Home Invasion! by Stop Co-governance Publishing

JULIAN BATCHELOR

HAUAI TE WHENUA THE UNTOLD STORY OF HAUAI 2G3

It’s 2am New Year’s Eve, 2015. I am in Auckland, fast asleep. My phone rings. My sleep is suddenly and dramatically cut short. Through half opened eyes I try to see who the caller is. I recognise the number – it’s Oke Bay Lodge. When I answer the call I hear screaming, shouting, the breaking of glass. Bewildered and alarmed, I say “What on earth is going on!?” “We are having a home invasion. There is a group of Maori men doing a haka on the front lawn. Others are smashing windows and rattling on the doors shouting ‘if we get inside we are going to kill the whole f…cking lot of you!’ They are also throwing huge stones on the roof. Some of our children have wet their beds.” Bastards. My response? “Stay calm if you can and don’t let anyone in! I will call the police and get up there straight away.” I hang up and ring 111. The police are casual and disinterested: “This is new year’s eve. All our staff are busy with other matters and besides this, Rawhiti is a long way from any of our stations.” Later, we received an apology from the Police Compaints Authority for their abysmal response. Much later, through the Official Information Office, we discovered Maori in Rawhiti were colluding with Maori in the police. I hang up in disgust, jump out of bed, and dress hurriedly. I run out the door, have nothing to eat, jump in my car, back down the driveway at speed and head for Rawhiti, a three hour drive. My mind is racing the entire duration of the journey. Three families had come all the way from South Africa to rent the Lodge for their dream holiday. As you’d expect, their group included women and children. When I arrive, the physical damage is worse than I thought. Windows are smashed, weatherboards on the house shattered, and the iron roof punctured in several places – all this the result of large boulders being hurled at the house in the darkness. Car windows have been broken, and car body work damaged. Maori departed hours ago. The South Africans are huddled on the front deck, each wrapped in a duvee or a blanket, sipping tea.

I am shocked, angry, and bewildered. What kind of people would do such a thing terrorising innocent women and children? Animals. I did my best to comfort my South African guests. Finding tradesmen to repair things on New Year’s Day is difficult. Very few are working. What a nightmare. A lone policeman arrives about 9am, 7 hours after the event. He interviews the guests, surveyes the damage, takes a few notes, and leaves. The guests have only one week left of their stay at Oke Bay Lodge, and after much discussion, and to my utter surprise, they decide to stay to the end of their scheduled stay, but only on the proviso that I take up the role of night watchman i.e. I would stay up all night, guarding the property, while they slept. I don’t know why they chose to stay on, but this is what they did. Maybe they were used to home invasions in South Africa? During this time, various tradesman came and left. Insurance covered the damage to cars and my house, but I had to pay the excess. The Tradesman worked while the guests were at the beach. During the day, I slept at my cleaner’s house, 3km down the road. This whole exercise was expensive, stressful, and time consuming. When the South Africans finally departed, they wanted a full refund on their stay. I had to take time out from my job in Auckland. The whole episode cost me in the vicinity of $10,000. The installation of security cameras cost another $10,000. Crime costs the victim, not the criminal. That summer, the summer of 2015/16, we were busy with guests. The Lodge was fully booked from December through to April. I stayed on as night watchman through that period, camping out in the bush at the bottom of the driveway. This was out of sight of the Lodge, so my presence didn’t effect the guests. Thankfully, there were no more ‘incidents’ that summer, the summer from hell. As you would expect, during this time I talked to many local Maori about what had happened. I wanted to know who was responsible, and their motive. The rest of this book is about what they told me, and what I did about what they told me. But first, let me take you back to 2008 which was the year I purchased this breath-taking property. My first brush with Maori and Maori culture occurred within weeks of the purchase. Come with me, and I will explain what happened. Believe it or not, the home invasion of 2015/16 was just the tip of the iceberg. HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

How To Read This Book. The book has three chapters. The first chapter is only 19 pages. It tells the story of the history of the land since records began. The basis of this story are the source documents which are in chapter two. Chapter two has 157 pages. Chapter three, the final chapter, starts at page 187. This is the story of the lengths that a group of criminal Maori went to to force an innocent European off his land. In the last chapter I challenge the Maori family in Te Rawhiti who were at the centre of the horrific crime committed against us over the summer of 2015/16 and call them to step up and come clean. Locals know for certain who it was, and they have told me, so I now know who it was. The question now is this - will good Maori in Te Rawhiti and elsewhere in New Zealand show their true colours and character by calling this family to account, so that justice prevails and the wrong is put right? Time will tell.

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Why This Book Was Written. My name is Julian Batchelor. I am a European Kiwi. In 2008 I purchased 3.5 acres of what many kiwis and international travelers say is some of the most beautiful coastal real estate in New Zealand. Three factors combine to make it so. Firstly, the land is on an isthmus1 with stunning beaches on both sides. One of these beaches is the locally famous Oke Bay. Dolphins often visit this bay to play. They relish interaction with people and when they come, we swim with them as often as we can. The beach on the other side of the Isthmus looks out to the entrance of the Bay of Islands. The view of this entrance from the only building on the property - an historic 140 year old fully restored solid Kauri villa, featuring five-bedrooms, and three-bathrooms - is jaw dropping. Second, the land is elevated. The views of the pacific ocean from every point are breathtaking. Third, the villa is very isolated, private, and sheltered. It is set in a sun soaked pocket of native bush, and there are no neighbours for 200m in either direction. Very few properties in New Zealand boast all these factors in combination. Thirty five minutes from Russell, the land has been subdivided into 3 lots. It’s located in Te Rawhiti which is a small coastal settlement situated at the foot of the Cape Brett peninsula. This peninsula is the home of three high profile tourist attractions: the “Hole In The Rock” which sits at its very tip, Oke Bay at its foot, and the Cape Brett walking track which is rated one of the 100 best in the world. Te Rawhiti has a population of roughly 500, mostly Maori. In 2009 I decided to sell one of the three lots of land. It was at this point that my eyes were opened to discover what Maori culture was really like. 2 The ‘for sale’ sign outside the property was demolished with an axe within a few hours of being erected, and local Maori threatened to travel to Auckland on a bus to smash up the auction rooms if the sale went ahead. Signs were erected MAORI LAND! NOT FOR SALE!. Slanderous videos dripping with lies and false information were posted on social media. For safety reasons, Bayley’s management called off the auction. Local Maori didn’t approach me or Bayley’s peacefully and calmly, as decent people would, to explain their issue. Instead their communication 1 An isthmus is a narrow strip of land having water on each side, connecting two larger bodies of land. 2 I unpack what I mean by this statement in the conclusion.

style was violence, willful damage, threats, bullying, intimidation, and verbal abuse. After the auction was called off, everything seemed to settle down. Between 2009 and 2015 there was an uneasy silence between us and local Maori but life went on. There were many ‘stories’ (oral traditions) circulating in the Rawhiti community about how the land we now own was stolen from Maori, all of which were inconsistent with each other. None of the locals could provide any proof to back their particular story when I asked for it, and I didn’t have the time in 2008 to do the research for them. In the eyes of many local Maori, they were poor and down-trodden because of injustices handed out to them by European ‘colonialists’ in history, so they said. I also noticed that in the Rawhiti community Maori grievances towards European judges, court staff, and government officials in history were rife. Hate and racism towards Europeans was rampant. Then in October 2015 I erected a retaining wall on my property. This sparked local Maori to flare up again, and over the summer of 2015/16, they launched fresh waves of crime against us. Maori communication style this time was a long list of crimes including home invasion, extensive willful damage to property, defamation, slander, even stooping so low as to defecate on our driveway. Without exaggeration, I felt like I’d had an encounter with a wild tribe of primitive savages. This was a turning point for me. I felt I had no choice but to undertake research to discover the truth of the history of this land. At considerable personal expense, I took time off work. I wanted to know the facts plain and simple. Hauai Te Whenua means “The land setting the record straight.” What you are about to read is a full and detailed record of what I discovered. I have included a section on the history of the local school because the school and the school teachers who taught there were always part of the many ‘stories’ which were circulating in the community about how Maori lost the land we now own. For example, one of the ‘stories’ locals had come to believe as truth went like this - back in the 18-1900’s, successive governments cared little about the education of Maori children, particularly if they lived in isolated locations like Te Rawhiti.

