land 1980 .............................................. p.142

List of Graphs

Graph 1. Annual illcrease in Tauranga County Rates - 1966-82...................... p.117

Graph 2. Annual illcrease in Mount Maunganui Rates - 1966-81.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. p.131

Graph 3. Annual Increase in Tauranga City Rates - 1966-81.. ......................... p.139

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge the help of Dame Evelyn Stokes, Max Oulton from the

Depal1ment of Geography at Waikato University, Dr Barry Rigby, Noel Harris, Catriona

Barclay, Elizabeth Cox, Dr Grant Phillipson, Eileen Barrett-Whitehead, Alison McNabb at

the Western Bay of Plenty District Council, the staff of the National Library, National

Archives and Tauranga Public Library. I was also fortunate to have the assistance of Dr Ian

Brailsford who was employed to assist me with research at National Archives in Auckland.

The Author

My name is Marinus Franciscus La Rooij. I am a trained researcher with a Bachelor of Arts

from Otago University, majoring in history and religious studies. I also have a Bachelor of

Arts with Honours and a Master of Arts with distinction in history from Victoria University

of Wellington. ill 1999 I worked as an external contract researcher commissioned by the

Waitangi Tribunal to write the report, "Wairoa Hapu and the Realignment of State Highway

2" (Wai 215, F2). I am currently employed as a Research Officer with the Waitangi Tribunal.

Unless otherwise stated all the opinions expressed in this report are those of the author.

4

AJHR

Auck

BOP

CFRT

Ham

[nd]

MA

MLB

MLC

MT

MMBC

NtA

NA-A

NA-W

NBR

NLC

NZCA

NZPD

Rot

TCC

TCY

TBC

TDC

Tga

v

Vdept

Wai

Wgtn

WBDC

Abbreviations

Appendices to the Journals of the House of Representatives

Auckland

Bay of Plenty

Crown Forestry Rental Trust

Hamilton

no date

Maori Affairs

Maori Land Board (Waiariki)

Maori Land Court

Maori Trustee

Mount Maunganui Borough Council

Native Affairs

National Archives Auckland

National Archives Wellington

National Business Review

Native Land Court

New Zealand Counties Association

New Zealand Parliamentary Debates

Rotorua

Tauranga County Council

Tauranga City Council

Tauranga Borough Council

Tauranga District Council

Tauranga

Volume

Valuation Department

Waitangi Tribunal claim

Wellington

Western Bay of Plenty District Council

5

INTRODUCTION

The rating of Maori land by local authorities has long been a contentious topic. During the

introduction of the Native Land Rating Act 1924, Prime Minister Gordon Coates aptly

described the rating of Maori land as "that most difficult and thorny question".1 Seventy years

later, Dover Samuels described Maori land rating as the 'hot kumara'. In Samuels'

experience rating was such a contentious issue, that central government politicians preferred

to pass the matter on rather than risk burning their hands. 2 Coates and Samuels' description

can certainly be applied to Tauranga, where Maori land rating has long been an important

local issue. The issue has influenced the relationship between both Maori and local

government and relations between Maori and Pakeha in the district.

The Maori land rating issue has been a controversial local issue in Tauranga since the

creation of the county council in 1876. Local government leaders viewed the problem of

Maori land rating not just as a threat to local government revenues, but also to land utilisation

and regional development. In 1967, Paraone Brown Reweti, the MP for Eastern Maori and a

person with a good knowledge of the Tauranga situation, commented:

My predecessors have stressed that the rating of Maori land cannot be separated from Maori

land development and utilisation. I go further and say that Maori land rating cannot be

separated from regional development.3

From the late nineteenth century, local government in Tauranga has expended considerable

energy on the problem due to the large proportion of Maori land in the district. This report

will show that rating was a vexed and difficult question in the nineteenth century, with the

events of this period foreshadowing developments in the twentieth. It was during the later

part of the nineteenth century, that the Crown developed that legislation that governed the

rating of Maori land. This legislation provided local government with a means of raising

finance and also the obligation of applying a fair and uniform rating system.

Along with being compelled by statute to rate Maori land, local government in Tauranga has

also faced significant pressure from its Pakeha ratepayers who believed Maori were not

paying their share of the rate burden. On the other hand, Maori increasingly viewed local

1 Gordon Coates, New Zealand Parliamentary Debates (NZPD), 1 November 1924, p.1050

2 'Rates for Maori become issue', The New Zealand Farmer, 29 September 1993, p.29

3 Reweti, NZPD, 15 September 1967, p.3083

6

body rates with a deep sense of apprehension. Maori have found rating to be a difficult

concept in cultural terms. Maori do not see land as a mere commodity that can be bought,

sold and rated. Land is generally seen as an inheritance from past generations and a gift to the

next, an expression of identity, rather than a commercial unit. Because of the emotional

context of land ownership and rating, relations between local government and Maori have

long suffered.

The Maori land rating problem stems from the development and implementation of rating

legislation by the Crown in the last quarter of the nineteenth century and its progressive

application to Maori land in the twentieth. The best guide for the development of the laws

governing rating in New Zealand is Tom Bennion's Rangahaua Whanui report, Maori and

Rating Law.4 Bennion has also produced a report for the Waitangi Tribunal's Kaipara Inquiry

in which he applies this legal framework to a local example.5 Also worth consulting is Robert

Hayes' report on rating in Thames Borough, filed on behalf of the Crown for the Tribunal's

Hauraki Inquiry.6 While these reports are useful, this report will have a particular focus on

events in Tauranga, with the national legislative situation providing the overall context.

The Claims

The number of claims from the Western Bay of Plenty area that include rating in their

statement of claim reflects the importance of rating as a Treaty grievance in Tauranga.7 While

I have examined the relevant statements of claim for the Tauranga inquiry, this report was

prepared for the inquiry as a whole. It was not researched or written on behalf of anyone

claim or claimant group. It is, of course, necessary to note in some detail the claims made

against the rating regime.

The Statement of Claim by Kihi Ngatai on behalf of Ngai Te Rangi Iwi (Wai 540) succinctly

states:

4 The development of New Zealand's rating legislation is explained in more detail by Bennion, Maori & Rating Law,

Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series, (First Release), Wgtn, 1997

5 Bennion applies this knowledge to a specific case study in his report for the Kaipara Inquiry. Bennion, 'Overview report on

the Kapehu Blocks Rating Claim (Wai 763)', report commissioned for the Waitangi Tribunal, June 2000, (Wai 674, Ll)

6 Brief of Evidence of Robert Hayes on Thames Rating, [nd] (Wai 686, R15)

7 These are: Wai 42a (Wairoa hapu), Wai 211 (Ngai Tukairangi), Wai 342 (Ngati He), Wai 362 (Ngati Ruahine), Wai 370

(Ngai Te Ahi), Wai 540 (Ngai Te Rangi), Wai 715 (JJR White Matakana claim), Wai 938 (Ngai Tauwhao ki Otawhiwhi).

7

The Crown established a rating regime which failed to take into account the difficulties of

managing Ngai Te Rangi lands due to the Crown's individualisation of title and

fragmentation of their lands.

The Crown has allowed all local authorities to confiscate land through the non-payment of

rates and through other powers available to local government.

The Crown had adapted policies relating to the management and zoning of lands thereby

defeating the rangatiratanga of Ngai Te Rangi. 8

Other groups emphasise that the rating regime led to 'confiscation' of land. The Statement of

Claim by Rameka Apapa on behalf of the Wairoa hapu (Wai 42a) states:

The Crown has allowed local authorities to confiscate land through non-payment of rates and

through other powers available to local government.

The Crown established a rating regime which failed to take into account the cultural values

of the Wairoa hapu in respect of their sites of significance and waahi tapu and altered the

landscape of the Wairoa hapu who had to reluctantly develop their lands to ensure the

payment of rates. 9

Influenced by high valuations at Whareroa and Matapihi, the Statement of Claim by Mahaki

Ellis on behalf of Ngai Tukairangi (Wai 211) takes more issue with the valuation system than

the rating regime:

Claim against the Valuation Department on behalf of the Crown, for the unfair valuation of

N gaitukairangi multiple owned Maori land for the purpose of rating. 10

From the experience of urban growth at Hairini, the Statement of Claim by Taumatangi Keno

Tane Heke-Kaiawha on behalf of Ngai Te Ahi (Wai 370) states:

The Crown established a rating regime which failed to take into account difficulties of

managing the lands remaining in Ngai Te Ahi ownership caused by the Crown's destruction

of customary tenure and the individualisation and fragmentation of Ngai Te Ahi lands.

The Crown has allowed local authorities to confiscate land through the non-payment of rates

and through other powers available to local government.

8 Statement of Claim for Wai 540 (Wai 215, 1.25(b», para.91

9 Statement of Claim for Wai 42a (Wai 215, 1.1 (a)(a», paras.84-85

10 Statement of Claim for Wai 211 (Wai 215, 1.8(c», para.3

8

The Crown actively sought to defeat the rangatiratanga of Ngai Te Ahi hapu by establishing

a policy that ensured Maori land was developed residentially. The Crown also failed to

protect Ngai Te Ahi hapu from the effects of further land loss and urbanisation. I I

Maori at Maungatapu shared the same experience, Tane Whare Mokai Te Heke Kaiawha on

behalf of Ngati He (Wai 342) claims:

Following the construction of the motorway through the Maungatapu peninsula the

surrounding Maungatapu blocks were assessed by the Tauranga City Council as urban

residential sections.

To a large extent the owners of the land could not afford to pay the rates and Council

subsequently pursued rates by way of obtaining charging orders over blocks through the

Maori Land Court.

Subsequently the owners of a number of Maungatapu blocks applied and were granted in the

Maori Land Court orders placing their lands under trust pursuant to [Section] 43 [sic] of the

Maori Affairs Act 1953 in the Maori Trustee for the purposes of subdividing the land into

residential lots and disposing of them either on the open market or to owners.

The s.438 trust orders were made after the Maori Land Court was satisfied there was

sufficient support amongst the owners for the proposal. As such not all of the owners agreed

to the proposals. On those [who] agreed a main motivating factor was the pressure placed

upon them to urbanise the area including the Council rate demands.

Subsequently virtually the entire Maungatapu peninsula was subdivided into urban lots. Only

a small minority of these were invested in original Maori owners.

The urbanisation of the Maungatapu peninsula blocks represented a number of breaches of

the Treaty of Waitangi by the [Crown] as a result of which Ngati He owners of the blocks

suffered prejudice.

a) Failing to put mechanisms in place to prevent the Tauranga City Council zoning the area

as residential or otherwise placing restrictions upon the subsequent subdividing of the

blocks.

b) Failing to prevent the Tauranga District Council [sic] from rating blocks as normal

residential land and subsequently taking enforcement action by way of charging orders.

c) Failing to place more stringent restrictions upon the ability of the Maori Land Court to

place the blocks under trust for subdivision and sale on the open market.

d) As a result of these breaches most of the Ngati He owners of the Maungatapu blocks lost

their lands. 12

II Statement of Claim for Wai 370, 27 March 2000, (Wai 215, 1.29(b», paras.70-72

9

During its inquiry in Tauranga, the Waitangi Tribunal has also heard a great deal of evidence

on the rating problem and the troubled relationship between Maori and local government.

Maori in Tauranga generally take the view that a great deal of land was taken to satisfy rates

arrears. Dan Heke (kaumatua of Ngati He), for example, stated in a 1999 interview:

They say, we weren't paying rates so they came and took our lands ... When we couldn't pay

the rates, the Pakeha took land to the same value. 13

Similarly during the Tribunal's hearing of the Pirirakau claims in 1998, Colin Bidois

(Chairman of the Ngati Ranginui Iwi Society), stated that the Crown's "Rating legislation has

caused loss of Maori land and failed to protect it."14 Mr. Bidois believed that because Maori

land was fundamentally different in character from general land, it should not be rated in the

same way. Bidois' evidence, which was reported by the local press, stated that the rates debt

on Maori land in the Western Bay of Plenty had risen to just over $2.2 million since 1993. 15

Scope of the Report

The Waitangi Tribunal commissioned this report in June 2000 to examine the degree of land

loss experienced by Tauranga Maori through the enforcement of local government rate

charges. The commission asked for:

a) A review of Crown policies and practices with regard to the rating of Maori-owned land

since 1925.

b) An examination of the rate charging and rate-collection practices with regard to Maori­

owned land within the Tauranga inquiry district since 1925.

c) An evaluation of the amount of Maori-owned land vested in a trustee for sale or lease for

outstanding rates within the Tauranga inquiry district.

d) An examination of factors that contributed to the non-payment of rates by Maori:

multiple-ownership, the non-provision of local government services, valuation, land use

.. d d l' 16 restnctlOns, an town an country p anmng.

12 Statement of Claim for Wai 342, 7 December 2000, (Wai 215, 1.13(b», paras.74-79

13 'Tane Dan Te Heke Kaiawha Heke', interviewed by Delwyn Little & Araha Ririnui, 'Ngati He Interviews', research

commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, 2001 (Wai 215, M4), p.lO

14 Evidence of Colin Maungapohatu Bidois, (Wai 215, B 13), p.4

IS '2.2m owed in rates', Bay of Plenty Times, 22 May 1998

16 Research Commission dated 2 June 2000 (Wai 215,3.88)

10

The report is intended to provide an understanding of how the rating regime evolved over

time and how it was applied in practice in Tauranga. This report has also included a review of

developments both nationally and in Tauranga during the nineteenth century to provide

context for the events of the twentieth. The main focus of this report will be the operation of

the rating regime in Tauranga following the Second World War.

Plate 1. TAURANGA COUNTY: URBAN AREAS and RIDINGS - 1980

TE PUNA RIDING

- - - Riding Boundaries

_ Incorporated Urban Areas

Community Areas

• Unincorporated Areas

\ I

/ (

I

/

I

WAIMAPU RIDING

"-\

\

I (

\ TE PUKE \ RIDING

I

I

I I

I

"~Te Puke \

I \

• Paengaroa • Pongakawa

MAKETU RIDING

Tauranga County Council area with the county riding boundaries and urban areas as drawn in 1980. Katikati Riding (which included Matakana Island), Te Puna Riding, Waimapu Riding and the majority of the Te Puke Riding all lie within the boundary of the Tauranga Moana Inquiry District. The remainder of the Te Puke riding and the Maketu Riding fall outside the Wai 215 boundary.

11

I I

I ,

I , I ,

I

Methodology

The Tribunal cUlTently has before it a number of historical reports that discuss rates as they

affected specific blocks of land in Tauranga.17 This report will differ from the research

already before the Waitangi Tribunal, as it will provide an understanding of the key features

of the rating regime as it evolved nationally and then apply this to the rating regime in

Tauranga. This report will offer a broader analysis of how local government in Tauranga

interpreted and operated the laws governing the rating of Maori land. To do this effectively,

this report will comment on the roles played by the principal agencies involved in rating

Maori land in Tauranga. The most important of these agencies was the Tauranga County

Council (TCC) and its actions will be considered in some detail. 18 Other agencies that will be

mentioned include the Tauranga City Council (TCY) , Mount Maunganui Borough Council

(MMBC), Department of Maori Affairs (MA), the Office of the Maori Trustee (MT), the

Maori Land Court (MLC), and the Valuation Department (V dept).

Along with a general understanding of the key features of the rating regime, this report will

attempt to quantify the degree of land loss that can be directly or indirectly attributed to local

government rating during the post-war period. This was done by systematically reviewing all

the available Maori Trustee and Tauranga County Council files. The researcher, assisted by

Dr Ian Brailsford in Auckland, reviewed all available 'Section 438 Trust' and 'Alienation'

files from the Maori Trustee held at National Archives, Aucldand. 19 Based on the material on

file, a number of blocks were identified in which rates played either a 'significant' factor, or

were just a 'factor' in the lease, sale or consolidation of land.

This approach, however, can only provide an incomplete picture of how rating in Tauranga

impacted on Maori land ownership. The pressure of rate charges had a wider effect than what

is recorded in the files examined. For example, in a large proportion of cases, the owners

17 See Fiona Hamilton, 'Ngai Te Ahi Historical Report', report commissioned by the CFRT, February 2000, (Wai 215, Gl),

pp.150-157, 164-182; International Institute for Maori and Indigenous Education, 'Socio-Economic Impact Report for Nga

Potiki', report prepared for the CFRT, [nd], (Wai 215, Ml), p.120-125; Tony Walzl, 'Ngati Ruahine: Land Issues Overview

1900-2000', report commissioned by the CFRT, September 2001, (Wai 215, N2); Heather Bassett & Richard Kay,

'Ngaiterangi and the Crown', report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, June 1998, (Wai 215, Cl), pp.174-200.

18 The majority of the relevant files of the old Tauranga County Council have been destroyed. This report has, therefore,

relied heavily on the Bay of Plenty Times as a record on county rating matters.

19 This report has excluded blocks that fall outside the Tribunal's Tauranga Moana Inquiry District (Wai 215). Blocks

excluded fall within the south-eastern portion of the Te Puke riding of the county and all of the Maketu ridings (see Plate 1).

12

acted on rate charges before the matter went to the Maori Land Court. In these cases, no

receivership or trust files were created to document the process. In the case of Parish of Te

Papa Lot 453, the county used the threat of rate charges to encourage the owners to withdraw

their objections to the taking of a portion of the block for a public reserve under the Public

Works Act 1928. The owners formed a private trust and leased the land to clear the rate

charges. 2o A full study of the absolute effect of rating on Maori land is, therefore, not possible

in a single report. Instead, this report will try to quantify the amount of land alienated for

rates through the rate recovery process. This should facilitate a better understanding of how

the rate charging process affected Maori land throughout the whole of Tauranga County.

Terminology

For the purpose of clarity, it is worth discussing some key terms. Tom Bennion defines rates,

based on a strictly legal interpretation, as "a tax, based on property ownership, levied by a

local authority and applied to services at a locallevel."21 This definition, however, understates

the historical complexity and contentious character of local body rates. As opposed to general

taxation, rural property owners have generally expected that their rates will be used to

provide services directly to them that will, in part, increase the value and/or the productivity

of their land. Property owners have expected from their councils, and still expect, a level of

service equivalent to the rates paid. 22 While rates are a charge on the land, levied according to

its value, it is the landowner or the designated occupier who is liable for the rates. In

discussing the rating of Maori land, it should not be forgotten that it is the landowner or more

usually the landowners who are ultimately liable for the rates charged.

This report will restrict its focus to the charging and collection of general rates on Maori land.

As it was for General land or 'European' land, the annual rate levied by the Tauranga County

Council was determined on the unimproved value of land. The Valuation Department

determined the value of land in the district, with the valuation roll being revised every five

years.23 Value was based on a number of factors such as market value, demand for land in the

immediate vicinity and the actual and even the potential use of land.

20 See M.P. La Rooij, 'Wairoa Hapu & the Realignment of State Highway 2', report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal

for Wai 42,13 August 1999, (Wai 215, F2), pp.73-75

21 Bennion, Maori & Rating Law, p.l

22 In general the benefits of general taxation are less tangible than local body rates.

23 One report before the Tribunal mistakenl y states that "Local councils raised the value of lands, and hence, rates payable on

them." 'Socio-Economic Impact Report for Nga Potiki', (Wai 215, M1) p.120

13

Other rates such as hospital levies and special rates, levied for specific local projects and

charged to landowners within defined areas, will only be mentioned in passing in this report.

The vexed question of rates and Crown land will also only be mentioned in passing in this

report. This report will also not explore the equally contentious question of local government

attempts to levy rates on land development schemes under the administration of the

Department of Maori Affairs.24

Throughout this report, reference will be made to lands lying 'idle' or 'under-utilised'. In

using these definitions, it should be remembered that the Crown and its agencies, along with

local government, viewed Maori land as being 'idle' when it did not pay rates, was covered in

noxious weeds, was "unoccupied", or was not generating economic wealth. This definition of

what was 'idle' sometimes excluded certain Maori categories of land use such as land

growing crops for personal use/mahinga kai, bush lands used for hunting, recreational areas,

land used as to access waterways and kai moana or areas containing waahi tapu or spiritual

sites that are not formally recognised in the same way as urupa, marae or church grounds.

Throughout this report I have accepted the formal Pakeha definition of 'idle'.

Content Summary

This report will cover the following areas:

• Section A will examine the legislative development of the rating regime as it affected

Maori landowners during the nineteenth century. This section will offer some comment on

the impact on Maori landowners in Tauranga.

• Section B will discuss the passing of the Native Land Rating Act 1924 and the Rating

Act 1925. These two pieces of legislation signalled an important innovation in the Crown's

approach to the problem. As a result this legislation determined how local government rated

Maori land in Tauranga for most of the remainder of the twentieth century.

• Section C will offer a detailed analysis of Maori land rating in Tauranga County from

1945 to 1960. This section will concentrate on the legislation and policies that allowed the

Tauranga County Council to transform its approach to the rating problem.25

24 Land administered by Maori Affairs was deemed to be Crown land and, therefore, non-rateable.

25 A more complete history of the county and council administration is provided in Evelyn Stokes, A History of Tauranga

County, Palmerston North, Dunmore Press, 1980

14

• Section D will offer a thorough examination of Maori land rating within the

boundaries of the Tauranga County Council during the 1960s. This section will spend some

time examining the system of receivership leases that the county used to ensure Maori land

was utilised and paying rates. This section will rely heavily on Maori Trustee files held at

National Archives in Auckland. Due to the scarcity of the records available and the sensitive

nature of some of this material, the research will conclude in the early 1980s.

• Section E will examine the developments of the late 1960s and 1970s that brought an

end to county's system of receivership leases. With rising valuations and increasing

restrictions on land use, the old methods of rate collection progressively broke down.

• Section F will examine the rating of those blocks that were brought into the

boundaries of Tauranga City and Mount Maunganui Borough during the 1960s and 1970s.

These areas experienced significant and rapid urban expansion during this period. As a result,

many blocks of land were drawn into the city and borough limits. Although the process of

urban expansion will not be examined in detail here, the issues surrounding rates on these

affected blocks will be explored.26

26 The topic of Tauranga' s urban growth has been examined in Evelyn Stokes, A History ofTauranga County, p.327ff

15

SECTION A 'By Hook or by Crook' - Maori Land & Rating in Tauranga during the

Nineteenth Century

Beginning with the Highways Board Empowering Act 1871, the Crown passed a number of

acts during the nineteenth century that empowered local bodies to charge rates based on the

unimproved value of land. At the outset, it was clear to Parliament that the proposal to

include Maori land in the rating regime would prove to be highly contentious. During the

course of the debates, the Maori members of the House of Representatives were particularly

forceful in their opposition to the provisions of the Bill as it affected Maori. Hori Kerei

Taiaroa, the member for Southern Maori, argued that Maori were still in a period of transition

and could not be expected to adapt to a piece of legislation that was designed for the English

system of individual land ownership. Taiaroa asked for the passing of at least one generation,

to allow Maori to become conversant with the new forms of individualised land ownership

and the laws that accompanied it. Taiaroa also made it clear that in his opinion, the rating of

Maori landowners was intrinsically tied to rights held under the Treaty of Waitangi and the

settlement of grievances that had arisen under it. Until those matters had been addressed,

Maori landowners could not be considered the same as European landowners:

By the Treaty of Waitangi it was laid down that in consideration of the Maoris giving up to

the Queen the entire sovereignty over the land, their [customary] rights over their land,

fisheries, forests, and all matters of that sort connected with the land were reserved to them.

If this House desires now that this Bill should be passed, I say that the Treaty of Waitangi

should be brought forward and laid on the table, so that all may see it.27

Wiremu Parata, the MP for Western Maori, objected to the rating of Maori landowners

principally because they did not have the money to pay the rates. Parata also believed it was

particular unjust to rate Maori land in the light of the prolonged warfare and confiscation

suffered in the North Island:

The Maoris at present are not rich enough to pay these taxes. They were poor at the

beginning, and are so still. Let the Government ask the chiefs for the land through which the

road is to run, and they will give it. Do not allow the law to be carried out harshly, because

the Maori are at present in trouble, owing to the evils which exist in this Island.28

27 Taiaroa, NZPD, 12 September 1871, p.358

28 Parata, NZPD, 12 September 1871, p.359

16

Representation on the new local bodies was also an issue. The Maori MPs noted that settlers

would dominate most local bodies leaving Maori interests marginalised.29 Above all, the

Maori MPs asked for caution in adopting any law that would adversely affect Maori. It

appears that the government under Premier William Fox, took notice of these protests and

adopted a compromise approach to rating Maori landowners. In drafting the early legislation,

Parliament accepted in principle that both Maori and Maori land tenure were in a period of

transition. Under these circumstances, it was accepted that Maori land could not be rated

effectively until government addressed the issues of wealth and capital, land individualisation

and land development. While both sides of the debate accepted that Maori should eventually

shoulder the full obligations of proprietary citizenship, Taiaroa and Parata deemed rating

Maori land on the same basis as general land as unfair until this transition was complete. As a

result, Section 5 of the 1871 legislation allowed only for the rating of Maori land leased by

Pakeha.

Five years later the Rating Act 1876 kept to this gradual and cautious approach, although the

categories of land liable for rates were expanded. Section 37(4) of the Rating Act 1876

exempted "Lands over which the Native title has not been extinguished, and lands in respect

of which a certificate of title or memorial of ownership has been issued, if in the occupation

of aboriginal natives only." The 1876 legislation therefore extended liability for rates to

Maori who held land under a Crown Grant.

Even this limited approach, however, produced widespread opposition among Maori to the

rating of their lands by county councils and road boards. The assembled chiefs at the 1879

Orakei Parliament, for example, expressed a deep disaffection with the rating law and the

newly formed local bodies that were seen as unrepresentative settler institutions.30

During the late 1870s and early 1880s the question of local government finances, rates and

Maori land was also becoming a highly contentious issue for Pakeha. In Tauranga, Pakeha

landowners, along with the developing county and town administrations, were increasingly

29 In response to these concerns Parliament, sponsored by Native Minister Donald Maclean, passed the Native District Road

Boards Act 1871. The Act allowed predominantly Maori communities to form road boards, levy rates and construct roads.

Maori rarely used the Act however. See Alan Ward, A Show of Justice, Auckland, 1973, p.269

30 'Paora Tuhaere's Parliament at Orakei', Appendices to the Journals of the House of Representatives (AJHR), Session II,

1879, 0-8, pp.I-47. The record of the hui is littered with complaints about the imposition of rates, the actions and operations

of county councils and road boards. Complaints about rates merge with complaints about local body public works takings.

17

vocal in their demand for a reform of the rating law. By the late 1870s Pakeha settlers in

Tauranga, represented in their views by the Bay of Plenty Times, were becoming increasingly

frustrated by the slow development of the region compared to other areas. What Pakeha

perceived as a high proportion of Maori land inside the county boundaries, was cited as the

principal cause of this regional stagnation. For many prominent Tauranga landowners, the

answer to the problem was simply for the Crown to lift its alienation restrictions on Maori

land allowing rate-paying settlers to buy the land. Once in European hands, the land would

become rateable. This would in tum finance the development of the region's infrastructure,

encourage more settlement and above all give the existing settlers in Tauranga the prosperity

they desired.

The debate over land sales, alienation restrictions and council rates reached a climax during

the local county council elections of November 1878. Tauranga's leading Pakeha settlers

supported the aspirations of the Tauranga County Council to open up and develop the district.

One prominent voice in the debate was Captain S.L. Clarke, a leading settler elected to the

county council in 1878.31 During the campaign, Clarke threw scorn on the government's

decision to restrict the sale of Maori land and promised that "his first business is to endeavour

to undo this impolitic action.,,32 The Bay of Plenty Times went further:

If only the Government would do justice, and allow these [native] lands to be purchased,

how different the outlook would be. Then Road Boards and County Councils would have

substantial rates to collect. At present Tauranga may be likened to a man compelled to draw

a dead carcase about with him, for the lands that should pay rates are simply incubi upon the

settlers.33

Many Tauranga Pakeha regarded the settlement of 'surplus' Maori lands as critical to the

long-term financial viability of the district. Clarke advanced this view more forcefully during

a town meeting on the land alienation question. Clarke was reported as saying to an agitated

audience of prominent Pakeha and Maori:

Gentlemen ... you would be astonished if you knew the very small portion [of land] for which

rates are paid. The Government should either open up the lands, or give us the rates for it.

(Applause) It should be placed on the market by hook or by crook (loud applause)?4

31 Clarke was the brother of Henry Tacey Clarke, who at this time served as the Under-Secretary of the Native Department.

32 S.L. Clarke quoted in BOP Times, 14 November 1878

33 Editorial, BOP Times, 14 November 1878

34 Clarke quoted in BOP Times, 23 November 1878

18

The agitation in Tauranga was accompanied by similar pressure from other districts. The

government responded by passing the Crown and Native Rating Act 1882. The 1882 Act

cautiously extended the rateable categories of Maori land. Under the 1882 Act land that could

be rated now included:

• Maori land occupied by a Pakeha (Section 6(14).

• Maori land held under a Crown Grant (Section 6 (14). Plus,

• Maori land within 5 miles of a public road (Section 6(15).35

• Maori land within a Borough (Section 3).

While the new provision significantly increased the amount of Maori land that could be rated,

the Act still only applied to 3.5 million acres out of the 13 million acres of Maori land in the

country.36 The 1882 Act would also only apply in constituted districts. In Tauranga, Native

Rating Districts were constituted in "all that portion of the County of Tauranga comprised

within the boundaries of the Te Puna Road District and the outlying district of the Waimapu

Riding."37 On the other hand, the government exempted from the provisions of the Act, "all

that portion of the County of Tauranga comprised within the boundaries of the Te Puke and

Katikati Road Districts."38

While the legislation broadened the categories of Maori land that was rateable, it also sought

to provide a period of transition for Maori landowners. Under the 1882 Act, in the absence of

a named owner on the title (a named owner being rated in the usual way), local bodies could

send rate demands to the Colonial Treasurer. The Colonial Treasurer then advertised in the

Kahiti the blocks of land and the rates owing. If the rates remained unpaid, the Treasurer

compensated the local body. The Crown would recover the money from the Maori owners

through the collection of stamp duty when the land was sold. This system had the potential,

however, to see the fee simple consumed by the rates owing. Captain Thomas Fraser, from

Otago, expressed his concern in the Legislative Council at what the future might hold if the

Act was applied to its full extent:

35 This category was removed when the Crown and Native Rating Act 1882 was repealed in 1888, but returned with the

Rating Act 1893.

36 Ward, A Show of Justice, p.347

37 "Constituting Native Rating Districts under 'The Crown & Native Rating Act, 1882'" New Zealand Gazette, 2 February

1884, no.14, p.193

38 "Exempting Districts from 'The Crown & Native Rating Act, 1882'" NZ Gazette, 2 February 1884, no.14, p.194. A map

of these districts could not be located.

19

I look upon this measure as a mean way of confiscating Maori land. It is to be taxed from

year to year, and the taxes will accumulate against its value until in about ten years perhaps,

when the lands come to be sold, the accrued taxes will be more than its value, and those who

might otherwise then buy it will not do so. I think it is a very unfair proceeding.39

In reply to similar arguments, Henry Smith Fish, MP for Dunedin South, reflected the more

uncompromising settler position when he opposed the Bill:

As to Native lands, I cannot see why they should be exempted from rates. Surely they should

pay something to the State for the benefit they received from State expenditure. It has been

said that in the course of a few years the accumulated rates will eat up the fee-simple, and

that the Natives will get nothing when the land is sold. I do not think that is so. If they sold

their land now they would perhaps get as much as £1 per acre; but in two or three years time,

when their land is improved and opened up by roads and bridges, it will be trebled and

quadrupled in value. I do not think the Natives will have any reason to complain. I have no

sympathy with these philo-Maoris who express themselves so strongly on behalf of the

Maori race. My opinion is that the sooner we make the Maoris understand that they are not to

be pampered the better it will be for them and us.40

The Act ultimately failed, however, because the new rating system created a serious strain on

the Crown's purse. While the Treasurer was able to recoup some of the monies owed to him,

it was clear that a debt would have to be carried until the land was sold. Under the 1882 Act

the Crown paid out £67,369 in compensation to local bodies. By 1924 the Crown had only

recovered £38,235 of this sum, with £29,134 being written off.41 Because of this financial

burden, the Act was repealed in 1888.

The 1882 rating legislation had serious financial implications for Tauranga Maori. Like the

1876 Act, the 1882 Act provided for the rating of land held under a Crown Grant. This

provision was significant for the Tauranga district because in the years following the

confiscation, lands were returned to Maori under a Crown Grant. 42 While many of the blocks

returned had multiple owners and were, therefore, covered by the provisions of the 1882 Act,

a large number of blocks were granted to individual owners. In cases where one individual or

39 Fraser, NZPD, 8 September 1882, p.869. Wi Tako Ngatata also asked the Council to consider delaying the legislation for

twelve months to allow Maori to be consulted.

40 Fish, NZPD, 30 August 1882, p.709. There was equal opposition, mostly from South Island MPs to the fact that the Act

compensated North Island counties seemingly at the expense of South Island taxpayers.

41 'Rates Paid by the Crown on Native Land', AJHR 1924, G-8, p.1

20

a small number of owners was named on the title, the land was rated as if it was European

land. This was probably true even if the land had been granted to one individual in formal

trust for their hapu. 43 In cases where individual Maori owners were recorded as the sole

owner on the Crown Grant, it appears that local bodies in Tauranga pursued rate arrears in the

Magistrates' Court. These prosecutions aroused considerable anger among the leading chiefs

of Tauranga who fell into this category of ownership.

Table 1. Payments made in 1886 under Crown & Native Rating Act 1882. 44

Local Body Crown land Native land Total . Tauranga County £115 8s Id £40613s 7d £522 Is 8d

KatikatiRoad Board £7 Os 6d £3 lIs lId £10 12s 5d

I: Te P~ha l~oad B~ard .... £22 Is 2d i £22 Is 2d

Tauranga Borough £35 lOs 7d £35 lOs 7d

This anger surfaced during Native Minister John Ballance's visit to Tauranga in February

1885. During a hui at Whareroa Marae, a number of prominent chiefs of the district voiced

strong opposition to the rating of their lands and the actions of the district road board in

levying them. Hori Ngatai complained that he had been 'harshly treated' by the road board

who had prosecuted him for rate arrears on a piece of land for which he was the nominal

owner on behalf of others. 45 While most of the objections voiced were specific to certain

blocks, Te Mete Raukawa, who also held land in trust on behalf of Ngati Hangarau, objected

to the rating of Maori land on principle:

In the opinion of the Ngaiterangi people the Rating Act is a very unjust Act, because the

Natives, being an impoverished people, are not able to pay either the rates on the land, or the

property-tax. We ask that these laws may be repealed so far as they affect Native lands.46

42 See Stokes, History of Tauranga County, p.1l9

43 Recent documents and hand written copies of Crown Orants submitted by claimant counsel for Pirirakau and Ngai

Tukairangi (Wai 215, PI0), show that blocks were explicitly granted in ttust for a hapu (such as Lots 16 and 154 Parish of

Te Puna, Lots 21, 107 and 108 Parish of Te Papa and Lot 182 Parish of Te Puna). However, when preparing the rating roll it

is likely that the named trustees were simply entered as the owners, thereby making them liable for rate charges in the same

manner as Europeans. Further research on the fate of specific blocks granted in trust, may shed more light on this question.

44 'Crown & Native Lands Rating Act', AIHR 1886, B-15. The boundaries of these districts could not be located.

45 'Notes of a Meeting between the Hon. Mr. Ballance and Tauranga Natives. at Whareroa, Tauranga, on the 21 st February,

1885', AlHR, v.2, 1885,0-1, p.60

46 Te Mete Raukawa quoted in AIHR, v.2, 1885,0-1, pp.59-60

21

In Tauranga, the holding of land by Maori under a Crown Grant was not an indication of the

owners having either wealth or of being fully integrated into the Pakeha economy. Rather, the

holding of land under a Crown Grant was a result of the Tauranga confiscation proclamation

of 1865 and the subsequent return of lands from 1873 to 1886. Given the determination of

local bodies of the period to pursue rate charges vigorously, it is likely that such charges were

a strong inducement for the chiefs of Tauranga to sell land rather than have to meet the

annual rate charge. This would not have emerged from formal records, but is a strong

implication of Maori concerns voiced to Ballance in 1885.

Another chief at the Whareroa hui, [Wiremu] Piahana, objected to the provision that land

within five miles of a road should pay rates. In his case, Piahana owned a block without

direct access to a road, as a block of European land fell in between. Piahana believed that it

was quite unreasonable for him to pay road rates when he had no access to a road. 47 In

response to this complaint and others like it, Ballance moved in Parliament that the Crown

and Native Lands Rating Act Repeal Bill should include the provision "that rates derivable

from Native lands shall be spent only on roads for the benefit of such lands."48

Also raising tensions during the same period was the valuation of Maori land. The under­

secretary of Native Affairs, T.W. Lewis, found in 1883 that the Property Tax Department,

which determined the value of land, had been overvaluing Maori land by up to three times the

market value. In Professor Alan Ward's estimation, the result was that "like the dog-tax, [the]

collection of rates threatened to provoke breaches of the peace."49 As a result, the Native

Department took a closer supervisory role in the valuation and rating of Maori land.

The rates-related grievances of the Ngaiterangi chiefs found little sympathy with Pakeha in

Tauranga. In its condemnation of the government's failure to acquire the Papamoa and Otawa

blocks, the Bay of Plenty Times insisted that those blocks close to public roads must pay full

rates in the interests of regional development. The Bay of Plenty Times argued:

A main road passes for some twelve miles through these blocks of land and they pay scarcely

a sixpence of rates to maintain the same, whereas if these lands were in the hands of

Europeans, the County Council would derive a handsome addition to its income from them. so

47 Piahana in AJHR, v.2, 1885, G-1, p.63

48 Ballance, NZPD, 20 August 1888, p.207

49 Ward, A Show of Justice, p.347. It is worth noting that local bodies also levied the deeply unpopular dog-tax from 1880.

50 Editorial, BOP Times, 25 November 1886

22

Despite the pressure of public opinion, it is clear that during the nineteenth century the

government approached the rating of Maori land cautiously. While there were a few portions

of Maori land taken directly for rates around the country, it does not seem to have been a

widespread occurrence. There appear to have been some exceptions, however, such as the

peculiar case of Te Puna Lot 16, which was mistakenly awarded to the county for rate arrears

in 1886. As Katherine Orr-Nimmo's report explains, the example of Te Puna Lot 16 is the

exception that proves the rule. The land was owned by Maori and under the jurisdiction of the

Native Land Court but was leased by a Pakeha, who was therefore liable for rates. After the

Pakeha lessee defaulted on his rate payments, the county took action in the Magistrates'

Court for judgement and then in the Supreme Court which awarded the block to the county as

compensation. The county took the block as the result of a clerical error, which had

mistakenly classed the block as European land. Some three decades later, the sale was

reversed and the land returned. 51

Twentieth Century Attempts at Reform

The Crown amended the rating legislation again with the Rating Acts Amendment Act 1893,

Rating Act 1894 and the Rating Act Amendment Act 1895. The new legislation offered little

more to local government than the gradual expansion of the categories of rateable Maori land.

The Rating Act 1893 extended the categories of Maori land to allow the charging of half­

rates on all Maori land with five miles of a public road. By 1900, Parliament still held to the

principle that Maori land was in a period of transition and that the full application of rates on

Maori land would be unjust and counterproductive.

At the same time local body opposition to the government's approach was growing, with

most counties and highway boards, including those in Tauranga, finding it impossible to

collect even half rates on the Maori land. Furthermore, Maori land was still not liable for

special rates levied to fund specific local projects. As a result, Tauranga County Council

became a prominent voice in the chorus of counties that lobbied central government for a

comprehensive rewrite of the rating legislation. Tauranga County and other North Island

county councils demanded that Maori land be rated on the same basis as general land. This

included the provision that Maori land should eventually be subject to prosecution and

ultimately forced sales. The views of Tauranga and the other affected counties found a

51 See Katherine Orr-Nimmo, 'A Matter of Bargain, Aspects of the History of Parish of Te Puna Lots 16 and 154', report

commissioned for the Waitangi Tribunal for Wai 707 and Wai 727 (Wai 215, C2), pp.36-37

23

sympathetic ear with William Herbert Herries, the MP for the Bay of Plenty, later to become

Minister of Lands and Native Affairs. In 1902, the county council resolved to make a direct

appeal to Herries for help. The Bay of Plenty Times records that the council:

Resolved that the whole matter be laid before Mr Herries and that he be asked to get a Bill

passed through Parliament to carry out the Council's wishes in the matter of collection of

Native rates. 52

As an opposition member, Herries introduced a Private Members Bill in August 1902.