As such, said Maori Vanessa Williamson from Hamilton, they wouldn’t pay the wages of the teachers of Maori children or for the buildings in which Maori children were being taught. Back in the early 1900’s, so the story went, the Te Rawhiti community paid the wages of teachers with land. Local Maori built the school buildings themselves using local men and resources. One of the teachers was contracted to stay for 10 years. In return, the teacher, Thomas Thomson, was paid with the land we now own. Thomas breached the contract by not staying 10 years. Yet Maori had signed over the title to him at the start of the 10 years. This made no sense to me. I rolled my eyes. Why would anyone in their right mind fulfill their part of a contractual agreement at the start of the contract? To do so is highly irregular. This story, Vanessa’s story, was dominant in Te Rawhiti when we arrived. Locals believed it hook, line, and sinker. Thus, as white people coming into the community we were mysteriously linked to the ‘corrupt and couldn’t-care-less-about-the-needs-of-Maori-childrencolonialists’ who governed New Zealand in the 18-1900’s. To write this book I had to put aside Maori hate for Europeans, their prejudice, lies, violence, defamation, story telling, racism and all the damage they had caused to our property and answer some crucially important questions such as - “In the early 1900’s, did locals really have to pay the wages of school teachers with land, or were locals telling porkies? Did locals have accurate knowledge of history or were they just making it up? How and when did the land we now own pass from Maori to European ownership?” The work you are about to read is very thorough and detailed, because it needed to be. I have left no stone unturned. Hence, the inclusion of all the source documents. If a source document was hand written, I typed up a copy. In every case, the hand written source document and its typed copy are presented side by side, so readers can compare the two documents for themselves. Furthermore, in the concluding chapter I openly invite anyone who detects an inaccuracy in this work or something missing to come forward. Such is my desire to know the complete truth. It’s been five years since the book was first published and readership is now in the thousands and it’s global. To date no one has come forward with any proofs which challenge anything written in this book. My good friend Dr Paul Moon, New Zealand’s most widely acclaimed historian, particularly on the subject of the history of Maori and the Treaty of Waitangi, moderated my research, and his comments are on the next two pages. HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Foreword by Dr Paul Moon. I have taken a personal interest in the history of the land which Julian purchased in 2008. The land originally went into ownership under the name of Ware Hiko on the 21st of January, 1918, which happened to be the year of her death. When she died, her property went by way of succession to her six children. In their adulthood, they sold the land to Thomas Thomson, a school teacher, in 1937. Since that time, it has been legally bought and sold by various European owners. The records of how Ware Hiko came to acquire individual ownership of the land in the first place, and all the subsequent sales, including the sale to Thomas Thomson, are detailed in this book. Te Rawhiti school has an equally interesting history. It was opened on the 25th of July 1904. The materials and labour to build the school were put out to tender by the Government. The successful tender was paid in full by the Government, as were the resources for the school. Te Rawhiti Maori provided the land which has since been returned. The wages of all the school HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

teachers were also paid in full by the Government from when the school opened until its close in 1964. I have viewed the source documents in depth, and Julian’s very thorough commentary, and as an historian can confirm that they represent a true and accurate record of history. This is a very well researched and well written work. Dr Paul Moon (born 1968) is a New Zealand historian and a professor at the Auckland University of Technology. He is a prolific writer of New Zealand history and biography, specialising in Māori history, the Treaty of Waitangi and the early period of Crown rule. Dr Moon holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in History and Political Studies, a Master of Philosophy degree with distinction, a Master of Arts degree with honours, and a Doctor of Philosophy. In 2003, he was elected as a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society at University College London, and is also a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. Moon is recognised for his study of the Treaty of Waitangi, and has published two books on the topic. He has also produced the biographies of Governors William Hobson and Robert FitzRoy, and the Ngā Puhi chief Hone Heke. In 2003, he published the book Tohunga: Hohepa Kereopa, an explication regarding tohunga of the Ngāi Tūhoe. He has also written a major biography of the Ngā Puhi politician and Kotahitanga leader Hone Heke Ngapua (1869–1909), and wrote the best-selling Fatal Frontiers – A History of New Zealand in the 1830s. In addition to writing books, Moon is a frequent contributor to national and international academic journals on a variety of history-related topics. Acknowledgments Special thanks to Brenda Anderson for her patience and efforts, helping to get the title documents together. To Dr Paul Moon for his advice and for the time he took to review this book. Also to Winston Peters for his support. How To Read This Book. This book has three sections. 1. ‘How Maori Lost Ownership Of Hauai 2G3’. 2. The Source Documents on which the (1) above is based. 3. The Conclusions. So, start with ‘How Maori Lost Ownership Of Hauai 2G3’, then peruse The Source Documents. Finally, and most importantly, reflect on The Conclusions. 2

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Table Of Contents Page

Source Document Number

The Truth About How Maori Lost Ownership Of Hauai 2G3

An summary of how Hauai 2G3, originally owned by Ware Hiko, passed from Maori ownership into European ownership. Who owned what, and when?

The Source Documents 33

Document 1

Did Ware Hiko need permission from her Hapu to partition her land? Was it partitioned with the consent of the owners? Where’s the proof?

Document 2

The Maori Land Court answers the questions asked in Document 1.

Document 3

The parent title of Ware Hiko’s land.

Document 4

The original Partition Order, 30th May 1913.

Document 5

Survey plan of Hauai 2G3

Document 6

Ware Hiko bequeathed her land to her children, 2nd of October, 1928

Document 7

Thomas Thomson wrote to Judge Acheson’s for a legal opinion. Would the Judge confirm the sale of the Hiko land, should it come before him for judgment? This is the Judge’s reply.

Document 8

Page 1 of the Memorandum of Transfer.

49 50

Commentary on page 1 of the Memorandum of Transfer. Document 9

Page 2 of the Memorandum of Transfer.

Commentary on page 2 of the Memorandum of Transfer.

Table showing where the Hikos were living when they signed the Memorandum Of Transfer.

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 10

Page 3 of the Memorandum of Transfer.

Document 11

17th of May, 1935. Judge Acheson’s Native Land Court decision, denying Confirmation.

Document 12

10th of June, 1935. Thomson’s letter to Judge Acheson asking him to give the grounds for turning down the Confirmation.

Document 13

9th of July, 1935. Thomson’s first letter to the Minister Of Native Affairs, the Honourable Mr R Masters asking for help.

Document 14

18th of July 1935. The response of the Minister of Native Affairs to Thomson’s first letter.

Document 15

22nd July 1935. Mr Earle’s letter to Thomson. Judge Acheson tells Thomson off.

Document 16

25th of July, 1935. Thomson’s second letter to the Minister of Native Affairs for help.

Document 17

1st of August 1935. The Under-Secretary’s letter to Judge Acheson asking him to give the grounds for denying Confirmation.

Document 18

31st of August, 1935. Thomson’s petition arrives at Parliament.

Document 19

31st of August, 1935. Official Receipt From Parliament of Thomson’s petition.

Document 20

2nd of September, 1935. The letter of Mr Cooper, the Land Consolidation Officer, trying to stop Thomson’s petition.

Document 21

4th of September, 1935. The letter of Mr Earle, another of Judge Acheson’s officials, trying to stop Thomson’s petition.

Document 22

5th of October, 1935. The second letter of Mr Earle trying to stop Thomson’s petition.

Document 23

9th of October, 1935. Fred Baker, Director of The Four Square Store in Russell, sent a letter to Parliament supporting Thomson.

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 24

11th of October, 1935. The Under-Secretary sent a letter to the Chairman of the Native Affairs Committee recommending he look with favour on Thomson’s petition.

Document 25

15th of October, 1935. The Chairman of the Native Affairs Committee sent an urgent memo to Auckland requesting all the board and Court Minutes on Thomson’s case.

101

Document 26

16th of October, 1935. The Under-Secretary wrote to the Chairman of the Native Affairs Committee advising that Thomson had only one option left for an appeal, which was petition.

105

Document 27

21st October, 1935. The Chairman of the Native Affairs Committee received all the board and Court Minutes for Thomson’s case.

107

Document 28

5th of November, 1935. Thomson was informed that an Act of Parliament had been passed making it possible for him to appeal in the Appellate Court.

111

Document 29

The Act of Parliament which was passed.

112

Document 30

19th of March, 1936. Thomson’s case was heard in the Appellate Court. The two judges overturned Judge Acheson’s decision and Confirmation was granted.

114

Document 31

27th of March, 1936. The Certificate of Confirmation of the Memorandum of Transfer was issued.

116

Flow diagram showing how Thomson’s case went to Court twice.

117

Document 32

1st of December 1936. The District Land Registrar’s notice to the Lands and Survey Department to secure their costs of survey still owing, if any, for their survey of the block completed by them for the purpose of, and prior to, the making of the 1918 Partition Order.

118

Document 33

9th of December, 1936. The request from the Native Land Court to the Land Registry Office at Auckland to lodge with that office for registration the 22nd January 1918 Partition Order.

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

119

Document 34

18th December 1936. A copy of the request from the Native Land Court to the Land Registry Office at Auckland to lodge with that office for registration the 2nd of October 1928 Succession Order.

120

Document 35

The first page of the Provisional Register 180/114 for the 1918 Partition Order.

121

Commentary on the first page of the Provisional Register 180/114.

122

Document 36

Page 2 of Provisional Register 180/114.

123

Document 37

Page 3 of Provisional Register 180/114.

125

Document 38

Back page of the Transmission Order 38102.

126

Document 39

Page 1 of the signed and stamp duty paid Memorandum of Transfer lodged at the District Land Registry Auckland for registration.

127

Commentary on the 1st page of the Memoradum of Transfer.

128

Document 40

The 2nd page of the Memorandum of Transfer with all the Hiko signatures.

129

Document 41

3rd page of the Memorandum of Transfer.

130

Commentary on the Memorandum of Transfer.

132` Document 42

5th of January 1937. Following the purchase of the land by Thomas Thomson, a new Certificate of title was issued NA 683/56.

137

Section 248 of the Native Land Act, 1931

Document 43

137

Commentary on the new Certificate of title NA 683/56.