Herries' Bill proposed to make all Maori landowners liable for full rates. Herries was

particularly opposed to the concept of half-rates on principle. Herries was recorded as stating:

Such a practice seemed to him to be altogether out of keeping with a democratic age. A

member of the Native race used the roads just as much as the pakeha did, and there was no

reason why he should not be charged the same rates.53

Herries' Bill would also have made Maori land within five miles of a public road liable for

special rates as well as the full general rate. No doubt reflecting the views of his constituents,

Herries believed that Maori were avoiding the full burden of proprietary citizenship while

enjoying its benefits, he argued:

[Settlers] see Maoris make use of roads and bridges built out of special loans, and yet they

are not liable in any way, and cannot be made liable ... 54

Herries' position did not go unchallenged. Tame Parata, member for Southern Maori, pointed

out that Maori lacked local government representation. In Parata's view, these services were

provided without any consultation or approval from Maori:

We have never yet had a Maori representative on a Road Board or County Council, or any

other local body, so that the Maoris have really no voice in the expression of their desire to

have the money collected from them in rates expended in any direction. 55

Herries' Bill would also have removed the process of making alienation applications for rates

out of the jurisdiction of the Native Land Court's 'cumbersome process'. Herries and his

supporters wanted the final say in the prosecution of Maori landowners for rates to rest with

the Magistrates Court, just as it would for general land. Throughout the debate, Herries

52 'Proceedings of County Council', BOP Times, 4 July 1902

53 Herries, NZPD, 20 August 1902, p.524

54 Herries, NZPD, 29 July 1903, p.74

55 Parata, NZPD, 29 July 1903, p.77

24

repeatedly stressed that his Bill did not increase the scope of Maori land that could be rated.

Berries believed that Maori land without title, which was more than five miles from a public

road, should still be exempt.

While Berries' Bill had some support within Parliament and strong support from local bodies,

the Liberal Government opposed it, and the Bill was shelved. James Carroll, the first Maori

Native Minister, stressed that the government's opposition to the Berries' Bill was due to

procedure rather than any opposition to its provisions. Carroll believed that it was too late in

the parliamentary session to give the proposed legislation the attention it required. Instead,

Carroll proposed the cautious reform of the rating law in the 1904 session.56

Just as Carroll had proposed, a full review of the rating law was undertaken during 1904. The

result of this review was the Native Land Rating Act 1904, which expanded the categories of

rateable Maori land. Under Section 2 of the Act, land made liable for full rates included the

classes of land covered by the 1882 Act:

• Land occupied by a Pakeha.

• Land previously paying full rates. 57

• Land within a borough or town.

• Land within 5 miles of a public road. Plus,

• Land within 10 miles of a borough or town.

Under Section 2(2) all other categories of Maori land were subject to the half-rate Berries

found so objectionable. In an attempt to get around the growing problem of land held in

multiple ownership, Section 7(2) of the 1904 Act introduced the concept of a 'nominated

Native occupier' who would be liable for the rates levied on the land. 58 While the Rating Act

1904 adopted the demands of counties to allow the sale of Maori land for rate arrears in

theory, the Liberals amended the Bill to make such recourse virtually impossible. Like the

legislation that would follow, Section 8 stipulated that Maori land could not be alienated for

rates without the direct authorisation of the Native Minister. As will be shown, the Native

Minister rarely gave this consent. Instead of outright alienation, the Native Minister would

increasingly use his discretionary powers to have the land leased rather than sold. Finding

56 Carroll, NZPD, 20 August 1902, p.526

57 Such as when previously leased by a European.

58 The Native Land Court determined the 'nominated occupier' on application by a local body and after representations from

owners.

25

farmers willing to lease Maori land proved to be extremely difficult. As a result a great deal

of Maori land lay idle with its owners not paying any rates. The Bay of Plenty Times

commented on the problem around Te Puke in 1906:

The tedious and expensive process of leasing Native land is slowly going on in the

neighbourhood. It is no doubt a great drawback to settlement that large areas of Native land

should remain unoccupied. The Native owners themselves are afraid to fence and till the land

in case the idle owner should step in and claim the reward of the industrious man, and

Europeans, owing to the multiplicity of owners scattered over the North Island, and expenses

connected with obtaining signatures, are loth to commence leasing. The more venturesome

ones who do, are in fear and trembling at the many difficulties and disappointments that

unexpectedly crop Up.59

The 1904 Act caused great anxiety among Maori in Tauranga. For Maori who received rate

demands, the operations of the Act seemed to lack both logic and justice. A delegation of

prominent Maori landowners addressed a meeting of the Tauranga County Council in 1908 to

protest at the way in which the Act was applied around the district. Hori Ngatai complained

that the Te Puke Roads Board had sent him a rate demand and had threatened to sue him for

non-payment, as Ngatai was the sole owner named on the valuation role. 60 Ngatai argued that

these lands should not be rated as he and not the roads board built the roads that serviced

them. 61 Similarly J. [Hohepa] Paama objected to receiving rate demands from the county

council for his lands on Matakana Island. Paama could not understand how his lands could be

rated when "the land was surrounded by sea [and] no roads could be made to this Island".

Ngatai also objected to being singled out for the rate demand. Just as he had in 1885, Ngatai

objected to being charged the full rates on land that was held in trust for his hapu. As long as

his name appeared on the Crown Grant and his interests were undivided from the others,

however, Ngatai was liable under the 1904 Act for all the rates on the block,62

The passing of the Native Land Rating Act 1904 effectively changed little for Tauranga

County Council. J.C. Adams, a Tauranga Borough Councillor and a future Mayor of

59 'Te Puke', BOP Times, 19 February 1906

60 Ngatai had made the same objection in a council meeting a year earlier, 'County Council', BOP Times, 5 April 1907

61 It was not uncommon for Pakeha to complain bitterly about the poor quality of county roads in their area. William Barnett

wrote a letter of protest to the County Council in 1909 stating: "The only person I know of in connection with the County

Council that takes any special interest in the Kaimai is the rate collector." 'A Gross Injustice', BOP Times, 22 October 1909

62 'Natives and Taxation', BOP Times, 7 February 1908. The delegation was recorded as being, Hori Ngatai (Whareroa), J.

Paama (Matakana), Tamati Tu, Titipa, Rahiri (Kaimai). David Asher acted as translator throughout the meeting.

26

Tauranga, summed up the settlers' view of the legislation when he complained that the 1904

Act was typical of "the foggy, indefinite character of the native [land] laws" in genera1.63

Over the next twenty years, Tauranga and other North Island counties would undertake a

sustained lobbying campaign against the Liberal government's rating policies. During a New

Zealand Counties Association (NZCA) conference in 1909, a number of county

representatives demanded that the government empower them to rate Maori landowners on

the same basis as Pakeha. As one delegate put it:

As the natives take full advantage of the metalled roads and absolutely refuse to pay any

rates we think the time has come when some united action should be taken by the counties

concerned to obtain such an amendment of the present law that it will make it absolutely

compulsory on natives to pay rates. 64

Delegates at the 1909 conference, believed that the Liberals were deaf to the Maori land

utilisation and rating problems facing local government. One delegate accused Native

Minister Carroll, champion of the Liberals' 'Taihoa' policy, of being "apathetic in all his

actions".65 The Liberal Ministry was also criticised for containing too many South Islanders

who were ignorant of the Native land problem and therefore reluctant to deal with it. 66 In the

coming years, North Island counties continued pushing the Maori land rating issue. Counties

saw the rating problem and the associated problems of underdeveloped and 'idle' Maori land,

noxious weeds and pests, as major threats to the successful operation of local government in

the regions. This was certainly true of Tauranga County, where lost rates on Maori land was

estimated by the Bay of Plenty Times as being between £700 and £800 annually, while losses

to the Te Puke Roads Board were around £200 and £300. 67 For the 1909 year, the county was

owed exactly £826 3s 3d in rates levied on Maori land.68 As a result the Bay of Plenty Times

complained that Pakeha settlers had to pay more than their share of the rate burden:

In no part of New Zealand does this apply more strongly than in the Tauranga county, where

many of the European's rates now amount to a small rental, because, so far as roads and

bridges are concerned, they are carrying the Maoris on their backs. It is a case of making

them shoulder the white man's burden whether they like it or not, and one of the greatest

63 J.C Adams, 'The Native Land Problem in New Zealand', The Review of Reviews, August 1909, p.569

64 Report of Conference on Rating of Native Lands, Hamilton 1909, p.l

65 Conference on Rating of Native Lands, 1909, p.6

66 'The Native Land Problem', BOP Times, 27 August 1909.

67 'Native Lands', BOP Times, 22 October 1909

68 'County Ratepayers Burden' , BOP Times, 10 January 1910

27

injustices being inflicted on any body of men in New Zealand is that now imposed on the

residents of this county.69

Despite its harsh and repeated attacks on Maori, the Bay of Plenty Times observed that the

central villain in the piece was Maori land law:

The Native land policy has been continuous in its efforts for twenty years and has distinctly

prevented progress in the districts affected: none more so than Tauranga county. The

conditions under which the Maoris hold their lands are utterly unsatisfactory because they

cannot sell, they cannot lease (except under difficult restrictions), and cannot effectively

occupy their own lands because they are in common or because they have little or no money

to carry out the necessary improvements to make their lands productive.70

Pakeha tempers continued to boil through 1909. By early 1910 the BOP Times' tone,

reflecting the frustration of settlers towards the rating regime and the Liberal Government's

perceived reluctance to open up Maori land for settlement, became more acrid:

The Ratepayers of this County have carried the Maoris on their backs quite long enough and

the position is now almost intolerable. It is the last straw that breaks the camel's back, and it

seems to us that the Maoris are getting dangerously near to breaking the patience of the long­

suffering ratepayers of this county, as the needs of the county render it imperative for more

revenue to be found. 7I

One result of this local body agitation was the passing of the Rating Amendment Act 1910.

Section 3 of the Act allowed for the rating of Maori land on the same basis as European land,

although this concession meant little as the 1910 Act retained the ministerial veto On the sale

of Maori land for rates. Apirana Ngata, standing in for James Carroll, explained to the House:

There is only one device which will entirely suit the local bodies - if any Government would

devise it, and if Parliament will agree to put it upon the Statute book - and that is to enable

with the least procedure possible the local body to obtain a judgement for rates and then sell

the lands through the Registrar of the Supreme Court. That could not, in the present position

of the bulk of the unsettled Native lands in the North, be advanced by the present

Government, nor can it, in my opinion, be advanced by any Government for many years to

come.72

69 'The Native Land Problem', BOP Times, 27 August 1909

70 'Native Lands', BOP Times, 22 October 1909

71 'County Ratepayers Burden', BOP Times. 10 January 1910

72 Ngata. NZPD, 8 November 1910, p.435

28

For the Liberal administration, so long as the essential problem of Maori land utilisation

remained unsolved, the rating problem would be approached cautiously. This approach

continued even after William Ferguson Massey's Reform Party won the 1912 election.

Reform was seen as being more favourable to the interests of farmers and landowners.

Expectations were certainly high in Tauranga, where the Bay of Plenty Times wrote:

It is generally admitted that Mr. W.H. Herries the Parliamentary representative of this

electorate is thoroughly acquainted with the Native rating question, and as his Party are now

very strongly represented in the House of Representatives, it is to be hoped that one of his

earliest efforts during the current year will be made in the direction of inducing the

Parliament of this country to bring in legislation that will enable all local bodies to collect

taxation from every acre of land held by Maoris. The ratepayers of the Tauranga county have

been staggering under the white man's burden for nearly the third of a century, and it is

about time that an emancipator came along and gave them an opportunity of compelling their

Maori brethren to shoulder a fair share of the load of taxation.73

The ratepayers of Tauranga County would, however, be disappointed. Further legislation in

1913 showed the Reform Government's approach was cautious and gradual like its

predecessor's. The failure of the rating regime to allow the effective levying of rates on

Maori land was bitterly resented by Pakeha. Following an increase in the county's general

rate and special rates, the Bay of Plenty Times complained in 1913:

[MJany farming properties owned by Europeans will have to bear a rate of between fourteen

and fifteen pence per acre during the current year, and yet Maoris holding land in the same

localities will escape without any payment whatever. Added to this the same farms will have

to contribute Road Board rates and again the Maori is permitted to escape.74

As it had before, the Bay of Plenty Times placed its faith in the MP for Tauranga W.H.

Herries to remedy the situation. Despite strong feelings in his home electorate Herries, now

the government's Native Minister and Minister of Lands, adhered to a cautious approach

when he argued the merits of making Maori land fully liable for rates. In a 1918 letter to

Internal Affairs Minister G.W. Russell, Herries wrote:

It would be contrary to the universal policy of all New Zealand Governments to allow Native

land to be sold for non-payment of rates or to be so charged with liens so as to destroy the

73 'Unpaid Rates on Native Lands', BOP Times, 12 January 1912

74 'Native Land Rates', BOP Times, 11 June 1913

29

equity of redemption, and thus render a Native landless without giving him a chance of

occupying the land and getting enough out of it to pay the rates.75

Herries believed that Maori land had to be fully individualised and developed before the full

burden of rates could be applied.

Summary

The development of New Zealand's rating regime, as it applied to Maori land, was both

cautious and gradual. Parliament accepted that while Maori should eventually pay rates on

the same basis as Pakeha, they could not be expected to pay full rates while their land was

still developing and moving towards the same ownership basis as general land. Despite this

cautious approach, both Maori and the majority of Pakeha ratepayers resented the rating

legislation. Maori saw rating as a potential threat to their landholdings, they also felt

aggrieved at the actions of the newly formed local bodies, who to them seemed

unrepresentative and unsympathetic to their needs. On the other side of the spectrum, local

bodies and settlers placed enormous pressure on government to allow the full application of

the rating law to Maori land. As a result of this pressure the legislation of the nineteenth

century should be viewed as a series of compromises between two incompatible positions. By

the turn of the century, however, the demands of local bodies for radical reform of the rating

law became increasingly vociferous.

75 Herries to G.W. Russell, 24 May 1918, MA 20/1/1, v.1, NA-W

30

SECTION B The 'Big Stick' - Maori Land Rating during the Inter-War Years

In the years following World War One, the Reform Government was under renewed pressure

to rewrite the rating laws as they affected Maori land. In the forefront of the campaign for

change was the Counties Association, which had renewed its pre-war call to make Maori as

well as Crown land liable for full rate charges.76 The Counties Association's campaign was

backed by strong Pakeha public opinion, which was very sympathetic to county demands. A

combination of factors strengthened popular Pakeha feeling, voiced most vigorously by the

main daily newspapers like the New Zealand Herald, Auckland Star and provincial papers

like the Bay of Plenty Times. The Bay of Plenty Times, for example, reported approvingly the

comments of the former chairman of the Hokianga County Council, A.c. Yarborough, during

his visit to Tauranga in August 1919:

With the additional responsibilities which the nation has to face as a result of the war,

[Yarborough] suggests that it is high time that an endeavour was made to focus Dominion

attention on one of the crying evils that prevail in certain parts of the country.77

Most farmers were eager to see rates reduced and local services improved. Farmers had

grown weary of the high taxation during the war years and sought to relieve this financial

pressure by spreading the rates burden out evenly over all landowners. During 1920 and

1921, farmers were also experiencing falling export income for their products. Many farmers

reacted to this slump by increasing stock production. The pressure on land use, intensified by

the government's post-war land settlement scheme for returned servicemen, soon had county

councils and farmers looking with interest at the large areas of idle Maori and Crown lands.78

Increased rural production during the early 1920s also placed increased pressure on councils

to build new roads to open up marginal lands. In Tauranga, the financial pressure on the

county was becoming acute as the council's inability to collect rates on the Maori land within

its boundaries cost it thousands of pounds. Like other North Island counties, rate arrears

forced Tauranga to charge higher rates on its rate-paying landowners and offer fewer

76 The issue of Maori land rating was exacerbated by the equally problematic failure of the Crown to pay rates on its lands.

77 'Dead Weight of Native Lands', BOP Times, 25 August 1919

78 For details of this period see R.M. Burdon, The New Dominion: A Social and Political History of New Zealand 1918-

1939, Wellington, 1965, pp.38-41, 55

31

services. Not surprisingly, Tauranga County played a prominent part in the rating campaign

that developed during the early 1920s.

The growing debate impacted on the popular perception of the Treaty of Waitangi. The

Auckland Star in 1921 argued that the rating problem threatened the process of national

settlement and development. The Star deplored how Maori non-payment burdened Pakeha

ratepayers to make up the shortfall and identified the Treaty as the source of the problem:

They do not realise that, in exempting the natives from paying rates, the Government,

although carrying out the intent of the Treaty of Waitangi, are asking not the people of the

Dominion, but a very small portion of them to pay for the Maoris being granted this

privilege.79

Table 2. - Tauranga County Council Native Rate Collection 1912-22 80

, Financial Struck Collected. ,Year .',.' £sd £.5 d

1912-13 £596' '.£31!,s6d 1913-14 £640. £3 o.s o.d 1914-15 £661 £4;0.$ 0.0 1915-16 £60.1 £8 1o.s o.d 1916-17 £697 £2 Os Od 1917-18 £488 £1 6s Od 1918~19 ' £547 NIL 1919-20. £560. NIL 1920.-21 £844 ' £2.10s·Od 1921-22 £915 NIL 1922-23 £1f71 £ios ad

Total £7720. £32 3s 6d

These figures starkly illustrate the difficulty Tauranga County Council had in collecting rates on Maori land before the passing of the Native Land Rating Act 1924 and the Rating Act 1925.

The New Zealand Herald published a dire warning in 1924 about impending regional

underdevelopment if local government was unable to rate Maori landowners effectively. For

the Herald, the issues of rating and local government finance were closely connected with the

problem of land utilisation, for which the answer was simple:

Native lands continue to act as a drag upon the progress of districts where the natural

difficulties of roading and finance are sufficiently great .... Where, however, there are areas

of native land which the owners cannot or will not utilise, where its idleness is a reproach

79 'Native Rates - Exempted Lands Burden Settlers', Auckland Star, 22 January 1921

80 'Tauranga County Council Native Rates' [1924], MA 31-4, Special File 138, NA-W

32

and its condition a menace, there is growing need for a policy departing from the traditional

'taihoa'Y

Like most critics of the rating law, the Herald wanted the government to throw off its

cautious approach. Likewise, the Counties Association's principal demand was for the

government to undertake a complete revision of the law to allow the full prosecution of

Maori landowners for rate arrears. The association also demanded an end to the ministerial

veto, so the threat of outright land alienation would compel Maori to pay their rates.

While the majority of the Maori land in the county had been alienated by the turn of the

century, there were still large tracts of land in Maori ownership that gave Tauranga County

Council good cause to back a law change. 82 The county representatives visited government

ministers on several occasions to highlight what they saw as the inequity of the present

system. One meeting took place in Te Puke during December 1924 where Councillor C. Lally

pointed out that Tauranga had lost the considerable sum of £1,100 in the previous year for

uncollected rates. Lally told the ministers:

European owners of lands having the largest areas in their district of native land surrounding

their properties had to pay rates quite out of proportion to their share because the Natives did

not pay. That should not be so and they looked to the Government to light the matter by

legislation.83

Despite these meetings, the Reform Government was simply unwilling to abandon its

cautious approach. While it appreciated the position of local government, it also recognised

that Maori land could not be rated on the same basis as general land. Following a 1923

meeting, Native Minister Gordon Coates advanced the view that the long-term solution to the

rating of Maori landowners lay with the progressive individualisation of title. He believed

that individualisation of title brought with it individual responsibility and ultimately

individual accountability. Only when Maori had been established as self-reliant farmers and

occupiers of their land, could they be expected to meet their share of rate charges. Until that

81 'Native Land problem', New Zealand Herald, 13 June 1924

82 Ten years earlier the BOP Times recorded the unimproved value of Maori land in Tauranga County as £317,000. 'Rates on

Native Lands', BOP Times, 1 June 1914

83 Minutes of deputation before Nosworthy & Bollard, 8 December 1924, MA 31, box 4, Special File 138, 31/4 'Rates on

Native Lands', NA-W

33

was achieved, Coates could only express his sympathies to councils advising them to 'grin

and bear it.'84

It is hard to gauge the position of Maori in Tauranga at this time, but one item perhaps

provides some insight. Following the 1923 deputation, the Bay of Plenty Times printed a

letter from Te Hirau Rea of Oropi. The letter poured scorn on the 'herd instinct' of the county

councils who advocated the Crown's compulsory acquisition of all 'idle' Maori land, an act

described as "a sentiment which is a great favourite with the extreme Socialists or

Bolshevists." The letter went on to echo the views espoused by Ngata that "not until our

lands are partitioned and parcelled up in titles like their pakeha neighbours shall they be

asked to pay tribute to the County Councils."85

Government Policy from 1924

The pressure placed on the Reform Government for a radical overhaul of the rating law had

some results in 1924, when Parliament passed the Native Land Rating Act 1924. The 1924

legislation was also a reaction to the findings of a committee appointed by Coates in the same

year to examine the problems being experienced by the Waiapu and Matakaoa Counties on

the East Coast. 86 Both counties, with a high proportion of Maori land within their boundaries,

were experiencing severe financial problems because of the rate collection problem. The

committee was made up of Judge Carr (Native Land Court), W.F. Metcalfe (Chairman of

Matakaoa County), Apirana Ngata (MF for Eastern Maori), and K.S. Williams (MF for Bay

of Plenty).87 Through its investigation, the committee decided that the rating problem could

ultimately not be settled until the question of Maori land utilisation was resolved. Gordon

Coates told Parliament:

The only solution of the Native rating problem must be bound up with the profitable

occupation of Native lands, or the exemption of lands found to be quite unsuitable for

settlement. 88

84 'Rating on Native Lands', BOP Times, 22 August 1923

85 Te Hirau Rea to Editor, BOP Times, 19 September 1923

86 'Rating of Native Lands', BOP Times, 11 February 1925

87 H.Carr, K.O. Williams, A.W. Kirk, A.T. Ngata, 'Outstanding Native Rates Waiapu County' report to J.G. Coates (Native

Minister), 23 July 1923, p.15, MA 1,20/1/52 'Rates on Native Lands in Waiapu and Matakona [sic] Counties', NA-W. Kirk

had replaced Metcalfe on the committee.

88 Coates, NZPD, 1 November 1924, p.1051

34

While the new Act accepted that Maori land was still in a period of transition, the new

legislation was significant in that in theory at least, it made all Maori land rateable on the

same basis as general land. In the following year, the Native Land Rating Act 1924 was

incorporated into and superseded by the Rating Act 1925. The Rating Act 1925 made the

following types of Maori land exempt from rates:

• Maori customary land. (Section 103)

• Urupa and cemeteries up to 5 acres. (Section 103)

• Marae and church grounds up to 5 acres. (Section 103)

• Maori land exempted by an Order in Council. (Section 104)

• Land where the Native Land Court remitted rates. (Section 108 (6))

• Land where the local authority remitted rates. (Section 113)89

For commentators of the period, the law changes appeared to give the counties everything

they asked for. Most significantly, Section 102 of the Rating Act 1925 stated that "Native

land shall be liable for rates in the same manner as if it were European land." In drafting the

law, however, government had to acknowledge that rate arrears on Maori land would need to

be dealt with separately from general land. The clause requiring ministerial approval for sales

was also retained.

Role of the Native Land Court

Under the new legislation, the Native Land Court was given jurisdiction over enforcing the

collection of rates on Maori land. Prior to this, local bodies had on occasion taken action

against named owners or nominated owners in the Magistrate's Court. 90 The majority of

Maori land, however, was multiply owned and no individual owner could effectively be

prosecuted. Under the previous legislation, local bodies could register a lien against the title

of the land in the Land Transfer Office. This system proved unworkable, however, as the

majority of Maori land was not registered in the Land Transfer Register. As title was still

with the N ati ve Land Court, these liens could not be registered. Under the new process, local

authorities could apply under Section 9 of the Rating Act 1925 to the Native Land Court for a

89 Counties were only able to remit rates in cases of 'serious hardship'.

90 These prosecutions tended to be messy and often counterproductive. The result, if the judgement remained unpaid, was

either imprisonment or the seizure of property. On one occasion, action was taken against Te Rawhiti, a rangatira from

Okaiawa in Taranaki. After the Hawera County Council secured a judgement for £150, which remained unpaid, the court

ordered that Te Rawhiti be imprisoned. The local constabulary declined to enforce the wanant and instead the court ordered

the seizure and sale of Te Rawhiti's cows. 'Native Rates Problem', BOP Times, 10 September 1924

35

rate charging order. 91 The Native Rating Committee of 1924 believed that as the Native Land

Court administered title to Maori land, the court was the best forum to engage Maori in the

development and effective rating of their land. The committee hoped that just the publicity

created by court proceedings for rates would prompt the landowners to seek a practical

resolution. In their report to the Native Minister they wrote:

It is thought that the pUblicity thereby given to the defaults will focus attention on the matter

of rates and cause movements among the owners affected leading to a settlement of the same

or to some arrangements for the use and disposal of the land as will relieve it of the

liability. 92

If the owners made no arrangements to pay the rates, the court would proceed and hear the

local body's application. After due inquiry the court could order rates to be charged against

the title of the block. Coates explained:

Broadly speaking, the proposals now before the House simply transfer the whole question [of

rates] over to the Native Land Court, and give the Court power to deal with each individual

case that comes before it. It may use rents for the purpose of paying rates; it may enter into

an arrangement in regard to arrears; and it has power to arrange with the local authority and

the Natives as to how much shall be paid.93

This broad and pragmatic approach gave the Native Land Court the ability to deal with

outstanding rates on a case by case basis. The court could also determine what land had little

or no productive value and should not be rated at all. In such cases, the court could

recommend that the land be exempted from rates altogether by an Order in Council.

Section 10 of the Native Land Rating Act 1924 and Section 109 of the Rating Act 1925, also

empowered the Native Land Court to vest the land in the hands of the Native Trustee for sale.

The sale of land, however, required the Native Minister's consent which in the words of W.J.

Broadfoot, Mayor of Te Kuiti, "is reluctantly, if ever, given."94 The government preferred that

the Native Land Court use Section 108(7) of the Act to lease the land rather than sell it. Some

91 The Supreme Court later ruled that counties could still prosecute individual owners named on the title (See Prosser v.

Makara County, 1942, NZLR, 284), but this method ofrate recovery could not be used on mUltiply-owned Maori land. lA.B.

O'Keefe, The Law a/Rating, Wellington, 1975, p.302

92 Carr, Williams, Kirk, Ngata, 'Outstanding Native Rates Waiapu County', 23 July 1923, p.15, MA 1, 2011152, NA-W

93 Coates, NZPD, 1 November 1924, p.1051

94 'Native Lands', BOP Times, 17 August 1927

36

thirty years later, Maori Land Court Chief Judge Ivor Prichard commented on how he

understood the function of the Act:

Before an order under Section 109 [sale] would be made and approved the Court and the

Minister would normally expect to be satisfied that there was no reasonable prospect of

collecting the rates by any of the other less drastic alternative remedies available.95

The few exceptions to the leasing policy was land lying idle within a borough that prevented

the natural development of the town, land with high valuations and therefore a corresponding

high annual rate charge, or land where the owners could not be traced. But these cases were

exceptions to the rule. 96

As the architect of the legislation, Gordon Coates believed the success of the new law was

dependent on the Native Land Court to come up with practical solutions to clear rate charges.

While alienation was available as a last resort, Coates favoured the leasing of land to clear

rate arrears. 97 Above all it was the threat of a forced sale which Coates hoped would compel

Maori landowners to make arrangements to clear the rates. In a ministerial memorandum,

probably written around October 1924, Coates repeated with approval the Native Rating

Committee's conclusion:

The risk of ultimately losing some of their lands should, however, be ever present as a spur

to the owners to arrange the occupation or disposal of their lands to meet the [rate]

obligation.98

For Coates, the long-term solution to the problem of rating of Maori land was fundamentally

tied to the question of land utilisation. In Coates' view the legislation would place pressure on

Maori to develop their land or see others placed on the land that could. In the Government's

schema, the threat of rates and the eventual possibility of land alienation, combined with a

programme of land development assistance, would provide the required motivation for Maori

to develop their land.

Coates' Parliamentary colleagues generally shared this View, although the new rating

legislation meant different things to different people. Apirana N gata, who was closely

associated with the passing of the legislation, believed that the problem of rates was directly

95 Judge Prichard, 're Rating Act 1925', 18 September 1958, MA 1, 20/1/1 v.7 'Rating of Native Lands General', NA-W

96 Judge Prichard, 're Rating Act 1925', 18 September 1958, MA 20/1/1 v.7, NA-W

97 It is worth noting that Coates had grown up on Maori leasehold land. Michael Bassett, Coates of Kaipara, Auckland, p.12

98 Gordon Coates, memorandum 'Native Land Rating Bill', [nd], MA 1, 20/1/1 v.l, pt.2, NA-W

37

related to the problem of Maori land use and management. Rather than seeing rating as just a

coercive mechanism to motivate land development, Ngata viewed the reform of rating laws

as part of a broader programme of modernising Maori land management. In Ngata's view his

programme of land settlement schemes combined with title consolidation were equally parts

of the government's strategy. Ultimately Ngata wanted to see the transformation of Maori

land, telling the House of Representatives in 1924:

From another standpoint, I maintain that Native Land rating is bound up with the settlement

of Native lands, and as fast as the Native lands get brought into settlement so fast can we get

this rating problem behind us. Until there exists not one acre of land Native-owned in New

Zealand there will be a Native Rating problem.99

Ngata also had a differing emphasis on the role of the Native Land Court. Ngata hoped that

the court would operate in a utilitarian and pedagogic manner, on the one hand guiding the

landowners towards the better utilisation of their land and encouraging more active land

development. On the other hand, Ngata hoped that the court would clear up once and for all

which lands were suitable for development and which lands were unusable and should be

made permanently non-rateable. In the same debate Ngata explained:

The new system that is being adopted, entailing the publicity of rate claims through the

investigations by the Native Land Court, will compel the Native communities to determine,

one way or the other, how their lands should be occupied and utilised, and at the same time it

will bring the local bodies and the Government face to face with the fact which is not

sufficiently recognised -- that a large area of so-called Native land in this country is land

which should not be liable for any rates at al1. 100

Rather than seeing rates as the main problem, N gata believed that the rating problem was

symptomatic of the wider problem of Maori land management. Back in 1923 when

confronted by a Counties Association deputation, N gata stated that Maori were prepared to

pay rates, but only if the government gave immediate and significant assistance to land

development. Ngata made the point that without such assistance councils would simply have

to write-off the rates as "they [can] not get blood out of a stone."101 For Ngata, the root cause

99 Ngata, NZPD, 1 November 1924, p.1057

100 Ngata, NZPD, 1 November 1924, p.1057

101 'Native Rates Losses by County Councils', Evening Post, 9 August 1923

38

of both the arrested development of Maori land and the inability of Maori to pay rates was

that Maori lacked capital, coupled with the system of multiple-ownership. 102

While supporting the same legislation, it is quite clear that Ngata's position differed from

those of his parliamentary colleagues. Referring to the same legislation Coates, placating

mainstream Pakeha opinion, placed his emphasis elsewhere:

The policy of the Government is that if Maoris want their land they must work it, pay rates,

and accept the responsibilities of citizenship. 103

On the basis of such a statement many thought the legislation provided the decisive reform

for which local government had long campaigned. The reality would, however, prove to be

quite different. Rather than being decisive, the new rating legislation placed tremendous

administrative pressure on the Native Land Court, the institution pivotal to the regime's

success. Local bodies felt betrayed by the Act and continued to press for Maori landowners to

be open to outright prosecution through the general courts.

Problems of Policy

While those who had drafted the rating legislation of 1924 and 1925 hoped that the threat of

alienation would spur land development, the causes of the rating problem were not yet

addressed. The government had hoped that the situation would progressively improve over

time as Maori land was developed and title individualised. However, the majority of under­

utilised or idle Maori land continued to attract rate arrears and only a few blocks were leased.

The government had no intention, however, of allowing the 1924-1925 legislation to be used

to allow the wholesale alienation of Maori land for the recovery of rate arrears. Rather, the

government still believed a transitional period was needed while Maori land was

progressively placed onto the same basis as general land. The government realised that if the

full provisions of the Rating Act 1925 were applied to Maori land, then within a short period

of time all remaining Maori land holdings could have been comprehensively alienated for

rate charges. Because of this, neither the Native Land Court nor the Native Minister allowed

the wholesale alienation of Maori land in the years following the 1925 legislation. In a 1927

letter to Colonel Allen Bell, MP for the Bay of Islands, Coates wrote of such a proposition:

102 'Native Rates', Board & Council, 12 October 1927. Board & Council was the journal of the NZCA.

103 'Native Lands Settlement & Rating', New Zealand Times, 31 July 1925

39

In regard to the proposal as to the wholesale vesting of native lands in either the Native

Trustee or the local bodies, and the compulsory sale of such lands for the payment of rates, I

still maintain that it would not only be unfair, but a calamity if I were to agree to force all

these native lands on to the market. 104

The ministerial veto served to ensure that Maori land was not automatically sold to meet rate

demands. In reply to yet another protest delegation in October 1927, Coates was adamant that

the removal of the veto would serve no useful purpose. For the government such 'precipitate

action' would not be in the interests of the country or Maori. Coates went on:

The Government was trying to work out a solution that would be fair to the Maori and would

at the same time see that gradually and definitely the Native race would have to take up

exactly the same burden as the pakeha, and as these difficulties disappeared, there would

come one law for both races. 105

The government still hoped that the Native Land Court could find interim measures such as

leasing, to ensure that Maori land could meet its rating obligations. The reluctance of the

Native Minister to allow either the outright alienation of Maori land or to compensate

counties for lost revenue served only to fuel local government frustration and consternation.

For their part, local body agitation increased with the new rating legislation. While

superficially the new rating laws appeared to have been a successful result of local

government's lobbying, county councils soon realised that the legislation was unable to

tackle the problem of Maori land rating in the decisive way they lobbied for. Rather than

being decisive, the 1924-25 legislation saw counties expending an increasing amount of

staffing and financial resources in what was regarded as a costly and bureaucratic exercise,

which ultimately failed to achieve the desired result.

Local bodies were especially critical of placing the enforcement of rate charges under the

jurisdiction of the Native Land Court. In a deputation to Prime Minister Coates in 1925

Robert King, Chairman of the Tauranga County Council, was highly critical of the new

Rating Act. King "objected to the provision that the final decision whether a native should

pay rates or not was left to a judge of the Native Land Court."106 Tauranga County, like most

104 Coates to Colonel Allen Bell published in, 'Burden of Unpaid Native Rates', BOP Times, 3 December 1927

IDS 'Rate Collection problem', The Dominion, 7 October 1927

106 'Native Lands Settlement & Rating', NZ Times, 31 July 1925

40

county councils, held the view that the process of rate recovery should be automatic, just as it

was for European land.

In general, most local government representatives had a poor view of the Native Land Court

process, with most distrusting the court's discretionary powers. Council staff also found the

land court process daunting and time consuming. In fact the administration of most local

bodies often did not even adequately understand the Native Land Court process or how the

rating law was applied to Maori land. Looking back over the first ten years of the operation of

the 1924-25 rating legislation, Native Land Court Chief Judge R.N. Jones stated:

The system introduced by the Act of 1924 was sparsely used by Rating Authorities and many

officers of these authorities did not even understand the object of the Act. l07

The cost of recovering rates through the Native Land Court deterred most local bodies from

taking action. Tauranga County Council complained bitterly in 1926 about the ten shillings it

cost to make each application to the court for a charging order. The county argued that such a

fee would cost the county £300 a year with no guarantee that the rate arrears or costs would

be recovered. l08 If the total costs of the charging order application, staff and administration

costs were added together, collection costs could reach as much as fifteen percent of the

original debt. 109 Worse yet, the county found that even if it succeeded in placing a charging

order on the title, there was no guarantee that the money could be recovered in the near or

medium future. The rate charges could only be recovered if the status of the land was

changed such as through sale, occupation, partition, lease or succession. In the case of many

blocks, however, the land lay so completely idle that the title was not altered or changed for

years, sometimes decades. This left the rate charging orders sitting on the title of the block,

often lying dormant and unpaid for years. 110 Anyone dealing with the land in the future would

have to pay to clear the charging order. The Mayor of Te Kuiti, W.J. Broadfoot, expressed

the frustration of most local bodies, telling a conference on Maori land rating in 1927:

107 Chief Judge R.N. Jones to Under Secretary (Native Department), 30 July 1936, MA 1,201111 v.2, NA-W

108 Te Puke Town Board to Native Minister, 1 February 1926, MA 1,2011/1, vI, NA-W. The board wrote in support of the

county's protest along with dozens of other local bodies around the country.

109 TCC minute book, 12 June 1942, WBDC

110 Most rate charging orders included the standard rate penalty component as well as recovery costs awarded to the local

authority. Once placed on the title the charge remained fixed over time.

41

So intricate, cumbersome, and expensive was the machinery for collecting native rates that

local bodies wrote most of them off. III

In Tauranga there were limits to the extent to which rate arrears could be written off year

after year. The new rating regime had done nothing to improve rate collection on Maori land

in Tauranga. The county found the rate charging order system to be time consuming with an

extremely poor rate of return. Tauranga County complained in 1927 to the government that it

was owed five years of rate arrears on Maori land totalling the handsome sum of £6470. 112

For the 1927 financial year alone, Tauranga lost almost £1200 in revenue.l13 Most

significantly, Tauranga County told the government that no improvement was expected in the

near or medium future. In the face of these losses, county councils decided to focus their

efforts on lobbying the government for change, rather than trying to make the new legislation

work. 114 In yet another protest delegation to Wellington, which included Tauranga County,

W.F. Broadfoot told Coates where he thought the blame lay: "as these difficulties and losses

are the creatures of statute, they should be obviated or assumed by the State."115

Table 3. Tauranga County Council Native Rate Collection 1923-33 116

Financial Year

, 1.923-24 1924-25

i 1.925~~6";' 1926-27 1927-28 1928-29 1929-30 1930-31 1931-32 1932-33

Total

Struck £.sd £1364 £1237 £1350 £1494 £1193 £1737 £1507 £1519

.£167.9 £1680

£14760

Collected £sd

£17 £8

£1.4 NIL NIL!': NIL £1 £7

£12 £6

'£65

Total Recovered b March 1933

£47 16s 4d £9 4s 5d £8 9s 7d

£25 7s Od . £29 1'Ss8d: £35 13s 1d

. £1.~3s ,3d: £25 10s 2d

'£16.19sAd NIL

£21216s4d

These figures illustrate the continued problems Tauranga County Council had collecting rates on Maori land in the period following the passing of the Rating Act 1925. While about £1400 in rates was charged on Maori land annually, little if anything was actually collected. The column on the far right represents the amount recovered from 1923 to March 1933 through rate charging orders.

III 'Native Rates Problem', Board & Council, 31 August 1927

112 'Native Rates Problem', NZ Herald, 26 August 1927

113 Minutes of deputation to PM, 6 October 1927, MA 1 20/1/14, pt.6, NA-W; 'Native Rates', BOP Times, 13 October 1927

114 There was a steady stream of deputations to Coates in the years following the 1925 Act.

115 'Deputation to PM', 6 October 1927, MA-l, 20/1/14 pt.6, NA-W; 'Native Rates', BOP Times, 15 December 1927

116 H. Lewis (County Clerk TCC) to Secretary Native Affairs, 15 July 1933, MA 1-408,20/1/14 v,l, NA-W

42

In response to these criticisms, the government argued that the new rating law required time

before it functioned properly. Prime Minister Coates also suggested that the Act could be

amended and shaped as time went on so that eventually the law would function properly.

Coates told one protest delegation from Uawa County:

[The Rating Act] would be watched very carefully and if it was not perfect then it would not

take very long to make it perfect, or rather, to carry out the intention of the Act. l17

While the protesting voice of local government is most noticeable during this period, the

administrative consequences of the new law were also significant for Maori. Under the

legislation, the Native Land Court kept issuing more and more rate charging orders against

the title of more and more blocks of Maori land. Rather than sort out the status of Maori land

once and for all, the rate charging system further added to the congestion of the Native Land

Court. Rather than acting as a decisive agent of rate recovery, the Native Land Court process

became clogged up with a mass of rate-charging orders that were an encumbrance on the title,

remaining inactive until the status or ownership of the land was altered. 118 The glut of

charging orders attached to land titles also, ironically, had the effect of creating a new

obstacle to Maori land development. Many owners were reluctant to make applications to the

court to lease, occupy, partition or succeed to blocks in fear that they would have to clear the

rate charging order out of their own pockets.

The problem of rate charging orders 'clogging up' land titles was so great that Maori Land

Court judges became quite creative in handling the problem. Judge Prichard, who dealt with a

multitude of applications for rate charging orders from Tauranga County Council, viewed the

topic as an extremely serious one as "rate charging orders are not a trivial matter but a serious

title clog."119 In trying to minimise the problem, Judge Prichard took a pragmatic approach:

I am afraid that I do not always comply with the law under the Rating Act but rather do what

is best to make the land occupied and developed and prevent charging orders clogging the

title. 120

117 'Uawa County Council: Deputation at Tolaga Bay to PM', 17 February 1926, MA 1,20/1/1, v.l, NA-W

118 The charge would lapse after 12 years ifno attempt was made to recover the debt.

119 Judge Prichard to Chief Judge MLC, 21 May 1959, MA 1,20/1/1 v.7, NA-W

120 Judge Prichard, memorandum 're Rating Act 1925', 18 September 1958, MA 1, 20/1/1 v.7 'Rating of Native Lands

General', NA-W. The MLC' s 'pragmatic approach' is covered in Sections C & D.