139

Document 44

The 1964 sub-division of Hauai 2G3 into 9 Lots.

140

Document 45

Lands Transfer of Lot 5 to John Lawford in 1972.

141

Document 46

Lands Transfer of Lot 5 from John Lawford to Grace Alone Oke Bay Holdings Ltd in 2008.

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

142

Document 47

May 2007. Law Firm Russell McVeagh’s report on the chance of a Waitangi claim on the land being successful.

145

A BRIEF HISTORY TE RAWHITI SCHOOL

147

List of all the teachers who taught at the school, 1904-1964.

148

Quotes from New Zealand history books about the school.

150

Document 48

School attendance indications and teacher salary levels.

152

Document 49

Letter from the first headmaster of Te Rawhiti school to the Secretary of Education. The school was opened on the 25th of July 1904.

154

Document 50

Table showing how much funding from the Government Te Rawhiti received compared with other Maori schools.

156

Document 51

Amendment to the Native Schools Act, 1867. The Government fully funds Native schools.

159

Document 52

Letter from the Department of Education to Mr Welsh advising him that he had been appointed the first principal of Te Rawhiti School.

161

Document 53

This is a gracious, polite letter from a local Maori to the Minister of Education. Locals thank him for establishing the school but they wanted a teacher who could mix medicine.

164

Document 54

The Public Works Department built the school at Te Rawhiti. This memo says they expected the school to be finished by the end of April, 1904.

166

Document 55

Report regarding tenders received for the building of the school.

168

Document 56

The school teacher’s residence.

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

169

Document 57

The Governor is advised to accept the title of the land which was given by locals for the site of the school June 1903.

170

Document 58

20th of May, 1903. Maori chiefs ‘consented for the appropriation of the land’ for the school.

173

Document 59

24th of February 1903. Letter to ascertain the title of the land on which the school was to be built.

174

Document 60

A letter with the description of the land on which the school was to be built.

175

Document 61

1901 letter from the Secretary of Education noting that Hone Heke had asked for a school in Te Rawhiti.

177

Document 62

A letter from locals saying they will give the land.

180

Document 63

Letter 1 between a Northland Education Department Official and the Secretary of Education in Wellington about the establishment of a school in Te Rawhiti.

182

Document 64

Letter 2

184

Document 65

Letter 3

187

Conclusion

209

Appendix 1. The Native Land Act 1931,section 273.

210

Appendix 2. Flow diagram of Chronology of events, 1934-1936.

213

Possible Alternative titles For This Book.

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

SECTION ONE. THE TRUTH ABOUT HOW MAORI LOST OWNERSHIP OF HAUAI 2G3.

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

THE TRUTH ABOUT HOW MAORI LOST OWNERSHIP OF HAUAI 2G3 What you are about to read is the truth about how Maori lost ownership of Hauai 2G3 (see the map below). We now own 3.5 acres of this block of land.

THE LAND IN TE RAWHITI Prior to 1913, the Te Rawhiti headland, known as Block XV, was owned communally by Maori. Between 1913 and 1918 all this changed. In 1913, at the request of local Maori, a 44 acre piece of Block XV was surveyed off (partitioned / subdivided) by the Native Land Court1. It was called Hauai 2G. Five years later (i.e. 1918), the Maori owners of this land decided to partition it again, seeking their own freehold titles. Hauai 2G was partitioned into three blocks, roughly 11 acres, 22 acres, and 11 acres. The size of the blocks was based on the number of shares owners held in the original 44 acres. Hauai 2G3 (right) was one of those 11 acre pieces of land. It was awarded to (i.e. owned by) Ware Hiko, otherwise known as Kataraina Rewha. As already stated, the 1918 partitioning was commissioned by the owners, who all appeared in Court at Russell before Chief Judge Holland. 1 Source document 2, page 34. 10

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Each had to prove that they were the legal owners, and tender evidence to support their claims. The court records report that there were no objections. Maori Land owners did not need the permission of their Hapu2 in order to partition their land. This is still the case today. 3 Sadly, Ware died in 1918. We tried to locate her death certificate in order to know more about her, but all our efforts failed to find it. All we know is that she had six children: Hone, Pori, Kuia, Tureiti, Huri, and Ruiha. They were all adults at the time of her death, and most had not lived in Te Rawhiti for many years. As you would expect, her six children inherited Hauai 2G3. 4 In 1923, a European who became significant in the history of Te Rawhiti arrived in the community. His name was Thomas Thomson (right), the school teacher and postmaster. He and his wife taught the children of this settlement for 18 years, which was longer than any of the other teachers in the school’s 60 year history. According to the record, he and his family became much loved members of the Maori community, and integral to it. Documents exist which report the sacrificial contribution Thomson made to Te Rawhiti.5 By all accounts, he was sporty and entrepreneurial, organising the locals to build roads and cut scrub, all paid for by Government works schemes. Passionate in the pursuit of a cause, he was highly respected. He loved people, was dedicated to his profession, and he worked hard. So attached was he to Te Rawhiti and its people, and the people to him, that sometime in the late 1920’s he began looking for a piece of local land for his 2 A division of a Maori people or community. 3 See Document 2, page 33 from the Maori Land Court. 4 See Document 6, page 42. 5 See Document 23, page 93. HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

retirement. One of the locals, Ria Paaka, encouraged him to purchase Hauai 2G3 so he could be her neighbour. A feature of this land was that it had ocean on both sides with elevated sea views. One of those views was of the locally famous Oke Bay. The property had laid vacant for many years6, unused by anyone, except Ria. She had established a 200 square yard kumara patch at the south end. There was only one building site on the 11 acres, which no one, not even Ware Hiko, had ever used for this purpose. All things considered, the idea of acquiring it seemed good to Thomas, his wife Beatrice, and their 16 year old son Henry (known locally as Harry). Wanting the land was one thing but purchasing it would prove to be quite another. Buying Maori Land in the early 1930’s was not at all easy, especially for a European. Any sale, then called ‘a Memorandum of Transfer’, had to be approved by the Native Land Court. There were very strict rules and conditions for the sale of Maori Land,7 not just to guard against corruption and under hand dealings by unscrupulous purchasers, but also, above all, to preserve Maori ownership. Put simply, the government of the day was doing everything it could to encourage Maori not to sell their land. When the sale of Maori Land was approved by the Native Land Court, by all accounts a miraculous event, it issued what was known as a ‘Certificate of Confirmation’. When issued, it signaled that all the legal requirements of the law with respect to the sale and purchase had been satisfied. With this Judge Acheson 6 16 years, according to Kuia Hiko. 7 See Appendix 1 which details the rules and conditions which purchasers had to satisfy if they were to be successful with the purchase of Maori land. These rules and conditions are found in Section 273 of the Native Land Act 1931. 12

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

in mind, and before he got the ball rolling for the purchase of Hauai 2G3, Thomson wrote to Native Land Court Judge Acheson (below) seeking a legal opinion. This was October 1934. He asked the Judge whether there might be any untoward legal issues with the purchase of this particular piece of land. The Judge’s reply became a source of great controversy, as you will read later. In his reply 8 he made six points, advising Thomson: 1. That it appeared that the land was of no use to the owners, the Hikos. 2. To locate the Hiko children and to find out from them whether or not they wanted to sell. If so, to get their signatures on the Memorandum of Transfer. 3. Not to pay too big a deposit to each of them. 4. To find out if there was anything owed on survey costs when Hauai 2G3 was first surveyed. 5. To find out if there were any outstanding council rates on the property. 6. To present a plan to create access between north and south Te Rawhiti. Hauai 2G3 was an isthmus, a narrow piece of land with water on both sides. This isthmus divided north and south Te Rawhiti. If Thomson became the owner, potentially he could, if he wanted, cut access between north and south Te Rawhiti. Thomson interpreted these six points as a green light to proceed. There were no red flags. He promptly hired Solicitor Blomfield from Auckland who was commissioned to locate the six Hiko whanau, ascertain from each whether they wanted to sell or not, and if they did, to have them each sign the Transfer document. As it turned out, they were scattered all over the North Island so Blomfield’s assignment was no walk in the park. Roads and cars then were not what they are today. Once Blomfield located the Hikos, he found them all willing and wanting to sell. On the 20th of February, 1935, the day finally came for Thomson to present his case for Confirmation (i.e. his legal grounds for the purchase of the land) before Judge Acheson at the Court House at Russell. This was the first of three hearings. The second was on the 18th of March, 1935 and the third on the 17th of May 1935. Kuia Hiko was there, representing her brothers 8 See Document 7, page 42 HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

and sisters. Naturally Court officials were present, as well as locals from Te Rawhiti. Relatives of the Hikos, and neighbours adjoining Hauai 2G3, had each signed petitions supporting Thomson’s purchase. As already mentioned, the Hiko whanau all wanted to sell.9 They had no plans to return to their land in Te Rawhiti. The land was therefore not their papakainga10 and provided no source of revenue for them. They owned land outside of Rawhiti so the sale of Hauai 2G3 would not have left them landless. The Hikos had all agreed to the fair price / government valuation of £60 offered by Thomson, as per their signatures on the Transfer document.11 Lawyer Blomfield had prepared answers with respect to what the Judge advised in his six point pre-purchaseadvice letter. With so much support from so many parties, including locals, Thomson had good reason to feel confident. As far as Thomson and his lawyer were concerned, all the legal boxes for Confirmation had been well and truly ticked to satisfy Section 273 of the Native Land Act, 1931. For this reason, they entered the Court room buoyant, confident, and cheerful. The only objector was a Te Rawhiti local, Rino Te Nana Paora, but she was a lone voice. It came out later that she only wanted the land to feather how own nest, not to help the Hikos. The rest of the community in Te Rawhiti supported Thomspon. At the three hearings, all the evidence was heard, both for and against. On the 17th of May, 1935, at the conclusion of the final hearing, and to everyone’s utter surprise, Judge Acheson refused Confirmation.12 It was a bombshell. Thomson, his Solicitor, and the Hikos were dumbfounded and cried foul. For them, the judge’s decision was a blatant miscarriage of justice. The only reason given for refusal was that the sale “...was not in the interests of the Natives (i.e. the Hikos) alienating.” ‘Alienating’ means selling. This was an about turn on his original legal opinion. Thompson was a fighter and wasn’t about to give up. He and Blomfield spent roughly three weeks licking their wounds and regrouping, planning their next move. It appears that they were not aware of their options for appeal, of which there were three. First, to the Native Land 9 Kuia wanted to sell so that she could by some false teeth, so she told the Court. 10 According to The Native Land Act 1931, Maori Land could not be sold if the Maori owners were using the land for their livelihood, or papakainga. 11 See Document 8, page 47 12 See Document 11, page 56 14

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Court, but the appeal had to be lodged within 14 days of the Confirmation refusal date. Second, to the Supreme Court, within one month of refusal. Third, Parliamentary Petition, which had no lodgment time limitations. On the 10th of June 1935, 27 days after Confirmation had been refused, Thomson wrote to Judge Acheson asking him to explain his reasons for ruling the way he did.13 Another full month went by and there was no reply from Acheson. By now, the first two appeal options for Thomson and Blomfield had expired. Did Acheson deliberately delay his reply so as to nullify Thomson’s first two appeal options? Probably. We’ll never know for sure. Frustrated, on the 9th of July 1935, Thomson decided to write directly to the Minister of Native Affairs, Mr Robert Masters (right), asking him to intervene.14 Nine days later, on the 18th of July, the Minister replied saying he’d be happy to assist.15 This was the breakthrough Thomson needed. Judge Acheson’s answer16 to Thomson’s letter of the 10th of June eventually arrived six weeks later on the 22nd July 1935. In his letter he failed to explain how the sale was not in the best interests of the Hikos. Instead, through one of his officials, he criticised Thomson : “Your letter of the 10th of June was received by Judge Acheson who takes strong exception to your action in writing to the Judge personally on a matter the subject of a decision of the Court. It was improper of you to address to Judge Acheson with the questions put in your letter.” Taken back by the Judge’s criticism, on the 25th of July, 1935, Thomson wrote 13 See Document 12, page 56 14 See Document 13, page 61 15 See Document 14, page 69 16 See Document 15, page 71 HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

a second letter17 to the Native Affairs Minister. On the 1st of August 1935, officials of the Native Affairs Minister wrote18 to the Judge asking him to explain why the sale of the land to Thomson was not in the best interests of the natives alienating. This request from Parliament signaled the launch of a formal Parliamentary inquiry. Thomson’s support base in Wellington was growing. What the judge didn’t realise is that things were about to get a whole lot worse for him. For the whole month of August 1935 there was an uneasy silence. No letters were written to anyone by anyone. Now we know why. For a whole month, Judge Acheson was mulling over how he was going to get out of a sticky situation. During that same month, Thomson and Blomfield were busy preparing a petition to present to the Minister of Native Affairs in Wellington! Boom! On the 31st of August, they delivered it.19 Essentially, this petition was charging Judge Acheson with making a wrong decision. The delivery of this petition significantly escalated the existing discord between Judge Acheson and Thomson. The Government became the referee. By the 2nd of September, Judge Acheson still hadn’t replied to the first request from Wellington to explain why the sale of the land to Thomson was not in the best interests of the Hikos. Instead, he arranged for one of his officials, Mr Cooper, to write20 to Thomson. Acheson’s strategy was clear. He delayed answering correspondence from Wellington as long as he could so that he could focus all his energies on snuffing out Thomson. So who was Mr Cooper and what was the content of his letter? Mr Cooper was the Consolidation Officer21 in Auckland. His letter was addressed to the Registrar of the Native Land Court in Auckland, knowing full well that it would be relayed to Wellington. In his letter, he did his best to back Judge Acheson’s ‘Confirmation refusal’ decision. For example, said Cooper, 17 See Document 16, page 73 18 See Document 17, page 76 19 See Document 18, page 78 20 See Document 20, page 82 21 Consolidation Officers were Government officials whose job was to help Maori manage and retain ownership of their land. 16

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Hauai 2G3 was perfect for cultivation and papakainga, but the other land the Hikos owned outside of Rawhiti was not. The interests of the children of the Hiko children should be protected. £60 was not enough for such a beautiful piece of land, and so on. There can be no doubt that in writing his letter Mr Cooper was under instruction from his boss Judge Acheson. This letter was intended to cause the Minister to trash Thomson’s petition. Now here is the crucial point. With respect to Section 273 of the Native Land Act 1931, Cooper’s arguments were irrelevant. This was the law which needed to be satisfied. This law focused on the actual land owners in the present day, whereas Coopers arguments were either about future generations of Hikos or the welfare of the wider community. The Hikos were furious. They wanted to sell, plain and simple. They wanted out. They had no plans to return to Te Rawhiti. They’d made up their minds. Having land back in Te Rawhiti would have been of absolutely no use to them and they didn’t want it. They considered the Government valuation being offered by Thomson to be a fair price. They therefore felt Cooper was forcing them to do something which was against their will, and therefore not in their best interests. As far as Section 273 of the Native Land Act 1931 was concerned Coopers letter showed that his boat had drifted from his moorings. The second half of Mr Cooper’s letter was dedicated to casting aspersions into the minds of Parliamentary officials about Thomson’s character. For example, he wrote: “When the matter came before the Court at Russell, I made my representations, at the invitation of the Court. Mr Thomson informed the Court that none of the adjoining owners objected to the sale. After he went out, however, Rino Te Nana Paora, a cousin of the Hiko family, and an adjoining owner, informed the Court that she objected.” Cooper wanted officials in Wellington to conclude that Thomson was a liar. What’s interesting is that we know that Rino Te Nana Paora was an objector, but she was not an adjoining owner. She lived some distance away from Hauai 2G3. Either Mr Cooper himself was lying or at best he got his facts wrong. Cooper continued: HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

“She also alleged that Ria Paaka, the adjoining owner on the other side and an aunt of the Hiko family, would have objected, only she was afraid that Mr Thomson the schoolmaster would not assist her to get an old age pension if she opposed him. I do not know what truth, if any, there is in these allegations.” What impression of Thomson was Cooper trying to give officials in Wellington? He wanted them to think that Thomson was not just a liar, but he was using intimidation and threats to manipulate the locals into supporting him. Yet the record shows that Ria Paaka actually invited Thomson to buy the land. She was one of the people who signed the petition presented in Court by Blomfield, showing she supported the sale. There is no evidence anywhere to suggest she was manipulated to support Thomson. So once again, Cooper either lied or got his facts wrong. This was the second instance of an untruth in the same letter. Cooper was not finished: “The inspection [of Hauai 2G3] was made by the Judge and myself in the absence of all the parties, and it made doubly clear the fact that the sale to Mr Thomson should not be allowed. During the inspection, a strange thing happened. Ria Paaka, the adjoining owner was watching us from about 50 yards away, but refrained from approaching. This is not in accord with usual Maori custom. The Judge gained the impression that she was keeping aloof, under advice from someone.” Cooper wanted his readers to think that ‘someone’ was Thomas Thomson. He wanted his readers in Parliament to view Thomson as an evil manipulator who didn’t want Ria and Judge Acheson to meet, lest Ria spill the beans about the supposed “I’ll-get-you-a-pension-if-you--support-my-land-purchase” racket Thomson was running in the community. There was never any evidence / proof anywhere that any such racket ever existed. Cooper was being pure evil. Well, that was Cooper’s letter of the 2nd of September 1935. It was the second literary salvo launched from Acheson’s camp into Thomson and Blomfield’s bunker. It was obvious that Cooper and Judge Acheson were hoping that their letters to Parliament maligning Thomson would cause officials in Wellington to cool towards him and his Petition. To their credit, their attitudes didn’t cool. Quite the opposite. They decided to dig deeper. Two days later, on the 4th of September, another of Judge Acheson’s officials, Mr M.Earle, wrote22 a letter to Parliament, this time quoting Judge Acheson 22 See Document 21, page 87 18