43

Administrative Problem of Multiple Ownership

The most serious administrative problem facing the implementation of the new rating law

was the system of multiple ownership of Maori land. Government was acutely aware of the

difficulties multiple ownership presented. Wellington's Evening Post reported Gordon Coates

telling protesting county councils in 1923:

In regard to communal lands where hundreds of Maori were interested, he thought the county

councils would simply have to grin and bear the loss of rates. 121

With the passing of the Native Land Rating Act 1924, Coates took a more optimistic view as

the rates were charged against the land and not the owners. When introducing the new

legislation, Coates hoped that the new legislation would actually help resolve the problem of

multiple ownership. Coates told Parliament:

The conversion of such titles into titles more acceptable by Pakeha canons of land-holding is

another story, although the pressure of rates liabilities may be used to hasten the process.J22

Rather than helping the situation, the charging of rates on multiply owned land soon turned

out to be an administrative headache that most counties were simply unable to bear. In trying

to asses and levy Maori land with multiple owners for rates, local bodies were incurring

significant administrative costs. The Valuation roll provided few details as to whom the rate

assessment notice should be sent. When faced with this lack of information most local bodies,

including Tauranga County, simply posted the rate assessments to 'Native owners', care of

the Department of Maori Affairs. It was not uncommon for regional offices of Maori Affairs

to receive a large quantity of rate demands each year from local councils. 123

The rating rolls did on occasion name one or two part owners, but all the other owners were

listed as 'others' (which sometimes numbered in the hundreds). The part owners named on

the title were not necessarily the nominated owners or legal occupiers or even users of the

land. Most part owners named on the rating roll deeply resented being approached year after

year for rates on land for which they only held a portion of the shares. In the absence of co­

operation from other owners or a structure in place to administer the land, most of these

121 'Native Rates Losses by County Councils', Evening Post, 9 August 1923

122 Coates, NZPD, 1 November 1924, p.1053

123 As recently as 1986 Tauranga County was sending rate demands to 'Maori Owners', clo Maori Affairs. Minutes of

meeting between TCe and Registrar MLC (Ham), 12 August 1986, ABJZ 869, w4644, 2011/64 pt.l 'Rating Tauranga

County', NA-W

44

assessments were returned 'unclaimed'. At one Tauranga County Council meeting in 1945 it

was reported by the county clerk that, "several [rate demands] had been opened and carried

about in dirty pockets and hands and then returned as unclaimed."124 The county rating roll

also tended to be out of date. In some cases the named owner or nominal occupier named on

the rating roll had been deceased for some time. It was not uncommon for rate demands to be

posted out to owners who were deceased. The Maori Land Court was astonished to hear

during a Tauranga sitting in 1955, that one part owner sent the county's rate demand had died

over 30 years earlier. 125

The rating roll problem stemmed from the fact that local bodies based their rating rolls on the

valuation rolls supplied to them by the Valuation Department. The records held by the

Valuation Department were in tum supplied by the Maori Land Court. To say the least, the

valuation rolls were poorly equipped to handle the demands of multiple ownership. In

general, communication between the Valuation Department, the Maori Land Court and local

bodies was insufficient to bridge this information gap. Even when these bodies

communicated, the Native Land Court struggled to keep accurate records on land ownership.

The roll problem would be a serious concern for Tauranga County for decades.

Reactions to the 1924-25 Legislation

Throughout the rating debate, the views of local government took centre stage. In the face of

an increasingly unsympathetic Pakeha public mood on the question, Maori reacted with alarm

at the growing local body agitation to allow the sale of Maori land for rates. Matters came to

a head during one hui called by the Te Kuiti Borough Council in the King Country during

1927. The hui is interesting because of the frank exchange of views and the breadth of the

discussion. Several Maori attended the meeting, as well as a number of Pakeha who took a

different view from those of the gathered local body representatives. Native Land Court

Judge C.B. MacCormick was also present.

Following a number of passionate speeches advocating a radical overhaul of the rating

system in favour of local bodies, several voices spoke in favour of a more cautious approach.

M.C. Burgess felt it was unfair to expect Maori landowners to pay the same rates as

Europeans. Burgess argued that because Maori were generally unable to obtain finance to

124 'Payment of Native Rates', BOP Times, 28 September 1945

125 Tauranga Maori Land Court minute book, v.19, 17 November 1955, f.116

45

develop their lands, they could not be rated on the same basis as Europeans. Burgess finished

by emphasising the poor economic position of Maori with the rather unflattering statement

that the "Maori is in the gutter - don't push him down further."

Gabriel Elliott, a well-respected Pakeha farmer on land at Pio Pio and a native agent, decried

the rating regime and the new legislation that allowed the vesting of Maori land for lease and

even sale for unpaid rates. In Elliott's words:

The word 'Dominion' in the Treaty ofWaitangi. .. gave the Maori absolute dominion over his

own lands, and no suggestion of confiscation [for rates] would be tolerable. 126

Peter Barton (Tuwhakaririka Potatau) a respected rangatira of Ngati Maniapoto, also opposed

the rating regime. Echoing the arguments made in Parliament during the nineteenth century,

Barton believed that rates had already been paid in advance by Maori through the low prices

the Crown had paid for land. Barton developed his argument further by highlighting the irony

of local bodies charging Maori landowners for the control of noxious pests and weeds by

asking whom it was "who brought the blackberries and rabbits to New Zealand?,,127

Despite the fears expressed by many Maori, the Government did not allow the full

prosecution and wholesale alienation of Maori land for rates. Looldng back in 1936, W.J.

Broadfoot, by then the MP for Waitomo, complained that over the previous decade the Native

Minister used his veto to stop the sale of Maori land for rates in 999 out of 1000 cases. 128 The

Government's position was partly the result of work by Apirana Ngata to resist what he saw

as "an onslaught from local bodies." Ngata argued that Maori could not possibly be asked to

pay rates on the same basis as Pakeha because the Government:

(1) had not provided a penny of state money towards assisting Maori farmers - who had only

their own money administrated by the Native Trustee and the [Maori Land] Boards to assist

them; (2) [the Government] had failed with the Native Land Court & Boards as at present

administered to modernise Native land titles and align them with the needs of today; and (3)

its education system as applied to Maoris was out of date. The local bodies were asking for

their pound of flesh on the theoretical basis of racial equality, whereas in practice the Maori

was not regarded or treated as an equal and in the road services for which the unpaid rates

were demanded large areas of Native lands were shamefully treated. Charging orders had

126 'Native Rates Problem', Board & Council, 31 August 1927

127 Board & Council, 31 August 1927, p.13

128 Broadfoot, 'Deputation to the P.M.', 17 March 1936, MA 1,201111 v.2, NA-W

46

been obtained against poor lands quite unfit for settlement, because the pakeha had picked

the eyes out of the country, leaving much of the rubbish, which should be in the hands of the

Crown & therefore not rateable, in Maori hands. 129

During 1928 through to 1930 Ngata used his personal influence to forge a number of

agreements with county councils to tackle the mounting debt problem caused by rate arrears.

In return for wiping debts on Maori land, Ngata gave the counties involved an assurance that

Maori land in their district would be developed and the titles investigated. The Crown would

also purchase marginal lands, thereby taking them off the valuation roll and reducing the

administrative burden of the counties. Ngata's deals with a number of the North Island's

counties, principally in the far North, Waikato-King Country and the Eastern Bay of Plenty,

also included a lump sum payment from the Crown as settlement for the rates owing. These

payments, taken from the Native Land Settlement Account, were usually only a third of the

total owing but Ngata "bank[ed] on the fact that these Counties are hard up & willing to

accept hard cash."130

Rating & the 1930s Economic Slump

With the onset of the 1930s economic crisis, the rating debate reached a new vigour. In 1930,

the price of New Zealand's three most important exports (butter, wool and lamb) slumped

dramatically on the London market. This economic shock soon pushed a third of New

Zealand's farmers towards bankruptcy and ruin. A further third of farmers were barely

struggling to stay on the land. 131 Apart from defaulting on their mortgages many of these

landowners were struggling to pay their rate assessments. In the wake of the crisis, farmers

were soon placing enormous pressure on the government for economic and financial relief.

Among their many demands was the renewed call for the rating burden to be spread more

evenly among all landowners, specifically Maori and the Crown. In the increasingly harsh

polemics of the early 1930s, the Pakeha farming population increasingly saw Maori as being

privileged and unfairly protected by government policy and the Treaty of Waitangi.

129 Ngata to Peter Buck, 9 February 1928, reproduced in M.P.K. Sonenson (ed.), Na To Hoa Aroha - From Your Dear

Friend: The correspondence between Sir Apirana Ngata and Sir Peter Buck, Auckland, 1987, v.1 p.66

130 Ngata to Buck, 24 March 1928, reproduced in Sorrenson (ed.), Na To Hoa Aroha, v.1 p.81. For some unknown reason

Tauranga was not included in Ngata's programme.

131 Coates conceded in 1931 that "30 percent of our farmers are virtually bankrupt, another 30 percent are solvent, and the

remaining 40 percent are in a decidedly shaky position." O. Fraser, Ungrateful People, Whatamongo Bay, 1985 [1952], p.15

47

Frustration was certainly high in the Bay of Plenty region as the effects of economic crisis

caused widespread hardship. At the end of August 1931 K.S. Williams, MP for the Bay of

Plenty, called for the establishment of a commission to investigate Maori land rating:

I do not think that anyone wishes to stir up strife between the Native race and the European

race, but the question of the non-payment of rates on Native land has become a burning

question in many counties, and one that leads to anything but good feelings between the two

races. The feeling is probably more on the side of the pakeha who pays his rates than on the

side of the Maori who does not.

In regard to the situation in the eastern Bay of Plenty Williams continued:

There are many counties in my electorate which are very seriously affected by this difficulty

of the non-payment of Native rates, and as a result a heavy burden is thrown upon the

European ratepayer who pays his rates, because a very much higher rate has to be struck on

account of the inability in some cases and the disinclination in other instances of the Natives

to meet their obligations. 132

As the economic crisis deepened, pressure on the government increased. The Tauranga

Chamber of Commerce, for example, appealed directly to Prime Minister George Forbes for

action to allow the full prosecution of Maori land for rates:

There is a large Native population in this district, and no doubt you are aware this is a

burning question, for it is obvious that it is not fair to the ratepayers that they should provide

roads and other amenities while a large section of property holders get off, therefore my

chamber thinks the time has come when all should be placed on the same footing. 133

The government was also becoming concerned at the serious financial situation of several

local bodies. By the start of 1933, the Thames Borough Council, Thames Harbour Board, and

Matakaoa County Council had all defaulted on loan repayments causing the government to

appoint commissioners to take over management of the bodies.134 Even the larger Wairoa

County defaulted on its loans, but was able to recover its position before the government was

132 Williams, NZPD, 12 August 1931, p.204

133 B.C. Robbins (Secretary Tauranga Chamber of Commerce), to G.W. Forbes, 6 October 1932, MA 1, 20/1/1 v.1, NA-W

134 The Matakaoa affair caused one anti-government paper to argue that Maori had been used as a scapegoat on the rating

issue. The paper placed the blame for the collapse of local body finance on the county's massive debt burden. The paper

argued that instead of blaming Maori for the problem, the Jewish bondholders in London were to blame. 'We apologise to

our Maori friends for this civilisation.' New Zealand Plain Talk, October 1932

48

forced to intervene. 135 In all these cases, the non-payment of rates on Maori and also Crown

land was a significant factor in these financial difficulties.

Plate 2. 'FORTUNE'S FAVOURITE'

New Zealand Herald, 21 June 1933

While a Maori reads with delight about the progress of the Native Land Rating Committee, Pakeha farmers queue to pay their rates. This cartoon by Trevor Lloyd was published at the height of the economic depression when the rating committee was touring the North Island hearing local body grievances.

During the first half of 1933, Pakeha protest over the rating problem reached a new level of

agitation. While the dominant voice in the debate belonged to the Counties Association,

Maori did try to offer their own perspective. Tau Henare (MP for Northern Maori), reacted to

this increasingly harsh criticism in April 1933 by expressing the frustration many Maori

experienced at the rating regime. Rather than occupying a privileged position, Henare argued

that Maori were still economically far behind Pakeha. In his opinion it was essential for

Maori to be on the same economic footing as Pakeha before they could realistically be asked

to pay their full share of rates. 136 In Henare's opinion, without the financial means to develop

135 Malcolm Fraser (Under Secretary Internal Affairs) 'Annual Report to Minister of Internal Affairs', A1HR, 1933, H-22, p.3

136 'Native Rates', Board & Council, 5 April 1933

49

and utilise their lands, Maori could not possibly be subjected to a rating regime intended for

commercial landowners who had clear title and access to capital.

While the bulk of popular opinion had been swept along by the depression crisis, some

recognised the complexity of the issue. E.H. Schnackenberg, editor of the King Country

Kawhia Settler, wrote in his editorial of 23 June 1933 that rating undeveloped Maori land on

the same basis as European was simply unfair and against the principles of the Treaty of

Waitangi. Schnackenberg also expressed his alarm at the growing mood of the general public:

Twenty years ago we went to war to preserve the sanctity of a treaty yet today we have

blatant demagogues who openly advocate seizing native lands to liquidate arrears of rates. 137

The embattled Coalition Government responded to the growing agitation and the financial

problems of North Island local bodies, by appointing a commission of inquiry to examine the

rating problem. 138 Alexander Donald McLeod M.P., Robert Noble Jones and John Henry Reid

were appointed to the commission and travelled around the North Island hearing from

aggrieved county councils. Unlike previous inquiries, the commission did not contain a Maori

member; neither does it appear to have heard submissions from Maori. The commission

visited Tauranga at the end of May 1933 where S.H. MacDougall, the county chairman, told

them that Maori in the district were not paying their share of rates or the hospital levy.

Interestingly, MacDougall also told the commission that many Pakeha, who leased Maori

land through informal leases, were also not meeting their rating obligations. MacDougall

complained that Maori were malting use of the region's roads and bridges, but due to what he

perceived as their privileged status, were not paying their share of the rates:

I used to think at one time that under the Treaty ofWaitangi the Maoris should live under the

same law as we do. At the same time there is a class privilege among the Maoris. They enjoy

our roads; they go to our hospital. 139

A.H. Benham, the county engineer, followed this up by complaining that multiple ownership

was the main handicap in trying to identify landowners and collecting rates from them. With

inaccurate records, the county had trouble identifying and locating most of the owners who

had a current interest in the land. To illustrate his frustration, Benham told the committee that

137 Schnackenberg suggested a levy on petrol might be a more practical and fairer way of paying for county roads. Editorial,

Kawhia Settler, 23 June 1933

138 'Native Rating Committee to Inquire', The Dominion, 7 April 1933

139 S.H. MacDougall, 'Minutes of Tauranga meeting', 30 May 1933, MA 2011114 pt.1 'Native Land Rates', NA-W

50

when the county wanted to purchase pine from a block of Maori land, only then did the

owners make themselves known to county administration:

There were twenty-seven owners in it when we tried to collect the rates, but when they

wanted payment for the pines we found out whose land it was. 140

In its report the 1933 rating committee expressed strong sympathy for the plight of counties:

The collection of Native rates has always been a more or less difficult matter, but in recent

years with many local authorities it appears that the collecting of an appreciable amount of

Native rates has been an impossibility. This charging-order system against land has

hopelessly broken down. Quick and liquid finance is a pressing necessity with most local

authorities, particularly those having a large percentage of rateable Native land. Even if

timely finance was not a pressing necessity, the ultimate result of carrying the system of

charging-order against land into full effect, must be the entire dispossessment of Natives of

their lands. 141

The committee recognised, however, that the government was simply not in a position to

allow the wholesale alienation of Maori land to pay rate arrears. Instead of recommending

that the Rating Act 1925 be amended to allow the strict application of rate charges to Maori

land, the commission suggested a compromise with Maori only paying half of the general

rate. For Maori land in production, the committee suggested a levy could be collected on all

the agricultural produce coming off the land. Despite the commission's work, the Coalition

Government made no significant changes to its policy. 142

North Island counties reacted to the committee's report with frustration and a deepening

sense of pessimism. Board & Council, journal of the Counties Association, complained

bitterly that the rating law was toothless and that the Native Land Court process simply did

not work. In short, counties believed that there was "virtually no redress against

defaulters."143 To highlight their sense of injustice, the Counties Association chose Waitangi

Day in 1934 to protest the Government's decision not to allow the full prosecution of rate

charges against Maori land. The Counties Association repeated its demand for the

140 A.H. Benham, 'Tauranga meeting', 30 May 1933, MA 2011114, NA-W

141 Alexander Donald McLeod M.P., Robert Noble Jones, John Henry Reid, 'Report of Committee on the Rating of Native

Land', 29 September 1933, AIHR, 1933,0-11, p.3

142 Section 23 of the Native Purposes Act 1933, did extend the period of time by a year in which counties could recover

unpaid rates for the 1932-33 financial year.

143 'Unpaid Native Rates', Board & Council, 29 November 1933

51

government to allow the alienation of Maori land to pay rates. The association restated its

view that the rating of Maori land was a critical problem that "has become a menace to the

finances of many county councils."144 Certainly the problem was so extreme in Tauranga that

towards the end of 1934, the council sought legal advice on whether it could attempt the full

prosecution of Maori landowners under the Rating Act 1925. In the opinion of the county

solicitors, however, "it is clear that native lands cannot be sold under the provisions of the

Rating Act, whether the titles have been individualised or not."145

Despite the constant flow of protests and petitions, there was no decisive change In

government policy. The Coalition government was simply unwilling to allow the sale of

Maori land for rate arrears until Maori had been given a chance to develop their lands and

acquire individual title. In October 1935, Prime Minister Forbes tried to explain the

government's difficult position to a somewhat unsympathetic Whakatane County Clerk:

I realise the difficulties under which local bodies having Native lands in their districts are

labouring. At the same time I also realise the difficulties with which the Natives are faced by

reason of communal ownership, lack of proper titles as securities and the consequent

difficulty of obtaining loans on such titles for the purpose of making such lands revenue

producing and capable of paying rates. 146

Five weeks later Labour swept the Coalition government from office. Labour's approach,

however, was not significantly different from its predecessor. This was despite the fact that

the issue was as lively as ever. Frank Langstone, the acting Native Minister, wrote in 1937:

The question of native rates, or, rather, the non-payment of native rates, is a burning question

so far as several local governing authorities in the North Island are concerned, and it is bound

to become a very live political issue, as it adversely affects local body finance. 147

Despite the continued pressure of county councils, Labour too was unwilling to allow a

change in policy and allow the sale of Maori land for rates. Instead the new government was

confident that the Native Land Court could deal with the rating problem on a case by case

basis. The government hoped the court could settle local body rate demands by coming up

with 'down to earth' solutions by bringing Maori land into production. So confident was the

144 'A Waitangi Request', Board & Council, 7 February 1934

145 Tauranga County Council minute book, 9 November 1934, WBDC

146 G.W. Forbes to County Clerk (Whakatane County Council), 18 October 1935, MA 1,20/1/1 v.2, NA-W

147 Frank Langstone to Peter Fraser, 14 May 1937, MA 1,20/1/14 pt.6, 'Native Land Rates Commission 1933', NA-W

52

new government in the ability of the Native Land Court to facilitate rate collection that

Langstone believed that the court's role should be taken one step further:

The Native Land Court should be made to act as a receiver, in cases where default over a

certain amount or period is made. This would place the court in a dual position: first, it

would act in the direction of preserving the interests of the natives: second, it would act for

the local authority as receiver against the natives. 148

While the court was encouraged to find ways in which arrears could be paid, the government

was adamant that in general land could not be sold for rates. Langstone went on to restate

what had been government policy for over a decade, that the government should resist the

outright alienation of land for rates. Langstone preferred to see the court use its discretionary

powers to find other more practical solutions like placing land in receivership:

In no case should native land be allowed to be sold for non-payment of rates: rather, the

receiver should act as manager-in-charge, and conduct farming operations so that rates could

and would be paid from the income. 149

The government's policy was restated more explicitly two years later by the Board of Native

Affairs in its annual report. The chairman of the board, Prime Minister and Native Minister

Michael Joseph Savage, wrote:

It is hoped that one important result of facilitating the settlement of Native land will be the

gradual solution of the vexed problem of local rating. Believing that it is neither equitable

nor just to the Maori race that its birthright should be whittled away through non-payment of

rates on areas which in the past have lain idle, the Government is reluctant to agree to the

enforcement of rating charges by sale until such time as the particular Native has had a

reasonable chance of obtaining from his land the necessary revenue to meet living-expenses,

farm maintenance, and interest and rates - or, in other words, until he has had the opportunity

of using his land to good advantage through the provision of financial assistance and expert

farming guidance. 150

Needless to say this approach found little support from local bodies. Most counties saw the

government's policy as placing Maori landowners in a privileged position out of some

misplaced sense of Treaty obligation. This view was expressed by the administration of

Tauranga County Council during the late 1930s. Tauranga County Clerk Hyman Lewis,

148 Langstone to Fraser, 14 May 1937, MA 1, 2011114 pt.6, NA-W

149 Langstone to Fraser, 14 May 1937, MA 1,2011114 pt.6, NA-W

150 M.J. Savage, 'General Report - Board of Native Affairs', AIHR, 1939, G-lO, p.4

53

wrote to the Cook County Council in 1938 expressing his frustration at the council's inability

to collect rates on Maori land. Emphasising the enormous administrative headache the rating

of Maori land represented, Lewis stated with some exasperation that "my file on the subject is

a most voluminous one." In an attempt to recover rates on Maori land, Lewis had even

approached local dairy factories to get an indication from them as to what Maori farmers

were receiving in returns from the milk they produced. Despite this information, Lewis

complained that even then he could not recover the rates, and that all the expenditure

involved in trying to recover them just became another cost to the county. In Lewis' opinion,

the root cause of the rating problem was the rating law and the government's lenient policy

towards Maori land, as "with the Treaty of Waitangi as the 'big stick' I cannot conceive a

way out of the unsatisfactory position that obtains."151

By the late 1930s, it was clear that the government would not allow decisive action to recover

rates on Maori land. In this period, the tone of some of those who had lobbied for a change in

the legislation shifted toward asking the Crown to compensate local bodies for their losses. In

1939, for example, the renowned intellectual A.R.D. Fairburn wrote to the government

asking for relief on behalf of the large and active Aucldand Farmer's Union:

My executive is in full sympathy with the Government's policy of trying to provide for an

assured and stable future for the Maori race. It appreciates very greatly the work the

Government has done in the way of laying an economic foundation for the full citizenship of

the Maori. My executive takes the view, however, that whilst it is in the national interest that

a liberal policy should be adopted towards the Natives until such time as they are assimilated

into the economy of the country, it is unfair that one section of the community should be

compelled, through the accidental circumstance of living in areas with a large Native

popUlation, to bear a disproportionate part of the cost of the policy of Native establishment.

National responsibility should, we contend, be dealt with on a national basis ... 152

The Farmer's Union believed counties should be compensated out of general taxation for lost

rates on Maori land. This would, in Fairburn's view, alleviate the financial burden on farmers

in areas where the proportion of Maori land was high. The government would not, however,

consider compensation as it believed that local bodies were perfectly capable of enforcing

rate charges under the existing legislation, by placing the land into the hands of a receiver.

151 'The Big Stick', Poverty Bay Herald, 20 July 1938. Unfortunately Lewis' 'voluminous' file has not survived.

152 A.R.D. Fairburn (Secretary Auckland Farmer's Union) to Native Minister, 26 September 1939, MA 1,20/111 vA, NA-W

54

Judge Harvey of the Waiariki Native Land Court shared the government's view and pointed

to the example of Whakatane County. In the late 1930s, Whakatane had significantly

improved its rate collection on Maori land through a labour intensive use of the rate charging

order system, receivership leases, direct discussions and hui with Maori landowners, and by

exempting lands which were unproductive. 153 The Native Department's annual report on the

Native Land Court's activities in Waiariki during 1940 stated:

During the past year it is felt that a useful advance has been made towards a solution of the

rating problem in one county at least, but it is felt that there is no reason why the same result

cannot be attained in other local counties. 154

Whakatane's success was based on the close co-operation between the county administration

and the Native Land Court. The use of rate charging orders, followed-up by receivership

applications, were key to this success. In this period, Whakatane County made 1400

applications for charging orders, many of which were dismissed and others followed up with

applications for the appointment of a receiver. For the process to work, Harvey argued, the

two steps of charging order and receivership had to be taken together as "otherwise the

charge is merely a gun without any cartridges."155 Without the role of the receiver, the rate

charges would merely lie dormant on the title until the status of the land was changed.

While rate collection using the charging order process was possible, it was neither easy nor

automatic. In many cases Maori strongly opposed the occupation of their lands by outsiders.

In Matamata County, for example, Maori were vociferous in their opposition to the leasing of

their lands to Pakeha farmers as after the rate arrears had been paid there was nothing left of

the rental to distribute to the owners. 156 To function effectively the rate charging system also

required the local body to have a good working knowledge of the Native Land Court process

and be willing to take matters through to a conclusion. The receiver had to find a willing

lessee, a lease drawn up and the covenants of the lease enforced over the following years. The

local body also needed a good worldng relationship with the court as well as the staff of the

Native Department. In the end, the entire system could break down over something as fickle

as the personalities of those involved. From his experience in the Tokerau and Waikato­

Maniapoto districts, Judge Ivor Prichard observed:

153 Judge Harvey (NLC) to Under Secretary (NtA), 5 June 1945, MA 1,201111 v.5, NA-W

154 O.N. Campbell (Under Secretary NtA) to Native Minister, 'Annual Report', [nd] AIHR, 19400-9, p.5

155 Judge Harvey (NLC) to Under Secretary (NtA), 5 June 1945, MA 1, 201111 v.5, NA-W

156 'Native Land Leases', Board & Council, 20 March 1946

55

As a matter of fact the success or otherwise of collection appears to differ with the

personality of the Judge of the district and of the County Clerk or his solicitor. 15?

These factors became critical in the rating of Maori in Tauranga during the 1950s, 1960s and

1970s. It was not so much the automatic function of the rating law that was important, but

how local bodies and the court made the system work under difficult circumstances.

A Dismal Symmetry - Rates & Council Services

One tangible result of the problem of rate collection on Maori land was the hardening

attitudes of local bodies towards the provision of services to Maori. With the paltry amount of

rates collected from Maori landowners during the 1930s and the ongoing financial difficulties

of Tauranga County, the council could not help but link the payment of rates with the

provision of services. In March 1934 Sam Kohu, chairman of the Judea Maori Council, wrote

to the county council about the state of the road leading up to the settlement. In his letter

Kohu asked the council for metal to repair the road, which was in an extremely poor state.

Kohu's letter stated that "on several occasions when distinguished visitors had come to the

pa, they had to get horses to pull the cars over this piece of road." Kohu asked for enough

gravel to cover an area of seven and one half chains at four inches deep and nine feet wide.

As the gravel requested was a large amount, Kohu said that the Judea council would provide

the labour to effect the repairs to the road. Needles to say, the county council was

unimpressed, with County Clerk Hyman Lewis responding to Kohu's request:

[Your] letter will be duly presented before my Council at the next meeting. In the meantime,

I submit the very distinguishing feature, that the native owners of the property in and about

the pa are not paying any rates to my Council. Under the circumstances and taking into

consideration the extensive use these owners make of the roads in general, [your] request is

not a reasonable one. Rates £96 lOs 4d, and penalty £9 13s, covering the four year period as

provided by the Act, are overdue and unpaid. If your Councilor the owners would make this

payment to the County Council, I have no doubt that your request will receive every

consideration. I5s

The next meeting of the county council unanimously approved Lewis' letter. Similarly the

county's minute book records the council's reaction to a request in 1937 by Maori to improve

the road access to 'Katikati Pa':

I5? Judge Ivor Prichard (NLC) to Under Secretary (NtA), 31 May 1945, MA 1,20/1/1 v.5, NA-W

I5S 'Road to Maori Pa', BOP Times, 14 April 1934

56

[Councillor] Gane moved the Clerk to reply to the effect that if the Natives pay to the

Council rates due on their lands then the Council will be prepared to spend such amount

upon the road in question. 159

A similar motion was also passed in 1938 after the Native Department approached the

council over the poor state of roads from the wharf to the school on Matakana Island. The

department advised the council that the islanders were prepared to provide the material and

the horse to do the work, if the county would pay for the relief labour. The county's first

concern was not so much the cost of the relief labour but the high transport cost of getting

labourers over to the island. The county also frowned on the project as "the clerk reported

that the Natives concerned were not meeting their rate liabilities."160

The county's position was influenced by its own severe shortage of funds. During the 1930s

depression, the county was unable even to maintain the roads already in use. Despite an

increase in the general rate and the levying of an additional special rate, C.H. Burnett MP, for

Tauranga, told Robert Semple, Minister of Public Works, that the county was facing a deficit

in its road budget for 1936 of £2,400. 161

The Tauranga Borough Council was also circumspect about serVIces to Maori when it

installed a water main through Matapihi in 1938. During the course of the project, a

suggestion was made that water from the main could be used to service the Maori community

living in the Matapihi area. The borough responded that it was only prepared to undertake the

project if the Native Department undertook to guarantee payment of the special rates levied to

pay for the project. 162 The Native Department considered the proposal, but was wary of any

cost implications the scheme could have for the department. It was clear that without funding

from central government, however, the scheme would not proceed. The department's

Supervisor in Tauranga informed the regional office in Rotorua:

There is no doubt that the reticulation of this area would be of great value to the Maoris

whose only source of supply at present are tanks and wells. The difficulty of the collection of

the rates would be an obstacle however, as the Maori residents of this area are not in good

159 TCC minute book, 12 November 1937, WBDC

160 TCC minute book, 12 August 1938, WBDC

161 'Notes of a Deputation from Tauranga County and Borough Councils', 7 August 1936, W 1, 53/52, 'Tauranga County

Council', pt.3, NA-W

162 Borough Engineer (TBC) to Secretary (NtA), 12 January 1938, MA 1-w2459, 19/5/77 'Water supplies as to extension to

Maori lands at Matapihi of Tauranga Borough water', NA-W

57

financial circumstances although most of them are working either on development schemes

or for private farmers. 163

The Native Department wrote to Tauranga Borough Council informing them that, "this

Department cannot undertake the liability which would necessarily be incurred in

guaranteeing the payment of water supplied to Maori residents on the peninsula."164 With

local government unwilling to risk taldng out a loan to finance the water supply to Matapihi

and the N ati ve Department unable to provide funds or assistance, the project did not proceed.

The 'no rates - no services' approach to services was paralleled by Maori who questioned

why they should pay rates when few or no services were provided. This situation represented

nothing less than a dismal symmetry where Maori were reluctant to pay their rates because of

the lack of services and the council would not provide services because the rates were not

paid. Some on the council were aware of this vicious circle and took a different approach in

an attempt to break the deadlock. When the Matakana Island roading issue was raised again

in 1943 the county chairman told the council:

... that a visit should be paid to Matakana Island, the Maoris were farming their lands and

obtaining good returns and were in a position to pay rates but it was the duty of the council to

provide roads as an urge for them to do SO.,,165

Despite the sentiment, the complex Matakana 'roads versus rates' issue would remain

unresolved for decades to come. In general the county was inclined to provide services on

condition that rates were paid. A little over a decade later across the water at Te Puna the

resident branch of the Maori Women's Welfare League wrote to the council asldng for

improvements to be made to Tangitu Road. When the matter went before the council it was

recorded that the "Clerk advised that rates had been paid on the Maori land during 1951152"

and so "the Engineer was instructed to effect maintenance when possible."166 The county's

policy on services and rates was spelled out more clearly in a 1955 letter to the renowned

academic, Dr Maharaia Winiata, regarding road access to Poike 4C:

Applications for improved roading are considered by the Council, and decisions are made

after considering the economic worth of the improvements in assisting production or

163 J. Dickin (NtA-Tga) to Registrar (NtA-Rot), 25 April 1938, MA 1, 19/5177, NA-W

164 Under Secretary (NtA) to Borough Engineer (TBC), 2 May 1938, MA 1, 19/5177, NA-W

165 TCC minute book, 9 July 1943, WBDC

166 TCC minute book, 4 August 1952, WBDC

58

facilitating movement of traffic. Rates coming from the area served by the road are a factor

also. 167

In taking such a position, the county was mindful that its roading budget was limited and had

to be applied evenly throughout the county to all its ratepayers. When the county fell into

deficit in the late 1940s, for instance, it was forced to reduce roading services to all its

landowners regardless of whether they paid rates or not. 168 It was probably for this reason that

the county gave the Department of Maori Affairs a rather terse reply when it asked for the

construction of six miles of roading on Matakana Island in 1950. The county stated that it

would consider the matter "providing the Department of Maori Affairs will guarantee

payment of all rates in the future."I69 The council's policy was paralleled by that of the

islanders who told the visiting county chairman the following year that the "Maori owners

were willing to meet their rating obligations as soon as the roading operations were

commenced."170 The council's approach, while understandable from its own perspective,

would do little to encourage the development of Maori lands within the county. The question

of rate payment and council services would remain unresolved for the next seventy years.

Summary

The Native Land Rating Act 1924 and the Rating Act 1925 significantly reformed the laws

governing the rating of Maori land. The architects of the law saw the legislation as part of a

broader government package to encourage land development and the individualisation of

title. Local bodies could now apply to the Native Land Court for charging orders for the rates

owed. These charges were placed on the title and were satisfied when the status of the land

was altered. The government believed that the new rating law would be applied progressively

as Maori land reached the same economic footing as Pakeha and the crippling problems of

Maori land tenure were resolved. In the mean time the enforcement of rates on multiply

owned Maori land was brought under the jurisdiction of the Native Land Court which was

given the authority to find pragmatic solutions to clear the land's rating debt. These powers

167 E.M. Fox (County Clerk) to Dr. M. Winiata, 5 September 1955, TCC All 0/3, 'Land Subdivision & Maori Land

Utilisation 1934-1968', WBDC [emphasis in original], Interestingly, in his Ph.D. thesis Dr Winiata wrote, "".the Maori

population, although responsible for rates, etc., is not drawn fully into the general system of local administration.", Maharaia

Winiata, The Changing Role of the Leader in Maori Society, Auckland, 1967, p.138

168 'Tauranga County Council to levy additional rate of half penny in pound to reduce deficit', BOP Times, 28 June 1950

169 TCC minute book, l7 January 1950, WBDC

170 TCC minute book, 5 November 1951, WBDC

59

included selling the land, but this action had to gain the approval of the Minister of Native

Affairs.

This consent, however, was rarely given and local bodies became increasingly frustrated with

the charging order process, which was seen as time consuming and costly, with no guarantee

that the charges would be recovered. As a result most local bodies wrote-off thousands of

pounds in rate arrears on Maori land, focusing their efforts on lobbying the government for a

radical change in the legislation that would allow the full prosecution of Maori landowners.

Maori non-payment and financial shortfalls also encouraged local government to become

circumspect about providing services for Maori landowners.

60

SECTION C A 'Tantalising problem' - Rating Maori land in Tauranga from 1945

The years following the Second World War represent a turning point in the way Tauranga

County Council approached the rating problem. The post-war years saw the Western Bay of

Plenty enter a period of sustained economic growth. Local government played a key role in

this development, working closely with central government agencies in expanding the

region's infrastructure and services. These changes, particularly the growing pressure on

county finances and land use, brought the issue of Maori land rating to the forefront. 171 By the

late 1940s, the county administration was increasingly concerned at the sizeable proportion of

both Maori and Crown land in the district that was idle and not paying rates. 172

Throughout the 1940s, the county was desperately short of funds and yet in 1945 the council

wrote off the substantial sum of £8,136 4s lOd in unpaid rates on Maori land for the years

1940-1943.173 Ultimately the council recognised that these losses were unsustainable.

According to council statistics, by 1945 only eighteen percent of Maori land in Tauranga was

paying rates. 174 In the post-war environment, the county was also under renewed pressure

from its Pakeha ratepayers to lower its annual rate charge. As before, the council looked to

government for solutions. The council made an appeal in 1949 to Peter Fraser (Minister of

Maori Affairs) and Clarence Skinner (Minister of Lands), to facilitate the settlement of an

estimated 30,409 acres of Crown and Maori land in Tauranga. The county argued that not

only could these lands be opened up for settlement by returned servicemen, but their

development would also "be a great help toward spreading the rating burden and stopping the

spread of noxious weeds."175 The county was certainly under pressure from its European

ratepayers to lower the rate burden and shift idle land into production. Maori Land Court

Chief Judge D.G.B. Morison commented in 1952:

17J Neil Hansen the County Engineer from 1946-1981 believed the county was underrated during the 1930s and 1940s and as

such the infrastructure had suffered. N.O. Hansen, Tauranga County 1945 to 1989: The Story about the Post World War Two

Years, o/wide ranging development, until local government reorganisation. Tauranga, 1995, p.10

172 'Rates on land held by Department for Ex-servicemen not recoverable', BOP Times, 5 May 1950

173 TCC minute book, 22 June 1945, WBDC

174 R. Carter (Rates Clerk) to TCC, 2 November 1951, MA 1,20/1/33, 'Tauranga County Council Rates 1941-1975', NA-W

175 'Unimproved land - County Council urges development', NZ Herald, 30 March 1949

61

Many local bodies consider that they owe a duty to their European ratepayers to take some

steps to secure payment of rates on Maori land. 176

This was certainly the case for Tauranga County. The following year the county made it

known that rates could be reduced by ten percent overall if the owners of the 8000 acres of

idle Maori land around the harbour paid the £12,000 owing.177

\

Plate 3. MAORI LAND in TAURANGA COUNTY - 1950

~ \ <9,% TAURANGA \ ,,() <9,?

MOANA \ 0, '~ \ ~ (9,,()

\ 0'(9 t;,;

Ngatama- ~<9 hinerua

\'t \ 1 \ / 1 t

waianu8m:l(/ 1

/ Te Puke I I 1

Te We ra iti { 1 ..... 1 .,

..... ,1 , ..... 1

"I.. Otanewainuku~ .,., .,., ..... ",

Puwhenua !" / ~v'--~----"~~----

c::::::J Confiscated Block - Maori Land 1950 10 20 30km

10 20miles Wai 215 Confiscation Boundary

In 1950 there were still significant areas of Maori land around the harbour area, principally Whareroa, Matapihi, Matakana, Papamoa, Maungatapu and Welcome Bay. There were also large areas in the backcountry, specifically around Whakamarama, the upper Wairoa river area and Oropi.

176 Chief Judge (MLC) to Assistant Under-Secretary (MA), 2 May 1952, MA 1,20/1/13 v.1, NA-W

177 'Maori owners must use land', HZ Herald, 4 March 1953

62

Tauranga County also had a statutory obligation to collect rates on Maori land. Before 1947,

however, the county had no effective strategy to address the problem. This situation changed

with the appointment of Edward Moreland Fox as the new county clerk in 1945. Fox, with

assistance from R.L. Carter, the county rates clerk, brought fresh ideas and a considerable

amount of energy to the council's rating problem. In the years following his appointment,

Fox developed his ideas on how the rating problem could be taclded by the county. In 1947,

he took his ideas to the council, proposing an overhaul of the way the county collected rates

on Maori land. Fox proposed that the county develop its own separate rating roll for Maori

land. The county's Maori land rating roll was based on more accurate block information

collected by council staff, as opposed to the inaccurate general roll that was supplied by the

Valuation Department. Such a simple step was innovative in its day. Previously, the sheer

size of the rating problem had effectively put the council off attempting any innovations of

this kind. According to the rates clerk, "Tauranga County has both the largest number of

assessments and the highest amount of rates struck on Maori land."178

Table 4. - Tauranga County Council Rates Written-off 1949-54 179

Financial Maori Total Year £sd £sd

1949-50 £6311 584d £72991384d 1950-51 £6099283d £6736 981d 1951-52 £6498480d £66951982d 1952-53 - -1953-54 £10810285d £12998 182d

Fox also proposed that the county, in co-operation with the Maori Land Court's

administration, determine which lands were not suitable for development and therefore, not

rateable. 180 Fox estimated that this would save £850 in administration costs alone. 181 While

Fox's ideas were innovative, they proved to be extremely labour intensive. To implement

Fox's scheme, county staff spent hundreds of hours collecting accurate title information

during 1949-1951 from Maori Land Court records at Rotorua. Before this project began, the

178 R. Carter (Rates Clerk), 'Report on Maori Rating'. 2 November 1951, MA 20/1/33, NA-W

179 TCC minute books, 1950-1954, WBDC. The middle column shows the amount written off on Maori land rates compared

to the total write-off. The figures for 1952-53 could not be located.

180 The county considered removing lands owned by 'Maori Owners' from the valuation roll under Section 4 of the Rating

Act during 1941. H. Lewis (County Clerk) to Under Secretary (NA), 27 February 1941, MA 1,20/1/33, NA-W

181 E.M. Fox to TCC Chairman & Councillors, [[nd] circa 1947], TCC minute book, 1947, WBDC. After searching through

the NZ Gazette for the 1940s-1950s, it appears that no blocks were exempted from rates. Exempting Maori land from rates

was problematic as it was hard to reverse and precluded development.