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

extensively. This was Judge Acheson’s reply to the Under-Secretary ’s request of August 1st which asked the Judge to provide the reasons for declining Thomson’s Confirmation. Acheson, once again, refused to give the grounds, skirting around the issue. Instead, the letter attacked Thomson. For example, he felt that this request from Wellington was ‘pressure of an iron hand within the velvet glove.’ Thomson, said Judge Acheson, by writing to the Minister, was trying to manipulate him in the matter of a judicial decision and accused him of ‘overstepping the mark.’ With respect to Thomson’s petition, Acheson felt he was on ‘sure ground’ i.e. that Thomson’s petition would never succeed. That is to say, Acheson felt he had nothing to fear and the Thomson’s petition would not go all the way. How wrong this statement proved to be later in the story. Attempting to stave off a deeper Parliamentary investigation against him, Acheson escalated his attack on Thomson. “...there will be serious repercussions if disgruntled would be purchasers of Native land in the North once get the idea that they can safely use this method (i.e. writing directly to the Minister through a petition) of attacking a Judge who carries out his duty of protecting the Maoris in his district...after the preliminary hearing in Russell in February last, he (i.e. Thomson) waited for me outside my hotel, walked inside with me without my consent, then called to me as I was ascending the stairs, and invited me to have a drink. Ignored, he later rang up Mr Cooper, and invited Mr Cooper and myself to accept the hospitality of his home at Rawhiti for a couple of days while inspecting the land23 [i.e. Judge Acheson and Cooper inspected Hauai 2G3]. The Court, objecting to favours offered by parties to a case before the Court made other arrangements.” In other words, Judge Acheson tried to portray Thomson as a devious crook who would stoop so low as to try and bribe or ‘soften up’ a Judge with ‘favours’ such as drinks and hospitality. From what I have learned about Thomson in my research, he was a big hearted, honest, friendly, relational guy with no evil intent in his heart whatsoever. The fact that the locals and non locals loved and respected him supports this argument. Clearly, the letter from Judge Acheson to Parliament was carefully worded so as to cast Thomson in the worst possible light before the Native Affairs Minister. It was yet another missile in a dirty smear campaign. 23 The Maori Land Court was so cautious about the sale of Maori Land, and protective of Maori, that Judges and their officials often physically visited the land for sale to see it for themselves, interview neighbours, etc. In the case of Hauai 2G3, this is what they did. . HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Judge Acheson continued: “Later still, on Court refusing Confirmation in May last, Mr Thomson wrote to me directly, asking me for my reasons. Rebuked by the Registrar on my instructions, he apologised in writing, but I have not yet accepted his apology. I think I should first examine what he said in his complaint to the Hon. the Minister to ascertain to what extent he has overstepped the mark or even slandered a Judge in respect of a judicial decision.” What are we to make of this reaction? First, it’s quite reasonable to ask a Judge to give the grounds for the decision he made. Any thinking person would have asked the same questions that Thomson had asked. Second, to not accept someone’s apology is game playing. It’s one person (the forgiver) having power over another (the one wanting the forgiveness). In short, Judge Acheson was toying with Thomson’s emotions, trying to break him down. In this letter, Earle talks of the court offering Thomson a compromise. Thomson could have part of the land, enough for a house site and a vege garden, but not all 12 acres. The court, said Earle, was adamant that the Hikos retain what was left after a portion was sold to Thomson. Thomson rejected the offer. Again, this idea of forcing the Hikos to retain some of their land in Te Rawhiti was not only not in their best interests, but it was unlawful. First, they needed all the money Thomson was offering, not part of it. Second, they all wanted to sell all the land. Third, they had no intention of returning to Te Rawhiti. They simply didn’t want the land. As I have already pointed out, if the court’s suggestion had been forced upon the Hikos, it would have been going against their expressed will, and therefore the enforcement would have been unjust, and being unjust, it would have been wrong. Judge Acheson was relentless in the use of his officials to hammer Wellington with letters either defending himself or attacking Thomson - most often both in one letter. Never once did he explain why the sale of the land to Thomson was not in the best interests of the Hikos. He just said it was not. Period. For example, on the 5th of October 1935, Mr Earle wrote a letter24 to the Under-Secretary of the Native Affairs Committee in Parliament with one final attempt to try to stop Thomson. Once again, he quoted Judge Acheson: “The Petitioner (i.e. Thomson) seriously misrepresents the position in alleging 24 See Document 22, page 92 20

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

that the application for Confirmation was before the Court when his Solicitors received their letter from the Judge. The true position is that Mr Blomfield saw the Judge personally and made certain representations before the Transfer was signed, or any application lodged. On the facts as then submitted, he was told he would be justified in taking steps to get signatures and apply for Confirmation, but was expressly warned that the Court would decide only on the facts in evidence at the formal hearing, and would not commit itself beforehand to grant Confirmation. Mr Blomfield assured the Court that he quite understood that the Court would be free to decide the case on its merits at the hearing. At the hearing and the inspection of the land a very different state of affairs was disclosed and the Court thereupon refused to confirm. At the hearing Mr Blomfield himself did not attempt to claim that the Court or Judge had promised to confirm the transaction but apparently Mr Thomson has no compunction about wording his Petition so as to make it appear that a promise was given.” This was another attack on Thomson, this time accusing him of twisting the truth. Why was Judge Acheson so aggressive and determined to denigrate Thomson’s character? If Thomson’s petition was successful, Acheson’s career could take a dive. Overturned decisions don’t look good on a Judge’s CV, especially when the Judge in question tries to defend himself about a decision he made, and then slurs the character of the complainant - and then loses. From the day Thomson’s appeal arrived on the desk of the Minister, the profile of Hauai 2G3 had steadily grown. The Minister of Native affairs and all his officials had Thomson and Judge Acheson under their microscope, and the longer this dragged on, the more intense the magnification. If Acheson was found to have made a poor decision, or an outright wrong decision, there was no way it could be kept a secret. This land sale was receiving a lot of attention at the highest level. The Judge, working through Cooper and Earle, was trying hard to stop Thomson and his petition. Together these three appeared to morph into a vicious pack who had ganged up on Thomson. If a bill was drafted, and read out in Parliament, and passed, all the Ministers in Parliament would get to know about this “gang of three” and their scurrilous behaviour. For these reasons, Judge Acheson and his officials floored the accelerator in their efforts to stop Thomson and his petition which was a threat to Acheson’s career. After studying every detail of the correspondence between Acheson and HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Parliament about Thomson, there are striking similarities between Acheson and McBeth in Shakepeare’s “McBeth”. McBeth, a soldier, murdered his King25 so that he himself could become King. Then he had to murder others to cover up his murder of the King! McBeth said, most famously, after the first few murders, “I am in blood stepped in so far that, should I wade no more, returning would be as tedious as go o’er.”26 Acheson and his men were like that. Once they had started attacking Thomson, they had to keep up their attacks, deepening them, and increasing their frequency, until they had vanquished him and his petition. Thomson must have known about the letters Judge Acheson and his officials had been firing off to Parliament, because it was hardly co-incidence that 4 days later, on the 9th of October 1935, the Baker Brothers, owners of the Four Square store in Russell, wrote27 to the Minister of Native Affairs with a glowing character reference about Thomas Thomson. Exactly how this letter was initiated, we’ll never know. What we do know is that from this point on, things moved very fast. On the 11th of October 1935, two days later, the Under-Secretary of the Native Affairs committee in Wellington recommended to his Chairman that he view Thomson’s petition with favour.28 This tells us two things. First that he must have received sufficient information about the case to make a judgment about it. Second, he was a discerning man who could see through the attempts of Judge Acheson and his officials to smear Thomson. The Under-Secretary’s recommendation was received well by the Chairman of the Native Affairs Committee. We know this because on the 15th of October the Chairman requested that all the Court and board Minutes from the Thomson case be sent with urgency to Parliament for review. The memo (on the next page), dated the 15th October 1935, read: “URGENT: Memorandum for the Under-Secretary, Native Department. Petition 25/35, T. Thomson. The Chairman requests that the complete Court files be sent up for the use of the committee on Wednesday 23rd instant. I shall be obliged if you would arrange to have this done. G.W Anderson, Clerk, Native 25 Regicide. 26 Shakespeare’s “McBeth”, Act 3, Scene 4, Page 7 27 See Document 23, page 95 28 See Document 24, page 98 22

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Affairs Committee.” This memo would have sent shivers down the spines of Acheson and his men. Things for them were waxing worse and worse. A great storm was brewing. Instead of their literary salvos snuffing Thomson out, quite the opposite was happening. Parliament’s sympathy for Thomson was rising, as was the heat they were putting on Acheson. For Acheson, this was now a serious case of a backfire. On the 16th of October 1935, the UnderSecretary informed his Chairman that Thomson has missed the cut-off for an appeal to the Native Land Court and the Supreme Court.29 Doubtless, the Chairman had asked his UnderSecretary what legal options Thomson had, other than petition, to have an appeal heard. The answer was ‘none.’ The way was now clear for Thomson’s petition to progress. All the Court and board records arrived in Wellington on the 21st October, 1935. For five days, both the Under-Secretary and Chairman of the Native Affairs Committee in Parliament, Mr Cecil H Clinkard (left) plus their committee members, studied carefully the record of the evidence presented to Court in the three sittings under Judge Acheson. How do we know this? They recommended to Parliament that a special Act be passed which would allow Thomson to have his appeal heard 29 See Document 26, page 105