63

Maori Land Court had partitioned land and awarded title without directly informing the

county or the Valuation Department. As a result, the county rate rolls were out of date

malting rate charging almost impossible. Fox negotiated an agreement with court staff that

the details of any future decisions affecting the status of Maori land in the county be passed

on directly to his administration. 182 With updated title information, county staff approached

owners directly with rate assessments. Fox and his staff spent many hours travelling around

the county, investigating the blocks and establishing who owned and occupied them. The

updated records also meant that the county's rate assessments could be pressed more

effectively in the Maori Land Court.

Table 5. Assessments & Collection of Rates in North Island Counties 1949/50183

County No. of Amoui1t % '% % Arrears Assts. Struck Collected Written off CIFwd.

""~"~>~~~«--'~------~-'--'-----

Tauranga 1280 £11,687 38 ~4 8 'I,:

Whakatane 1000 £4,230 69 31

Rotorua 680 £4,552 46 -, 54 ,

';':: '; Waitomo 660 £6,771 19 71 10

'Yhangarei 564 £2,183 17 'i- 83

·'Rllcglan 502 £4,694 28 72

Hobson 213 £1,835 15 85

Ohinemuri 165 £649 18 62':;. 20

In comparison to the above selection of North Island counties, Tauranga had the highest number of rating assessments for Maori land. Tauranga is also notable for the higher rates struck when compared to the other counties.

With the passing of the Maori Purposes Act 1950, the county adapted its approach to

combine charging orders with receivership leases. Section 34 of the Maori Purposes Act 1950

empowered the Maori Land Court to vest Maori land in the hands of the Maori Trustee for

lease or sale if most or all the following factors were applicable:

• The land is unoccupied.

• The land is covered in noxious weeds.

• Rates are owed on the land and a charge has been made.

• The land is neglected and not used in best interests of the owners or the public interest.

• The owner of the land cannot be found.

182 TCC minute book, 25 August 1950, WBDC

183 Carter, 'Report on Maori Rating', 2 November 1951, MA 20/1/33, NA-W

64

The government saw Section 34 of the Maori Purposes Act 1950 as an effective, if somewhat

drastic, way of circumventing the problems of multiple ownership. E.B. Corbett, Minister of

Maori Affairs, was certainly of this opinion. In a letter to Wellington MP J.R. Marshall

explaining the principles of the legislation, Corbett wrote it was "because of the communal

nature of the titles [that] areas of Maori land in certain parts of the country have been

unoccupied."184 While sales were still seen as too drastic, Corbett gave his approval for the

lease of dozens of blocks. The 'use it or lose it' provisions of Section 34 of the Maori

Purposes Act 1950, as they were called, were seen by the Tauranga County Council as an

ideal mechanism to recover rate charges on Maori land and ensure the land was utilised.18s In

August 1950, the council announced that it intended to use the new legislation to be more

proactive in ensuring that Maori land was utilised and paying rates. 186 In early 1951 Fox

advised the council that R.L. Carter was now working full-time following up alienation

applications on idle Maori lands.187 It was Fox's intention to make a number of "applications

of a 'testing' nature" to the Maori Land Court to have Maori land placed into the hands of a

trustee for alienation under Section 34 of the Maori Purposes Act 1950. The council hoped

that, if successful, these applications could become the basis of an effective rate collection

strategy. The council lodged the applications with the idea of 'feeling out their effect upon

the Maori people of the district generally."188

The Maori Land Court heard some of these applications during 1951 for blocks located at

Poike, Hairini, Maungatapu, Welcome Bay, Papamoa, Matapihi, in the Kaimai, Matakana

Island and Motiti Island. The applications affected an area of 3,821 acres on which £2522

were owed in rate arrears for the 1951/52 financial year.189 While the county was confident

that its new approach would produce results, it appears that the affected owners knew little if

anything of the Section 34 applications. During the hearing, H.O. Cooney the county's

solicitor stated:

184 E.B. Corbett (MA) to J.R. Marshall MP, 21 August 1952, MA, w2490, 48/1, p.1 'Utilisation of Maori Land', NA-W

185 R.L. Carter (Rates Clerk), 'Report on Maori Rating', 2 November 1951, MA 2011/33, NA-W

186 'Tauranga County Council to take steps to recover unpaid rates on Maori land', BOP Times, 30 August 1950

187 TCC minute book, 19 February 1951, WBDC

188 Judge Harvey to Registrar (MLC), 20 July 1951, MA l-w2490 3111116 'Small Farm Scheme - Tauranga', NA-W

189 Carter (TCC) to Judge Harvey, 1 October 1951, MA 1, 3111116, NA-W. Only some of these applications were lodged

during 1951.

65

I am satisfied from knowledge of people concerned that none of them realise [the] true

implications of [these] applications and if orders are made under the section. I feel that

among the Maori people there is an ignorance of the true position and that steps should be

taken to warn them and educate them in the implications of section 34. If neglect continues

after full knowledge is acquired the section must operate.190

On hearing this and similar representations from W.E. Barnard, counsel for one of the

landowners, Judge Harvey decided to stay his judgement until the Maori Land Board had had

a chance to contact the owners of the affected blocks. Once the owners had been properly

consulted, Judge Harvey hoped that alternatives to alienation could be found. The owners of

some blocks made alternative arrangements for occupation, with the county being satisfied

that future rate charges would be met. In these cases the applications were withdrawn. In the

case of the remaining blocks, neither the Department of Maori Affairs, the Maori Land Court

nor the county wished to see the land sold. Judge Harvey's stated preference, outlined the

previous year, was to have the lands vested with the Maori Land Board or Maori Trustee to

be alienated by lease, "preferably to suitable Maori lessees, but if they were not forthcoming

to Europeans."191 Judge Harvey argued his case for giving preference to Maori for leased

Maori land with E.B. Corbett, Minister of Maori Affairs, in October 1951. 192

Following the county's applications, a hui took place in Rotorua to discuss the matter.

Attending the hui was Judge Harvey, T.T. Ropiha (Under-secretary of Maori Affairs),

officials of the county council and 'representative Maori owners'. At this meeting and at a

second hui in Tauranga, Judge Harvey pushed for the idea of having the affected blocks

leased out to Maori lessees, preferably owners in the blocks. Judge Harvey envisaged that all

the affected blocks could be portioned up into small farms, which could be leased out to pay

the rate arrears and generate a small income for the owners.193 It was hoped that a deal could

be struck between the Department of Maori Affairs and the county council to avert the lands

being vested in the Maori Trustee. If this happened there were fears that the Maori Trustee

would be obliged to lease the land out to the highest bidder. In a memorandum to the Board

of Maori Affairs, J.J. Dillon, Registrar of the Rotorua Maori Land Court, wrote:

190 Cooney, Tauranga MLC minute book, v.16, 11 July 1951, ff.353-354

191 'TCC to take steps to recover unpaid rates on Maori land', BOP Times, 30 August 1950

192 'Notes ofInterview', [nd], MA 1,31/1116, NA-W

193 Harvey to T.T. Ropiha (Under Secretary - MA), 8 October 1951, MA 1, 3111/16, NA-W

66

Much of the land is suitable for market gardening and if it should be put on the market for

leasing under Section 34 which restricts leasing to either a suitable owner or alternatively the

highest bidder, there is a strong possibility that Chinese and Indian market gardeners would

ultimately become the lessees. It would, it is considered, be much better if the Maori owners

themselves could be encouraged and financed into working their own lands as market

gardeners than that the land should pass into the hands of master market gardeners

whereupon the Maoris would become merely employees, as is largely the case in Pukekoe

and Otaki. 194

These concerns were raised again during large hui at Maungatapu during December. T.T.

Ropiha told the well attended hui:

Judge [Harvey] was most anxious that the people should use their own lands, so that the

Hindus and Chinese who are working the lands at Pukekohe would not get a foothold in

Tauranga. With this [Ropiha] stated, he fully concurred and supported, and he wanted to see

the people work and occupy their own lands. 195

Maori attending the Maungatapu hui, like Dick Roretana, also expressed concern at the

possibility of outsiders coming to farm their lands. Roretana, however, was sceptical about

the slow speed by which the Maori Affairs Department operated, fearing it could take years

before a farm development scheme was under way.196 Despite their misgivings, Tauranga

Maori did give their support to the proposed small farm development scheme and Paraone

Reweti offered to put his energy into finding suitable candidates for the farms.

It was clear that the scheme would stand or fall On the quantity and the quality of the

applicants. When interviewing prospective farmers the Registrar of the Waiariki Maori Land

Board described the ideal candidate:

Approved occupiers must be reliable and industrious and amenable to Supervision and

Instruction; in short Maoris who will with close supervision and encouragement develop into

good farmers. 197

Fifteen people were nominated by Tauranga Maori and, out of those, ten were interviewed,

with nine candidates accepted and one rejected. Once the scheme had been budgeted, the

Maori Affairs Board recommended giving financial support to selected Maori individuals in

194 I.J. Dillon (Registrar MLC) to Board of Maori Affairs, 12 November 1951, MA 1, 31/1116, NA-W

195 Deputy Registrar to Registrar (MLB), 12 December 1951, MA 1,31/1116, NA-W

196 Roretana quoted in, Deputy Registrar to Registrar (MLB), 12 December 1951, MA 1,3111116, NA-W

197 Dillon (Registrar MLB) to Under Secretary (MA), 23 August 1951, MA 1, 31/1/16, NA-W [Capitals in original]

67

Tauranga to develop and farm ten-acre lots of idle Maori land. On this basis, along with other

schemes planned in the Waikato and King Country, E.B. Corbett reported the department's

success in finding alternatives to leasing the land to outsiders:

In many cases when [Section 34] applications are made or about to be made under the Act

opportunity is given to Maori owners to fann the idle lands themselves. 198

In February 1952, however, the District Secretary of Maori Affairs in Rotorua warned

Wellington that the announced development of the pulp and paper plant at Mount Maunganui

could derail the scheme before it had started:

It is now felt, however, that some of these [nine] nominees might not acquire sufficient

interest as croppers to stay on the land against the lure of good wages, housing and the

prospect of permanent employment in the new industry or other works associated with it.

The men are for practical purposes novices at market-gardening and their early net returns

for arduous work might not reach those obtainable in the new industry.199

Despite this the department went ahead with assisting lessees on the Ranginui Blocks at

Welcome Bay. But the ambitious small farm settlement scheme did not proceed. The lack of

suitable candidates, along with the poor quality and urban potential of many of the blocks

simply made implementation of the scheme too difficult for the meagre resources of Maori

Affairs.20o Needless to say, these events did not impress the county. The county was even less

encouraged when they were told that it would be a couple of years at least before any rate

arrears were paid from the scheme. To make matters worse, Maori Affairs told the county

that the development schemes would only pay rates once the schemes generated a profit. 201

With the small farm scheme running aground, the county council proceeded with its action in

the Maori Land Court to vest idle Maori land with the Maori Trustee. In doing so, the county

blamed Maori Affairs for the failure of the proposed scheme:

The council had, however, requested the [Maori Affairs] department to confirm that when

the land was placed under departmental control the requirements of the rating and noxious

weeds Acts would be met. As several months had elapsed without that confirmation being

198 E.B. Corbett, 'Annual Report of the Board of Maori Affairs', [31 March 1952], A1HR, 1952, G-9, p.2

199 District Officer (Rot) to Under Secretary (Wgtn), 15 February 1952, MA 1,31/1/16, NA-W

200 Butterworth describes the general condition of the Maori Affairs department in the immediate post-war years as one of

'crisis', with chronic staff shortages and a lack of funds, G.V. Butterworth & S.M. Butterworth, The Maori Trustee,

Wellington, 1991, p.57

201 Deputy Registrar to Registrar, 12 December 1951, MA 1,31/1/16, NA-W

68

received and as initial development work had not been carried out on much of the land

concerned, the council intended to lodge several more applications for the vesting of idle

Maori land in the county in the Maori Trustee, with power of alienation.202

In March 1953 the county council resolved to take action against 300 blocks of Maori land

owing rate arrears. 203 The county council was also determined to pin down Pakeha who had

'informal' leases on Maori land, but who refused to pay rates. In taking this action, the

county was responding to growing pressure from its Pakeha ratepayers. A week after the

announcement, the Bay of Plenty Times applauded the county's decision in its editorial,

stating that the 'tantalising problem' of Maori land rating was an injustice to those who paid

their rates, which the county could no longer ignore. 204 The practical work of drawing up and

lodging the receivership applications proved to be a massive task with the county rates

department only doing a few blocks at a time. Even so, Tauranga County soon developed a

reputation for its dogged use of the Maori Land Court process to pursue rate-charging orders

on errant blocks. From his experience, Judge Ivor Prichard believed that "Tauranga was

leading New Zealand's counties in drawing up receivership leases for rate arrears."205

To manage the volume of work the new approach generated, Fox proposed that the county

take what was then the novel approach of hiring a specialised rating officer to deal

specifically with Maori land. This officer would be responsible for the following:

• Bringing the rating roll up to date after partitions, vestings and alienations of Maori land.

• Prosecuting applications made to the Maori Land Court for the charging orders and vesting

orders under Section 34 ofthe Maori Purposes Act, 1950.

• Circularising Maori occupiers of intention to make vesting applications for unpaid rates.

• Liaison with Maori Affairs, the Waiariki Maori Land Board and the Arawa Trust Board.

• Meetings arranged with co-operation of the Maori Welfare Officer to discuss rating and

occupancy. 206

Fox's proposal to employ a specialised clerk was probably influenced by the success of

Whakatane County Council, which had hired a specialised Maori land rates clerk in 1947.

Whakatane's success in increasing its rate collection and moving idle Maori land into

202 'Utilisation ofIdle Maori land', BOP Times, 16 October 1952

203 'County Council to take action on areas fronting harbour', BOP Times, 3 March 1953

204 'Urgent Maori Land Problem', BOP Times, 9 March 1953

205 Judge Prichard, memo, 18 September 1958, MA 1, 201111 v.7, NA-W

206 Carter, 2 November 1951, MA 20/1/33, NA-W

69

production received favourable comment from Board & Council which reported that a

"marked improvement has taken place in collection figures" with around 87 percent of

current rates owing on Maori land being paid.207

In an attempt to imitate Whakatane's success, Tauranga County Council first considered

hiring a specialised Maori rating officer back in April 1948. Some councillors, however,

expressed serious concerns over the cost of hiring a specialised rating clerk. This view was

probably based in the belief that trying to recover rates on Maori land was futile. Fox

responded that the appointment would soon pay for itself, particularly as the county was

losing an average of £6,000 a year on unpaid rates from Maori land. Fox also hoped that a

Maori rating clerk would double as a Maori land officer helping to bring multiply owned

lands into production. Councillor G.D. Vercoe was reported as supporting such a proposition

as, "it would be a good move if Maori rates were collected as it would [also] tend to bring

Maori land into production."208 Despite Fox's enthusiasm and some support from council

members, it appears that his suggestion was only adopted in part. Rather than being able to

hire a new member of staff, Fox could only assign existing staff to concentrate on Maori land

rating for short periods of time. This approach meant that the county could give only sporadic

and unsustained attention to the Maori rating problem during the 1950s.

Table 6. - Rates Collected on Maori Land in Tauranga County 1946-52 209

Financial Year % of Maori rates collected 1946/47 30.0 1947/48 30.3 1948/49 35.6 1949/50 38.2 1950/51 42.1 1951/52 45 (est.)

Despite the limitations, Fox's work during the 1950s had given Tauranga County a reputation

for being extremely proactive in prosecuting for rate arrears and its widespread use of

receivership leases to move Maori land into production. The District Officer at the Rotorua

office of Maori Affairs commented in 1960:

207 'Collection of Maori Rates', Board & Council, 3 September 1947

208 'Problem of Maori Rates', BOP Times, 27 April 1948

209 TCC minute books, 1950-1954, WBDC. The steady increase in proportion of rates collected was due principally to the

efforts of E.M. Fox the county clerk.

70

The Tauranga and Matamata Counties have been particularly active in getting rate charges

and receivership orders over land in their counties which were not paying rates but which

were suitable for farming. 210

The county's rate collection success was due to its use of the Maori Land Court process,

principally through the use of rate charging orders and receivership leases. While this

approach was extremely labour intensive, it gave the council the ability to influence the

future utilisation of numerous blocks of idle Maori land around the county. Above all, Fox's

approach aimed to be both flexible and pragmatic. While the council's immediate goal was to

recover rate arrears, its long term goal was to use the Maori Land Court process to see the

land occupied by someone who would develop it, control noxious weeds and pay rates. For

example, when the Maori Land Court was considering the fate of Ranginui 9B in 1957, N.O.

Hansen, the county engineer, told Judge Prichard that the county council:

... does not press for continuous rate charging orders but asks whether the land can be leased

compulsorily in some way that the gorse be cleaned the land grassed the rates paid and the

block come back to the Maoris when the Town had developed that way.2l1

In a sense, rates were the mechanism by which the county brought the greater problem of

Maori land utilisation to the Maori Land Court's attention.

In 1955, for example, the court considered the fate of a number of blocks in the Maungatapu­

Hairini area after the county lodged a number of charging order applications. During the

court's deliberations, the county offered to withdraw the charging order applications if the

court ordered the Maungatapu-Hairini blocks to be placed into the hands of the Maori Trustee

in a trust for subdivision and sale. In withdrawing its applications, the county recognised that

the charging orders would serve only to slow down the process of partition and residential

development. The county was also satisfied that the long term utilisation and occupation of

the blocks were assured with a trusteeship, and the current rates owing simply became

incidental. The county was also anxious to avoid being associated too closely with the

alienation of Maori land for rates. In the case of the Maungatapu-Hairini blocks, the rate

charging orders would have had to be settled by the sale of the land, leaving the owners with

less. On withdrawing his applications for charging orders, the county solicitor told the court:

210 District Officer (Rot) to Secretary (MA), 2 September 1960, MA w2490, 48/1 pt.2 'Utilisation of Maori Land' , NA-W

211 Tauranga MLC minute book, v.20, 19 August 1957, nos

71

The County does not hold the view that Maoris should be dispossessed of their land due to

circumstances beyond their control. 212

While the county was not directly responsible for the subdivision and sale of these blocks, it

is clear that the council used rate charges as a mechanism to influence the development and

utilisation of Maori land.

Changing Role of the Maori Trustee

The change in the way Tauranga County dealt with Maori land coincided with a shift in the

responsibilities and role of the Maori Trustee. The county's use of Section 34 applications to

the Maori Land Court placed an increasing number of blocks in receivership and under the

administration of the Maori Trustee. The role of the Maori Trustee in managing idle Maori

land, or land owing rates, was reinforced by Section 33 and Section 387 of the Maori Affairs

Act 1953.213 By 1961, the Maori Trustee reported that nationally it was acting as receiver for

431 blocks totalling 46,000 acres. 214 Tauranga County was certainly making regular use of

Section 33 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953, which allowed the Maori Trustee to be appointed

the receiver of Maori land owing rates or lying idle. For more complex problems of land

management such as changes in land use due to urban growth, Section 438 of the Maori

Affairs Act 1953 gave the Maori Land Court the power to vest land with the Maori Trustee

for lease, subdivision or sale. Section 438 also allowed the owners to form a trust to

administer the land. As before, the consent of the Minister of Maori Affairs was required

before the Maori Trustee could be appointed for either of these roles.

From 1950, the day to day management of receivership leases was passed to the Maori

Trustee. In effect this placed the Maori Trustee in a contradictory position, similar to that

experienced by the Maori Land Court, when dealing with rate recovery. By the mid-1950s the

Maori Trustee was expressing his increasing concern at this developing state of affairs. In a

memorandum to his staff he wrote:

It appears that in some districts the appointment of the Maori Trustee as Receiver for the

enforcement of rate charging orders is tending to become automatic, and it could be that the

212 H.O. Cooney, TaurangaMLC minute book, v.19, 17 November 1955, f.116

213 Section 33 allowed for the appointment of a receiver to enforce charges. Section 387 allowed for the Court to appoint the

Maori Trustee as agent to dispose of unproductive land. The Maori Land Amendment Act 1952 was also important as it

abolished the Maori Land Boards and transferred their functions to the Maori Trustee.

214 'Report of the Board of Maori Affairs', AIHR, 1961, 0-9, p.13

72

Maori Trustee's position is really being reduced to that of a rate collector. The result is that

the Maori Trustee has a lot of work imposed upon him for which he receives no recompense.

In some cases, too, it is not clear, because of the difficulties caused by his remoteness from

the land and the people interested, that the Maori Trustee is the most suitable person for

appointment as a receiver.215

In his memorandum, the Maori Trustee expressed his desire for his staff to decline in general

a receivership role except in exceptional circumstances. Local bodies also became

increasingly unhappy with the appointment of the Maori Trustee as receiver of vested Maori

lands. Judge Ivor Prichard wrote to the secretary of Maori Affairs:

When I took over Rotorua in 1956 the local bodies complained that the Maori Trustee as

receiver was ineffective and, in any case, took years to do anything. These complaints

persisted and since they seemed justified I appointed the county clerks to be receivers - one

reason was that they could send their noxious weeds inspectors to interview neighbouring

farmers and advise them that it was no good talking of undeveloped and unoccupied lands

unless they would lease it. Another was that the county clerk could not allege that the

receiver was dilatory and ineffective if he himself were the receiver.216

Maori Trustee staff in Rotorua, however, objected to this arrangement as it meant losing the

business of preparing the lease, for which the Maori Trustee received a commission. In

response, a compromise was reached where the county clerk would act as receiver and

arrange a lease which would be confirmed by the Maori Land Court. In return, the Maori

Trustee would draw up and administer the lease. While this meant that the Maori Trustee

would collect the commission, Tauranga County was soon complaining to the court that the

Maori Trustee was slow in moving on a number of leases.

The Maori Trustee was also spending increasing amounts of its limited time and resources

dealing with land subdivision in Tauranga. An increasingly large number of blocks on the

fringes of the Tauranga City and Mount Maunganui were being placed into the hands of the

Maori Trustee under Section 438 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953. These blocks were placed in

the hands of the Maori Trustee by an order of the court due to rapid increases in valuations

and corresponding rate increases. The process of urban growth and rate charges will be

discussed below.

215 Maori Trustee to Maori Trust Manual Holders, lO May 1955, MA 1, 20/1113 v.l, NA-W

216 Judge Ivor Prichard (Chief Judge MLC) to Secretary (MA), 12 February 1962, MA 1, 1O/l/l v.S, NA-W

73

Town & Country Planning

The county's determination to resolve the problem of idle Maori lands during the 1950s was

also a result of the growing importance of district planning.217 It was during the 1950s that

local bodies began developing district planning and zoning as tools to assist in the regional

development process.218 The need for sophisticated district planning was particularly acute in

Tauranga with the onset of rapid economic and urban growth in the post-war years. Tauranga

County Council was eager to see the district's growth planned in an orderly manner. The

increasing application of town and country planning, however, would have significant impact

on Maori land utilisation. This was particularly true of those large areas of Maori land that

lay on the fringes of the urban areas. Because of the complex interrelationship between

district planing and rating, it is worth noting some key points in this study.

In Tauranga, the overarching principle of the county's district planning strategy was to

control urban development and preserve the integrity of the rural areas. Tauranga County

Council was most concerned about uncontrolled residential development in prime rural areas.

With a large area of prime rural land in the path of the city, the county council was focused

on ensuring urban development was guided towards areas of low productive value. The

uncontrolled residential development of farmlands on the urban fringe represented a real

threat to the county as these areas (and the rates they paid) could then be absorbed into the

area administrated by the city. Over the next three decades, local government aspirations and

rivalries in Tauranga were fought out before the Local Government Commission. At stake

was the future of large areas of rural land in the path of the expanding city.

From the mid-1950s, the county was determined to ensure that prime agricultural land in

Bethlehem, Wairoa, Matapihi and Te Puna were preserved for farming and horticulture.

Conversely during the 1960s, the county administration put a great deal of effort into

encouraging urban expansion eastwards towards the less productive lands of Te Maunga and

Papamoa. To ensure the orderly development of lands into strictly defined areas, however,

the county faced the problem of the scattered Maori communities that ringed the expanding

urban areas.

217 Much of this discussion is based on county records and Stokes, A History ofTauranga County, pp.327ff

218 C.D. Scott, Land Value, Rating, Zoning and Land Use: Some Interrelationships and theirInfluence onPlanning, Ministry

of Works & Development, Wellington, 1982, pp.12ff

74

With a growing Maori population, the county was becoming increasingly concerned at what

it described as the 'irrational subdivision' of rural Maori land into uneconomic units.219

Section 173 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 gave the Maori Land Court the power to partition

Maori land in 'various ways'. The court still had to act, however, with due regard to the

requirements of any operative scheme under the Town and Country Planning Act 1953.220

While the court could use its discretion to allow the partition of rural Maori land, it was rare

for any decision to be made without the court hearing the view of the local body concerned.

From 1953 onwards, Tauranga County was increasingly strict in its application of the district

plan and increasingly confident in its knowledge of the Maori Land Court process. Because

of this, the Town & Country Planning Act 1953 did much to discourage the Maori Land

Court from allowing subdivisions in rural areas when faced with local body opposition.221

While the county wanted Maori land developed, occupied and paying rates, this did not mean

that it favoured uncontrolled residential development that could threaten its boundaries.

Uncontrolled residential development close to the urban areas could potentially encourage the

expansion of Tauranga City into county areas. Allowing small subdivisions in rural areas also

undermined the predominant land use of the period, principally dairying on large stock units.

Instead of Maori building homes on their rural lands, the county along with local government

as a whole in Tauranga, preferred the integration of Maori into high quality residential

housing in Tauranga City and Mount Maunganui. This would ensure the integration of the

Maori community into the wider community as a whole, and preserve the best farmland in the

district. At the time, Maori could find well-paid work on the newly constructed wharves at

Tauranga and the Mount. This attraction to waged employment encouraged the view among

Tauranga local bodies that the urbanisation of Tauranga Maori was unstoppable. At a meeting

of the Bay of Plenty Local Bodies Association, for example, the Mayor of Tauranga, D.S.

Mitchell, commented on the problem of Maori land use. In Mitchell's view, "Maoris in the

Tauranga area were not interested in farming [instead] they preferred wharf or road work."222

219 The Maori population went from 3,358 in 1945, to 7,812 in 1976. Stokes, History ofTauranga County, p.416

220 Under Section 432 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953, MLC judgements concerning land within a borough or town had to be

in line with the town plan.

221 This was the view of N.G. Hansen, county engineer 1946-75 and Director of Planning 1975-81. Hansen, Tauranga

County 1945 to 1989, Greerton, 1995, p.31

222 'Maori land tenure discussed', BOP Times, 13 July 1960

75

The Department of Maori Affairs held a corresponding position. In keeping with the

sociological trends of the period, Maori Affairs encouraged the policy of 'pepper potting'; the

planned and orderly integration of Maori into mixed communities. In areas like Hairini and

Maungatapu, the department envisaged that the area should be subdivided and lots sold to

non-Maori to facilitate integration. J.H.W. Barber, the District Officer at the department's

Rotorua office, wrote in 1960:

We are aiming to get a spread of sections owned by Europeans, wherever we can in the

Maori settlements that are now under action for partition, roading and servicing generally, in

this district. 223

This policy, however, was not without it problems. A few days earlier Barber, acting in his

capacity as Registrar of the Maori Land Court in Rotorua, told Wellington:

The question of integration in Maori Settlements is a most difficult problem. The reluctance

of the Maori owners to make the land available for sale in these areas together with the

difficulty of obtaining suitable types of Europeans to go into sections that may be available

in such areas, appear to be the main factors against this policy.224

The flip side of this policy, however, was to discourage the settlement of Maori in rural areas.

While Maori Affairs supported the idea of urban integration in principle, departmental

officers were often rankled by suggestions from the county that Maori sell their ancestral land

in rural areas and move into the areas designated urban. Following one meeting with county

representatives, the department's District Officer in Rotorua complained to Wellington:

The idea of the Chairman of the Tauranga County Council to transfer the Maori people in the

Tauranga County to live on the sandhills and give up their good land for market gardening -

presumably for Hindus and Chinese - is one that will be strongly resented by the people and

is one that should not be tolerated. ,,225

A year later, the same departmental officer reiterated his view that the Maori living on the

urban fringe were "not interested in housing on Crown sections in Tauranga but wish to build

on their own land."226

223 J.H.W Barber (Rot) to MA (Wgtn), 6 December 1960, MA 1-130, 30/3/130 v.2, 'Tauranga Housing', NA-W

224 Barber (Registrar MLC) to J.K. Hunn (MA Wgtn), 1 December 1960, MA 30/3/130 v.2, NA-W

225 Barber to Hunn, 1 December 1960, MA 30/3/130 v.2, NA-W

226 Barber to MA (Wgtn), 16 January 1961 MA 30/3/130 v.2, NA-W

76

There were some in the county who sympathised with this view. Sol Kanapu, the county's

Maori Rates Clerk, believed that the county should corne up with a better policy for dealing

with areas of rural Maori settlement. When discussing the Bethlehem-Wairoa area in July

1961, Kanapu advised the council that for rating purposes it would make sense to formalise

and develop areas of rural Maori settlement. Kanapu reasoned:

It is manifest, therefore, that some system of encouraging partitions for community areas be

sought if the volume of rate return is to improve. This would make each individual

responsible for what represented his fair share of burden. 227

While the county wanted to see Maori occupy their land, principally so that as the occupier

they would be liable for rates charged, the county was anxious to avoid uncontrolled rural

subdivisions. As such, the county rarely allowed owners of rural Maori land to partition out

their interests into lots of less than ten acres. As a result, many Maori simply built homes on

the comer of communal land without county approval.

Restrictions on Maori land subdivision were increased with the passing of the Maori Affairs

Amendment Act 1967. The Act returned decisive power regarding subdivision and roadways

to county councils and restricted the powers of the Maori Land Court in this area. With the

passing of this legislation, Maori in Tauranga found it almost impossible to get approval for

the partition of multiply owned land for residential purposes in areas zoned rural. This

situation had an immediate effect on the utilisation of a number of blocks of Maori land in

Tauranga as well as rate collection. Particularly hard hit were part owners of multiply owned

blocks that had already constructed a horne on the land. Under the Rating Act, as an occupier

they were liable for rates on the block, yet they were unable to partition out their interests.

Mrs R. Knap of Bethlehem found herself in this position during the early 1970s. Knap was a

part owner in Te Papa 8C, an area of just over 33 acres with 131 owners. Knap had built a

house on the block, but was unable to partition out her interest. As a result she faced an

annual rates bill for the entire 33-acre block.228 Maori Affairs believed a number of people

were in the same predicament in the Tauranga area. In the Bethlehem-Wairoa area there were

ten families living in houses built on their undivided interests on large whanau blocks. Maori

Affairs held meetings with the Wairoa owners during 1973 to try and corne up with an

227 Kanapu, 'Additional report on Maori land utilisation and rating', l3 July 1961, TCC, AllO!3, WBDC

228 Matiu Rata to R. Knap, 6 December 1973, AAMK, 869-764a, 25/4/4 v.1, 'Housing in Rural Areas', NA-W

77

amalgamation and repartition scheme to resolve the problem. Due to planning restrictions,

however, consent was refused. Writing to the Maori Land Court, E.M. Fox explained:

Council resolved that it was desirable to adhere to established principles and not allow Maori

settlements adjoining urban areas and that to place Maori land outside of the provisions of

the Town and Country Planning Act would be contrary to overall planning.229

The county also feared that if an area was subdivided into a residential area, it was likely that

Tauranga City would make an application to the Local Government Commission to allow it

to take over the area. While this local government rivalry caused problems for landowners in

the Bethlehem-Wairoa area, Matapihi Maori were able to skilfully use this conflict to keep

the peninsula out of both Tauranga City and Mount Maunganui Borough.230

The situation in Tauranga became so serious during the early 1970s that the problem reached

the attention of Matiu Rata (Minister of Maori Affairs 1972-1975). In a cabinet memorandum

prepared by LW. Apperley, Secretary for Maori Affairs, it was noted:

The legislation as amended in 1967 is unnecessarily restrictive when viewed from the aspect

of Maori land title improvement to enable better utilisation and administration of Maori land,

as well as limiting the powers ofthe Maori Land Court.231

Encouraged by advice from his officials, Rata attempted to put legislation through

Parliament, specifically an amendment to the Maori Housing Act 1935, to allow a more

flexible approach to the subdivision of Maori land. Other members of the Labour cabinet did

not welcome the proposal, however. Both the Ministers of Local Government and Works and

Development raised strong objections to the amendment. The Minister of Works was

adamant that loosening the planning restrictions on Maori land would create tremendous

problems for district planning:

The [local] Council and all citizens are bound by the provisions of any operative district

scheme. It would be most undesirable to create a special exclusion (and privilege) for one

group or race, or a certain class of land in any district. The trend is to extend the binding

229 E.M. Fox & S.B. Kanapu (TCC) to Registrar (MLC), 12 June 1973, AAMK, 869-764a, 25/4/4 v.1, 'Housing in Rural

Areas', NA-W

230 The Matapihi experience is interesting in its own right. As the peninsula was predominantly Maori land, the owners were

able to have Matapihi set aside as 'rural' in the county plan in the mid-1950s. As Matapihi was a defined area, the county

council was able to rate it as a differential rating area. A full discussion of Matapihi is, however, beyond the scope of this

report. See Stokes, History of Tauranga County, pp.343-344, 388-392

231 Memorandum for Cabinet, 15 July 1974, AAMK, 25/4/4 pt.l, NA-W

78

nature of the Town and Country Planning Act to include the Crown (and thus everybody)

rather than to exclude any sections of the community.232

Tauranga County Council seems to have responded to Rata's move by introducing 'Marae

Community Zones' into its district plan. 233 This modest innovation in planning allowed

limited residential development around what the council deemed as 'active' marae. 234

While the introduction of the Marae Community Zone provided some real benefits for

Tauranga Maori, the problem of planning remained unresolved. While Rata cautiously

supported the county's new scheme, he still regarded the Town and Country Planning Act as

a significant obstacle to the utilisation of ancestral lands. At a Labour Party Maori policy

convention held at Maungatapu Marae in 1975, Rata stated that, "Maori had no option but to

leave the Marae when they were not permitted to repair or build on their own land."235 The

Herald commented on the situation in Tauranga:

In the areas outside the city and borough boundaries there are blocks of Maori land suitable

for house sites but, because of the operative scheme plans under town and country planning,

only in exceptional cases will the county approve the partition of areas less than set out in its

ordinances ?36

Yet at the same time a social impact report commissioned by Tauranga City and Mount

Maunganui Borough Councils in 1974 reported:

The Department of Maori Affairs told the committee that during the past eight months it had

received 18 applications from young couples who wanted to build homes but had no sections

and could not afford house sites at current inflated prices.237

The problem of district planning and zoning remains a contentious issue that continues to

colour local government and Maori relations.

Summary

In the post-war years, Tauranga County Council developed a successful rate collection

strategy based on placing Maori land that owed rates into receivership and then leasing it.

232 Minister of Works & Development to Minister of Maori Affairs, 25 September 1973, AAMK, 25/4/4, NA-W

233 'New Types of Zoning in District Scheme', NZ Herald, 6 November 1973

234 'League seeks town planner', BOP Times, 29 July 1974

235 'Planning act causes drift into towns', BOP Times, 1 September 1975

236 'Housing Major Social Problem', NZ Herald, 10 June 1974

237 'Housing Major Social Problem', NZ Herald, 10 June 1974

79

The county's strategy was to ensure the medium to long term use of the land rather than a

rigid enforcement of current rate charges. Originally, the Maori Land Court had delayed

ruling on the first receivership applications in the hope that the Department of Maori Affairs

and the council could come to an agreement on how to develop the lands. After a series of

meetings and hui, the department went ahead with a limited development scheme that created

a number of small farms at Welcome Bay on the Ranginui blocks. The bulk of the blocks

affected by the council's applications, however, were not included in the project due to the

difficulty of finding suitable Maori lessees and rising valuations.

The new approach to land utilisation placed an increasing administrative burden on the Maori

Trustee. Under the Maori Purposes Act 1950 and later the Maori Affairs Act 1953, the Maori

Trustee played a central role in the administration of the receivership leases. Originally, the

Maori Trustee played the role of receiver in cases where Maori land owed rates. This

situation became untenable, as the Maori Trustee believed his role was reduced to that of a

simple rate collector for the county. As a result the county council acted as receiver until the

rate debt was cleared.

During the 1950s, town and country planning increasingly influenced Maori land use in

Tauranga. With the onset of urban development and economic growth, local bodies III

Tauranga wanted to ensure the orderly development of the region. As a result, the county

council brought in increasing restrictions on land use in rural areas, hoping to steer residential

development towards Tauranga City, Mount Maunganui and later Papamoa. In particular, the

county council placed restrictions on the subdivision of rural Maori land for residential

purposes. While many Maori wanted to build a home on their own land, the county council

preferred that they purchase homes in the established urban areas and preserve the rural areas

for agricultural production.

80

SECTION 0 Rating in Tauranga from 1958

By the end of the 1950s, Tauranga County Council had made hundreds of applications for

rate charging orders on Maori land and dozens of applications for receivership leases. The

Bay of Plenty Times reported in 1960 that a combined area of almost 7000 acres of Maori

land had either been leased out by a court-appointed receiver or to a nominated occupier.238

Despite his misgivings, the Maori Trustee was now involved in the administration of dozens

of receivership leases in the Tauranga district. Despite the increase in workload, the Maori

Trustee struggled with the limited resources available to it. While the use of receivership

leases significantly reduced the county's rating problem, the Maori Trustee ended up carrying

most of the administrative burden as well as increased hostility from Maori landowners and

lessees. This section will explore in some detail the problems the Maori Trustee and the

Department of Maori Affairs faced in the administration of Maori land placed in receivership.

Table 7. Rates Struck & Collected on Maori Land by Riding -1957-60.239

Riding 1957/58 1958/59 1959/60 1960/61 Struck Collected Struck Collected Struck Collected Struck Collected

Katikati £2,615 26% £2,615 39% £2,615 39% £2,615 42%

Te Puna £2,759 26% £2,759 43% £2,759 35% £2,759 36%

Waimapu £1,807 9% £1,807 21% £1,807 48% £1,807 46%

Te Puke £7,604 51% £7,604 73% £7,604 71% £7,654 74%

Maketu £7,244 63% £7,244 75% £7,244 74% £7,699 90%

Total £22,030 45% £22,030 61% £22,030 62% £22,535 69%

During a council meeting in 1960, the Maori rates clerk announced that rate collection in the

county had reached 62 percent, compared with 18 percent in 1945 and 46 percent in 1958. In

local government circles this achievement made Tauranga County a success story in

collecting rates from Maori land. 240 The council had achieved this by increasing its use of the

Maori Land Court to obtain charging orders and Section 33 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 to

have the land owing the charge placed into receivership. Once placed in receivership, the

238 'New Maori land policy need is 'Urgent", BOP Times, 9 June 1960

239 S.B. Kanapu 'Schedule of Maori Rates', 5 May 1961, TCC AIl0/3, WBDC. Shillings and pence have been excluded

from this table and the percentages rounded.

240 As demonstrated in Table 7, in terms of actual pounds, the increase in rate collection was experienced principally from

blocks of Maori land in the Maketu and Te Puke Ridings.

81

county arranged for leases that would clear the charge, bring the land into production and

establish occupiers who would pay the current rates. The rating clerk reported that out of an

estimated 61,750 acres of Maori land in the county, 6,758 acres (or 91 blocks), were now in

"productive occupation" as a result of the county's rate collection strategy. Of these, 49

blocks were placed in receivership by the Maori Land Court and leased out with 29 of these

leases being to part owners.241 A further six blocks had nominated occupiers, who would pay

off the current rate charges and arrears. In a further seven blocks the owners, under pressure

from the county's court applications, had arranged private leases. In these seven cases the

council, satisfied that the rates would be paid for the foreseeable future, withdrew their rate

charging order applications. The county's increasing success in rate collection from the late

1950s can be attributed to the work of one man.

Soloman Kanapu - Maori Rates Clerk

E.M. Fox resubmitted his proposal to hire a full-time Maori rating officer at a council

meeting in 1957. Rating Maori land was labour-intensive work, which placed a serious strain

on the already short-staffed council administration. At that time the county's rates department

had only two full time staff who simply could not give Maori land rating the attention it

required. Fox was increasingly worried that the council had become complacent in its

approach to the Maori land-rating problem. Fox told the council that "Maori land rating has

been relegated to the last place in the list of duties, despite the fact that it should be given a

great deal of attention."242

Fox argued that only a specialised officer with specific sldlls could tackle the rating problem.

Fox hoped someone who was able to speak te reo Maori and who had a good knowledge of

the Maori Land Court process as well as the Tauranga area could fill the position. The need

for a specialised officer was made more urgent as the Valuation Department had recently

introduced a new mechanised system of valuation rolls, which had made the county's old

separate Maori land roll obsolete. Fox requested that the county authorise the hiring of a

"full-time Maori Rating Clerk whose duties will be connected solely with the collection of

Maori rates and the utilisation of idle Maori lands."243

241 S.B. Kanapu Memorandum to MA, 31 October 1960, MA, 1,2011133 'TCC Rates 1941-1972', NA-W

242 E.M. Fox, TCC minute book, 29 November 1957, WBDC

243 TCC minute book, 29 November 1957, WBDC

82

Soloman (Sol) Benedictus Kanapu was hired as the county's Maori Land Officer and Maori

Rates Clerk in 1958 and served in these roles until 1983, and for a two-year stint from 1986

to 1988 when he was called back from retirement. It is impossible to fully understand the rate

collection process, receivership lease system and management of Maori land in Tauranga

County during the 1960s and 1970s without considering the role of Sol Kanapu. While the

county's strategy had been devised by the county clerk ten years earlier, it was Kanapu who

worked directly on the rating problem for the next twenty-five years. Kanapu's success as the

rating officer was even acknowledged in Parliament by Paraone Brown Reweti:

In the Tauranga County the council was able to increase the payment of rates from 47

percent of those liable in 1959 to 90 percent in 1967 by employing a Maori rating clerk.244

Kanapu was well known in Tauranga. He was also highly regarded by local government

officials elsewhere who sought his advice on Maori land rating. The Opotiki County Council

sought Kanapu's expertise in 1967 when it tried to emulate Tauranga's success in using

receivership leases. Likewise, the Coromandel County Council invited Kanapu in 1968 to

train its staff in drawing up charging order and receivership applications for the Maori Land

Court.245

Kanapu's contribution was significant because he was able to apply the time and effort

needed to complete the transformation of Maori land rate collection in Tauranga through the

use of rate charging orders and receivership leases. Reflecting on his three decades of service,

the Bay of Plenty Times described Kanapu as "a pivotal figure in changing the way Maori

land was developed and in helping the Tauranga County Council to collect rates more easily

from Maori land," and that, "in hindsight, Sol Kanapu could well be regarded as a very

significant figure in the history of local body administration in New Zealand.,,246 Overall,

Kanapu's influence on Maori land management and rate collection in Tauranga was very

significant. Due to his influence, it is worth noting some facts about Kanapu's life.

Kanapu was born in the Wanganui district in 1922 and educated at Wanganui Technical

College. Before the Second World War, Kanapu worked as a draughtsman for the Ministry of

Works until, with the outbreak of war, Kanapu joined the New Zealand Air Force and served

two tours in the Pacific. After the war, Kanapu settled with his wife in Rotorua where he was

244 Paraone Brown Reweti, NZPD, 15 September 1967, p.3085

245 'To Seek Advice on Maori Rates', Hauraki Gazette, 28 February 1968

246 Steve Hill, 'Distinguished career marked by challenges', BOP Times, 21 November 1989

83

employed by the Department of Maori Affairs. In 1957, the year before the Tauranga County

Council recruited him, Kanapu moved to Tauranga to work as the department's resident

officer. Kanapu's time with Maori Affairs gave him both a good understanding of Maori land

administration as well as the particular problems faced by local government in Tauranga.

Kanapu also had a good working knowledge of the processes that governed the Maori Affairs

Department, the Maori Trustee and the Maori Land Court. The collegial relationship Kanapu

developed with his former Maori Affairs colleagues, who then doubled as the staff of both the

Maori Trustee and the Maori Land Court, was a valuable asset in his new role.

As the county's Maori land officer after 1958, Kanapu reported directly to E.M. Fox. Until

Fox retired in 1976, the two worked closely together on all matters regarding the rating,

utilisation and management of Maori land in the county. While under close direction from

Fox and the council, Kanapu generally relied on his own initiative and operated in a flexible

and practical manner. Over the length of his career, the county council had high regard for

Kanapu's abilities and held great confidence in his work. Neil Hansen, a senior and long­

serving member of the county's staff from 1946 to 1981, recalled:

Sol was given a fairly free hand by Mr Fox and under his general guidance did much to help

Maori people deal with land and housing problems, thus allowing many of them to improve

their holdings and be able to meet their rating commitments.247

Kanapu's work earned him praise from county councillors. Former county chairman Gordon

Spratt, who spent thirty years on the council, said Kanapu "served the ratepayers well with

his ability and perseverance in ensuring that the rate collection from Maori land was

improved."248 While answering to the county council, Kanapu used his position to do what he

could for local landowners, usually under difficult circumstances. Spratt went on to say that

"Mr Kanapu encouraged Maori land owners to form trusts and putting the land to practical

use and was associated with the reorganisation of land titles in the district." Kanapu also

assisted many local Maori in applying to the Maori Land Court for succession orders.

Kanapu's success was his use of practical and pragmatic solutions to the problem of Maori

land management. In contrast to other rate clerks, Kanapu actively visited landowners in their

247 Hansen, Tauranga County 1945 to 1989, p.57

248 Val Sherriff, 'Maori trusts mover in district dies, 72', BOP Times, 8 February 1994

84

homes, on their land or at the marae and talked to them face to face, rather than just sending

formal demands or correspondence. 249

Kanapu's experience with Maori Affairs and his personal approach to rate collection

provided valuable local know ledge that allowed the county to prosecute rates charges in a

more sophisticated manner. Rather than applying for rate charging orders in a time

consuming and wholesale manner, Kanapu's increasing knowledge of the district enabled the

county to apply for rate charging orders strategically on land "where compensation moneys

were held, timber cutting rights or land sales were anticipated."250 By placing charges on

these lands the council could be assured of recovering the rates. Placing rate charges on land

being taken for public works also proved to be a successful way of recovering rate arrears. 251

Kanapu can also be credited with the more co-operative and cordial relationship that

developed between the Department of Maori Affairs, the Maori Land Court and Tauranga

County Council in the 1960s. As a former member of the department's staff, Kanapu was

invaluable in assisting the county's communication with Maori Affairs. As a result, the

Rotorua office of the department gave valuable assistance to the county in its efforts to

collect rates on Maori land. The county saw this high level of co-operation as a significant

achievement, and used the department's support to great effect in its efforts to have Maori

land developed and collect rates. In his annual report to the council in 1961 the county

chairman praised Maori Affairs for their inter-agency co-operation:

Council officers continue to work for improvements in Maori land use, rate collection, and

housing. With the valued co-operation of the Maori Land Court and the officers of the Dept

of Maori Affairs, and the landowners themselves in many cases, large areas of unused land

infested with noxious weeds have been placed under receivership order, and have been

leased to farmers. This assists in the control of noxious weeds and, in some degree, to rate

collection and it is council's intention to pursue this method further. 252

249 Interestingly, over a decade earlier Wanganui County Council had doubled its rate collection on Maori land by using this

approach. Rather than just posting out rate demands, the county organised hui on marae and contacted owners directly.

'Personal Approach Gets Native Rates', Wanganui Chronicle, 10 August 1946

250 S.B. Kanapu, 'Maori Rating and Land Utilisation Clerk's Report', 11 May 1961, TCC AIlO/3, 'Land Subdivision Maori

Land Utilisation', WBDC

251 Before compensation money was paid to the owners all charges on the title were settled.

252 TCC minute book, 1 December 1961, WBDC

85

Likewise, Maori Affairs saw the new relationship as a positive development. J.H.W. Barber,

the department's District Officer for Rotorua, even tried to take credit for the improved

relationship with Tauranga County, Kanapu's appointment and the improved rate collection.

In a letter to lK. Hunn, Secretary of Maori Affairs, Barber wrote:

Finally, this office can truthfully take credit for the inauguration of a Maori rates collector in

the Tauranga County. Subsequently through discussions with us, we have been able (from

experience) to give advice and guidance in showing how the Maori rates collector could

achieve success. We have gone out of our way in many other respects to help [Tauranga

County Council] attain the optimum of achievement. 253

Over the next two decades the county made dozens of applications to the Maori Land Court

for receivership orders. With the appointment of a specialised Maori rate clerk, the county

was able to concentrate on making receivership leases a successful mechanism for recovering

rates from Maori land.

Receivership Leases & Management of Vested Lands

The county council saw receivership leases as having three purposes:

• Clear rate charging orders on title and pay rate arrears.

• Put land into production with an occupier who would pay current rates.

• Develop land and control and clear noxious weeds.

The county also saw receivership leases as a way of overcoming many of the problems

associated with Maori land utilisation and occupation. In his 1963 annual report the county

chairman identified what he saw as the main barrier to Maori land utilisation:

There appears to be ample evidence that the great majority of the Maori people are prepared

to accept rating responsibility to the same extent as their European fellow citizens, but

experience the frustration associated with the fragmentation of title and the lack of positive

assurance of ownership. These two conditions are largely responsible for large tracts of land

lying idle, undeveloped and unproductive; a breeding ground for vermin and noxious weeds;

non revenue producing, at once a burden and a deteriorating asset for the owners themselves.

This means a great deal of Maori land is valued and rated beyond its potential. 254

Kanapu, who was well versed with the problem of multiple ownership, certainly saw the

value in using receivership leases to farm idle Maori land. Kanapu also saw the formation of

253 Barber to Hunn, 6 December 1960, 30/3/130 v.2, 'Tauranga Housing', NA-W

254 TCC minute book, 30 October 1963, WBDC

86

owners' trusts and title consolidation as ways in which the problem of multiple ownership

could be mitigated. By addressing the problem of land utilisation, Kanapu believed that the

rating problem would also be solved. Looking back at his experiences of the previous thirty

years, Kanapu stated:

It wasn't the Maori people's fault there were problems with the land, it was the system they

inherited. The tradition of succession meant a block of land that may have started with ten

owners could have as many as 200 within a couple of generations.255

Receivership leases overcame this problem by making usually one individual, the lessee,

responsible for the land and the rates.

When land was placed into receivership it was leased out first and foremost to clear the rate

charges owing. While rates were owed, the receiver, usually the county clerk, received the

rental money. While the land was in receivership, the Maori Trustee acted for the receiver.

The Maori Trustee drew up and administered the lease, collected the rental paid by the lessee

and inspected the land to ensure the terms of the lease (the covenants) were being met. When

the debt was paid off, the receivership would end and the Maori Trustee would then act on

behalf of the owners. The rental money was then distributed to the owners. In addition to the

rental, the Maori Trustee received a commission from the lessee of six percent of the rental.

Leases were valuation based and the lessee paid a proportion of the land's value in the rental.

The lessee was expected to develop the land with most leases containing covenants that

compelled the tenant to keep the land clear of weeds, maintain the fencing and lay down

"good English grasses".256 The Maori Trustee was responsible for ensuring these covenants

were observed, with Maori Affairs staff conducting regular inspections. In some cases, where

the noxious weed problem was serious or fences needed replacing, part of the rental was

waived if the tenant did the work. But for most leased land, particularly those blocks leased to

Pakeha, the leases stipulated that no compensation be paid to the lessee for improvements to

the land. The lessee as occupier of the land was liable for all the current rates.

255 'Distinguished career marked by challenges', BOP Times, 21 November 1989

256 This was a standard clause in many of the leases for Maori land placed in receivership in Tauranga.

87

Table 8. Blocks Leased for Rate Arrears 1949-69.257

Block Area Lessee

4a lr 35p 21 yrs Reader, CB

57a 3r 17p £37 Is 1d Taipari, H

23a Or 22p 21 yrs Smith, J

24a 1r 33p 21 yrs Smith, J

12a 2r lOp 5 yrs Hales, KR £104

18a Or Op 21 yrs StBruno, LS £25

157a 2r 16p 21 yrs Garrett, RC £556s

60a Or 3p £25 8s lId 10 yrs Denyer, BC £45

55a lr 5p £14 6s 4d 21 yrs Garnett, RM £16 lOs

Ongaonga 1G3B5B (pt) 236a £72 7s 2d 21 yrs Denyer, BC £10 5s

Ongaonga 1G3B5B (pt) 112a 3r 8p £73 2s 2d 21 yrs Rolleston, A £33

47a Or 33p £63 17s 2d 21 yrs Keepa, HW £48

16a Or 3p £45 7s 6d 21 yrs Keno, T £16

4a 1r 26p £203s 21 yrs Smith, J £13 lOs

15a 3r 14p £15 13s 14d 21 yrs Smith, J £12

31a 3r 14p £13 9s 8d 21 yrs Joyce, CB £25

Te Papa 446A 44a £29 17s 4d 21 yrs Chittock, NF £225s

Te Papa 446D 29a lr 5p £6 8s lOd 21 yrs Chittock, NF £41Os

Te Papa 446 B2A 47a Or 29p 21 yrs Chittock, NF £7

Te Papa 536D 127a Or 19p £15 14s 6d 21 yrs Kennedy, C £27

WhakamaramaIB2C 221a lr 30p £25 8s 2d 21 yrs Thomas, MG £40

31a 2r £13 10 yrs Borrell, CG £225s

69a 2r 32p 21 yrs Christian, WC £10

Papamoa 2 1 C2 148a 1r 39p £416s 21 yrs Sellars, R & T £141

9a 2r 15p £35 9s 7d 21 yrs Keno, T £9 lIs

16a Or 3p £45 7s 6d 21 yrs Keno, T £16

Te Papa 446 B2B2B 33a 3r 15p 21 yrs Chittock, NF £10 15s

TePapa 535H 47a 37r 26p £18 9s 6d 21yrs Highlands Ltd £14

Te Papa 5351 nO.2 56a 2r Op £274s lOd 21 yrs Te Hira Kino, W £19 lOs

257 This should not be considered a complete listing of blocks of Maori land placed into leases for rate arrears. Blocks

outside the Wai 215 Inquiry District have been excluded.

88

Te Papa 536B2 114a 1r 25p £19 2s 4d 21 yrs Highlands Ltd £40

Te Papa 714 119a 1r £18 16s 2d 21 yrs Heke,DR £28 lOs

Te Puna 154D 5B 1 9a 1r Op £1713s4d 21 yrs Bidois, A £15

Te Puna 154D 3B2 (pt) 23a 1r 21p £68 6s 4d 21 yrs Bidois, A £54

Te Puna 154DlO 25a 0 26r £58 lOs lId 21 yrs Ihaia, KH £435s

Te Puna 157D4 23a Or Op £35 13s 1d 21 yrs Tangitu, HE £36

Te Puna 184A 25a Or 6p £57 Is lOd 21 yrs Ihaia, KH £435s

Ngapeke 5D 81a 3r 20p 21 yrs Wharehuia, T £25

Mangatawa 7D 81a 3r OOp 21 yrs Webster, JA £272

Mangatawa 9A2 18a 1r 32p £81.1.4 21 yrs Joyce, CB £62 lOs

Te Papa 80F1 15a £402s 21 yrs Vickers, WJA £30

Te Papa 170 & 152A 85a 3r 16p £32 13s 4d 21 yrs Heke, DR £2415s

Te Papa 713 71a Smith, VC

Whakamarama 1B2B 278a Or 20p £24 6s 4d 21 yrs Purchas, WH £30

Ngapeke 5A4 37a 1r 23p £3912s 21 yrs Ohia, W £30

Ongaonga 1A 132a Or 22p £16 Os 8d 21 yrs Rolleston, A £30

Ongaonga 1 C2 41a 1r 5p 21 yrs Rolleston, A £75s

Ongaonga IE £18 16s 21 yrs Rolleston, A £15 15s

Opureora 1B2A 1a 2r 16p £2 6s 8d Ngatai, S

Papamoa 2 4A 12a Or 37p £21 8s 8d 21 yrs Webster, D £27

Te Papa 446 B2BA £8 4s 12d 21 yrs Chittock, NF £3115s

Papamoa 2 lOA2C (pt) 59a 1r 15p £7617s 21 yrs Slattery, P £84

Poike 5 5a 1r 30p £714s 21 yrs Rowe, BJ £10 lOs

Poike 6B1 14a 2r 16p £17 lIs 21 yrs Rowe, BJ £224s

Te Papa 536C no.2 84a 1r 38p £9 11s 4 15 yrs Alach, E £7 lOs

Papamoa 21D 62a 3r 36p 10 yrs Percy, H £305 15s

Te Puna Z 29a 3r 15p 21 yrs Percy, H £205

Te Puna Z9 15a 1r 13p £30 21 yrs Clarence, H £110

Te PunaZ16 30a Or 4p 21 yrs Clarence, H £205

Te Puna 3DP13206 Pt99 58a 2r 5p £32 13s 6d 10 yrs Kranenberg, R £232

Papamoa A14 158a 2r 25p $64.70 25 yrs Lipinski, RG $160

Matakana 7 59a 2r 24p $8.05 21 yrs Part-owner $300

Matakana 9 113a 1r 30p $28.87 21 yrs Keepa, TH $605

Opureora 1B 7 13a 1r 26p 21 yrs Douglas, G $435

Opureora 2 105a 3r 8p $157.67 21 yrs Kuka, JH $605

89

Opposition from Maori

The Maori Trustee and the Maori Land Court preferred that receivership leases, and

especially leases administered by Section 438 trusts, should be offered in the first instance to

"Maori of repute and standing."258 Part of the reasoning behind this was probably to minimise

the resentment many Maori experienced when their lands were leased out to strangers. In a

number of cases, part owners or other Maori from the area accepted a lease. If suitable Maori

lessees could not be found, however, then under Section 34 of the Maori Purposes Act 1950,

and later Section 33 or Section 387 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953, the Maori Trustee was

obliged to lease the land out to the highest bidder.

For many owners, receivership leases were viewed with great suspicion and anxiety. While

most leases were set for a twenty-one year period, most Maori of the time saw the leases as

little more than a form of alienation by stealth. The use of receivership leases by the council

also revived bitter memories of earlier compulsory acquisitions of land such as raupatu. Sol

Kanapu told a meeting of the county council in 1960:

This means of land utilisation is popularly referred to by Maori elders as 'confiscation' by

local bodies under the present Maori Affairs Act, but in reality it does provide an avenue for

development of unimproved blocks of land with multiple ownership.259

In some areas opposition to the imposition of receivership leases was quite intense. When

discussing the leasing out of Matapihi lots no.1A, no.3D and no.6B during 1951, the

Registrar of the Waiariki Maori Land Board warned his colleague in Tauranga:

Should the land be leased to an outsider it would be advisable to get the consent of the

owners if possible, for unless the lessee had their goodwill, they could make matters very

difficult for cropping. On many occasions crops have been razed deliberately and produce

has just disappeared at Matapihi.260

Opposition to receivership leases was particularly fierce on Matakana Island. In 1962 the

council lodged receivership applications with the Maori Land Court for several Matakana

blocks. Staff from the Department of Maori Affairs attended the hearing and vigorously

opposed the move. The Bay of Plenty Times recorded that in the opinion of Maori Affairs, the

258 Assistant District Officer (MA Rot) to Under Secretary (MA Wgtn), [[nd] circa 1958], BBHW, 4958-1338a, 12/202

'Ranginui 9B', NA-A

259 'New Maori Land Policy Need is 'Urgent", BOP Times, 9 June 1960

260 J,J. Dillon (MLB) to MA (Tga), 14 November 1951, BBHW 4958-1469b, 121188 'Matapihi No. lA, No. 3D, 6B', NA-A

90

owners of the blocks should not have to pay rates while there were no county facilities on the

island. Maori Affairs recognised that the tight-knit Maori community on the island would

never accept both the imposition of receivership leases and the arrival of lessees from the

mainland. Maori Affairs argued that while receivership leases were "considered a reasonable

practice on the mainland, it was considered a drastic way for land utilisation on the island."261

In opposing the council's applications the department suggested that the affected blocks be

placed in the hands of the Maori Trustee under a Section 438 trust in the hope the land could

be leased to locals. Maori Affairs argued that the fate of these blocks should ultimately be

considered with the future utilisation of the whole island. The idea that Matakana Island was

a 'special case' in regard to rating would remain in place for another decade.

But not all Maori were as opposed to the receivership system as those on Matakana or

Matapihi. Some Maori, especially those wanting access to farmland, saw the receivership

lease system as way of overcoming the problems associated with multiple ownership. While

the receivership system was far from ideal, William [Bill] Ohia wrote in an open letter to

D.S. Mitchell, the Mayor of Tauranga, in 1960:

To obtain a secure form of tenure requires prolonged negotiations with other owners

concerned and the necessary legal requirements dictated by our Maori land laws. The powers

granted the county councils to act through the Maori Land Court allowing leasehold titles to

approved applicants, whether Maori or European, will certainly help in this direction. Failure

to obtain a secure tenure is the main reason why there is so much of our lands lying idle

today.262

Difficulty of Finding a Lessee

Finding suitable tenants for land in receivership proved difficult. Despite their best efforts,

county and Maori Trustee staff found that a number of blocks placed into receivership could

not be leased out because a willing tenant could not be found. This was often because the

land involved was remote, uncleared, expensive to farm or unproductive. The Department of

Maori Affairs' Resident Officer in Tauranga, who did much of the administrative work for

the Maori Trustee, complained that Ranginui no.9 was not viable as an economic unit as the

261 'Problem of unpaid Maori rates', BOP Times, 21 August 1962

262 'Maori Farmer Replies to Mr Mitchell', BOP Times, 16 July 1960. Ohia was responding to Mitchell's allegation a few

days earlier at a Local Bodies Association meeting that "Maoris in the Tauranga area were not interested in farming ... They

preferred wharf or road work."

91

land was exposed, had poor soil and contained a large area of rough bush and swamp. 263

Ironically, many potential lessees were also put off by high rates. The Maori Land Board

found after advertising Matapihi no.1A, no. 3D and no.6B, nobody could be found to lease

the block. The Registrar noted on the file that "apparently owing to the high rates which an

occupier would be required to pay, the [Maori Land] Board received no [acceptable] offers to

lease."264 Likewise, G.R. Scott, a Kaimai farmer, turned down a lease of Ongaonga IE in

1962 due to what he saw as the unreasonable rental cost as well as high rate charges.265 The

county council struggled to find a lessee for Poike lC2 after it was placed in receivership. In

the end the county accepted a low rental. Kanapu explained to the Maori Land Court:

I am quite certain that £1 an acre is all that can be got for this - I can't get anyone else to

take this. The owner who was to lease withdrew. He said £1 an acre was plenty to lease.266

In most cases blocks placed into receivership were leased by adjoining farmers and used for

grazing. In some cases the adjoining farmers approached the council, initially because they

were anxious at the spread of noxious weeds from one property to another. A number of

blocks were also brought to the county's attention by the council's noxious weeds inspector.

Kanapu, who spent an extraordinary amount of time travelling around the county, was

particularly skilled in making contact with farmers and convincing them to lease

neighbouring Maori land.267 It was not surprising that Kanapu arranged such a large number

of leases to neighbouring owners. Often adjoining farmers were the only ones interested in

leasing the land, especially when the block was too rugged or inaccessible to farm as a viable

economic unit on its own. In the case of Otawa lCIB, for example, the owners voted to lease

the land to Richard Charles Garrett in 1958 in order to protect the block from being placed

into receivership.268 Leasing to Garrett was seen as the only option, according to a Maori

Affairs Field Officer, "due to contour and location [the block] would never make an

economical farming proposition on its own.,,269

263 O.I. Thomas (MA Tga) to District Officer (MA Rot), 22 September 1955, BBHW, 4958-1470g, 12/205 'Ranginui 1IC',

NA-A. Ranginui no.9 was one of the small farm scheme blocks.

264 J.J. Dillon (Registrar MLB) file note 28 August 1952, BBHW, 12/188, NA-A

265 Tauranga MLC minute book, v.21, 6 February 1962, f.304

266 Tauranga MLC minute book, v.21, 24 August 1960, f.165

267 From September 1959 to December 1960, for example, Kanapu claimed mileage for an extraordinary 14,102 miles. S.B.

Kanapu to TCC, 31 May 1961, TCC Al1013, WBDC

268 Tauranga MLC minute book, v.21, 26 May 1958, f.25

269 O.S.G. Edwards (MA) to District Officer (MA Ham), 23 July 1976, BBHW 4958-1002f, 7/419 'Otawa 1C1B', NA-A

92

Kanapu was able to find lessees for a number of blocks by approaching neighbouring

landowners, and as a result the council's receivership applications arrived in batches. In the

case of Te Papa 535H and Te Papa 536B2, both lots were placed in receivership in 1960.

Both blocks were leased to Highlands Ltd, which farmed adjoining lands. 270 A number of

blocks at Oropi (Te Papa lots 446A, 446D, 446B2A, 446 B2B2B) were also leased during

1959-1960 to local farmer Noel Francis Chittock.271 Another block, Te Papa 446 B2B2A, was

leased by Chittock from 1963.

Kanapu would usually submit a receivership application to the Maori Land Court after he

found a willing tenant. The county had been advised to take this 'cart before the horse'

approach as a requirement of the Maori Affairs Act 1953:

Before the Local Body makes an application to the Court under authority of [Section 387

Maori Affairs Act 1953] it should first satisfy itself that there will be a demand for any land

vested in the Maori Trustee as the result of its application. If the land with which the Local

Body is concerned had no economic value then it is obviously a waste of time and money to

take action under Section 387,z72

Council's Pragmatic Approach

In his work, Kanapu personified the county's flexible approach to recovering rates. In the

case of Ngapeke 1M2, a small idle block only 1 acre 1 rood and 19 perches in size, Kanapu

approached an adjoining farmer and encouraged him to simply graze his stock on the block in

return for paying the rates.273 It appears that the Maori Land Court never confirmed this

informal arrangement. Likewise, Eric William Scholes purchased Tarawhai 4985F in 1963, a

block in the upper Wairoa River area just over 1 acre in size, after he had been informally

farming the land for years. Scholes told the Maori Land Court: "I have occupied it with the

blessing of [the] County Council on occasions and paid the rates then."274 Sol Kanapu

appeared before the Maori Land Court in support of the motion to sell to Scholes.

Kanapu's pragmatic approach could, however, also cause problems. Stokes refers' to

problems arising on Matakana Island where a number of informal leases, often based on

270 Tauranga MLC minute book, v.21, 24 August 1960, ff.l61-165

271 Tauranga MLC minute book, v.21, 24 May 1960, ff.120-121

272 G Brownlee-Smith, 'Maori Affairs Act 1953',3 March 1955, TCC AIlO/3, WBDC

273 S.B. Kanapu to A.G. Spratt (Chairman TCC), 2 October 1972, TCC A/15/4 'Maori Land Partitions', WBDC

93

verbal agreements and a cash payment, had caused some disquiet. In one incident a cash

payment was made to one owner without consultation with the other owners. Stokes records:

In one case, disgruntled owners, when they found out, accused the Maori Land Officer,

Tauranga County Council, of arranging the deal. In fact, the Maori Land Officer had some

difficulty in getting the rate payments that had been promised and pointed this out to

owners.275

The Maori Trustee also adopted creative solutions to clear rate arrears. One alternative to

leasing was the sale of timber rights, a practice sanctioned by Section 33 of the Maori Affairs

Act. The Maori Trustee sold cutting rights to the bush clad Kaimai blocks, Whakamarama

lCIB2 and Whakamarama lCIB3 in June 1960 to Frankham Brothers Ltd. The royalty

money was used to pay the £24 13s 6d rate charges both outstanding and current on

Whakamarama lCIB2 and £15 7s 6d for Whakamarama lCIB3. 276 In 1962 the cutting rights

to Whakamarama lC3B2A and Whakamarama lC3B2B were also sold to Frankham

Brothers, followed by Whakamarama lC3A in 1967. The money was also used to clear rate

charges of £26 6s 8d, £32 18s 4d and £3 13s lOd respectively.277 The remainder of the money,

which was a respectable sum, was then distributed to the block's owners, less the Maori

Trustee's commission.

The county also looked into selling the timber rights to secure outstanding rates. Kanapu

investigated the possible financial returns for milling timber on Otawa lC52 during 1974 in

order to clear $45.16 owing in rates.278 Selling timber rights, however, was a significant step

as it permanently changes the landscape of a block and the resources available on it. The

policy of the Maori Trustee was to ensure that the character and value of leased land was

maintained or enhanced, even when it was placed in receivership for rate arrears. The sale of

timber by those leasing Maori land, denuded the land of an important and valuable resource,

without the owners receiving any financial benefit. Because of this the Maori Trustee had

attempted to put a stop to the felling of timber on vested lands a few years earlier. G.F. Sing,

the lease inspector for the Maori Trustee, had visited Oropi in early 1969 to follow up

274 Tauranga MLC minute book, v.25, 24 July 1963, ff.33-34. The owners of the block were recorded as being deceased.

275 Stokes, Impact of Horticultural Expansion, p.153

276 TCC to MT, 26 August 1960, BBHW 4958-878f, 7/504 'Whakarnararna 1CIB2', NA-A

277 TCC to MT, 21 March 1962, BBHW 4958-1012e, 7/508 'Whakarnararna 1C3B2B'; TCC to MT 26 June 1967, BBHW

4958-1054b, 7/828 'Whakarnararna 1C3A', NA-A

278 L.A. Skudder (NZ Forest Service) to Kanapu (TCC), 17 April 1974, BACS a517-101, 1712219 'Otawa 1C52', NA-A

94

accusations that timber had been removed from leased Maori land in the area. While most of

the lessees had not removed timber, and resented the suggestion that they had, it was evident

that there had been some confusion over whether timber could be removed from a block

placed in receivership. Sing records that when Noel Chittock the lessee of Te Papa 446A:

Learned the purpose of my visit [he] was very upset. He claimed that when the lease term

commenced it was impressed on him that under no circumstances was he allowed to clear

any bush. That within the last two years he was visited by Mr S. Kanapu of the Tauranga

County Council. It appears he (Mr Kanapu) had been in some trouble as the result of trees

being removed from two leasehold blocks on the Kaimais. After this episode Mr Kanapu

visited all the leases in his area that had bush on them and again impressed on the lessee that

he was not allowed to clear bush.279

Troubled Leases of Mangatawa 9A2 & Ranginui 9B

The county's use of receivership leases significantly increased the rate collection on Maori

land in the district. But the system also had significant shortcomings. Maori Trustee staff

soon found their workload increasing significantly as management of the receivership leases

took more and more time. Due to the problems of geographic distance and a shortage of staff

resources, the Maori Trustee struggled to ensure the adequate management of all the

receivership leases.

The cases of Mangatawa 9A2 (18a 1r 32p) and Ranginui 9B (31a 3r 14p), two undeveloped

dairy blocks at Welcome Bay, are examples of the difficulties experienced in the

administration of receivership leases. The problems experienced with these leases were

typical of the problems faced by the Maori Trustee in generaI,280 Mangatawa 9A2 and

Ranginui 9B may, however, have been atypical in the degree to which mistakes were made

by the Maori Trustee during the administration of the leases. Both blocks were leased for

twenty-one years to Cyndric Buckland Joyce. Ranginui 9B was leased from 1 February 1959

for £25 per annum and Mangatawa 9A2 from 1 September 1961 for £62 lOs Od per annum

279 G.F. Sing (MA Tga) to Senior Estates Clerk (MT Ham), 14 March 1969, BBHW 4958-1003c, 7/424 'Te Papa 446A',

NA-A

280 Butterworth, Maori Trustee, pp.81, 112-114, records the despair Maori Trustee staff faced trying to administer lease of

Maori land.

95

respectively. Joyce also leased Mangatawa 8Cl and it appears he paid the rate arrears of £43

16s owing on Ranginui 9B to secure the lease of this block.281

The leases of the two blocks contained the usual clauses that required Joyce to put the land

into good grasses, combat noxious weeds and maintain the boundary fences. The Mangatawa

9A2 lease included a covenant that Joyce build a cow shed and in return he would be

refunded two years rental. Along with paying the rent, Joyce had to pay the six-percent

commission to the Maori Trustee and all the current rate charges. Once the outstanding rates

were cleared, it was envisaged that the Maori Trustee would distribute the rental proceeds to

the block's owners, although for Mangatawa 9A2 this proved difficult as out of the twenty­

one named owners only four had known addresses.

Joyce began falling behind in his rental in early 1963. By December 1963 he owed £102,

although Maori Trustee staff reported that the cow shed on Mangatawa 9A2 was under

construction.282 Joyce made it clear he was having financial difficulties and asked to be

released from his leases. The only way Joyce could easily abandon the leases was by finding

a third party willing to take over. Initially, Joyce thought he had succeeded when O.W.G.

Evans showed a passing interest in leasing the blocks. Evans withdrew his offer, however, as

he considered the rates and rentals as unacceptably high.283

With this option gone, Joyce was forced to continue with the lease despite owing rent of £50

on Ranginui 9B, £48 Os lOd on Mangatawa 8Cl and £135 9s 6d on Mangatawa 9A2. About

the same time Roori Rameka, one of the owners of Mangatawa 9A2, wrote to the Chief Judge

of the Maori Land Court asking for the lease to be ended, as they had not received any rental

proceeds. No action was taken in response to this letter, so Rameka wrote a second letter

complaining that the rental was not being paid, that the fences were breaking down and

noxious weeds were uncontrolled. The weed situation was so bad that Rameka complained,

"I [have to] pay the Pakeha to cut all bad weeds".284 Rameka's complaints were merely

passed on to the Maori Trustee and filed without action.

281 Tauranga MLC minute book, v.21, 24 August 1961, ff.261-262. Ranginui 9B was not in receivership, but leased by the

Maori Trustee under Section 438.

282 I. Hansen (MT Ham) to Hookey, Fenton & Earp, 4 December 1963, BBHW 4958-874j, 7/392 'Mangatawa 9A2, NA-A

283 Cooney, Lees & Morgan to MT (Ham), 24 January 1964, BBHW 7/392, NA-A

284 Hoori Rameka to Registrar (MLC), 1 December 1964, BBHW 7/392, NA-A

96

While Rameka's letters were easily ignored, the increasingly poor state of the two blocks

could not be. After an inspection in April 1965, it was clear to Maori Affairs staff in

Tauranga that with the rapid deterioration of the land and the progressive accrual of rent

arrears, the leases were becoming a serious liability for the Maori Trustee. The department's

solicitor warned, "it appears obvious that it is to the Maori Trustee's best interests to get the

lessee off the property as soon as possible."285

Despite these concerns, the Maori Trustee in Wellington was not told until November of that

year that, "inspections carried out in April 1965 showed that both pieces of land are in very

poor condition and were not at that stage being farmed."286 Despite a recommendation from

the district office that the Maori Trustee terminate the lease immediately, nothing happened

for another two years. The Rameka whanau wrote to the Maori Trustee again in January 1966

asking why no rental money had been distributed. Mrs Rameka finished her letter asking,

"please reply within next week."287 Mrs Rameka, however, had to wait six months for a reply.

By now the administration problem had reached the attention of management. On reviewing

the files, the Assistant District Officer was highly critical of staff performance:

The failure to take any further administrative action is serious, as apart from anything else,

we have already had enquiries from one of the owners concerning these leases.288

In an effort to rectify the situation the Senior Estates Clerk, responsible for the management

of the lease, wrote in July 1966 to the Resident Officer in Tauranga asking if he could make:

Some discreet enquiries as to the financial standing of Mr Joyce. It would probably be worth

your while also to make an approach to the Bank of New Zealand and see if they can give

any indication of whether he is worth suing or not.289

The Tauranga office replied with the news that Joyce was working as a cleaner on a modest

income. Given this and the fact that Joyce had a large young family, the district office

decided that legal action would be counter-productive.290 It is worth noting that the Maori

285 GD. Carter (District Solicitor) to Ivan Hansen (Senior Estate Clerk), 3 June 1965, BBHW 7/392, NA-A

286 MT (Ham) to MT (Wgtn), 23 November 1966, MA w2490, 54/9/42, 'Maori Trustee - Mangatawa 9A2 Ranginui 9B -

Enforcement of Covenants.', NA-W

287 P. Rameka to MT (Ham), 9 January 1966, BBHW 7/392, NA-A

288 R.A. Price (Assistant District Officer) to Hansen (Senior Estate Clerk), 3 February 1966, BBHW 7/392, NA-A

289 Ivan Hansen (MT Ham) to R.G. Falconer (MA Tga), 27 July 1966, BBHW 7/392, NA-A

290 R.G. Falconer (Resident Officer Tga) to MT (Ham), 29 July 1966, BBHW 7/392, NA-A

97

Trustee took a similar approach when it tried to recover rental money from David Rewa Heke

after his failed lease of Te Papa 714. While Heke's lease had been terminated, the Maori

Trustee still faced the problem of trying to collect the back rent. Just as he did with Joyce, the

Senior Estates Clerk wrote to the department's resident officer in Tauranga asking him:

From your local knowledge could you advise me whether Heke is worth powder and shot

should we decide to take action against him for recovery. 291

With little hope of recovering the rental money, the Maori Trustee tried to find a suitable

person to replace Joyce as lessee. The Senior Estates Clerk soon found, however, that it was

now impossible to find someone to take over the leases. One potential lessee was scared off

by the large amount of back rates and rentals owed on the property.292 It was clear to the

Maori Trustee that the existing lease could not be salvaged. With £301 2s 67d owing on

Mangatawa 9A2 and £87 lOs 9d on Ranginui 9B, the Maori Trustee was forced to make an

application to the Maori Land Court to end the leases on both blocks. Mangatawa 9A2 was

accordingly re-entered, thereby ending the lease, on 11 January 1967. As far as the Maori

Trustee was concerned, on re-entry management of the block automatically passed back to

the owners.293 The Maori Trustee, however, still faced liability for the debts run up during

Joyce's lease. With Joyce now owing back rent of $943.37 on both blocks, with an additional

$104 in rates outstanding on the land, the Maori Trustee in Wellington considered suing him

during mid-1967.294 Seemingly in denial of the events of the previous years, the Senior Estate

Clerk recommended against taking any action:

Mr Joyce has always been considered a good, reliable and hardworking type but

unfortunately lacks business ability. He has no savings and in view of the above report I

consider that no useful purpose could be achieved if the matter is pursued.295

Hansen promised Wellington that "close supervision will be maintained [on Ranginui 9B]

and you will be further advised as and when necessary."296 By 1970, however, an inspection

of Ranginui 9B showed a marked deterioration in the state of the land. Four acres had

reverted to gorse and blackberry and the boundary fences had not been adequately

291 Hansen (MT Ham) to Resident Officer (Tga), 5 July 1966, BBHW 4958-1003b, 7/423 'Te Papa 714', NA-A

292 N.L. Kane to MT (Ham), 16 November 1966, BBHW 7/392, 'Mangatawa 9A2, NA-A

293 Hansen (MT Ham) to owners, 13 February 1967, BBHW 7/392, NA-A

294 Decimal currency was introduced in New Zealand on 10 July 1967; one pound being worth two dollars.

295 Hansen (MT Ham) to MT (Wgtn), 12 April 1967, MA 54/9/42, NA-W

296 Hansen to MT, 12 April 1967, MA 54/9/42, NA-W

98

maintained.297 Even more frustrating for the Maori Trustee was the fact that unbeknown to

them a third party had been allowed to graze the property. After investigation, the staff at the

Tauranga office found out that Joyce had sublet the property to a Mr Turkilsen for £250. This

was a clear and serious breach of the lease. The file of the Maori Trustee in Wellington notes:

District [office] has already been far too lenient with the lessee and should have taken firm

action against him before now. 298

Following this, the lease on Ranginui 9B was changed over to Turkilsen who paid off the

rates owing and brought the land back into production. Once the lease expired administration

of the block was taken over by a family trust administered by the owners. In overseeing the

receivership lease system, the Maori Trustee tried to administer dozens of leases on blocks

involving hundreds of acres spread around Tauranga County. It is not surprising that given

the problems of under-staffing and under-resourcing that faced the Maori Trustee during the

1950s and 1960s, mistakes and oversights were made in the administration of the leases. 299

From Lease to Sale

While there were few direct sales of Maori land for rates during the 1960s, it is clear that in a

number of cases the leasing of land to pay for rate charges facilitated an eventual sale of the

land. This was especially true for land placed in receivership leases. A review of the relevant

Maori Trustee files shows a clear relationship between receivership leases and the subsequent

sales of the land, most often to the lessee. Between 1962 and 1983 at least 19 blocks of

around 1,350 acres of land that had been leased out to pay rate arrears, were sold following

meetings of assembled owners. A notable example of this was the sale of a number of Oropi

blocks to Noel Francis Chittock. Chittock leased a number of blocks in the Oropi area that

had been placed into receivership for rate arrears. Following significant valuation increases

and the spectre of having his rent reviewed, Chittock called for a meeting of owners in 1969

to consider selling the land.30o In the case of Te Papa 446 B2B2B2, Chittock was successful,

while the owners of Te Papa 446A, Te Papa 446B2A and Te Papa 446D declined the

purchase offer.

297 MT (Ham) to MT (Wgtn), 29 January 1970, MA 54/9/42, NA-W

298 File note, [n.d], MA 54/9/42, NA-W

299 While Butterworth notes that Trustee received a great deal of criticism for his administration of leases during the 1960s,

he argues that the Trust School operating out of the Rotorua District Office had overall raised the level of competence of

Maori Trustee staff in that period. Butterworth, The Maori Trustee, p.lOl.

300 I.A. Hansen (MT Ham) File Note, 9 July 1969, BBHW 4958-1004c, 7/429 'Te Papa 446D', NA-A

99

These sales took place despite the fact that the Maori Land Court viewed the purchase of land

by a tenant lessee as highly problematic. Judge Prichard was concerned that selling to the

lessee would preclude the land from being placed on the open market and purchased by the

highest bidder. During one court hearing in 1962, Judge Prichard stated that "generally the

Court opposes sales to lessees as [there can be] no free market."301 Prichard was concerned

that the lessee, by virtue of being the occupier of the block, could have undue influence in

both initiating the sale and influencing the sale process.