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

in the Appellate Court, the highest in the land. For the Chairman and his committee to make such a recommendation at so high a level could only have meant that their study of the evidence revealed that an injustice had been done not only to Thomson, but also to the Hiko whanau. It had become obvious to officials in Parliament that in denying Confirmation, Acheson had made a wrong decision of no small proportion. Indeed, in refusing confirmation there had been a glaring miscarriage of justice. At this point, Judge Acheson and his men might as well have come out of their smoking bunker waving a white flag. The fight was over. On the 26th of October 1935, the Act was passed in Parliament30 which gave Thomson a legal avenue to have his appeal heard in the Appellate Court31which was created especially to hear this case. For the next five months not one but two Appellate Court Judges reviewed Thomson’s case. Five months is a long time for two of the country’s top Judges to study all the evidence. On the18th of March 1936 they delivered their verdict. In their summing up, they noted that in their opinion Judge Acheson had made the fatal mistake of being “moved by Rino Te Nana Paora”i.e. he had allowed himself to be emotionally swayed by Rino Te Nana Paora. 32 By siding with Rino, Acheson had become emotionally involved in the case and as such had taken his eye off the law. His job as a Judge was to examine all the evidence and to weigh that evidence strictly and only by the letter of the law as per Section 273 of the Native Land Act, 1931. In this respect, he’d failed. The Appellate Court Judges were satisfied that this sale was in fact in the best interests of the Hiko whanau. There was no legal reason for the sale not to proceed. Well, this was the ‘official’ reason given for not granting confirmation. But, in my opinion, there was another ‘unofficial’ reason. In source Document 1233, and my commentary of this document, I point out that right from the start there were indications that Judge Acheson and Thomson were not getting on. It appears that he accused Thomson of lying about the size of the kumara 30 See Document 29, page 115 31 The equivalent of todays High Court. 32 See Document 30, page 116 33 Page 53 24

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

patch, and the number of house sites on Hauai 2G3. Thus, the relationship between Thomson and Acheson was soured from the start, only to deteriorate further as time went on. The content of the letters from Acheson and his officials to Wellington about Thomson supports this argument. You’ll remember Acheson charged Thomson with trying to bribe him with ‘favours’ such as drinks and hospitality after the very first court hearing in Russell. In denying confirmation, did the Judge want to ‘put Thomson in his place’ or ‘have the last word?’ or ‘teach him a lesson?’ It’s a strong possibility that these motivations were in the mix when he made his decision. Even though the public would expect a Judge to not be unprofessional in this way, let’s not forget that Judge Acheson was still human. And being human, he was vulnerable. So, it turned out that there were two reasons why Judge Acheson refused confirmation.34 First, he had allowed himself to be emotionally swayed by Rino. Second, the relationship between he and Thomson was septic. In combination, these reasons propelled him into making a decision based on emotion, not the law. He probably realised that this is what he’d done when Parliament began to question his decision, but he wasn’t prepared to step up and openly admit it. To do so would have been shamefully embarrassing and humiliating. Instead, he decided to ‘dig in.’ That is to say, he tried to cover his mistake by attacking Thomson. As we know, the cover up failed. The Appellate Court decision cleared the way for Thomson to become the rightful and legal owner of Hauai 2G3, and for the Hikos to sell. Overnight, Hauai 2G3 became a famous piece of land in New Zealand legal history. As I have already pointed out, before Thomson had put his case to Parliament, there were only three avenues open for appeal to sellers and purchasers of Maori Land who had their Confirmations denied - Native Land Court appeal, Supreme Court appeal, and Parliamentary petition. The Act of Parliament passed marked the beginning of the availability of the Appellate Court as a fourth option for appeals. This had never been available before. 34 There may well have been other reasons. For example, was the judge receiving favours from someone or from a group of people? Was sex involved? Or money? Or bribery? Or some other form of corruption? Why was Judge Acheson unusually determined to not back down when he was clearly in the wrong? We’ll never know for certain. We can only speculate.

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

And what about the price Thomson paid for Hauai 2G3? Was it fair? The Appellate Court Judges had to have done their research on this. It would have been illegal for them to have granted Confirmation unless Section 273 had been satisfied in every respect, which included the issue of fairness of price. I encourage you to read on in this book to study the source documents which are the record of history. They are the documents on which this overview is based. They speak the bald, naked truth. They are the facts. They tell the story of one man’s heroic fight for justice, against the odds, for himself and the Hiko whanau, and the extraordinary lengths they had to go to get it. Don’t forget, while all this was going on, Thomson had 40 children to teach in his school. He had to care for his wife Beatrice, and son Henry, and fulfill his role as postmaster. He valiantly weathered a fierce storm of character assassination, bullying, slander, and misrepresentation. The Hikos had to put on hold their plans for how they intended to use their money from the sale. And let’s also not forget the Native Affairs Minister, the Chairman of the Native Affairs Committee, and his committee members. They played a crucial part in Thomson’s fight for justice because they had taken the time to evaluate all the evidence in minute detail, and had come to right and just conclusions. Not only that, but they acted decisively on those conclusions. They were exemplary politicians who genuinely cared about justice, and the affairs of grass roots New Zealanders. They could easily have tossed Thomson’s plea for help into the ‘we-are-too-busy’ basket, but to their credit, they didn’t. The source documents also tell the story of how hard it was to purchase Maori Land in the 1930’s. Because of all the press we receive in the media today, we get the strong impression that it was only Maori in New Zealand’s history who were treated unjustly when it came to land transactions. Thomson’s story is a classic illustration of how both Maori and Pakeha were treated unjustly by a European Judge in the same transaction. It’s also the story of how Judges and their officials, being human, can get it wrong. We can also learn a lot from Rino Te Nana Paora too. Her main arguments were fourfold. 26

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

First, that Hauai 2G3 was the Hiko’s papakainga, or source of livelihood. As I have already pointed out, paragraph (b) sub-section 1 of Section 273 of the Native Land Act 1931 ruled that if the land being purchased was the papakainga of the owners, then it could not be sold. Second, that this land should be retained for the children and grandchildren of the Hikos when and if they returned to Te Rawhiti. Third, this land was the papakainga of the Te Rawhiti community. Presumably, what she meant by this was that Ria Paaka’s kumera patch was feeding the wider community, not just Ria and her whanau. Fourth, this land, she said, used to belong to her grandfather. Kuia Hiko, who appeared in Court at Russell, strongly countered all Rino Te Nana Paora’s arguments. She knocked them over one by one. Testifying on behalf of her brothers and sisters, she said the following under oath: 1. This land was not the papakainga of the Hikos. 2. None of the Hikos had lived on Hauai 2G3 for over 16 years. 3. All the Hikos were making their living ‘in a Pakeha way’ in other parts of New Zealand. 4. They had never lived on the land, even when their mother Ware was alive. When they had lived in Te Rawhiti with their mother Ware, they had all lived together in one house in another bay. 5. None had plans to return to Rawhiti. 6. They all wanted to sell and needed the money to get on with their lives in other parts of the country. 7. They were happy with the price, feeling it was fair. It was mainly because of Kuia’s testimony that the two Appellate Court Judges overturned Judge Acheson’s decision. She was Thomson’s star witness. According to Kuia, Hauai 2G3 was not the papakainga of the Hikos, never had been, and never would be. And what about Rino’s third point, that Hauai 2G3 was the papkainga of the wider community? The Court viewed this as irrelevant information. Why? The only concern of the law was to look after the interests of the Hikos, the owners of the land, not the wider community. As for Rino’s fourth point - that the land around the Urupa used to belong to her grandfather - we know this was not true. HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

It was an outright lie. How do we know this? On the 30th of May 1913 the shareholders of the 44 acre parent Block Hauai 2G had met in Court to legalise its partition (i.e. sub-division). Each had to prove and agree who had owned what part of the block from the very beginning. The shareholders could prove that the original owner of Hauai 2G3 was not Rino’s grandfather. It was the Hikos. So in claiming that Hauai 2G3 used to belong to her grandfather, Rino, under oath, had lied. Now here is an interesting twist in the history. According to the record, Rino offered to swap Hauai 2G3 for some of the land she owned in Kaikohe. She told the Court that if the sale of Hauai 2G3 was approved, that it not be sold to Thomson, but rather she would like it for herself i.e. her ‘concern’ was motivated by self interest. She was feathering her own nest under the guise of ‘helping’ the Hikos. She was being cunning, corrupt, and devious. In Court she said: “If the Court thinks they should be allowed to dispose of the land, then I ask them [i.e. the Hikos] to have awarded lands of mine in Kaikohe and other districts so that I can take their shares in Hauai 2G3 and hold the land so that they and their children may always have a home site to live on when any of them or their children return to the Bay of Islands.” She wanted to swap rubbish land in Kaikohe for beautiful coastal land in Rawhiti. “Hold the land” means own the land. Do you think she would have signed over the land to the Hiko children when and if they returned to Te Rawhiti? You know the answer. The court also saw through her request and turned her down. And what about the Hikos? Did they really want to sell? Between the date when they first signed the Memorandum of Transfer and the Appellate Court hearing was roughly two years. That’s a long time to think about what they wanted. At any time in those two years they could have pulled the plug but they didn’t. Why? They were sure about what they wanted. They wanted to sell. They wanted out. Period. Thankfully, the story ended triumphantly for Thomson, his family, Ria Paaka who was the local who right at the start encouraged Thomson to buy the 28

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

land, the Hiko relatives who signed the petition approving of the sale, the neighbours in the Rawhiti community who also supported the sale with a petition, the children and parents in the school who loved the Thomsons, and of course, the six Hiko whanau. They could move on with their lives in other parts of the country. Local Maori had access created for them between north and south Te Rawhiti via a road cut by Thomson and local men, paid for by the Government. Thomson also established a path through his land to the Urupa. Kuia Hiko finally got her false teeth, and Ria Paaka got her pension, which was not, as it turned out, the result of a bribe. She also kept her Kumara patch on Thomson’s land. Thomson helped many of the locals get their pension, whether they helped him to buy Hauai 2G3 or not. Under his leadership, the school was bristling with extra curricular activities. He ran night classes for adults at the school, even though he didn’t have to. He and his wife Beatrice were much more than just ‘the school teachers’. They were the doctors, the nurses, the counselors, the vets, the financial advisors, the catalysts for the employment of locals. If you lived in Te Rawhiti, they were your best friends. As the Baker brothers testified in their letter to Parliament, Thomson was “one of the best”, which explains why the Te Rawhiti community loved him, he loved them, and why he lived there for over 18 years. It explains why every Maori (except one, Rino Te Nana Paora) in the community supported his bid to purchase Hauai 2G3. Mr Baker summed up Thomson’s role in the community perfectly when he said: “The Natives look upon the present schoolmaster as a father to the community.” Thomas was born 28 May 1895 and died 3 July 1988 @ 93 years. Beatrice was born on 11 October 1895, and died on 13 Oct 1986 @ 91 years. Henry was born on 27 January 1919 and died on 31 Jan 2008 @ 89 years. This is a complete and truthful history of Hauai 2G3 Bay Of Islands, New Zealand.

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

SECTION TWO. REFERENCE MATERIAL. THE FOLLOWING SECTION CONTAINS THE SOURCE DOCUMENTS ON WHICH THE CHAPTER “THE TRUTH ABOUT HOW MAORI LOST OWNERSHIP OF HAUAI 2G3” IS BASED. THEY ARE VITAL PROOFS. As important as they are, you don’t need to spend too much time on this section. By all means, peruse / study these documents if you so wish. My advice is to go straight to the conclusion, which is on page 187.

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

DATE

WHAT HAPPENED?

A summary...

30.05.1913

The parent block, Hauai No 2 G, was created by the Native Land Court under the partition provisions of part 6 of the Native Land Act 1909. The partition was commissioned by local Maori.

22.01.1918

Hauai No 2 G was itself partitioned by the Native Land Court into three parts and divided by agreement between the owners in accordance with their shareholding. The 3rd part, 2G3 block, comprising 11 acres 3 roods & 6 perches, was awarded to Ware Hiko aka Kataraina Rewha solely.

2.10.1928

Following her death in 1918, the block was succeeded to by her adult issue x 6 effective from the year 1918, by Succession Order.

1928 - 1934

Agreement for sale & purchase of the block for £60 is made between the successors as vendors and Thomas Thomson as purchaser.

8.05.1934 –

Memorandum of Transfer is signed by the successors formalising the Transfer of ownership to Thomson.

3.04.1935 18.03.1936

Native Appellate Court (NAC) confirms the Memorandum of Transfer.

27.03.1936

Certificate of Confirmation is subsequently issued by NAC.

2.12.1936

On the 22nd of January 1918, the Partition Order is lodged by the Native Land Court with the District Land Registrar.

8.12.1936

The 1928 Succession Order, for chain of title purposes, is lodged with the District Land Registry, 8 years after the Succession Order.

11.12.1936

The 1918 Partition Order is registered at the District Land Registry in the Provisional Register under reference PR180/114 in Ware Hikos name as the owner.

15.01.1937

The transmission passing Ware Hikos ownership to her successors in equal shares in accordance with the Succession Order is registered.

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

15.01.1937

Memorandum of Transfer is registered, PR 180/114 is canceled and a new Freehold Certificate of title NA683/56 is issued recording Thomson as the new owner.

15.04.1943

Jean Griffiths and Dorothy Lawford purchased all the 11 acres 3 roods & 6 perches from Thomas Thomson.

3.07.1964

Jean Griffiths and Dorothy Lawford subdivided the 11 acres 3 roods & 6 perches into 6 Lots under Deposited Plan 51670.

22.12.1965

Lots 2/3/6 DP 51670 were sold to Peter Elliot Lawford, John Elliot Lawford, and Beatrice Lawford in equal shares.(titles NA7C/1438, 1439 & 1440 issued)

24.08.1967

Lot 1 was purchased by Peter Curling Lawford

24.08.1967

Lot 2 was purchased by Mary Ann Beatrice Ferrier

6.06.1969

Lot 2 was purchased by Peter Curling Lawford

23.3.1972

John Elliot Lawford purchased Lot 5 DP 51670 (title NA22A/975 issued)

4.9.1972

Lot 2 was purchased by Pauline Arini Mallory

7.7.1976

Lot 2 was purchased by Dianna Grenville Struthers

26.10.1977

Lot 1 was purchased by Marion Henderson Wright

24.7.1985

Lot 1 was purchased by William Vernon Wright and Marion Henderson Wright

15.8.1989

Lot 1 purchased by William Wright & John Wright

22.2.1985

Under the Reserves Act 1977, the Crown took Lot 4 (or the steps leading up from Te Rawhiti Road to Oke Bay) and took parts of Lots 3,5,6 to create Lots 8 and 9, the Esplanade which allowed public access to Oke Bay. (titles NA55B/1183, 1184, 1185 issued)

9.12.1985

Under the Reserves Acts 1977 they created (and took) Lot 7 which was designated as Road, now known as Te Rawhiti Road.

26. 6.2008

Julian Batchelor via Company “Gracealone Oke Bay Holdings Ltd” purchased Lot 5 DP 51670 together with Lots 3 and 6 from John Lawford. The land has since been put into a Trust.

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

WARE HIKO’S LAND Was the parent block, Hauai No 2 G, the original block of land from which Hauai 2G3 was created, partitioned with the consent of the owners? Did Ware Hiko need the permission of the hapu for this partition? On the 10th of March 2016, I wrote to the Maori Land Court National office with the following request. This is Document 1.

Document 1 ------------------------------------From: julian [mailto:seeyouatthetop@xtra.co.nz] Sent: Thursday, 10 March 2016 4:31 p.m. To: mlcnationaloffice Subject: Documents please Hi, Please find the attached document (title PR 180/114) The land was partitioned on 30th May 1913. However, on the 22nd January 1918 Judge Albert George Holland declared Ware Hiko to be the legal owner of the land. What evidence would she have to provide the Court for Judge Holland to have declared her to be the legal owner? Would Ware Hiko have had to get the permission of her Hapu? How was her ownership determined? Are the Minutes of the Maori Land Court still in existence which related to this case? If so, how do I get a copy? Thanks so much. Julian ---------------------------------------------

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

The reply arrived on the same day at, 6:04pm. This is Document 2.

Document 2 -----------------------------------------I can advise that: The parent title, Hauai No 2 G was created by the Native Land Court under the partition provisions of part 6 of the Native Land Act 1909 on 30/05/1913 Hauai No 2G was partitioned again by the Native Land Court at 3 Bay of Islands MB 139-140 on 23/01/1918 into three parts, 2G1, 2G2 and 2G3 According to our records, the division of the land was agreed to by all owners and the land divided among them in accordance with the number of shares they held in the original 2G block. The 2G 1 block (11 acres, 3 roods, 06 perches) was awarded to Henare Rewha solely The 2G 2 block (21 acres, 1 rood, 28 perches) was awarded to Hone Rewha (18.5 shares), Nana Paora (12 shares), Puke Rewha (1.5 shares) and Rino te Nana Poara (3 shares) The 2G 3 block (11 acres, 3 roods, 06 perches) was awarded to Ware Hiko or Kataraina Rewha solely The partition was undertaken with the consent of the owners - who appeared at the hearing at the time. The matter of the second partition in 1918 was dealt with by Chief Judge Holland. There was, and continues to be, no requirement to have permission from the hapu for the partition of Maori Land. T R WAITITI for the Chief Registrar ------------------------------------------

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 3 has two pages.

Document 3

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 3 is a copy of two pages of the Bay of Islands Minute Book 3 of the Native Land Court partition hearing of the 22nd of January 1918. It is a record of: 1. Owners in attendance. There were no objections. 2. Tendering of evidence in support. 3. The partition of the block, Hauai 2 G. 4. The owners of that block as at the 22nd of January 1918 5. The 3 new blocks resulting from the partition. 6. The owners of each of those 3 new blocks.

Document 3

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Henry Leaf was the Court official writing the notes. All Maori who had interest in the 2 G were invited to attend the court hearing. Notice the signatures of all the Maori land owners, approving of the partition.