Prichard's view may have been provoked by sales similar to that of Ngapeke 5A2 to Louis

Sidney St Bruno earlier in 1962. St Bruno had leased the block since 1956 after it was placed

into receivership for unpaid rates. During the sale hearing J.M. McKenzie, counsel for the

purchaser, told the court that the sale was in the best interests of the owners as the land was

leased to St Bruno for another fifteen years with a relatively low rental of £25 per annum.

McKenzie argued that in real terms the owners with the largest interest would only receive £4

10s a year from the land, while on the other hand the sale would provide a large amount of

cash up front to each owner. As a meeting of owners had already been swayed by this

argument, the court approved the sale to St Bruno for £1700.302

The landowners of blocks placed in receivership often feared what would happen once the

receivership lease ended. One example of this was the case of Mangatawa 7D, a block of just

over 81 acres. Mangatawa 7D was leased to Jack Arthur Webster for twenty-one years from

1961. During his lease, Webster was up to date with both his rent and the rate payments.

When the lease expired in 1982 the owners approached Webster to consider renewing his

lease. Due to the dramatic increases in valuation, however, Webster stated that he simply

could not continue grazing the land on the old basis. As a result the owners faced a rates bill

of $1135.60 on a block they neither farmed nor occupied. As a result they elected to sell the

block to Webster for $1,600.303 The owners of Otawa 1C2 faced a similar dilemma. Maurice

Joseph Boyer leased Otawa 1e2 for twenty-one years from 1945. When the lease ended in

1966, the owners went from receiving an annual payment from the rental proceeds to facing a

301 Tauranga MLC minute book, v.21, 24 August 1962, ff.343-344

302 Tauranga MLC minute book, v.21, 4 May 1962, ff.318-321

303 Minutes of Owners Meeting, 16 April 1982, BBHW 4958-1000d, 7/390 'Mangatawa 7D 1961-83', NA-A

100

rates bill of £29 13s 6d and a £7 rabbit board levy.304 As a result, a meeting of owners

resolved to sell the land to Walter Arnold Garrett in 1967 for $17,000.

The part played by Tauranga County Council in a number of these sales is interesting and

warrants examination. The council certainly had an interest in seeing these blocks farmed and

occupied long term. The sale of land to those leasing it ensured that when the lease expired,

the problem of rate arrears and idleness would not return. One result of the rate charging and

receivership process in Tauranga, therefore, was the influence the county council could exert,

at least in some cases, in the sale of Maori land. Certainly the council saw itself playing a

greater role in determining the future of land that owed rates or were placed in receivership,

than ordinarily would have been the case. In the case of the sale of Te Papa 446 B2B2B to

Noel Chittock in 1971, it was Kanapu who submitted the application on behalf of Chittock to

the Maori Land Court to call a meeting of owners to consider a sale.305 The case of the Te

Papa 170 and Te Papa 152A blocks perhaps gives an indication of the council's perspective.

Te Papa 170 and Te Papa 152A had been placed in receivership in 1961, with Arthur Peter

Jensen, an Omanawa farmer and county councillor, taking over the lease in 1963.306 Jensen

subsequently purchased a 29-acre portion of the block in 1967 (which became Te Papa 714).

The owners used this money to clear rate arrears and to repair the wharenui at Bethlehem

Marae. 307 During the course of the negotiations for the part sale, Jensen wanted to purchase

the entire Te Papa 170 and Te Papa 152A blocks. Despite Jensen's efforts, a meeting of

owners rejected his offer in March 1966. Following this, E.M. Fox wrote to Maori Affairs in

an unsuccessful attempt to get the department's support for the sale. Fox wrote:

This land has remained idle for many years and is covered in gorse and other noxious weeds.

Mr Jensen is the adjoining owner and is very concerned at the situation. He is also a

[ County] Councillor. 308

The county's attempts to exert influence were usually more subtle and mixed in with a range

of factors. In the case of Parish of Te Papa Lot 536C no.2, for example, the block was in

receivership but the county failed to find a suitable lessee. The Maori Trustee file records:

304 BBHW 4958-1040f, 71707 'Otawa 1C2', NA-A

305Kanapu to Registrar (MLC), 3 June 1971, BACS, a449-61e, 17/975, 'Lot 446 B2B2B Parish of Te Papa 1960-1971', NA-A

306 Tauranga MLC minute book, v.24, 22 August 1962, f.171

307 Tauranga MLC minute book, v.28, 17 March 1967, f.29

308 E.M. Fox (TCC) to District Officer (MA Ham), 19 January 1967, BBHW, 7/423 'Te Papa 714', NA-A

101

Mr Kanapu of the Tauranga County, advised me that he was endeavouring to call a meeting

of owners in respect to the sale of this block but recently this proposal has fallen through.309

While Kanapu was unable to find a potential lessee for the block, he did succeed in finding a

potential buyer in E.E. Alach, an adjoining fanner who was infonnally occupying a portion

of the block. Although the block was technically in receivership, a sale of the block still

required the consent of the owners before the Maori Land Court would give its approval.

While initially Kanapu's efforts to convince a meeting of owners to sell was fruitless, he

appears to have persisted and the block was sold in 1964 to E.H. Evans.

Kanapu also played a significant facilitating role in the unsuccessful sale of Te Papa 536D.

Charles Kennedy, an adjoining fanner, had leased Te Papa 536D since 1959. Kennedy wrote

to the Maori Trustee in 1968 asking about buying the block. It is clear Kanapu had initiated

or at least encouraged the action. Kennedy wrote:

Mr Kanapu from Tauranga County Council has told me it is an uneconomic block and not

suitable for private ownership. It also adjoins my own farm which is not large enough for

present day requirements.3lO

Despite Kennedy's interest, the owners refused to sell the block and in 1973 the lease was

transferred.

While Te Papa 536D was not sold to the lessee, other 'uneconomic' blocks were. The case of

Ongaonga 1B is an interesting one. This Kaimai block was placed in receivership and leased

in 1960 to Walter Colin Christian an adjoining fanner. 311 Within a short space of time,

however, Christian became dissatisfied with the terms of the lease. Christian wrote to Maori

Affairs in Tauranga complaining that it was unreasonable for him to pay £10 annually in rent

along with £6 in rates. Christian believed that the county had misled him and that the land

was not "a paying proposition."312 As the county was acting as receiver on the block, Kanapu

agreed to tenninate the lease on condition that all rent and rates owing were paid.313

Following the surrender of the lease, the county had great difficulty in finding an alternative

309 R.G. Falconer (Resident Officer Tga) to District Officer (MA Ham), 19 August 1964, BBHW 4958-1469c, 12/191 'Te

Papa Lot 536C no.2', NA-A

310 Charles Kennedy to MT (Ham), 12 December 1968, BBHW 4958-1004e, 7/434 'Te Papa Lot 536D', NA-A

3ll Tauranga MLC minute book, v.21, 8 February 1961, ff.223-224

312 W.C. Christian to Resident Officer (MA Tga), 16 April 1962, BBHW 4958-1001c, 7/411 'Ongaonga 1B', NA-A

313 W.C. Christian to MT (Rot), 20 November 1962, BBHW, 7/411 'Ongaonga lB', NA-A

102

tenant. After lying idle for six years with rate arrears accumulating, a meeting of the owners

was called in 1968 and the 'uneconomic' block was sold to Christian for $2000.314

The burden of accumulating rate charging orders and the threat of receivership was also a

catalyst for the sale of Poripori Kumi A lot 22. By 1965 the block had accumulated £81 4s in

rate charges prompting the county to lodge a receivership application with the Maori Land

Court. In response to the county's action, a meeting of owners voted to sell the block to Garry

John Breingan for £7,500, a portion of which was used to clear the rate charges. At a

subsequent Maori Land Court hearing to confirm the sale, Friis, a lawyer representing owners

who opposed the sale, questioned the validity of the decision to sell. Friis stated:

At the meeting of assembled owners, those desirous of selling were absentee owners who

had done nothing, not even contributed to rates.315

The Maori Land Court certainly experienced difficulties in calling a truly representative

meeting of owners. When the Maori Trustee called a meeting of owners in 1980 to decide on

the future of Te Papa 714, only a handful of owners could be located. The trust file contains

numerous unclaimed notices and letters from the administrators of deceased estates.316

While the pressure of rate charges was a factor in the sale of many blocks, it would be a

mistake to exaggerate its overall influence. Often rates was just one of a number of reasons

motivating owners to sell. In the sale of Whakamarama lCA5Al, a fifty-acre block owned by

Kataraina Tuwhakaraina who owed £78 4s in rate arrears, the vendor told the court:

I own the land I have the house on it. I am 69. Never had any rent from the land. I want to

sell the land to get myself the house finished and [ with] comforts.317

Similarly, Te Hirau Moihi sold Papamoa 21D in 1965 for a number of reasons. While Moihi

was concerned about the ongoing cost of rates, the £8,000 purchase money also attracted him.

A Maori Affairs representative told the Maori Land Court:

[Moihi] finds the land an embarrassment as to noxious weeds, capital expenditure required

but capital not available. He would like to sell and apply proceeds of sale in purchase of land

suitable for house sites for his farnily.,,318

314 Tauranga MLC minute book, v.29, 14 February 1969, f.371

315 Tauranga MLC alienation minute book, v.1, 5 November 1965, f.154

316 BBHW, 7/423 'Te Papa 714', NA-A

317 Tauranga MLC minute book, v.21, 2 February 1960, f.216

318 Tauranga Alienation Minute Book, 4 November 1965, v.1, f.146

103

Towards the end of the 1960s, despite the problems encountered principally by the Maori

Trustee, the receivership system had reduced the county's rating problem. The county had

also succeeded in facilitating the sale of a number of blocks as well as encouraging the

formation of Section 438 Trusts. Kanapu wrote in a local government publication, "within the

Tauranga County area the assessment of Maori rates will no longer be an embarrassing

formality."319 Kanapu reported that for the 1966-67 financial year the county had collected

£22,875 in rates from Maori land with only £4,287 being written off, a collection rate of 72

percent. By the late 1960s it seemed that the county council had effectively brought the rating

problem under its control. This situation would, however, radically change in the 1970s.

Table 9. Blocks Leased for Rate Arrears & Subsequently Alienated by Sale.

Block Area Lessee Year of

Purchaser Sale

Lease Price

Ngapeke 5A2 18a StBruno, LS 1956 St Bruno, LS £1,700

Opureora 1B 2A 1a 2r 16p Ngatai, S Ngatai, S* £170

Tarawhai 4985F 1a lr 26p Scholes, EW Scholes, EW £60

Whakamarama IB2C 221a 1r 30p Midland Ltd 1959 Midland Ltd £2,400

Te Papa 714(pt) 29a 2r 32p Jensen, AP 1960 Jensen, AP £450

Otawa lC2 135a Or 13p Boyer, MJ 1945 Garrett, WA $17,000

Ongaonga IG3B5B(pt) 112a 3r 8p Rolleston, A 1958 Rolleston, A *

Ongaonga lA 132a Or 22p Rolleston, A 1957 Rolleston, A *

Ongaonga 1B 69a 2r 32p Christian, W C 1960 Christian, WC $2,000

Poike 4B 16a Or 3p Wright, D 1960 Wright, D $9,600

Te Papa 446B2B2A Chittock, NF 1963 Chittock, NF

Maungatapu lCl(pt) 4a 1r 35p Reader, CB 1949 Streeter, GR $12,000

Papamoa 24A 12a Or 37p Webster, D 1962 Addison, D $2,400

Te Papa 536C no.2 84a 1r 38p Alach, E 1964 Evans, AH $4,000

Whakamarama IB2B 278a Or 20p Purchas, WH 1961 Purchas, B $24,000

Te Papa 446 B2B2B2 33a 3r 15p Chittock, NF 1960 Chittock, NF $2,450

Te Puna Z9 15a 1r 13p Borrell, WA 1965 Borrell, W A *

Te Papa 713 71a Smith, VC 1961 Smith, VC* $5,405

Mangatawa 7D 81a 3r Webster, JA 1961 Webster, JA $1,600

* Part-owner

319 'Rates on Maori-held land', New Zealand Local Government, May 1967, p.l77

104

Summary

During the 1960s, Tauranga County Council made regular use of receivership leases to bring

the rating problem under control. Much of the county's success is attributable to the work of

its Maori Rates Clerk, Sol Kanapu, who worked full time on the rating problem from 1958.

As a former Maori Affairs staff member, Kanapu was confident working in the Maori Land

Court system as well as with Maori landowners. Where possible, Kanapu encouraged the

owners to form their own trusts under Section 438 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953, to manage

their own land. Where this failed, Kanapu would make applications to the Maori Land Court

for rate charging orders, followed by receivership applications. Kanapu was also particularly

skilled in finding potential lessees, most often from adjoining farms. Above all, Kanapu was

pragmatic and used a variety of methods to place an occupier on land not paying rates.

While the receivership system was on the whole a success for the county, it placed an

enormous burden on the Maori Trustee and the staff of Maori Affairs. Administering the

leases and ensuring the lease covenants were met was expensive and time consuming. In a

number of cases the leases caused enormous difficulties for the Maori Trustee as the tenants

stopped paying their rent, failed to take care of the property or simply abandoned the lease

altogether. The Maori Trustee's efforts were hampered by the fact that many of the leased

blocks were of marginal economic value, with some only being economic if farmed in

tandem with an adjoining block. This was, of course, a critical problem for the Maori owners

as well.

It appears that few, if any, blocks were sold directly for rates during the 1960s. However,

while there were no outright sales, it is clear that many of the blocks leased out for rates were

eventually sold, usually to the lessee. While the Maori Land Court expressed concerns about

these sales, the Maori Trustee did not appear to take a position, and the county council

actively encouraged them.

105

SECTION E 'Playing it tough' - Rating during the 1970s

By the late 1960s, events were unfolding both nationally and in Tauranga that would force

the county to alter its approach to the rating of Maori land. This section will examine how the

rating process that operated so effectively from the 1950s, began to break down in the 1970s.

From the mid-1960s, there was a shift in the way the Maori land-rating problem was regarded

by both central and local government. These changes followed the government's hardening

attitude to Maori land utilisation in general, a development that was perceived as creating a

harsher rating regime. Reacting against this was the increasingly vocal opposition of Maori,

who regarded both the new Maori land laws and the rating regime as unjust. The situation

was further complicated in Tauranga, where rising land valuations would fundamentally

change the Maori land-rating regime.

Prichard-Waetford Report

The 1965 Prichard-Waetford inquiry was, for the purposes of this report, the next major

development in the policies and legislation governing the utilisation and rating of Maori

land.320 Ivor Prichard, former Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court, presided over the inquiry

and Hemi Tono Waetford, a senior public servant with the Maori Affairs department, joined

him. The purpose of the inquiry was to examine laws affecting Maori land and in particular

the powers of the Maori Land Court in determining the future use of Maori land.

In summary, the Prichard-Waetford report recommended that the legislation governing Maori

land should be amended to allow a firmer line on Maori land management and utilisation.

The report argued that the Maori land problem could only be resolved by moving Maori land

rapidly towards the status of European land. The most contentious recommendation of the

committee was to extend the policy of 'conversion' in which the 'uneconomic' interests of

Maori landowners would be purchased by the Maori Trustee.321 Prichard and Waetford

believed that this would reverse the process of title fragmentation and allow Maori land to be

320 Ivor Prichard & Hemi Waetford, Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Laws Affecting Maori Land and Powers of the

Maori Land Court, Wellington, 15 December 1965

321 Conversion was applied to a number of blocks owing rates like Te Papa 537C, a 76-acre bush block placed into

receivership for rates in 1966. A number of owners had their shares purchased by the Maori Trustee and the remaining

owners voted to sell in late 1967. Stokes, Ngamanawa - A Study of conflicts in the use offorest land, University of Waikato,

1983, (Wai 215, All), p.24

106

moved progressively onto the same basis as general land.322 The committee's

recommendations were underlined by the need to restructure the way the ownership of Maori

land was administered. The Prichard-Waetford report hoped that Maori land could, within a

few years, be turned to the production of export goods, adding to the national income.

While rating was not a central theme of the Prichard-Waetford report, the committee did

address the problem of rating Maori land. Judge Prichard, no doubt influenced by his

experience on the bench of the Maori Land Court, viewed the rating problem as a symptom

of poor land management. In the committee's scheme, once the land utilisation problem had

been solved, the rating problem would simply disappear as "with proper use there is no rate

problem".323 The report expressed sympathy with the plight of the county councils and

recommended that land placed in receivership should either be leased on long-term fixed

leases to give security to the council and the lessees, or sold outright to clear rate arrears.

The findings of the Prichard-Waetford report were welcomed by the Holyoake National

Government, which adopted many of its recommendations in the controversial Maori Affairs

Amendment Act 1967.324 While the detail of this legislation is beyond the scope of this study

it is worth noting that the Act sought to make sweeping changes to Maori land administration,

to settle the utilisation question once and for all. Like the Prichard-Waetford committee, the

government hoped that this radical transformation of Maori land management would, as a

consequence, solve the rating problem.

Rating Act 1967

The government also revised and updated the rating law. While Maori anticipated the new

rating act with some apprehension, on the whole the legislation presented little that was new

in rating Maori land. The exception was an innovation in the role of the Maori Land Court

when dealing with rates. Section 155 of the Rating Act 1967 instructed the court to:

Consider the future use of the land and the payment of future rates, thereon, and shall for this

purpose hear such evidence and such submissions as may be put forward by the local

authority or by any owner of the land.

322 Prichard-Waetford Report, pp.6,19

323 Prichard-Waetford Report, p.65

324 Tipene Watene (Eastern Maori), described the act as 'the last land grab', NZPD, 16 May 1967, p.531

107

This provision would be significant in Tauranga where the long-term use of Maori land was

attaining greater significance. The increased role of local bodies in determining the future use

of Maori land, before the rates had even been charged, alarmed many Maori. Matiu Rata saw

Section 155 as a clear threat to Maori land ownership:

What concerns the Opposition is that, even when Maori landowners have met their rating

obligations, the court still has power to issue a vesting order for alienation either by sale or

lease if the owners or the persons concerned cannot satisfy the court regarding the future

payment of rates or the future use of the land. This provision is undesirable, unnecessary, and

totally unfair.325

Counties like Tauranga welcomed the new legislation with their own tougher rhetoric on the

twin problems of Maori land use and rating. This in turn created a widespread perception

among Maori that more land was being alienated under the new rating law. So widespread

was this view that Duncan MacIntyre (Minister of Maori Affairs), tried to ease Maori fears

during a visit to the eastern Bay of Plenty in 1970. MacIntyre, echoing similar statements

from previous ministers, was quoted in the local press as saying:

It is very rare for Maori land to be sold for non-payment of rates: The [Maori Land] Court

always tries to bring about a settlement of the rate charges in some other way if at all

practicable.326

Despite these assurances, it was clear many local bodies saw the new legislation as

strengthening their hand. Tauranga County, which already had a comparatively tough line,

became more confident about prosecuting rate charges. The county also changed its approach

to the harbour islands where in the past no real effort was made to collect the rates. The

county clerk announced that from 1 April 1967 the rates would be enforced.

In another move, the county made a Section 438 application to the Maori Land Court in July

1970 to allow the sale of Otawa lC3 and Otawa lC4 for outstanding rates of $9.08.

Combined, the two blocks were little over 33 acres in area. The recorded owners Wiremu

Keepa Te Namu (Otawa lC3) and Ihuwera Te Houroa (Otawa lC4), could not be located and

were considered 'probably deceased'.327 The court appointed the county as trustee for the

blocks with authority to sell the land as the Maori Trustee declined the trustee role and no one

325 Matiu Rata, NZPD, 21 November 1967, p.4376

326 'Very Rare to Sell Maori Land for Rates', Opotiki News, 10 July 1970, p,4

327 Tauranga MLC minute book, v,30, 10 July 1970, f.276

108

could be found to lease the land.328 The two blocks were subsequently sold to Walter Arnold

Garrett an adjoining farmer, who had already purchased Otawa 1 C2 a few years earlier.

Table 10. Rural Blocks Alienated by Sale in which Rates a Factor 1961-70.329

-I ' Block Area

Rates Purchaser Sale Price

1961 Whakamarama 1C1B2 59a £784s Finchley Ltd £1,175

1963 Whakamarama 1C3B1 183a 3r 29p £15 7s 6p Shaplin, ML £3,425

1965 • • 17a Or IIp £35 8s 1d Moore, DR £875

1966 430a flO 13s 4d Scott, AR £5,100

1967 Pori pori Kumi A 305a £814s Breingan, GJ £7,500

1967 Te Papa 537C 76a 2r 8p £23 4s 22d Taylor, H $5,400

1970 Otawa 1C3 & 1C4 33a 3r 3p $9.08 Garrett, WA $920

While the sale of these blocks did not signal a wholesale alienation of Maori land, the sales

are interesting because for the first time in Tauranga, it appears that the county was given

authority to sell Maori land outright for rates. But the sale of these two blocks was more the

exception than the rule. Despite the stronger rhetoric, the county was worried during the early

1970s about the increasing difficulty in collecting rates in the rapidly changing economic

climate. The Bay of Plenty Times reported in September 1972 that $52,000 in rates arrears

was now owed by Maori landowners on land in rural areas, along with 64 sections of Maori­

owned general land.330 The Herald responded by putting Tauranga's rate arrears problem in

perspective. In comparison to other counties (Rotorua for example was owed an estimated

$220,000), Tauranga's problems "pale beside those reported from other areas of the North

Island. "331

Because of increasing land valuations, a number of Maori-owned residential sections in areas

like Matapihi, Papamoa, Welcome Bay, Rangiuru, Maketu and Manoeka fell behind with

their rates. As many of these blocks were classed as general land with clear legal ownership,

the county resolved to sue the owners and authorised council staff to "take any other steps

necessary to obtain payment" for the $2433 owing. While the council's decision was directed

328 Tauranga MLC minute book, v.30, 7 May 1970, f.254

329 Unlike the blocks in Table 9, these blocks were not in receivership leases for rates.

330 'Total Maori rate arrears $52,000', BOP Times, 13 September 1972

331 'County Records $220,000 Rate Debt By Maoris', NZ Herald, 13 September 1972

109

at sections of general land, the Bay of Plenty Times reported that the Tauranga County

Council was going to "play it tough" with Maori owners in general. 332

Bill Ohia, Chairman of the Tauranga Maori Executive, responded to the council's

announcement in the Bay of Plenty Times. Ohia argued that any attempt to sell Maori land

under the "present joint-ownership land titles would be unsatisfactory and unfair." Ohia

believed that without reform of the title system, it was simply unfair to rate Maori land. Ohia

expressed his opposition to the county even considering the sale of Maori land:

At this time, and under the present title conditions what the council plans is really a legal

form of confiscation. If any land [was] sold without the Government considering the title

situation, it is obvious that the Maori people are being penalised.,,333

In reality the county had little chance of having multiply owned Maori land sold for rates.

Instead the county increased it rhetoric on the problem. In doing this, Sol Kanapu provoked

considerable controversy when the Herald reported comments he made at a county council

meeting in September 1972. In trying to talk tough, Kanapu had stated:

He had been told by one Maori elder that the Ratana Church gospel counselled against the

paying of rates. Mr Kanapu said he believed some of the land owners had adopted the Ratana

Church attitude.334

Kanapu's comments were criticised by Matiu Rata (MP for Northern Maori), who dismissed

them as being in "bad and poor taste." Rata added, "I have never heard of rates being

mentioned in the official policy of the Church."335 Kanapu was forced to publicly apologise

for his comments to all the people of the Ratana faith. The Bay of Plenty Times reported him

as stating:

My family connection prevails [upon] me to retract my statement inferring that some people

may have been influenced by the Church not to pay rates. I lived at Ratana Pa with my father

and grandfather, Kanapu Haerehuka, and I still have relations living in Ratana today.336

This incident did little to help either the county's attempts to collect rates, or the increasing

frustration felt by Maori at the rating regime. While there had been opposition to the rating

332 'Crackdown on errant ratepayers', BOP Times, 12 September 1972

333 'Joint ownership root of arrears problem?', BOP Times, 12 September 1972

334 'Rates not in their Gospel, NZ Herald, 12 September 1972

335 'Bad and Poor Taste Says Mr Rata', NZ Herald, 14 September 1972

336 'Apology from Clerk', BOP Times, 14 September 1972

110

regime during the 1950s and 1960s, the level of protest reached new heights during the Maori

land protest movement of the mid-1970s. Many Tauranga Maori who took part in the 1975

land march, saw the rating problem as one of the key issues being raised by the hikoi. 337 The

sense of protest was given further expression by landowners on Rangiwaea and Matakana

Islands. On Rangiwaea Island, the Gardiner and Tawhiti whanau began a rates strike during

1973 to protest the lack of services on the island, and to highlight confusion over the

ownership of its blocks.338 While the county accepted that the Rangiwaea Islanders received

few services, the council was prepared to waive only half the rates. 339

Similarly, the county tried to demonstrate its resolve to prosecute Maori landowners for

failing to pay their rates. The county, for example, sold two Maori-owned residential

properties at Maketu during 1976 to recover rate debts.340 Despite all the hyperbole, the

reality was that few blocks of rural Maori land were sold to recover rate arrears.

Problem of Valuation Increases

The county was beginning to realise by the early 1970s that the receivership lease system, on

which it had relied during the 1950s and 1960s, was rapidly breaking down in the face of

massive valuation increases, declining agricultural returns, inflation and urban growth. The

county administration had been increasingly concerned as early as the late 1940s about the

rising valuations of land close to the harbour caused by the urban advance of Tauranga City

and Mount Maunganui. The higher valuations, determined independently by the Valuation

Department and based on an estimation of potential market values, resulted in a

corresponding increase in rates for those blocks considered as having a higher potential value.

The increasing rate burden of blocks with high valuations, particularly those around the

harbour, had the potential to make large areas of farmland uneconomic. In an attempt to

minimise the impact this would have on established farming ventures in the district, the

government passed the Tauranga County Council Empowering Act 1952, which authorised

the county to differentiate its rates on lands with high valuations in order to keep them

producti ve. 341

337 'Maori land problems cause frustration', BOP Times, 19 March 1977

338 'Rangiwaea: Fight over rates', BOP Times, 24 March 1973. Ironically, David Murray did not join the strike and instead

paid his rates as a form of protest to strengthen the island's case for a causeway to Matakana.

339 'Ratepayers refuse to pay up', NZ Herald, 8 May 1973

340 'Council Selling Land to Recover Rates', BOP Times, 7 September 1976

341 Stokes, History of Tauranga County, p.330

111

These measures were only a partial and temporary solution to the valuation problem, which

proved to be particularly disruptive to the system of receivership leases on Maori land around

the coastal-urban fringe. Along with increasing rates, lessees of these blocks had the

additional problem that their annual rental was calculated on six percent of the valuation. The

Ranginui blocks at Welcome Bay were particularly hard-hit by valuation increases. During a

Maori Land Court hearing in February 1957, the court was told:

Values have increased to the degree where the rentals, if reviewed, and rates payable on the

revised valuations might well make the farming of those blocks by the present Maori lessees

uneconomic.342

While the 1952 Act could bring some relief to an established farm, the Act could do little to

assist undeveloped Maori land like the Ranginui blocks. The county's solicitor told the Maori

Land Court in 1957, for example, that Ranginui 5B could not be granted any rating

concession under the Act, as it was not being farmed. If it was being farmed, in any case, the

county could not offer rate relief, "unless someone paid them in the first place".343

Further massive valuation increases during the 1960s, driven by the growing success of

intensive horticulture in the district, had made a growing number of blocks extremely

difficult to lease as the high rentals and rate charges made many blocks uneconomic for

everything but intensive agriculture. The local press reported "spectacular" increases in the

unimproved values of blocks around the Te Puna, Bethlehem and Omokoroa areas following

a country re-valuation in 1962.344 The growing problem of increasing valuations was most

acute around the lower Wairoa River, around the Bethlehem-Cambridge Road, Hairini and

Papamoa. Kanapu told a council meeting in 1964:

In these localities the Valuation Department had quite correctly visualised the residential

potentiality they held. Because of multiple ownership, Maori environment and sentimental

attachment, plus the problems of provision of roading and other amenities, this potential is

made very remote?45

Kanapu recommended that in the interim these areas should receive rating relief according to

the potential productive value of the land. If the owners made no attempt to utilise their lands,

342 TCC minute book, 25 February 1957, WBDC

343 Tauranga MLC minute book, v.20, 18 November 1957, f.137

344 'County valuations show increases', BOP Times, 27 June 1962

345 'Maori ratepayers taking realistic attitude', BOP Times, 11 August, 1964

112

however, Kanapu recommended lodging receivership applications with the Maori Land

Court. While the county could lodge these applications, it was unlikely that the lands could

be leased. Potential tenants were put off from talting up leases on this type of land because of

the insecurity of having only a twenty-one year lease with no right of renewal. Most

importantly, few potential tenants were interested in putting time and money into intensive

development of a block and receiving no compensation for improvements at the end of the

lease. The matter was complicated by the fact that few, if any, of the Maori owners had the

finance or the expertise to undertake intensive farming of the blocks.

The huge increase in land values in the 1960s adversely affected Maori landowners and also

non-Maori who leased Maori land in Tauranga. With the rapid increase in rates and rentals,

traditional forms of agricultural production in the region such as dairying and sheep farming

become increasingly uneconomic. Landowners in the low lying areas of Tauranga county

moved away from traditional forms of agriculture and instead adopted more intensive forms

of land use such as orcharding. 346 Many Pakeha who leased Maori land, either through

receivership leases, Section 438 trusts or private leases, found farming the land increasingly

uneconomic. While Section 156 of the Rating Act 1967 gave Maori landowners some refuge

from rate charges, by allowing the local authority the power to offer rate relief 'as it thinks

fit', the Act offered no relief for non-Maori who leased Maori land. As a result, the county's

five-yearly increase in land values began forcing a number of lessees off the land.

The case of Ongaonga IG3B5B (part) was typical of the pressure farmers leasing Maori land

were facing. The block was leased to Bertram Charles Denyer from 1959 to 1980. Halfway

through the lease in 1967, however, the unimproved value of the block went from £330 to

£1,175, pushing the rates from £9 9s to £29 9s annually. This was coupled with a

corresponding increase in the valuation-based rental Denyer paid to the Maori Trustee.347 As

only 35 acres out of a total area of 236 acres were suitable for farming, Denyer's solicitor told

the county council that the "leasehold interest is now uneconomic."348 The county wanted to

keep Denyer on the land, rather than hold him to the valuation-based rental. E.M. Fox wrote

to the Maori Trustee arguing that, "rather than consider a surrender and possibly allow the

346 This process is detailed in more detail by Stokes, Horticultural Development, pp.33ff

347 E.M. Fox to MT (Ham), 19 September 1967, BBHW 4958-1002c, 7/416 'Ongaonga IG3B5B part', NA-A

348 Sharp Tudhope to TCC, 9 August 1967, BBHW 7/416 'Ongaonga IG3B5B', NA-A

113

land to revert I would favour varying lease."349 The Maori Trustee, however, held to its policy

of rigidly enforcing a valuation-based rental of six percent, regardless of the individual

circumstances. As a result, Denyer surrendered the lease in May 1971.

Plate 4. 'FOR SALE'

'h"'LUE 1.',,1.: U\)I~J l~\\'U:/\''::l o~ rl\JU\<l't',(Cd" CO'-)~iT'l ~ I/\V[ Ir1(!¥'~fcl'(:J-:" I',,~:) ({I:: "Jl'/'l·r·J· 10 ,0 I ri F11lf-:-: ·'t£/\. ~t1..,(l,()RtJlr'~<~ 4f{) l,)f::.. r"\i..1!r;:;', . .n.,t ~ td';;'~~fJ<I(.r

wT'rH "IIIL v FfAP:n·"'·UI, , Hl F.Ol0

Bay of Plenty Times, 30 January 1967

This Malcolm Evans cartoon illustrates how the changing pressures of land use within Tauranga County impacted on landowners. With Tauranga City and Mount Maunganui in the background, two landowners exchange hostile glances while erecting signs that read 'For Sale - Ideal for Subdivision'.

Other tenants of Maori land faced similar problems. A.H. Mercer, a pensioner who leased Te

Papa 80Fl to grow vegetables, was also forced off the land by high rents and rates. Te Papa

80Fl was revalued, along with the rest of the county in 1971. Mercer was shocked at the

massive valuation increase, which increased his rental and rates by 400 percent in only seven

years. After repeatedly complaining to the Maori Trustee that he could afford neither the

rental nor the rates, Mercer asked to be released from the lease. The Maori Trustee, however,

would not accept surrender. Failing this, Mercer appealed against the new valuation III

Hamilton's Supreme Court. Mercer argued that the Valuation Department's valuation of

349 E.M. Fox to MT (Ham), 19 September 1967, BBHW 7/416 'Ongaonga IG3B5B', NA-A

114

$4800 was excessive and based principally on the fact that the land was now within the city

limitS.350 While the area around the block had seen a significant increase in sale prices, the Te

Papa 80F block itself was rugged and had little development potential. Despite the passion of

his case, Mercer lost the appeal and was left to face the higher rental and rate charges. Soon

after this, however, the Maori Trustee stopped receiving the rental money and the county

council complained that the rates were no longer being paid. When investigating the

situation, Maori Affairs staff found that, "when the property was inspected it appeared that

the lessee had abandoned the place."351 The Maori Trustee finally prosecuted Mercer in the

Magistrates Court to recover the $329.94 owed in back rent.

These two cases were typical of the dozens of blocks of Maori leasehold land that became

uneconomic as a result of the steep valuation increases during the 1970s. Following the

revaluation in 1976, land values in Tauranga County increased on average by 335 percent.

The Bay of Plenty Times reported that blocks in the Katikati area that were worth $500 -

$1500 in 1971 were now worth between $6000 - $8000. Omokoroa sections worth between

$1500 - $5500 were now $9500 - $24,500, and in Papamoa, which the county had rezoned to

Planned Residential from Rural B, a waterfront lot that could once be purchased for $3500 in

1971 was worth $19,000 by 1976.352

Falling returns from agricultural products, combined with high inflation exacerbated the

effects of the valuation increases. The valuation increases experienced in Tauranga during the

1970s were significantly higher than the national average and far above the rate of inflation.353

While the county council reduced its rate to compensate for the increased valuations, the

county's finances were still under increasing pressure forcing the county to increase the

general rate progressively (see Table 10). Farmers, particularly those tied to leases on

undeveloped land, or those without capital and the means to diversify, found the valuation

increases too much to bear. One report produced by the Bay of Plenty Agricultural

Development Committee in 1971, estimated that Maori farmers in the region had fallen

behind about 10 or even 20 years in their farming practices. In the opinion of the committee,

only a massive injection of capital from the Maori Affairs Department would keep most

350 VDept to MA (Ham), 20 March 1972, BBHW 4958-1351c, 121226 'Te Papa 80F1' v.1, NA-A

351 W. Hodges (MA Ham) file note, 7 May 1973, BBHW 4958-1352a, 121226 'Te Papa 80F1' v.2, NA-A

352 'Property Values Leap in Tauranga', NZ Herald, 27 February 1976

353 Stokes, Horticultural Expansion, p.129

115

Maori farmers on the land.354 With the huge valuation increases, the future of traditional

forms of farming in the Tauranga district, in particular dairying, became increasingly

tenuous. The Tauranga branch of Federated Farmers complained to Maori Affairs and

Agriculture & Fisheries Minister Duncan MacIntyre in 1976 that the higher valuations were

simply "ludicrous". The Minister admitted that "the problem was becoming particularly

noticeable in the case of leasehold Maori land, where valuation-related rentals were making

dairy farming prohibitively expensive."355

Table 11. Tauranga County Council Rates 1966-82.356

General % Average Average Financial rate levied

Year in the $ increase in valuation

(or£) rates increase

1966-67 7%d - -1967-68 2.5 (3d) 16.75 100% 1968-69 2.5¢ NIL 1969-70 2.5¢ NIL 1970-71 2.65¢ 6 1971-72 2.65¢ NIL 1972-73 1.0¢ 5.7 180% 1973-74 1.075¢ 7.5 1974-75 1.33¢ 23 1975-76 1.5¢ 15 1976-77 1.75¢ 16.6 1977-78 0.5¢ 21 335.5% 1978-79 0.59¢ 18 1979-80 0.7375¢ 25 1980-81 0.87¢ 18 1981-82 1.2¢ 39.9

The new valuations provoked a number of complaints from lessees of Maori land hard hit by

rate and rent increases. T.W. Cooper the lessee of Mangatawa 9A2B, R.G. Sellers who leased

Papamoa 21C2, D.G.W. Evans lessee of Mangatawa 8C1 and D.M. Douglas lessee of

Opureora IB7 & Umuhapuku 3, all lodged formal objections to the new valuations. Maori

Affairs had some sympathy for the lessees and in the opinion of one department official, the

Valuation Department had incorrectly seen the leasing of Maori land as an indication that the

land was a viable concern and in demand, when often it indicated virtually the opposite. 357

354 'Maori Farmers in urgent need of financial aid', NZ Herald, 2 January 1971.

355 'Land valuation "ludicrous'" BOP Times, 28 May 1976

356 Source: NZ Herald & BOP Times, 1967-1981

357 Assistant District Officer (Ham) to MA (Wtgn), 13 October 1976, AAVN, w3599-228, 54/9 'Leases - Maori Trustee

Policy & General', vA, NA-W

116

Throughout the county, among both Maori and Pakeha farmers, the view developed that the

Valuation Department was applying rigid and formulaic guidelines in assessing values. The

criticism was not lost on the Valuation Department. Looking back over the previous years,

Len Green, the district valuer, complained at a hui at Hungahungatoroa Marae, Matapihi, in

1979 that, "the [Valuation] Department is cast as a terrible ogre that seeks to break the man

on the land by rating him into oblivion."358 While there were certainly individual lots that

were overvalued, in general, the county's increasing values were being driven by market

demand. The Bay of Plenty Times, for example, asked in its editorial of 26 February 1977,

"Will there ever be a limit to the prices that people are prepared to pay for land in Tauranga

County?" The paper went on to bemoan:

There are dismaying features in the constant land-grab that is being applied in the county.

Farmers are being literally forced off, by offers they cannot refuse, to turn productive land

over to residential development and the prices demanded when sections are developed are

only adding to New Zealand's inflationary spiral.359

:c VI CI) .... \'a ... iii :::J c: c:

<C

Graph 1. Annuallncrease in Tauranga County Rates: 1966-82

$3,000.00

$2,500.00

$2,000.00

$1,500.00

$1,000.00

$500.00

$-

Financial Years

If the data from Table 11 were applied to a hypothetical block of land within Tauranga County that was worth £5000 in 1966, the rates would increase steadily in line with the increased valuation. By 1968 the block would be worth $20,000 in 1968, $56,000 by 1973 and $243,880 by 1978.

358 Len Green, 'Valuation Department', Seminar on Alternative Use of Maori land, Department of Maori Affairs, Hamilton,

24 March 1979p.12

359 Editorial, BOP Times, 26 February 1977

117

It was clear to the Maori Trustee and the Maori Affairs Department that the huge increase in

valuations had placed tremendous pressure on those farming Maori land. Valuation-based

rentals along with increasing rates made established forms of agriculture in the district

unprofitable. Many of the blocks brought into production during the 1940s-1960s, typically

into dairy production, were now being abandoned. One Maori Affairs memo outlined the

seriousness of the situation:

The Tauranga County Council has a rather special situation where an appreciable number of

blocks of Maori land lie on the outskirts of Tauranga City and hence have a very high value.

The problem was accentuated when the last County Roll Revaluation showed over 300%

increase in value with some areas increasing by more than 1000%. This extreme increase in

values and also in the already high rates payable means that few lessees can afford to meet

rent on formalleases. 36o

Maori in Tauranga were also worried that the growing valuation problem could force Maori

farmers off the land and potentially see the wholesale alienation of the remaining tracts of

Maori land in the county. Turi Te Kani told a hui at Hungahungatoroa Marae in March 1979:

High values, based on the land's potential as a marketable product, with the resultant

influence on rating and the like, coupled with ever rising costs, have rendered normal

pastoral farming inadequate and incapable of sustaining good farming practices or showing

reasonable income at the end of each financial year?61

Similarly, lawyers acting on behalf of the Tangitu estate, which leased and developed Maori

land in Te Puna, wrote to Duncan MacIntyre, Minister of Maori Affairs, in 1978, expressing

their grave concerns at the rapidly rising rate charges. The letter complained that the 1976 re­

valuation had increased the rate assessment on a number of properties by an "astronomical"

100 to 200 percent, making existing farming practices uneconomic:

Our Clients have had no intention to change [from Dairying] to orcharding until now, but

have now been unfairly prejudiced by these astronomical increases in rates, and as

developers of Maori land we feel they should be given every assistance in the development

360 'Leases Committee working papers', [[nd] circa March 1978]. AA VN w3599, 20/111 pt.IO 'Rating of Maori Land

General Correspondence', NA-W

361 Turi Te Kani, 'Opening Address', Alternative use of Maori land, p.l. Te Kani, along with the lawyer representing the

landowners - B.T. Durie, played an important role in keeping the Matapihi Peninsula zoned as rural. Te Kani later became a

Waitangi Tribunal member and Durie its Chairperson.

118

of such lands, but these increased rates assessments only seem to add yet a further

disincentive to developing Maori lands?62

The problem was also discussed during a county council meeting in 1978. It was clear to the

county that the valuation increases had basically put an end to the receivership lease system.

During the 1977-1978 financial year, $183,632 in rates had been charged on Maori land with

$145,170 being paid and $40,409 outstanding. The county was forced to write-off $15,036

from the unpaid portion because in Kanapu's opinion the:

Owners of parcels of land in multiple ownership simply did not have the money to meet the

full amount of rates, and rapidly rising valuations meant rentals were so high that difficulty

was being found in leasing the areas for farming as single units.363

Councillor A.G. Spratt, who reportedly knew of one farmer who was paying more in rent and

rates on leased Maori land than he earn could from it, supported Kanapu's comments.

Compounding this problem, was the combination of high rates and valuation-based rentals,

which had already caused many of the existing tenants of Maori land to surrender their

leases.364 The Mete-Kingi ministerial inquiry of 1978, which looked into the problems of

administering leasehold Maori land, supported those arguing for more flexible rentals. The

report criticised the Maori Trustee's method of fixing rentals as too rigid and ill-adapted to

the prevailing economic conditions.365 For most farmers who were leasing Maori land in

Tauranga, the Mete-Kingi recommendations came too late. Because of the county's high

valuations, however, most farmers could not farm the land in its current form, even with

extremely flexible rentals. In the county's opinion, the leasing of Maori land could only

continue through "radical changes in the basis of leasing Maori-owned land" to allow

intensive horticulture.366 In his annual report for 1978, county chairman E.K. Barnett stated:

That if Maori -owned land was to be leased for horticultural use then because of the high

capital investment into improvements which would be required, a radical change to the basis

of its leasing in relation to length of term and compensation would be required.367

362 A. Wihapi (Richard T. Charters) to Minister of Maori Affairs, 19 April 1978, AAVN w3599, 20/1/1, v.lO 'Rating of­

Maori Land General Correspondence', NA-W

363 'High rentals could force lessees out', BOP Times, 5 December 1978

364 'Changes in Leasehold Suggested', NZ Herald, 19 December 1978

365 Butterworth, Maori Trustee, p.111. Tauranga County Council described Mete-Kingi's recommendations as a "breath of

fresh air", 'Changes in Leasehold Suggested', NZ Herald, 19 December 1978.

366 E.K. Barnett (TCC Chairman), 'Land-lease basis "needs reviewing"', BOP Times, 6 November 1978

367 'Land-lease basis "needs reviewing"', BOP Times, 6 November 1978

119

The suggestion of allowing longer leases and the payment of compensation for improvements

alarmed many Maori. With large areas of land in Tauranga being developed for intensive

horticultural use, most notably kiwifruit orchards, it was unlikely that the owners of Maori

land leased out under these terms could afford to compensate the tenant for the

improvements. Turi Te Kani again summed up the fear of Maori landowners in the district:

If we fail to read the signs and act accordingly, Maori farmers are going to end up as the

casualties of the farming industry and this, because of our lack of foresight and planning.

Should that happen, the stage would be set for the "Queen Street Farmer" and all other types

of speculators to move in, and this can only mean the further, and even the total alienation of

Maori land from Maori ownership.368

Both Maori landowners and many of those leasing Maori land, were completely unprepared

for the rapid change in economic conditions. The rapid decline in the profitability of dairy

farming in the county hit Maori landowners particularly hard. Dairying had been encouraged

by government policies over the previous decades as the answer to the Maori land utilisation

problem. In the new economic climate, few of these dairy farmers had the capital available to

develop the land towards intensive agriculture such as horticulture. 369 Recognising the

seriousness of the problem Bill Ohia, Chairman of the Tauranga Maori Committees,

organised a hui on land-use in March 1979. Ohia saw how ludicrous the position of many

Maori dairy farmers had become when some were still running cattle on land now worth

thousands of dollars per acre. Ohia told the hui, "with valuations like this the old adage of a

cow to the acre is just not valid any more. '370

The hui was intended to educate Maori farmers from around the district and provide a forum

for Maori to engage directly with central and local government in the search for solutions.

While Ohia was anxious to see Maori receive the advice they needed, his principal concern

was to find the capital needed to facilitate new types of land use. As few private lending

institutions would lend money on multiply owned Maori land, most Maori landowners in

Tauranga looked to central government to provide funds.371

368 Turi Te Kani, Alternative Use of Maori land, 24 March 1979, p.1

369 'Jump in Values, Rates, Hits Dairy Farmers', NZ Herald, 11 January 1979

370 'Seminar to discuss Maori land use', BOP Times, 19 March 1979

371 Tauranga made a number of requests for financial assistance for land development during the 1960s-1970s. Few of these

requests met with success. One request from the owners of 4400 acres of Kaimai land around Ongaonga was allegedly

120

Ben Couch (Minister of Maori Affairs) who attended the Hungahungatoroa hui, chose to

'rebuke' those Maori who sought cheap government credit for land development assistance.

In Couch's view (as reported by the Herald):

It is time we [Maori] stood on our own feet without special treatment. We have equal

opportunity with the Pakeha.372

This ran counter to Bill Ohia's efforts to get financial assistance from central government to

assist Maori farmers.

Matakana & Rangiwaea Islands

The crisis in dairy farming hit Matakana and Rangiwaea Islanders particularly hard. Due to

their geographic isolation, both islands were for a time insulated from the rising valuations on

the mainland. This changed radically, however, during the late 1970s as the ever-increasing

demand for horticultural land in the county made land on the islands more attractive. Dairy

farming on the islands had long suffered from the difficulty and expense of transporting

product to the dairy factories on the mainland. Many on Matakana Island considered that the

final nail had been driven into the coffin of the island's dairy industry in 1975 when the

county council, under pressure from Omokoroa residents, turned down an application to build

a landing ramp for a barge at Omokoroa. The decision caused considerable anger amongst

farmers on Matakana who were struggling to transport their produce to market. Speaking on

behalf of the applicants, Tim Smith of Bethlehem said the county's decision would further

"demoralise" the Maori farmers of the island, already burdened by the transportation

problem.373

By the late 1970s, the large dairy farms on Matakana Island were no longer economical and

those who could began to convert their lands to kiwifruit. David Murray, one of the farmers

on the island, attributed his move away from dairying as a direct result of high values and

higher rate charges.374 Others, who lacked the capital resources to develop, had to consider

selling their land. Some island farmers were not able to move fast enough to avoid running up

tmned down in 1967 because Maori Affairs had "neither the time nor the staff to attend to the matter." 'Help in developing

land refused Maori', BOP Times, 4 July 1966

372 "'Time Maori stood on own feet"', NZ Herald, 26 March 1979

373 'Action needed on Matakana Island', BOP Times, 14 November 1975. Over the previous decade the county turned down

several proposals to link the islands to the mainland. The construction of a causeway was considered too expensive.

374 'Island turns from dairying' BOP Times, 16 February 1980

121

large debts. Te Teri Hekiheki Wi Keepa was a part-owner and the tenant of the 113-acre

Matakana no. 9 block. Keepa had leased the block since 1968, but by the late 1970s he was

struggling to keep up with the significantly higher rate and rental payments. With the massive

revaluation in 1982, Keepa faced further increases with his annual rent going from $1,813 per

annum to $15,456, an increase of 850 percent. As Keepa died in 1981, his estate was left with

rent arrears of $33,000 and $3244 owing in rates. The block was vested with the Tauranga

Moana Maori Trust Board to manage.375

Other farmers were forced off blocks on the island following the 1981 revaluation. One

farmer of Maori leasehold land faced an increase in his rental from $2000 to $26,000 per

annum.376 George Douglas, who leased Opureora no. IB7, faced the same situation when he

fell hopelessly behind in rent and rate payments. Due to the county revaluation in 1981,

Douglas owed rent arrears of $27,474 and rate arrears of $2,666. When the new valuations

came into effect in 1982, Douglas and a number of other Matakana farmers unsuccessfully

approached the county for rate relief. At a meeting of block owners from 14 properties a few

years later, Peter Templeton, a representative of the Maori Trustee, recounted:

That the new valuations were done in 1981 the rates struck that year were colossal. The local

Maori farmers banded together and applied to the County for relief, unfortunately they were

not interested so most of the farmers refused to pay rates.377

Douglas feared a huge rate debt, however, and he surrendered the lease in 1984. After a

meeting of owners the land was placed into a Section 438 trust administered by the Tauranga

Moana Maori Trust Board. The trust board tried to develop blocks like Opureora no. IB7 into

horticultural ventures using what funds were available from its 1981 raupatu settlement.

The potential for horticultural development on Matakana Island also had the effect of pulling

up land values on Rangiwaea. With a 1000 percent increase in land values following the 1981

county revaluation, the island's trustees wrote to the county's finance committee asking for

the creation of a special differential rating area. The trustees argued that even the half rates

Rangiwaea was charged (a concession made because the county provided no direct services

like roads, sewerage or water), were unaffordable. Even paying 50 percent of the rates,

around $5,000, was proving to be a serious drain on the landowners' funds, which were being

375 TCC to MT, 6 March 1985, BBHW 4958-1067a, 7/900, 'Matakana 9', NA-A

376 'Matakana leases in doubt', BOP Times, 13 August 1984

377 Minutes of Meeting of Owners, 25 October 1984, BBHW 4958-1069a, 7/904 v.2 'Opureora No. 1BT, NA-A

122

used to develop the island for horticultural use. Soloman Kanapu, however, recommended

against the creation of a special rating district, as the current system was in his opinion more

flexible. The Bay of Plenty Times noted for the record:

Councillors said that though no direct services such as roads and water were supplied to the

island, the council was involved in town planning and other general administration

associated with Rangiwaea, so it was incorrect to say nothing was done for the land

owners. 378

The county's position offered little comfort to the island's landowners and the rating problem

is still a burning issue on both Matakana and Rangiwaea.

Ongoing Rating Problem

The rating problem is today far from resolved and remains a contentious issue for Maori and

local government in the Western Bay of Plenty region. Maori continue to see rates as a threat

to the control and ownership of their remaining lands. While for local government, the rating

of Maori land continues to be a perennial administrative headache that consumes a vast

amount of council time and staff resources. In July 1986, for example, the Tauranga County

Council reported that it was owed $1.8 million by errant ratepayers. Of that amount, eleven

percent (or almost $200,000), was owed by Maori landowners in the district.379

More recently the Western Bay of Plenty District Council, successor to the old Tauranga

County Council, announced that despite massive rate write-offs during the 1998-1999

financial year, unpaid rates on multiple-owned Maori land still totalled $59,831.380 Like the

Tauranga County Council before it, the District Council encouraged better land management

through the formation of trusts to manage unproductive blocks and where possible to secure

an income from leasing or grazing.381 Despite this and new rating and land legislation, the

principal problems associated with Maori land utilisation remain unresolved.382

378 'Islanders request rate changes', BOP Times, 9 March 1982

379 The total rates take for the Tee in that year was $8.5 million. 'Meeting between Tee and Registrar MLC', 12 August

1986, ABJZ 869, w4644, 20/1/64 pt.1, NA-W. The 89 percent of errant ratepayers who owned general land usually cleared

their debts soon after the end of the rating year or faced legal action. The debts on Maori land remained mostly uncollected.

380 'Maori land rates arrears written off', BOP Times, 3 August 1999

381 '$195,500 in Maori land rates written off', BOP Times, 28 May 1999

382 For a useful contemporary assessment of the rating problem see the position paper written by the Ministry of Maori

Development - Te Puni Kokiri, 'The Valuation and Rating of Maori Land', December 1997

123

Summary

Following the controversial Prichard-Waetford inquiry of the mid-1960s, government re­

examined the Maori land utilisation problem. Rates were an important component of this

debate, although it was subordinate to other more pressing matters. As a result of the inquiry,

the Maori Affairs Act was amended in 1967 and the Rating Act revised in the same year.

While the Rating Act 1967 contained little that was new, the Act was perceived as giving

significantly more power to local bodies to prosecute for rate charges.

Ironically, Tauranga County Council was finding its existing rate collection strategy under

serious pressure from rapidly increasing land valuations. The massive land valuations of the

1970s made established forms of land use, particularly dairying, uneconomic. This economic

change forced a number of Maori farmers and those leasing Maori land off their farms. The

Tauranga County Council was also encountering increased opposition to the rating regime

from Maori. This opposition was especially strong on Matakana and Rangiwaea Islands,

where the steep rise in land values and the corresponding increase in rates, aggravated the

islanders' intense dissatisfaction with the poor level of council services provided.

The county tried to counter the opposition it was experiencing, by publicly threatening to sell

land for rate arrears. With the exception of a few lots in the county towns and two small

Otawa blocks, for which the owners could not be traced, there is little evidence that the

county did or even could follow-up these threats of forced sales. Instead, the county was

faced with a return to the impasse of thirty years earlier.

124

SECTION F Rating & Urban Growth

To understand a number of the claims before the Waitangi Tribunal that include rating as a

significant grievance, it is necessary to examine Tauranga's rapid urban growth. While the

issue of rating in Tauranga County is an important historical backdrop, for a number of

claimant groups the absorption of large areas of Maori land by Tauranga City and Mount

Maunganui Borough has been critical in forming their opposition to rating. 383 The rapid

advance of Tauranga City and Mount Maunganui Borough across large tracts of undeveloped

Maori land during the 1950s-1970s has shaped the rating claims of a number of hapu.384 Just

as those farming Maori land in the county were disorientated by the speed of economic

change in the 1970s, the owners of Maori land on the urban fringe were equally unprepared

for the rapid pace of urban growth.

The Tribunal in Tauranga has already heard a great deal of evidence from claimants and

historians concerning this process of urban expansion and the resulting alienation of Maori

land.385 While this report will avoid repeating the details of this existing material, some

observations need to be made about how rating was applied to the process of urban growth. It

is worth noting that the material brought before the Tribunal, to date, has not made a

distinction between the way Maori land was rated in the county and the way Maori land was

rated in urban areas. This section of the report will show that the strategy for rating Maori

land in urban areas was quite distinct from that employed in the county.

The principal reason for the different city!county approach was the significantly higher land

valuations, and correspondingly higher rates charged in urban areas. The rating practices of

the county during most of the twentieth century, were based on the land involved having low

and stable valuations. By the mid-1950s, however, the rapid expansion of Tauranga City and

Mount Maunganui Borough saw large areas of formerly rural Maori land included in urban

areas. These rural lands were accordingly valued as urban, triggering massive valuation

increases along with a corresponding increase in rate charges.

383 This has been covered in more detail by Dame Evelyn Stokes, Tauranga Moana - A Study of the Impact of Urban

Growth on Rural Maori Communities, Waikato University, June 1980, (Wai 215, A14)

384 Notably, but not exclusively, Ngai Te Ahi (Wai 370), Ngati He (Wai 342) and Ngai Tukairangi (Wai 266).

385 Most notably during the hearing for Ngai Te Ahi at Hairini Marae in March 2000.

125

Unlike rural Maori land, receivership leases were not an option for Maori land in urban areas

zoned as residential or industrial. Leasehold Maori land in urban areas was simply not an

attractive proposition to developers who preferred building on freehold land. Without the

option of leasing, the Maori Land Court saw a quick sale as the only real alternative for

Maori land in urban areas. If the land was not sold, or there was a significant delay in the

sale, rate charges would build up so rapidly that thousands of pounds could be owed within

only a couple of years. In such circumstances, it was possible under the Rating Act, for rate

charges to eat away the entire freehold value of the block, leaving the owners with nothing.

Plate 5a. CITY and BOROUGH BOUNDARIES CHANGES 1945-1980

Matakana Is.

Bethlehem • Wairoa

o BOROUGH OF

MOUNT MAUNGANUI

/ ./

The progressive expansion of Tauranga City and Mount Maunganui brought with it higher land values and rate charges. By the mid-1950s, areas like Maungatapu and Hairini that were still rural were rated on urban land values. 386

386 See page 134 for time elapse.

126

The Maori Land Court sought to avoid this by facilitating a speedy and uncomplicated sale.

In doing this, the court had to balance several competing concerns. First and foremost, the

court had to ensure that all rate charges owed to local bodies were met, all the while

preserving the best interests of the owners. The court in deciding the future of Maori land in

urban areas had to also take into account the long-term planning of the local authority. This

usually meant the orderly and timely absorption of undeveloped Maori land into the city.

In most cases, the task of subdividing and selling urbanised Maori land was assigned to the

Maori Trustee under Section 438 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953. The Section 438 trust

allowed the Maori Trustee to take what steps he could, such as subdivision or capital works,

to increase the value and saleability of the land. The court hoped that through the subdivision

and sale of urbanised Maori land, the owners could either receive a substantial portion of

their interests in cash, or alternatively, obtain for themselves a residential section in the new

suburbs. While it is not possible to give a full account of the process of urban growth, it is

worth examining a selection of cases for the light they shed on rating.

Whareroa

In the years following the Second World War, Mount Maunganui experienced significant

industrial development. This growth was triggered in part by the maturation of the state

forests in the Bay of Plenty hinterland around Rotorua, Taupo, Kinleith and Kaingaroa, as

well as a significant increase in the productivity of farm lands in the Western Bay of Plenty

region as a whole. Central government chose Mount Maunganui in the 1940s as the site for a

deep-water port to service the economic hinterland. To ensure the development of Mount

Maunganui's port facilities, the Ministry of Works invoked the Public Works Act 1928 to

acquire 91 acres of Maori land from the Whareroa blocks for 'better utilisation' in 1951.387

Once construction had been completed, Mount Maunganui developed into New Zealand's

fourth largest port during the 1950s, becoming a major employer in the area.

Prior to this, the Whareroa area was undeveloped and lay outside of the Mount Maunganui

borough. The port development, however, dramatically changed the status of Whareroa as the

land's proximity to the port development made it ideal for industrial development. As a

result, the Whareroa area was taken from the county and included in the borough in 1953.

Anticipating substantial development, the borough council zoned most of the Whareroa area

387 See Stokes, History of Tauranga County, pp.350ff

127

as "heavy industrial". By zoning the land as industrial, the borough council hoped to facilitate

the orderly and progressive development of the Whareroa area over the coming decades. Both

the port development and the zoning changes, however, caused a dramatic increase in land

valuations for the Whareroa area in the late 1950s. The huge valuation increase resulted in a

corresponding increase in rate charges. Whareroa 2J3A, a block of just over 29 acres in area,

for example, accumulated a rate debt of £1540 in only five years. As a result, the block was

sold for £28,830 with a considerable portion of the proceeds going to the borough council. 388

Table 12. Rates Owing on Whareroa Blocks - 1959-61.389

2E2 2E3A 2E4 2E 5 . 2E6B2

Valuation

£11,000 £ 6,000 £10,500 £12,650 £ 5,890

Rates owing' '. 1959~60

£91714s11d £447 1,:951 Od

'. £828 '481 Od i

£6471~s 7d £2792s 4'd

Rates owing 1960-61

£181818s10d £ 88618s 4d £1641 11 s 1 d £128315s 7d £ 553 4s Od

The valuation changes adversely affected the Whareroa 2E9 and 2ElO blocks, an area of just

over 100 acres. 390 As the blocks were undeveloped, the owners simply could not meet the

increased rate demands. As a result, the Maori Land Court placed the two blocks into the

hands of the Maori Trustee under a Section 438 truSt. 391 The Maori Trustee's first action was

to appeal to the borough council to waive all or a portion of the rate arrears to facilitate the

subdivision and sale process. The executive committee of the Mount Maunganui Borough

Council, which was made up of Mayor C.A. Jackson, councillors A.E. Page and O.F. Steel,

considered the matter and recommended the borough take a flexible approach to Whareroa

blocks. The committee hoped that writing off a portion of the rates would encourage a speedy

sale of the blocks. Mayor Jackson reported:

The council must appreciate that the Maori Land Court will not allow Maori owners to lose

the whole of their equity in the land they hold simply to satisfy arrears of rates due to a local

body. The committee is of the opinion that the council is entitled to some return, but due to

the fact of the high value placed on this land for industrial purposes, even though it remains

388 Town Clerk (MMBC) to MT (Ham), 2 August 1965, BBHW 4958-88ge, 7/687 'Whareroa 2J3A', NA-A

389 Tauranga MLC minute book, v.22, 1 December 1959, ff.202-203. (These figures include arrears).

390 Whareroa 2E9 and 2ElO were an amalgamation of the smaller 2E6B, 2E5, 2E4 and 2E3A blocks.

391 Tauranga MLC minute book, v.22, 1 December 1959, ff.202-203

128

undeveloped, this will preclude the possibility of receiving a return of more than two or three

years' arrears of rates at the time of any sale.392

The write-off proposal was strongly opposed by a number of councillors who asked for the

matter to go back to the executive committee for reconsideration. After a long debate,

however, a modified form of Mayor Jackson's position won out. Following up on the

borough's decision, the Town Clerk wrote to the Maori Trustee in November 1959 stating:

1) That Council take action to secure rates on the above mentioned land for a period of

three years prior to subdivision or sale of the land and that rates prior to such date be

written off provided action is taken to subdivide and sell portion of these properties

within a period of 12 months from this date.

2) That such decision to write off rates be subject to the reservation or right of Council to

take out Charging Orders against this land on the expiration of three years, if Council is

not satisfied with [sic] the required action by the owners has been proceeded with.393

The Maori Trustee was unhappy with this approach, however, as he wanted a clear

undertaking that the borough would write off the rates levied. In objecting to the borough's

terms, the Maori Trustee reminded the Town Clerk that he represented the interests of the

owners first and foremost, recalling when the Maori Trustee accepted a Section 438 trust:

During this hearing it was made clear to the [Maori Land] Court that the Maori Trustee did

not wish to be placed in the position of being virtually a receiver for rates owing to the

Borough Counci1.394

With negotiations seemingly in a stalemate, Judge Prichard intervened and met with the

borough's finance committee in March 1960 to try and convince them to write off all the

rates accrued by the blocks. Despite this, however, the Judge's visit did little to resolve the

dispute and the borough was determined to recover a significant portion of the rates charged

on the Whareroa blocks, even though the two parties accepted that the Whareroa blocks were

overvalued. The Maori Trustee also had to be careful about asserting that the Whareroa

blocks were overvalued. Around the same time, the Maori Trustee went to the Maori

Appellate Court to appeal Judge Morison's Maori Land Court decision on the compensation

payable to the owners of the adjoining Whareroa blocks taken for the wharf development. In

392 'Opposition to writing off Maori Rates', BOP Times, 23 July 1959

393 Bruce Cunningham (Town Clerk MMBC) to District Officer (MA), 18 November 1959, BBHW, 121206 v.2, NA-A

394 J.E. Carter (MA) to Town Clerk (MMBC), 15 December 1959, BBHW, 12/206 v.2, NA-A

129

that case, the Maori Trustee was arguing that these blocks had a higher value than the

compensation paid.395

Table 13. Mount Maunganui Borough Council Rates 1966-81 396

Financial General % Average Average

Year rate in the $ increase Valuation (or£) in rates increase

1966-67 4%d -1967-68 2.08¢ 5 1968-69 2.08¢ NIL 1969-70 2.35¢ 12.5 1970-71 1.7¢ 27.2 99.13% 1971-72 1.7¢ NIL 1972-73 2.0¢ 17.5 1973-74 2.4¢ 20 1974-75 2.68¢ 12 1975-76 0.82¢ 19.92 350% 1976-77 0.908¢ 10.73 1977-78 1.074¢ 16.15 1978-79 1.347¢ 24.89 1979-80 1.684¢ 25 1980-81 1.191 ¢ 20 61%

Despite the growing rate debt and the lack of a clear agreement with the borough on what

relief might be offered, the Maori Trustee set about developing the land. To make the block

more attractive to a potential buyer, the Maori Trustee advanced funds to have the blocks

cleared and levelled. Despite the work and advertisements offering it for sale, there was little

serious interest in the block for almost three years. While future industrial development of

Whareroa was not in question, the immediate demand for land in the area was slow. In

replying to a request for a revaluation, the Valuation Department, somewhat ironically,

informed the Maori Trustee in 1963 that demand for land at Whareroa was limited due to

"overzoning of the industrial area" by the borough. Under the circumstances it was not

surprising, for the Valuation Department at least, that "movement [was] very slow". 397

Despite the fact that the high valuation did not directly equate with market demand, in May

1963 the borough demanded payment of all rates owing.398

395 'Profit risk deduction was too high: counsel', BOP Times, 23 June 1960

396 Figures taken from BOP Times, NZ Herald, Mount News, 1966-1980

397 Urban District Valuer to District Officer (MA), 12 May 1963, BBHW 4958-1473b, 12/222 'Whareroa 2E9', NA-A

398 Bruce Cunningham to Maori Trustee, 28 May 1963, BBHW, 12/206, v.2, NA-A

130

Fearing that it could take up to twenty years to realise the value of the land, and following an

unsuccessful bid to change Whareroa's zoning from industrial to residential, the Maori

Trustee sought the advice of D.B. Hill, a registered valuer. In his report, Hill warned that the

development of the industrial lands in the Mount area was particularly slow and that holding

the land was unsustainable in its current form due to the high rate charges. Hill recommended

selling the Whareroa blocks as quickly as was possible.399 After considering the matter

himself, the Maori Trustee in Wellington instructed his staff in Hamilton:

It is clear enough that an attempt to sell off some of the land has to be made if for no other

reason than that the rates cannot be held at bay indefinitely.40o

With rates as a catalyst, the Maori Trustee eventually found a buyer in Tasman Pulp and

Paper. Tasman purchased the two blocks, including the small strip of land zoned rural, for

£69,634.401 Out of the sale proceeds, the borough wanted £5,415 16s lOd in rate arrears, but

as it had not taken out charging orders on the title, the amount paid out was reduced through

negotiation to £3,421 lIs 5d.402 After the Maori Trustee had taken out rates and its own

expenses, the remaining sale money was distributed among the blocks' many owners.

Graph 2. Annual Increase in Mount Maunganui Rates -1966-81

$1,800.00 ;-

$1,600.00

$1,400.00 ". 1--';

$1,200.00 I 1--, G) $1,000.00 .... 11-- . , I--ca cc $800.00

$600.00

$400.00

$200.00

$0.00

" rl-- ' I-- :1-- .. '

li!i~ I--

IJI-- I-- I-- I--

~ fHH~I,;1-- ,',i:, I--I-- 1--- I-- I,,! 1---1!' tJ LI Iii If i,

Financial Year

This graph translates the data from Table 13, if applied to a hypothetical block of land worth £5000 in 1966 within Mount Maunganui Borough. By 1971 the land would be worth $19,913; $89,608 by 1976; and $144,269 by 1981.

399 D,B, Hill to Maori Trustee (Ham), 19 June 1963, AAMK 869, 54/18/133 'Maori Trustee - Whareroa 2E9 + Whareroa

2E10 Section 438 Vesting', NA-W

400 Maori Trustee to MT (Ham), 8 July 1963, AAMK, 54/18/133, NA-W

401 District Officer (MA Ham) to MA (Wgtn), 21 January 1964, AAMK, 54/18/133, NA-W. The borough zoned this area

rural to prevent development that could interfere with the airport runway operations,

402 Town Clerk (MMBC) to MA (Ham), 26 August 1964, BBHW, 121222, NA-A

131

Maungatapu & Hairini

The same general process of urban growth followed by valuation and rating increases

followed by subdivision and sale also took place in the Maungatapu-Hairini area, although on

a much larger scale. The process in Maungatapu, however, was complicated both by the sheer

speed of the city's advance and the construction of the Te Maunga highway through the

centre of the Maungatapu peninsula.403

The urban development of Maungatapu had been envisaged some years before the city

extended its boundaries in 1959. While most observers generally accepted that the process of

urban growth would result in the sale of most Maori land in the area, some viewed this as a

positive development. Judge Harvey saw the process of urban growth as something that

would, in one sweep, solve the problems of Maori land management, such as rating, land use

and multiple ownership. It was this thinking, along with the Maori Land Court's desire to

ensure orderly urban development, that shaped Judge Harvey's comments in 1955 on the

growing momentum of Tauranga' s urban expansion:

It is apparent that areas of land in Matapihi, Maungatapu and Hairini may be visualised as

potentially residential. That potentiality however obviously varies in remoteness, being

governed by provision of roads and other amenities and governed also by the date when a

market is available for residential sites; but from the Maori point of view, bearing in mind

the number of co-owners in much of their lands, and the danger of a sprawling pattern if

done piecemeal, it would be of advantage now to individualise the titles thus affording each

owner the opportunity of building himself a suitable home close to the market for his

labour. .. The Council would find that on partition of these lands the difficulties of rate

collection would largely disappear; the individual Maori would gladly pay his dues when he

knew that what he paid represented ... his fair share of civic burden on what he owned.404

While Judge Harvey retired later in that year, his comments were indicative of the Maori

Land Court's approach to solving the rating problem on urbanised Maori land. The court

sought to ensure the orderly development of the lands to create modem, attractive suburbs in

which Maori could live by retaining subdivided sections and profit from the sale of their land.

The speed of the process was, however, determined by the prospect of annually accruing

403 Heather Bassett, 'Aspects of the Urbanisation of Maungatapu and Hahini, Tauranga', Report Commissioned by the

Waitangi Tribunal, July 1996 (Wai 215, A26), discusses this in more detail. To avoid confusion with Mount Maunganui

Borough, Tauranga will be referred to as a city, even though it did not become one until 24 April 1963.

404 Tauranga MLC minute book, v.19, 17 November 1955, f.116

132

rates. In ordering the sale of Maungatapu IJB2B2B2, for example, Judge Prichard saw the

need to act in a timely manner as the block was:

.. .in the County, but what is regarded as a most desirable part will in a few months be in the

Tauranga Borough and on the main road to Mt Maunganui. The rates are even in the county

£300 odd and they in the Borough [will] be several time this.405

The court applied the same framework when it considered a number of rate charging

applications that were lodged by the city against the Waitaia lC block in 1962. Waitaia lC

was owned by the Moiri whanau who had seen a huge increase in the value of their land to

£20,000, which resulted in "a very heavy tax burden." The court commented:

This is pre-eminently a piece of land which the owners cannot afford to retain in its present

state, but are forced by its position and value, into a subdivision and retaining a section each

only.406

As a result, Waitaia lC was placed in a Section 438 trust for subdivision and sale. In most

cases the owners of land in the path of the city accepted, often with some reluctance, the

necessity to sell. The owners of Maungatapu ID2X also realised that it was unrealistic to hold

onto their 12-acre block. But with a value of £46,675, the owners were becoming

increasingly anxious at the high urban rate charges, as a result:

The Maori owners held a meeting on 19.1.64 and generally came to the conclusion that it

would be in their best interests to have a Trust created for development purposes.407

Some sales, however, were not that straightforward. The Maungatapu Z subdivision of the

early 1960s illustrates the complexity of the rating problem in areas affected by urban

growth. The Maori Land Court first considered the Maungatapu Z blocks in 1959 when it was

clear that the land could not be held in its current form as values had increased in the area in

anticipation of the city extending it boundaries. The high valuations had led to the

accumulation of £300 in county rates, while the city rates would be several times this. The

owners too saw the potential threat of rate charges eating up the value of the land, leaving the

owners with nothing. When he considered the matter, Judge Prichard believed that by

subdividing the properties the owners could at least receive proceeds from the sales and a few

town sections of their own:

405 Tauranga MLC minute book, v.22, 9 February 1959, f.17

406 Tauranga MLC minute book, v.24, 28 August 1962, ff.209-212

407 MT (Rot) to MT (Wgtn), 21 January 1964, AAMK 869, 54/18/54 'MT - Maungatapu Peninsula Vesting', NA-W

133

The Court agrees with the conclusions reached [by the owners] it is no longer practicable for

Maoris to retain sections in a Borough 'for our children or grandchildren' - the burden of

rates makes such an impossibility. The only thing that can be done is to sell and invest the

money for the children or grandchildren when they are ready.408

The Maungatapu Z subdivision was approved and the block placed in a Section 438 trust.

Plate 5b. URBAN EXPANSION 1945-1980: Time Elapse

Pre 1945 1949

1953 1961

1963 1968 1980

Skm

3miles Me : N,Harris A ril 2002

408 Tauranga MLC minute book, v.22, 9 February 1959, f.17

134

Public Works Disruption

The subdivision and sale of Maungatapu Z and a number of blocks in the Maungatapu­

Hairini area was seriously hampered, however, by the Ministry of Work's centre line

proclamation for the Te Maunga highway. The problem was caused by long delays in the

Ministry of Works finalising the exact route of the Te Maunga highway. As long as the legal

boundaries of the public works takings remained unresolved, the subdivision and sale of

several of the Section 438 trust properties could not proceed. This delay to the development

of the Maungatapu-Hairini area caused the Maori Trustee serious problems from the mid-

1950s onwards. The uncertainty ultimately cost the affected owners in accumulated rates and

placed a serious strain on the relationship between the Maori Trustee and the city council,

even though there was general agreement on the cause of the problem:

The Mayor is well aware of the fact that no building could proceed at Maungatapu and

Hairini for the last 10 years because of the blanket centre line proclamation of the Ministry

of Works to cover their motorway proposa1.40

9

The delays caused by the public works takings threatened to sink the entire subdivision

scheme under the weight of the annually accruing rate charges. The position of Maungatapu

Z-R was particularly acute:

It is not to be overlooked that lot R remains unsold and rates will accrue on that lot

meantime. As you will know, the motorway proclamation still lies astride Lot R and adjacent

lots vested in Judge Beechey and there seems no immediate hope of getting rid of it.410

In the hope of find a solution to the problem, a series of meetings was held between the

Mayor of Tauranga, Judge Prichard and staff from the respective agencies including the

Ministry of Works. While the highway development was the primary obstacle preventing the

completion of the subdivision, it was clear that both the Maori Land Court and the Ministry

of Public Works looked to the city to provide a solution to the growing rate problem.

As a result of the meetings the city agreed to waive penalties, but not the rates. To make

matters worse, Judge Beechey (the court-appointed Section 438 trustee for a number of

Maungatapu blocks) wrote:

The Borough Council will not, of course, agree to any separation of the lots for rate

collection purposes as they are all in one assessment.4l1

409 MA (Ham) to MA (Wgtn), 23 August 1963, MA 1-130,30/31130 v.2, 'TaurangaHousing', NA-W

410 Cooney, Jamieson, Lees & Morgan to Registrar (MLC), 17 July 1961, BBHW 4958-876c, 'Maungatapu Z-O', NA-A

135

As Maungatapu Z was still being rated on the basis of one title, a number of the subdivided

lots that were ready to proceed to sale, such as Maungatapu Z lots I, J, Sand T were being

impeded by uncertainty over the path of the motorway. With £41 2s 6d owing in rates, the

Maori Trust office in Rotorua wrote:

As such when Maungatapu Z-J was sold, as the five lots were still in the one title, the money

owing was deducted out of the proceeds of the sale.412

Because of the growing rate bill, there was increasing pressure to sell the remaining

Maungatapu Z allotments quickly. With this sort of pressure, the Maori Trustee simply could

not wait around for the best price. Partly as a result, Maungatapu Z-I was sold at £150 below

its market valuation. During the hearing, counsel for the Trustees told the Maori Land Court

that with annual rates of £27 a year, "it seems better to sell at £1600 than £1750 in 2 years

time."413

The highway development also caused enormous problems for the Moiri whanau who owned

Waitaia 1C. After the block had been placed in a Section 438 trust in 1962, it became

apparent to the Maori Trustee that the continued uncertainty over the Ministry of Works'

plans would seriously delay finalising the subdivision. By 1965 accumulated rate arrears on

the block were a total of £837.414 While the rate charges were eventually cleared using the

compensation money paid by the Ministry of Works for taking a portion of the block for the

highway, this took another two years. In that time Waitaia 1C's rate debt increased to £991.

Valuation Problem

Sale prices were also below valuations because the Valuation Department had over-estimated

the demand for sections in the Maungatapu area. Maungatapu Z-E was one allotment in this

category. Puri Taikato, the owner, could not hold onto the property because of high rates, yet

the sale price was below his expectations. Judge Ivor Prichard commented:

Maungatapu Z-E suffered from the high expectations of the values. Throughout Tauranga as

the city expanded so did expectations of land values. In reality this left large areas of land

overvalued and therefore overrated and difficult to sell.415

411 E.M. Beechey to Registrar (MLC), 25 January 1962, BBHW 4958-873h, 7/400 'Maungatapu Z-J', NA-A

412 N.M. CJauge (MT Rot) to Cooney, Lees & Morgan, 11 January 1962, BBHW, 7/400 'Maungatapu Z-J', NA-A

413 Tauranga MLC minute book, v.21, 2 February 1961, f.211

4141.W. ApperJy (MT Ham) to MT (Wgtn), 26 November 1965, BBHW, 12/250 'Waitaia 1C', NA-A

415 MLC minutes extract on file, 29 September 1961, BBHW, 4958-873e, 7/395 'Maungatapu Z-E', NA-A

136

In general, Maori land was more susceptible to the vicissitudes of the valuation regime. As

most Maori land was either undeveloped or under-developed, the land often had high

potential value without having any real productive or immediate sale value. The Maori

Trustee found that this potential value was often extremely hard to realise through a speedy

sale. In a memo discussing some of the problems experienced as a result of Maori land

valuation around Taupo, the Rotorua office of the Maori Trustee commented on the

Valuation Department's methodology:

The valuations are made by the Valuation Department on the basis of sales in the immediate

vicinity and consequently they do not in very many [individual] cases consider that there are

grounds for reducing their values. We have had little success in our endeavours to get the

Valuation Department to revise its figures as far as values are concerned in very many

cases.416

The Valuation Department's practice of determining a value to a locality and applying it

wholesale, caused Judge Harvey to note during a 1955 hearing on the Maungatapu blocks:

The danger inherent in this scheme of general partition is that the Valuation Department may

take the partition as evidence of a market for subdivisional sales and place an immediate

residential value on a remote possibility.417

Even local government was weary about the role played by the Valuation Department. When

the county plan was altered to encourage urban development around the Maungatapu-Hairini

area in 1955, there were serious concerns expressed to the Valuation Department by the

county administration that this should not be mistaken as an indication that there was a strong

market demand for residential sections.4I8 But the market for sections could move both ways.

In the case of the Maungatapu 1D2X subdivision, the Maori Trustee was pleasantly surprised

when one of the lots fetched £3,600, "a price well above the Government valuers market

valuation."419

416 Maori Trust Office (Rot) to Maori Trust Office (Wgtn), 16 February 1968, AAMK, 869, 54118 'Land Vested in Maori

Trustee Under Section 43811953 - Policy', NA-W

417 Tauranga MLC minute book, v.I9, 17 November, 1955, f.116

418 Valuer-General to Secretary MA, 23 December 1955, MA 1, 2011/33, NA-W

419 I.W. Apperley (District Officer MA), to MA (Wgtn), 24 November 1965, BBHW, 121250 'Waitaia IC', NA-A

137

City Council Rating

For its part, Tauranga City Council's primary interest was to see the orderly integration of the

large areas of under-developed Maori land at Maungatapu, Hairini, Welcome Bay, Huria and

Poike into the city. While the city was also obliged to charge and collect what rates it could, it

was still prepared to make compromises to facilitate the subdivision and sale of the blocks

involved. These compromises were, however, usually on the city's terms. The Maori Trustee

files are full of accounts of meetings with the city, where compromises on the rating problem

were sought. One such meeting was called in 1960 to discuss the Maungatapu situation. In

attendance was Mayor D.S. Mitchell with his staff, representatives from the Ministry of

Public Works and Judge Prichard accompanied by a contingent from the Rotorua office of

Maori Affairs. During the meeting, Mayor Mitchell stated in no uncertain terms that the city

could assist the subdivisions at Maungatapu by only collecting nominal rates. This was

conditional on the affected lands being subdivided and sold as soon as possible. If any of the

blocks were not included in the subdivision scheme then the city would rate the land to the

full. 420 As a result, the city's practice was to be lenient on those owners who were selling or

individualising their land.

Table 14. Tauranga City Council Rates 1966-81 421

Financial General % Average Average

Year rate in the increase in Valuation $ (or £) rates increase

1965-66 6d -1966-67 6%d 5 1967-68 2.6¢ NIL 1968-69 3.0¢ 5.72 1969-70 2.1¢ 16 65% 1970-71 2.3¢ 9.52 1971-72 2.3¢ NIL 1972-73 2.76¢ 20 1973-74 2.9808¢ 8 1974-75 1.4¢ 22.09 181.1 % 1975-76 1.75¢ 25 1976-77 2.0¢ 14.99 1977-78 2.25¢ 16 1978-79 2.5¢ 9.38 1979-80 1.51 ¢ 19.5 101.85% 1980-81 1.74¢ 15.5

420 Minutes of Meeting 'Special Committee Re Subdivisional Roading Maungatapu', 6 September 1960, TCY Cart no.81,

33/13/- 'Town Planning - Maori Subdivisions & Roading May 1959-November 1962' TDC

421 Source: BOP Times & NZ Herald 1966-1981

138

IJI Q) -<U a:

$1,800.00

$1,600.00

$1,400.00

$1,200.00

$1,000.00

$800.00

$600.00

$400.00

$200.00

$-

Graph 3. Annual Increase in Tauranga City Rates - 1966-81

Financial Year

This graph translates the data from Table 14, applying it to a hypothetical block of land within Tauranga City worth £5000 in 1966. By 1970 it would be worth $16,500. By 1975 the land would be worth $46,381, by 1980 it would be worth $93,621 and paying $1,600 in rates.

One example of this policy was Maungatapu ISlA, sold by its owner Ngarorikaro Marion

Wharepapa in 1962 because the land was surplus to her needs and she wanted the sale money

to repair her house.422 The high rate charges also prevented Wharepapa from keeping the land

indefinitely. When the city learnt she was selling, it decided to hold off malting applications

to the Maori Land Court for charging orders. The city treasurer told Maori Affairs:

The council did not take action to secure the rates, as it did not wish to prejudice any

negotiations for the sale of the property, as the owner appeared to be desirous of selling.423

The Maungatapu B subdivision in the late 1960s, presented a more complicated situation.

Maungatapu B was an area of 131 acres formed by the amalgamation of a number of small

Maungatapu blocks.424 Maungatapu B was placed in a Section 438 trust under the

administration of the Maori Trustee for subdivision and sale. By the late 1960s, however, it

was clear that the Maori Trustee had seriously overextended his resources. Fearing that the

Maori Trustee could pull out of this and further development schemes, the City tempered its

approach to the rating of the Maungatapu B block. The city was conscious that if it pushed

too hard for rates, it might discourage the Maori Trustee from accepting the role of trustee in

the future and jeopardise future subdivisions. As such, the city's rating department was

422 Tauranga MLC minute book, v.21, 24 August 1962, ff.339-340

423 City Treasurer to District Officer (MA Ham), 12 July 1963, BBHW 4958-873d, 7/394 'Maungatapu ISlA', NA-A

424 Specifically, Maungatapu 1K2B, 1M, 1N1, 1N2, 1SlB, 1S2, 1G, A3B, 1R, In, 1C2A, lJA2B, ZV

139

instructed by the Mayor and the Town Clerk to "take it easy" on the Maungatapu B block.425

Despite this, the city council still pressed for $4,282 in rate arrears during November 1970.

The Maori Trustee

While there was ongoing tension over the Maungatapu and Hairini work, the city still needed

a working relationship with the Maori Trustee. The city realised that in most cases, only the

Maori Trustee was prepared to undertake the subdivision and sale of multiply owned Maori

land. Few private trustees were willing to undertake the work as the complex and usually

uneconomic nature of Maori land subdivisions made them an unattractive proposition.

There was also a conflict between the interests of the two agencies. The city administration

regarded its primary duty as belonging to the ratepayers, while the Maori Trustee sought to

ensure the best interests of the Maori owners. The Maori Trustee sought to develop urban

subdivisions that would maximise the financial return to owners, provide house sites for those

who desired them and generate a small return for the trustee's General Purposes Fund. In

practical terms, the Maori Trustee's major operational concern was to recoup the money

advanced to fund the development projects, and prevent the accumulation of rates that would

consume the value of the subdivision. This placed the Maori Trustee in a complex and

contradictory position that it often overcame through protracted negotiation and providing

local bodies with assurances. The file on the 13-acre Hairini 5A subdivision records the type

of negotiations Maori Trustee staff entered into:

On 22.8.63 while discussing other matters with mayor of Tauranga he raised the question of

rates on above block. City Treasurer said no rates paid for some years. I explained how

Maori Trustee came into picture to help owners (and also the local body) and that the cost of

subdivision were being advanced by the MT and would be recovered by sales. Council asked

for payment and I said MT would not pay arrears but would pay current rates if he made a

profit for the owners and the whole transaction. Mayor and Treasurer accepted this.426

Hairini 5A owed £2254 in rates by 1965, however, for which the city was becoming

impatient. After receiving a letter from the city's solicitor, the Maori Trustee responded by

restating that he was involved to assist both the owners and the city, but "he was not prepared

to be used as a rate collecting agency."427

425 I.A. Hansen (MT Ham), Memo, 13 September 1968, BBHW 4958-1365b 'Maungatapu B Block Subdivision', NA-A

426 MT File Note, 30 August 1963, BBHW 4958-1468f, 12/186 'Hairini 5A Section 438-53', NA-A [Emphasis in original]

427 LW. Apperley (District Officer MA) to Sharp, Tudhope & Co., 1 December 1965, BBHW, 12/186 'Hairini 5A', NA-A

140

In Tauranga, the Maori Trustee's constant fear of being reduced to a mere rate collector

became acute due to the speed at which the city advanced, absorbing hundreds of acres of

undeveloped Maori land. The rush to subdivide and develop these lands, coupled with delays

caused by the highway, drained the financial resources of the Maori Trustee from the late

1960s to the 1980s. The Maori Trustee funded the subdivision projects using the limited

budget available from the General Purposes Fund, with the advances being recovered only

once the sales were completed.

In Tauranga, the Maori Trustee found that many of the blocks on offer around Maungatapu­

Hairini were slow to move and often sold below market price. As stated above, Section 438

subdivisions suffered from exaggerated market value and poor market demand. The Hairini

1B2 subdivision was one example noted by Maori Trustee staff in 1977. After subdivision the

Maori Trustee sold one section to recoup its advances and to pay the rates owing on the

block. The remaining seven lots were then allocated to owners who then placed them on the

market. Despite their best efforts, however, the lots remained vacant for some time and the

individualised owners were forced to pay the accrued rates.428

The problem facing the Maori Trustee in Tauranga was the fact that the administrative

boundaries of the city expanded further than the actual city itself. In subdividing large tracts

of Maori land, the Maori Trustee actually accentuated the problem by making more sections

available than the market could absorb. As a result, the numerous subdivision schemes the

Maori Trustee undertook were exposed to risk. The greatest risk was the progressive

accumulation of rates, which situation placed the Maori Trustee under enormous pressure

from the increasingly impatient city. The Maori Trustee tried to impress on the city that the

sheer speed of the urban advance was adding to the complexity of dividing Maori land. In

one exchange with the city regarding rates owed on the Tapuaeotu blocks at Welcome Bay, a

representative of the Maori Trustee wrote:

The inability to collect rates, I know must be a worry to the City Council but I think you

must realise that with the extension of the boundaries of the Tauranga City Council in recent

years much land that was formerly rural has now been brought within the ambit of Tauranga

428 M.G. McKellar (District Officer Ham) to Secretary (MA Wgtn), 4 February 1977, AAVN, w3599, 20/1/1 v.IO "Rating

of Maori Land General Correspondence', NA-W

141

City Council. Progress to develop it will be slow but nevertheless I feel that is something

which has to be expected and is the price to pay for expansion to boundaries.429

While the Maori Trustee asked for patience, the city often demanded that the Maori Trustee

pay the rates owing from his own funds. Such a proposition, however, would have

bankrupted the Maori Trustee. To prevent a situation like this occurring, Section 151 of the

Rating Act 1967 made the Maori Trustee liable for rates only when the trust property was

making a profit. While not being obliged to pay the rates up-front, the Maori Trustee often

had to reassure the city administration that the rates would be cleared when, and only when

the blocks were sold at an acceptable price.

Plate 6. URBANISATION of MAORI LAND - 1980

Tauranga Harbour

- Main roads Railway

_ Borough & City boundaries o Marae

_ Maori Land

BOROUGH OF MOUNT MAUNGANUI

Boundary extension 1979 MI Maunganui Borough

The alternative was simply to do nothing. In many instances, due to a variety of factors, the

Maori Trustee declined the role of trustee leaving the block to its fate. Unfortunately, the

result of this policy was often disastrous for the owners. In cases like Hairini 2A no.2, a block

of 1 acre 3 roods and 27.4 perches with twelve owners, rate payments stopped in 1968. By

1973 the block owed $1196.45 in rates, a significant portion of the value of the block.430

429 McKellar (MA) to City Treasurer, 16 July 1977, Hamilton, Ngai Te Ahi Document Bank, v.2 (Wai 215, Glb), p.113

430 TCC to MT (Hamilton), 12 September 1972, BBHW 4958-1097a, 711125 'Hairini 2A2', NA-A

142

Table 15. Urban Blocks Alienated by Sale in which Rates a Factor - 1959-83.

Block Area Rates Owing Purchaser Sale Price

Hairini 3B5 35.6p £10 Poroa, F £310

Maungatapu Z-F £29 15s lOd Young, IM £1,600

Maungatapu Z-E 1r 22p Wyber, I £1,800

Maungatapu Z-G 38.4p £50 16s 3d Gainfort, NS £600

Maungatapu Z-H 32.4p McCausland £600

Maungatapu Z-J 1r 27p £412s 6d Wood,K £1,600

Maungatapu Z-N 33p £3115s Williams, RC £500

Maungatapu ISlA 2r 13p £112 13s 1d Lee, JM £1750

Whareroa 2E9 29a 1r 8p £1818 18s Tasman £25,000

Whareroa 2E 10 71a 3r 24p £359618s Tasman £47,500

Maungatapu 1D2C 39a Or 19.9p £413 19s 5d Beazley Homes £29,000

Hairini 5A 13a 1r 20p £1,104 5s 6d Subdivided £15,375

Maungatapu Z-I £113 Os 6d £1,600

Whareroa 2G IB4B 17a Or 12.4p £181 14s 4d Glover, F £18,000

Whareroa 2J3A 29a Or 25p £1540 Is 1d Beazley Homes £2,8830

Kaimai 1C 430a £10 13s 4d Scott, AR £5,100

Waitaia 1C 16a 3r 22p £991 Is 2d Subdivided £20,000*

Tapuaeotu D 1 C 4a 2r lOp $93.10 Lewer,M $4,000

Hairini 2A2 1a 3r 27.4p $1196.45 Kirk, EH $33,350

Maungatapu 1 C2C2 4a 3r 4p $817.34 Subdivided $18,220

Hairini IB2 2a 1r 24p $1,490.94 Subdivided $48,750*

Maungatapu 1A3B 6a 2r 14p $433.23 McRae,NR $13,800

Poike 4E 8a 1r 8p $126.35 Smith, VC $18,000

Te Papa 91F2A 38.7p $19.80 James, E $2,070

Maungatapu 1A5 lOa 3r 9p $1208.64 Subdivided 35,000*

Papamoa All & A 3A 23a 2r 29.3p $699.38 Smith, AR $130,008

Papamoa All & A 3B 8a 5r 31.7p $530.9 Edmonds, G $64,500

Hairini 1C lOa 2r 1l.7p $4,465.12 Subdivided $431,750

Hairini ID 3.4398 ha $1,522.97 Taua, CP $42,500

Hairini 3BI 36.6p $546.60 Crowther, D $9,500

* Government valuation

143

Summary

With the rapid growth of Tauranga City and Mount Maunganui Borough, large areas of

formerly rural Maori land were absorbed into urban areas in a relatively short period of time.

While the rating regime encouraged the leasing of rural land (rather than sale), to clear unpaid

rates, the approach to urban land was quite different. Due to the amount of money involved

and the need to ensure the orderly development of towns and cities, it was the practice to sell

non-rate paying Maori land within urban areas.

Despite the fact that much of this newly urban land in Tauranga was undeveloped, the

Valuation Department assessed these areas according to the potential residential value. The

local body then rated the land on the general residential rate. As a result, many of these

formerly rural blocks owed hundreds and even thousands of pounds in rate arrears within

only one or two years. The Maori Land Court believed that in such circumstances, it was best

to subdivide and sell the lands as quickly as possible to avoid the rate debts accumulating and

potentially consuming the value of the land. In the majority of cases, these areas of urbanised

Maori land were placed in the hands of the Maori Trustee for subdivision and sale under

Section 438 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953. Rather than being sold as a direct consequence of

any rate recovery action by the local bodies, most blocks were sold in order to prevent a high

rate burden.

In administering Section 438 trusts, the Maori Trustee faced a number of problems, the most

serious of which was its chronic shortage of funds. The Maori Trustee could only undertake

one or two major subdivisions at a time. New subdivisions could only be begun once the

money advanced to past projects had been recouped. The Maori Trustee was also engaged in

lengthy and time consuming negotiations with the local authority over rate arrears. In general,

the Maori Trustee tried to reach compromises with the local council in order to protect the

owners' equity in the land. While the local bodies were generally co-operative, they were

under pressure from the ratepayers to maximise the rates collected. The Maori Trustee's

efforts were also hampered in the case of the Maungatapu and Hairini subdivisions by public

works takings that delayed the subdivision and sale of the land, causing a significant

accumulation in rates. The projects were also at the mercy of market demand for subdivided

residential sections. Although the land at Maungatapu-Hairini had high valuations, this did

not necessarily correspond with market demand. While some sections sold for more than was

expected, others sold on or below the valuation price. In general, the subdivisions and sales

144

process of urbanised land at Tauranga demonstrated how unprepared the owners were for

Tauranga's rapid urban advance.

With the threat of the rapidly increasing rate charges, most of the affected owners were

resigned to the sale and subdivision of their land. While many of the owners were able to

either retain a residential section for themselves or receive a modest cash payout, the process

of urban growth in Tauranga effectively saw the wholesale alienation of large areas of Maori

land at Whareroa, Maungatapu, Hairini and Welcome Bay. What makes this process of

alienation even the more dramatic, was the fact that these areas had been notable for having

large concentrations of Maori land before they were consumed by the urban advance.

145

CONCLUSION The rating regime in New Zealand was introduced cautiously and gradually and with specific

regard to the effect it would have on Maori. The lawmakers of the nineteenth century

recognised that the rating system, introduced from British law, operated on the basis that land

was a commodity to be bought and sold, used as an investment, or acquired for economic

production or as a private residence. In New Zealand society at that time, land ownership was

an expression of means, and landowners were expected to contribute according to the value

of their land to the services provided by local bodies. For Maori, however, land was an

ancestral inheritance, and ownership of it indicated neither wealth nor productive capacity.

As such, the early pieces of rating legislation were applied only to those lands in Maori

ownership that were part of the new economy. In 1882, for example, the government

extended those categories and, in order to buffer the Maori owners from the effect, the

Colonial Treasurer paid the rates levied on Maori land. The debt was then charged as stamp

duty on future sales of the land. This policy proved to be unsustainable, however, both to the

colonial purse and because it threatened to consume the value of Maori land through stamp

charges.

Despite the Crown's cautious approach, Maori as represented by their leading chiefs, became

increasingly anxious at the imposition of the rating regime. Their opposition was partly due

to unease at the concept of a land tax in general, but they were also opposed to the power of

local bodies, which they mistrusted as seemingly unapproachable and unrepresentative settler

institutions. Tauranga's leading chiefs had special cause for their opposition to the rating

laws, as much of their land was held under a Crown Grant with individual title. This land was

therefore liable for rates on the same basis as European land. The bulk of Maori land,

however, remained unrated both in Tauranga and around the country. While there were

certainly a number of prosecutions against individual Maori landowners, and undoubtedly

some land loss as a result of these actions, there was no systematic alienation of Maori land

for rates.

Settler opinion was equally unhappy with the legislation. Pakeha in Tauranga, and around the

North Island, placed increasing pressure on government to acquire the large tracts of Maori

land that lay 'idle', neither paying rates nor producing wealth. The settler communities

demanded that Maori both share the financial burden of local government operations and

utilise their land or sell it to those who could. Over the next century Pakeha popular opinion,

146

reinforced by the constant lobbying of county councils, placed enormous pressure on

government to allow decisive and radical action on the rating question. Most Pakeha wanted

the law applied in its totality to Maori land, allowing the full prosecution and sale of Maori

land for rates. Others asked for the Crown to compensate counties for their losses.

As a result of this constant pressure, central government worked and reworked the rating law

in an attempt to try and strike a balance between two deeply contradictory positions. On one

side was the position of Pakeha and local government that demanded Maori pay their rates or

lose their land. On the other side was the accepted principle that it was unjust to apply the

rating law to communal Maori land. For most of the twentieth century, the government tried

to accommodate the increasingly intransigent views of the Pakeha majority with the fact that

before rating could be fully applied to Maori land, the moribund state of Maori land tenure

had to be transformed. The Rating Act 1925 embodied the government's contradictory

approach. While on the surface the Act appeared to make Maori lands liable for rates on the

same basis as general land, the legislation contained so many checks and balances that local

bodies found it to be almost unworkable. Few local bodies understood, or cared to

understand, the Native Land Court process, and the resulting charging orders simply served

to exacerbate the title problem of blocks held in multiple ownership.

The 1925 Act caused intense frustration among local bodies who became circumspect about

providing services to Maori landowners. More significantly, the rating issue had a serious and

detrimental effect on relations between Maori and Pakeha. For most Pakeha, Maori were

perceived as holding a privileged position and shirking their responsibilities as citizens, yet

few understood the complexities of the land utilisation problem. For Maori, the Rating Act

1925 seemed to represent their worst fears of a mass alienation of land. While some blocks

owing rates were vested with the Native Land Boards for lease or sale over the years to come,

few blocks appear to have been sold outright for the non-payment of rates alone.

In the post-war years, the problem of large areas of 'idle' Maori land, along with the non­

payment of rates, was increasingly incompatible with the development of New Zealand's

modem economy. Local bodies were short of funds, and the government was placing

enormous emphasis on export production and land settlement. Encouraged by the passing of

new legislation designed to move idle Maori land into production, specifically the Maori

Purposes Act 1950 and the Maori Affairs Act 1953, Tauranga County Council took action

against the swathe of idle rate-owing Maori land in the district. At first the county hoped to

147

find an alternative to having these blocks placed in receivership. As it did with most matters

affecting Maori, the council looked to the Department of Maori Affairs to organise and

finance the development of the land into small farms with agreement from the owners. With a

shortage of resources and potential tenants, however, the scheme failed and the county

council was left to prosecute for receivership leases.

During the 1950s and 1960s, the county lodged dozens of receivership applications with the

Maori Land Court. The county perfected this strategy during the 1960s through the work of a

specialised Maori Rates Clerk, who oversaw the leasing of dozens of blocks. The county was

so successful in its approach that it made a name for itself among other North Island counties.

In many ways, Tauranga County embodied the practical and pragmatic style envisaged by the

architects of the Rating Act 1925 in finding solutions to the Maori land rating problem. But

the county's style probably went beyond what the 1925 legislation had anticipated. Through

the intensive work of Sol Kanapu, the county was able to exert significant influence on the

Maori Land Court process and on the owners themselves. While the county's rating strategy

did not lead to a process of wholesale land alienation, the county influenced the eventual sale

of at least a dozen blocks of land.

The key to the county's receivership leases system was in the way that it bypassed the system

of ownership. On paper the lands were owned by Maori, but in reality for twenty-one years

the owners had virtually no influence on their land and often received no benefit from it.

While many of the blocks involved were leased out to part owners, many Maori in Tauranga

still resented the receivership leases as a form of confiscation. Maori also resented the

influence of the county council in their affairs, particularly as the council was seen as

unrepresentative and lacking in the authority to interfere in Maori affairs.

While the receivership scheme was a success for the county, it placed enormous

administrati ve pressure on the Maori Trustee. The Maori Trustee, supported and serviced by

staff from the Maori Affairs Department, looked after the details of the leases and the

interests of the owners. While many leases were successful, others were plagued with

difficulties that drained the administrative resources of the Maori Trustee.

As few blocks of Maori land were sold outright for rates, it is somewhat difficult to quantify

how much land was lost to Maori through unpaid rates. Rates generally acted as a subtle

pressure on land ownership in the county, exerting their influence incrementally over the

years rather than as an outright threat. This would change dramatically in Tauranga during

148

the late-1960s and 1970s, when regional economic growth forced up the value of land to

dizzying heights. The valuation increases placed enormous pressure on Maori landowners

and effectively ended the county's system of receivership leases. Maori landowners, facing a

raft of legal and economic restrictions on the use of their land from district planning to the

perennial problem of finding capital, were completely unprepared for the dramatic change in

economic conditions. While most Pakeha farmers either cashed in on the increasing

valuations, or redeveloped their land into intensive horticulture, Maori landowners faced

economic paralysis. Those blocks that had been brought into production, principally through

dairying, became uneconomic with a number being abandoned or sold.

The situation was more serious for rural Maori land brought into the urban areas. In areas like

Whareroa, Maungatapu and Hairini, the pressure of rates was no longer subtle. Here large

areas of undeveloped Maori land were subdivided and sold, usually with the reluctant consent

of the owners, in order to stave off accumulated rate charges. While these blocks were not

sold to satisfy rate charges directly, it was the fear of thousands of dollars of accumulating

rate charges that compelled the owners, and the Maori Land Court, to see subdivision and

sale as the only method of preserving the value of the assets. The owners of these urbanised

lands were equally unprepared, however, for the sheer speed of the urban advance. As a result

the Maori Trustee carried out the majority of the subdivision and sale work. The Maori

Trustee was also plagued by difficulties such as a shortage of funds, delays from public

works and the constant pressure of local body rate demands. While some owners received

modest windfalls from the subdivision schemes, with others getting their own residential

section, the subdivisions meant the wholesale alienation of large areas of Maori land without

achieving the best possible returns.

The economic development of the Western Bay of Plenty region during the 1970s served to

revive the problems of land utilisation and unpaid rates that had prevailed thirty years earlier.

As a result, the rating issue today is far from resolved in Tauranga. While many owners

formed trusts to administer their lands, and those few with access to capital have undertaken

development, a large portion of Maori land in Tauranga today lies idle, still attracting the

attention of the rate collector. While the rating law has developed and changed over one

hundred years, Maori land in contrast is stuck in a state of near paralysis by the system of

multiple ownership, a lack of capital to develop their lands and a shortage of technical

knowledge to work and manage their landholdings. Until these issues are addressed, the

rating regime will remain incompatible with Maori land tenure.

149

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Official Publications & Records

Appendices to the Journals of the House of Representatives (AJHR) Maori Land Court - Tauranga Minute Books Ministry of Maori Development - Te Puni Kokiri, 'The Valuation and Rating of Maori Land', December 1997 New Zealand Gazette New Zealand Parliamentary Debates New Zealand Statutes Ivor Prichard & Hemi Waetford, Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Laws Affecting Maori Land and Powers of the Maori Land Court, Wellington, 15 December 1965

Newspapers & Serials

Auckland Star Bay of Plenty Times Board & Council The Dominion The Evening Post Mount Maunganui News New Zealand Herald New Zealand Local Government New Zealand Times Review of Reviews (Australasian Edition)

National Archives - Wellington

Maori Affairs Files MA 1-w2459, 19/5/77 'Water supplies as to extension to Maori lands at Matapihi of Tauranga Borough water' MA, 1,20/1/1, v.l ptl &.2 'Rating of Native Land Correspondence 1915-1928' MA, 1, 20/1/1, vA 'Rating of Maori Land 1939-44' MA, 1,20/1/1 v.5 'Rating of Maori Land 1945-48' MA, 1, 20/1/1 v.6 'Rating of Maori Land 1949-52' MA, 1,20/1/1 v.7 'Rating of Maori Land 1953-59' MA, 1,20/1/1 v.8 'Rating of Maori Land 1960-63' AA VN, w3599, 20/1/1, v.lO 'Rating of Maori Land General Correspondence' MA, 1,20/1/13 v.l 'Rating Act, 1925: Procedure' MA, 1,20/1/14 v.l 'Meetings of Native Land Rates Committee May - June 1933' MA, 1-408,20/1/14 vA 'Native Land Rates Committee 1933' MA, 1,20/1/14 v.5 'Native Land Rates Committee Correspondence 1933-1935' MA, 1,20/1/14 v.6 'Native Land Rates Committee Papers 1924-1937' MA, 1,20/1/33 'Tauranga County Council Rates 1941-1972' MA 1, 20/1/52 'Rates on Native Lands in Waiapu and Matakona [sic] Counties' ABJZ, 869-w4644, 20/1/64 v.l 'Rating Tauranga County' AAMK, 869-764a, 25/4/4 v.l, 'Housing in Rural Areas' MA, 1,29/4/8 'Ngaiterangi Consolidation 1939-57' MA 1-130, 30/3/130 v.2, 'Tauranga Housing' MA 1-w2490 31/1/16 'Small Farm Scheme - Tauranga' MA, w2490, 48/1, v.l 'Utilisation of Maori Land' MA, 31-4, Special File 138 'Rates on Native Lands'

150

Maori Trustee MA, w2490, 54/1/24 'Maori Trustee Liability for Rates' AA VN, w3599-228, 54/9 vA 'Leases Maori Trustee Policy & General' MA, w2490, 54/9/42 'Mangatawa 9A2, Ranginui 9B Enforcement of Covenants' AAMK, 869, 54/18 'Land Vested in Maori Trustee Under Section 438/1953 - Policy' AAMK, 869, 54/18/1 v.6 'Land Vesting in Section 438/1953 - Misc' AAMK, 869, 54/18/54 'Maungatapu Peninsula Vesting - Subdivision' AAMK, 869, 54/18/133 'Whareroa 2E9 & Whareroa 2ElO Section 438 Vesting' AAMK, 869, 54/18/356 'Te Papa Lots 537D & 538B Section 438/53 Trust - Sale to AA Petersen'

Valuation Department V, w824, 11366 (22), 'Tauranga County' V, w824, 11366 (2653) 'Tauranga County'

Ministry of Works W 1,53/52 'Tauranga County Council', pt.3

National Archives - Auckland

Maori Trustee· Alienation Files

BBHW, 4958-860b, 7/0 v.1 'Maori Trust Leases' BBHW, 4958- 873f, 7/378 'Maungatapu Z-H' BBHW, 4958-1000a, 7/386 'Kaimai lBl' BBHW, 4958-1000c, 7/388 'Katikati 99E5' BBHW, 4958-1000d, 7/390 'Mangatawa 7D' BBHW, 4958-874j, 7/392 'Mangatawa 9A2' BBHW, 4958-1000e, 7/393 'Maungatapu 1C1 (part)' BBHW, 4958-873d, 7/394 'Maungatapu ISlA' BBHW, 4958-873e, 7/395 'Maungatapu Z-E' BBHW, 4958-876b, 7/396 'Maungatapu Z-F' BBHW, 4958-876c, 7/397 'Maungatapu Z-G' BBHW, 4958-873g, 7/399 'Maungatapu Z-1' BBHW, 4958-8731, 7/400 'Maungatapu Z-J' BBHW, 4958-8731, 7/401 'Maungatapu Z-N' BBHW, 4958-873k, 7/403 'Ngapeke 1D' BBHW, 4958-874d, 7/407 'Ngapeke 5A2' BBHW, 4958-1001a, 7/408 'Ngapeke 5D' BBHW, 4958-1001b, 7/410 'Ongaonga lA' BBHW, 4958-1001c, 7/411 'Ongaonga lB' BBHW, 4958-1001d, 7/413 'Ongaonga lC2' BBHW, 4958-1002a, 7/414 'Ongaonga IE' BBHW, 4958-1002b, 7/415 'Ongaonga 1F2' BBHW, 4958-1002c, 7/416 'Ongaonga 1G3B5B (part)' BBHW, 4958-1002d, 7/416/2 'Ongaonga 1G3B5B (part)' BBHW, 4958-874e, 7/417 'Opureora lB2A' BBHW, 4958-1002f, 7/419 'Otawa lClB' BBHW, 4958-1003a, 7/422 'Te Papa 170 & 152A' BBHW, 4958-1003b, 7/423 'Te Papa 714' BBHW, 4958-1003c, 7/424 'Te Papa 446A' BBHW, 4958-1004b, 7/428 'Te Papa 446B2B2B BBHW, 4958-1004c, 7/429 'Te Papa 446D' BBHW, 4958-874h, 7/431 'Te Papa 535H' BBHW, 4958-874i, 7/432 'Te Papa 53512' BBHW 4958-1004d, 7/433, 'Te Papa Parish Allot 536B2'

151

BBHW 4958-1004e, 7/434, 'Te Papa Lot 536D' BBHW 4958-1005a, 7/436, 'Papamoa 2 Sec 1C2 v.1' BBHW 4958-1005b, 7/436, 'Papamoa 2 Sec 1C2 v.2' BBHW 4958-875a, 7/437, 'Papamoa 2 Sec 1D' BBHW, 4958-875b, 7/438 'Papamoa 2 Sec 4A v.1' BBHW, 4958-1006a, 7/438, 'Papamoa 2 Sec 4A v.2' BBHW 4958-1007a, 7/468, 'Poike 1C2' BBHW 4958-1008c, 7/476, 'Te Puna 154D Part 3B2' BBHW 4958-877b, 7/477, 'Te Puna Parish 154D5B1' BBHW 4958-1009a, 7/478, 'Parish ofTe Puna Lot 154D1O' BBHW 4958-1009b, 7/479, 'Te Puna 157D4' BBHW 4958-1009c, 7/484, 'Ranginui 5B' BBHW 4958-1007c, 7/470, 'Poike 3B3' BBHW 4958-1007d, 7/471, 'Poike 4B' BBHW 4958-1011c, 7/497, 'Whakamarama 1B2B' BBHW 4958-878d, 7/498, 'Whakamarama 1B2C' BBHW 4958-878e, 7/501, 'Whakamarama 1CA5A1' BBHW 4958-878f, 7/504, 'Whakamarama 1C1B2' BBHW 4958-878g, 7/505, 'Whakamarama 1C2B3' BBHW 4958-879a, 7/506, 'Whakamarama 1C3Bl' BBHW 4958-879b, 7/507, 'Whakamarama lC3B2A' BBHW 4958-1012e, 7/508, 'Whakamarama 1C3B2B' BBHW 4958-887m, 7/653, 'Maungatapu ID2C' BBHW 4958-1038a, 7/679, 'Te Papa Lot 446B2B2A' BBHW 4958-1038c, 7/681, 'Papamoa No 2 Sec lOA2C' BBHW 4958-88ge, 7/687, 'Whareroa 2J3A' BBHW 4958-88ge, 7/687 'Whareroa 2J3A' BBHW 4958-889g, 7/691, 'Whareroa 20 1B 4B' BBHW 4958-890f, 71714, 'Katikati Lot 97A No 2B' BBHW 4958-1041e, 71715, 'Kaimai 2D' BBHW 4958-1042a, 7171511, 'Kaimai lC' BBHW 4958-891e, 71731, 'Poripori Kurni A Lot 22' BBHW 4958-1052e, 7/820, 'Poike No 5 v.2' BBHW 4958-1053a, 7/821, 'Poike 6B1' BBHW 4958-1054b, 7/828, 'Whakamarama 1C 3A' BBHW 4958-896f, 7/839, 'Te Papa Lot 537C' BBHW 4958-1056b, 7/850, 'Papamoa A14' BBHW 4958-1067a, 7/900, 'Matakana 9' BBHW 4958-1068b, 7/903, 'Opureora No 2' BBHW 4958-1069a, 7/904, 'Opureora No 1BT BBHW 4958-1069a, 7/904 v.2 'Opureora No. 1BT BBHW 4958-1075a, 7/937, 'Matakana 7 v.2' BBHW 4958-1076a, 7/939, 'Tapuaeotu D lC' BBHW 4958-1087e, 7/1037, 'Te Papa Lot 536C No 2' BBHW 4958-1097a, 7/1125, 'Hairini 2A2' BBHW 4958-1099a, 711142, 'Parish ofTe Puna 184A' BBHW 4958-1099i, 7/1150, 'Te Papa Lot 91 F2A' BBHW 4958-1100j, 7/1163, 'Maungatapu lA3B' BBHW 4958-1103c, 7/1176, 'Te Papa 713' BBHW 4958-1103d, 711177, 'Poike4E' BBHW 4958-1105d, 711202/A, 'Papamoa All & A (3rd residue) Part Section A' BBHW 4958-1105e, 711202/B, 'Papamoa All & A (3rd residue) Part Section A' BBHW 4958-1105f, 711203/A, 'Papamoa All & A (3rd residue) Part Section B' BBHW 4958-1105g, 711203/B, 'Papamoa All & A (3rd residue) Part Section B' BBHW 4958-11171, 711348, 'Hairini ID'

152

BBHW 4958-1104d, 7/1185, 'Otawa 1C3 and 1C4' BBHW, 4958-11191, 7/1382 'Te Puna 154DlO'

Maori Trustee - Section 438 Trust Files BBHW, 4958-1468e, 12/185 'Hairini 3B5' BBHW, 4958-1468f, 121186, 'Hairini 5A Section 438-53 Subdivision v.1' BBHW, 4958-1336a, 12/186, 'Hairini 5A Section 438-53 Subdivision v.2' BBHW, 4958-1469b, 121188 'Matapihi 1A no.3D no.6B' BBHW, 4958-1336b, 121189 'Ngapeke 5A4' BBHW, 4958-1469c, 121191 'Parish ofTe Papa 536C no.2' BBHW, 4958-1470b, 12/198 'Ranginui 4' BBHW, 4958-1470c, 121199, 'Ranginui 6B' BBHW, 4958-1338a, 121202 'Ranginui 9B' BBHW, 4958-1470g, 121205 'Ranginui 11C' BBHW, 4958-1471a, 121206 'Whareroa 2E9 & 2ElO' v.1 BBHW, 4958-1471b, 121206 'Whareroa 2E9 & 2ElO' v.2 BBHW, 4958-1471c, 121207 'Whareroa 2E9 & 2ElO' BBHW, 4958-1351a, 121218 'Te Puna Z9' BBHW, 4958-1473a, 121220 'Tarawhai 4985F' BBHW, 4958-1473b, 121222 'Whareroa 2E9' BBHW, 4958-1473c, 121223 'Whareroa 2ElO' BBHW, 4958-1351c, 121226 vI 'Te Papa 80Fl' BBHW, 4958-1352a, 121226 v2 'Te Papa 80F1' BBHW, 4958-1353c, 121232 'Maungatapu Z' BBHW, 4958-1357c, 121234 'Ranginui 5A2B' BBHW, 4958-1359h, 121240, 'Lots 170 & 152A Sec 1 Parish ofTe Papa' BBHW, 4958-1360a, 121242, 'Te Puna Z16' BBHW, 4958-1365b, 121246 'Maungatapu B' BBHW, 4958-1369b, 121250 'Waitaia 1C v.1' BBHW, 4958-1335a, 121246, 'Maungatapu B' BBHW, 4958-1365c, 121246, 'Maungatapu B' BBHW, 4958-1366a, 121246, 'Maungatapu B v.2' BBHW, 4958-1366b, 121246, 'Maungatapu B v.3' BBHW, 4958-1367a, 121246, 'Maungatapu B v.4' BBHW, 4958-1367b, 121246, 'Maungatapu B v.5' BBHW, 4958-1374b, 121268, 'Maungatapu 1C2C2' BBHW, 4958-1374c, 121269, 'Hairini IB2 Section 438' BBHW, 4958-1388d, 12/302, 'Hairini 1C v.1' BBHW, 4958-1403b, 12/314, 'Maungatapu 1A 5 v.1' BBHW, 4958-1407e, 12/325, 'Parish ofTe Papa 536F2B1' BBHW, 4958-1411a, 12/364, 'Hairini 3B no.1'

Maori Land Court - Application Files BACS, a449-61e, 17/975, 'Lot 446 B2B2B Parish ofTe Papa 1960-1971' BACS, a449-119a, 17/1468 'Otawa 1C2' BACS, a517-101, 1712219 'Otawa 1C52'

153

Western Bay of Plenty District Council

Tauranga County Council Minute Books Tauranga County Valuation Rolls TCC AI 1 0/3 'Maori Land Utilisation 1934-1968' TCC Al15/4 'Maori Land Partitions 1968-1983' TCC IJ1 'Rates General' TCC IJ5/1 'Rates - Maori Land General' TCC IJ5/2 'Rates - Maori Rating Receivership General1957-1981'

Tauranga District Council

TCY 33/13/- 'Town Planning - Maori Subdivisions & Roading May 1959-November 1962' (cartridge no.81) TCY 49/-/- 'Rates - General 1958-1976' TCY 49/-/- 'Rates - General 1976-1987'

Published Secondary Sources

Bassett, Michael, Coates of Kaipara, Auckland University Press, Auckland, 1995.

Bennion, Tom, Maori and Rating Law, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series, (First Release), Wellington, 1997

Burdon, R.M., The New Dominion: A Social and Political History of New Zealand 1918-1939, Wellington, 1965.

Butterworth, G.V. & S.M., The Maori Trustee, Wellington, 1991.

Fraser G., Ungrateful People, Whatamongo Bay, 1985 [1952].

Gilling, Bryan, Government Valuers - Valuation New Zealand 1896 - 1996, Wellington, 1996.

Hansen, Neil G. Tauranga County 1945 to 1989: The story about the post World War II years, of wide ranging development, until local government reorganisation, Greerton, 1995.

Leese, Arthur & Bishop, Clifford c., Local Authority Finance, Accounts and Administration, Auckland & Wellington, 1937.

O'Keefe, J.A.B, The Law of Rating, Wellington, 1975.

Rickys, Pita, The Valuation for and Rating of Maori Land, Te Ngutu 0 Te Ika Publications, Waiheke, 2001.

Scott, Claudia D. Local and Regional Government in New Zealand: Function and Finance, Auckland, 1979.

Scott, C.D. Land Value, Rating, Zoning and Land Use: Some interrelationships and their influence on planning, Ministry of Works & Development, Wellington, 1982.

Sorrenson, M.P.K. (ed.), Na To Hoa Aroha - From Your Dear Friend: The Correspondence between Sir Apirana Ngata and Sir Peter Buck, Auckland University Press, Auckland, 1987.

Stokes, Evelyn, A History of Tauranga County, Palmers ton North, 1980.

Stokes, E., The Impact of Horticultural Expansion in the Tauranga District, Ministry of Works & Development, Wellington, 1983.

154

Tauranga Maori Executive, Seminar on Alternative Use of Maori land, Department of Maori Affairs, Hamilton, 24 March 1979

Walker, Ranginui, He Tipua: The Life and Times of Sir Apirana Ngata, Penguin Books, Auckland,2001.

Ward, Alan, A Show of Justice: racial 'amalgamation' in nineteenth century New Zealand, Auckland University Press/Oxford University Press, Auckland/Oxford, 1973.

Winiata, Maharaia, The Changing Role of the Leader in Maori Society, Auckland, 1967.

Unpublished Secondary Sources

Butterworth, G.V., 'The Politics of Adaptation: The Career of Sir Apirana Ngata 1874-1928.', MA Thesis, Victoria University, 1969

Derby, Beth D., 'Maori Land Ownership in Tauranga County', MA Thesis Geography, University of Auckland, 1981

Ministry of Maori Development Te Puni Kokiri, 'The Valuation and Rating of Maori Land', December 1997

Historical evidence filed with the Waitangi Tribunal

Bassett, Heather & Kay Richard, 'Ngaiterangi and the Crown', report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, June 1998, (Wai 215, Cl)

Bassett, H. 'Aspects of the Urbanisation of Maungatapu and Hairini, Tauranga', report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, July 1996, (Wai 215, A26)

Bassett, H. Kay, R. 'Case Studies of Crown Administration in Welcome Bay: A Report on the Papakanui Trust Claim', report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, April 1997, (Wai 215, A5l)

Bennion, Tom., 'Overview report on the Kapehu Blocks Rating Claim (Wai 763)" report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, June 2000, (Wai 674, Ll)

Hamilton, Fiona, 'Ngai Te Ahi Historical Report', report commissioned by the CFRT, February 2000, (Wai 215, Gl)

Hayes, Robert, Brief of Evidence on Thames Rating, [nd], report commissioned by the Crown Law Office, (Wai 686, R15)

International Institute for Maori and Indigenous Education, 'Socio-Economic Impact Report for Nga Potiki', report prepared for the CFRT, [nd], (Wai 215, Ml)

Nightingale, Tony, 'Maori Re-housing: Tauranga 1945-1972', report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, November 1996, (Wai 215, A41)

Orr-Nimmo, Katherine, 'A Matter of Bargain, Aspects of the History of Parish of Te Puna Lots 16 and 154', report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal for Wai 707 and Wai 727 (Wai 215, C2).

Stokes, E. Tauranga Moana; a study of the impact of urban growth on rural Maori communities, Hamilton, 1980, (Wai 215, A15)

Stokes, Ngamanawa - A Study of conflicts in the use of forest land, University of Waikato, 1983, (Wai 215, All).

Walzl, Tony, 'Ngati Ruahine: Land Issues Overview 1900-2000', report commissioned by the CFRT, (Wai 215, N2)

155

Willan, Rachel, 'Land Taken For Waterworks', report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, September 1996, (Wai 215, A32)

Published Articles

Dick, Maurice, 'Rates for Maori become issue', New Zealand Farmer, 29 September 1993, p.29

Hayward, Janine, 'Local Government and Maori: Talking Treaty', Political Science Journal, vo1.50 no.2, January 1992, pp.182-194

NZ Institute of Valuers, Department of Property Studies, Massey University, Valuation Hui 1993, November 1993

Rikys, Pita, 'Valuation of Maori land for rating purposes: Time for a change?' New Zealand Law Journal, January 1992, pp.26-29

Rikys, Pita, 'Rating and Valuation of Maori Land', New Zealand Law Journal, August 1998, pp.279-282

Palmer, Kenneth A, 'Rating Powers Act 1988 and Maori Land', Recent Law, September 1988, pp.287-293

Palmer, Kenneth A, 'Need to alleviate Maori suspicions', New Zealand Local Government, September 1996, pp.8-9

156