Document 3

...reads as follows:

“Partition application. Other owners present. It is proposed to make 3 divisions. They have been agreed to. Proposed partition announced. No objections. Order to: Henare Rewha (M). 11 acres, 3 roods, 6 perches. To be called 2 G section 1. The south side of the block to be cut off by a line swinging from peg “A” in beach to give one chain clearance to Nana Paora’s house and to then swing to SE boundary to give the required area. Order to : Hone Rewha, 13 and 1/2 shares Nawa Paora, 12 shares Puke Rewha, 1 and 1/2 shares Rino Te Nana Paora, 3 shares. For an area of 21 acres, 1 rood, 28 perches to be called 2 G Section 2. To adjoin section 1 north boundary to be a line at right angles to western boundary. Order to: Ware Hiko, alias Kataraina Rewha, 16 and 1/2 shares for an area of 11 acres, 3 roods, 6 perches to be called 2 G section 3. Residue of block to contain the required area.

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 4

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 4

...reads as follows:

Entered the 11th December, 1936 No prior title

day

PR 180/114 683/56

PARTITION ORDER Rule 38 The Native Land Act, 1909

In the Native Land Court New Zealand

Hauai No. 2 G Sec. 3

In the matter of the partition of the land known as Hauai No.2 G heretofore held under Partition Order dated 30th day of May, 1913 At a sitting of the Court held at Russel,on the 22nd day of January, 1918 before Albert George Holland, Esquire, Judge. It is, as part of the said partition, hereby ordered and declared that Ware Hiko, alias Kataraina Rewha (F) is the owner of that part of the said land containing 11 acres, 3 roods, 06 perches, named by the Court Hauai No. 2 G 3 and which part is particularly delineated in the plan attached hereto. As witness, the hand of the Chief Judge the seal of the Court. Chief Judge’s signature: Jones No titles No roads Area 11.3.06 being the bare site in block XV Bay Of Islands called Hauai No, 2 G Sec.3

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

COMMENTARY ON DOCUMENT 4 Partition Order Documents 4 and 5 are copies of the two pages of the Partition Order made by the Native Land Court on the 22nd of January, 1918 for the third block partitioned, Hauai 2G3. Document 4 is the Order Document 5 is the survey plan of the new block. Document 4 is the Order by which Hauai 2G3 block was partitioned from its parent block Hauai 2G and came into being. It was 11 acres 3 roods & 6 perches. Ware Hiko was declared the owner. The Order also made reference to the earlier Partition Order of the Native Land Court of the 30th of May, 1913 by which the parent block, Hauai 2G, had itself been created by partition.

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

The survey plan below (page 2 of the Partition Order and Document 5) is the survey plan presented to the Native Land Court for the purpose of the partition. Note the land marked as “2E” is the Maori Urupa. It is not part of Hauai No.2 G Section 3. Note too, that when the Government took the land for a road in 1985 this included the land on which the large Pohutukawa tree in front of our property is growing. The land in front of our retaining wall, and the tree, were originally part of Hauai 2G3. When the Hikos sold the land to Thomson in 1937, he became the new owner of this tree and land. Today the tree, and the land on which it is growing, belong to the Government.

Document 5

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

On the next page is a copy of the Succession Order made by the Native Land Court on the 2nd of October 1928. When an owner of Maori Land dies, their land interest is passed to those entitled to succeed them. This is done by a Succession Order made by the Native Land Court. Those succeeding are called successors. By this Succession Order, Ware Hiko, having died, had her interest in the block succeeded to by her adult issue, the 6 named successors equally, from the year 1918. Document 6

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 6

...reads as follows:

SUCCESSION ORDER (RULE 51) THE NATIONAL LAND ACT 1931 In the Native Land Court of New Zealand, Tokerau District. Hauai 2G3. In the matter of the above-mentioned land, and OF the interest of Ware Hiko, alias Kataraina Rewha, deceased therein. At a sitting of the Court held at Whangarei on the 2nd day of October 1928, before Edward Percy Earle, Esquire Commissioner. It is hereby determined that: Hone Hiko (M), Pori Hiko (F), Kuia Hiko (F), Tureiti Hiko (F), Huri Hiko (M), Ruiha Hiko (F), ..are the persons entitled to succeed to the interest of the above named deceased in the said land, and it is hereby ordered that the said interest shall vest in the above named successors equally as from the year 1918. As witness, the hand of the Judge and the seal of the Court. Signed by S.G.V Acheson, Judge of the District.

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

In 1937, there were two stages to the sale of Maori Land. First, the purchaser and seller had to sign ‘a Memorandum of Transfer.’ This showed details such as the legal owners of the land, the price paid, the legal description of the land, etc. When these Transfer documents were in order, the Transfer had to be taken to the Native Land Court. A Judge would check that all the details were correct, speak to the Maori owners and the purchaser, walk over the land being sold, interview neighbours etc. All this was done to make sure there was no inaccuracy or corruption. It was also to make sure the Maori owners really wanted to sell, and that in selling they were making a good business decision - the best decision in every respect for them and their whanau. Confirmation was a powerful, rigorous, and effective safety mechanism for Maori land owners. The Government at the time was trying hard to preserve Maori land ownership. If everything was in order, the presiding Judge would ‘Confirm’ the sale. With this in mind, and before Thomas Thomson went about trying to purchase the land, he instructed his lawyer Mr Blomfield to write to Judge Acheson. The letter asked the Judge for his legal opinion. That is to say, Thomson wanted to buy the land but he wasn’t prepared to go to the trouble and expense of locating the Hiko whanau and getting all their signatures for a sale (i.e. completing a Memorandum of Transfer) if the Judge was not going to support the last hurdle in the sale process, which was Confirmation. Judge Acheson’s reply is on Document 7 on the next page.

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 7

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 7 Thomson took Judge Acheson’s answer to mean that the Native Land Court would have no issue confirming the sale. With this in mind, he instructed his lawyer Mr Blomfield to contact each of the Hiko whanau. When he located them, he was to make them an offer to purchase the land. The record shows the Hiko whanau were all eager to sell. Thus the ‘Memorandum of Transfer’ documents were prepared. 46

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 7

...reads as follows:

Copy of Judge Acheson’s letter to Messrs Parr and Blomfield, Solicitors, P.O Box 41, Auckland. To: The Office of the Native Land Court, Auckland C.1, 27th of October 1934 Dear Sirs,

Hauai 2G3

In reply to your letter of the 24th instant, I have to advise that the Court cannot say definitely whether it will confirm a Transfer of this section until it has a Transfer before it and hears formal evidence at the Court sitting at Russell in February next. However, it would appear that the land is of little or no use to the owners, none of whom is in occupation. I think Confirmation sufficiently probable to justify Mr Thomson in going to the expense of arranging for the execution of the necessary Transfer but he should be careful not to pay more than a nominal deposit to each vendor. As the total amount is small it is not likely that the Court will impound the rest of the purchase money, but it will insist on the balance being distributed to the Natives through the Tokerau Board in the usual way. Three questions will need to be brought up at the time of hearing. 1. Survey charges 2. Rates 3. Right of way access between other Native blocks and to the Wahitapus. The Court will also require to see the land if it has no adequate report from the consolidation officer. Your faithfully, Signed: F.G.V. Acheson, Judge.

Thomson has attached a note, bottom left.

The three questions are: 1.Survey charges 2. Rates 3. Right of way. Have all been attended to and in no way affected the decision. T.Thomson.

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Documents 8/9/10 are the 3 pages of the Memorandum of Transfer by which the transfer of ownership of the block from the Maori successors to the first Pakeha owner was being sought. This transfer is evidence that a contract for the sale and purchase of Hauai 2G3 had been made between those successors and that first Pakeha owner, Thomas Thomson. Document 8 is page 1 of the Transfer.

Document 8

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 8

...reads as follows:

MEMORANDUM OF Transfer We, the aboriginal Natives, of the Dominion of New Zealand whose names are set out in the first column of the schedule hereto being registered as proprietors of an estate in fee simple as tenants in common in equal shares subject however to such encumbrances, liens, and interests as are notified by memoranda underwritten or endorsed hereon, in that piece of land situated in the Provincial District of Auckland containing by admeasurement ELEVEN ACRES, THREE ROODS, AND SIX PERCHES be the same a little more less being the whole of that piece of land called or known by the name of HAUAI No. 2 G 3 and being the whole of the land comprised in an Order of the Native Land Court on Partition bearing date the 22nd Day of January one thousand nine hundred and eighteen and being all of the land comprised and described in Volume 180 folio 114 of the Provincial Register Book in the Lands Registry Office at Auckland.

In consideration of the sum of SIXTY POUNDS (£60) paid to us by THOMAS THOMSON of Rawhiti, Bay of Islands, School Teacher.

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

COMMENTARY ON DOCUMENT 8 ABORIGINAL Natives: This means Maori. THE SCHEDULE: Specifically, those six Maori whose names are listed in the schedule (Document 9) to the Transfer. FEE SIMPLE: Denotes absolute ownership. TENANTS IN COMMON IN EQUAL SHARES: The land/block, the subject of the Transfer, was owned by the six equally, each of them holding an undivided 1/6 share. HAUAI NO.2 G NO.3: This is the name of the land/block. PARTITION HEARING 22nd of JANUARY 1918: This refers to the hearing at which the block was created by Partition Order. IN CONSIDERATION: The price agreed with the current owners to be paid for the transfer of ownership of the block to the intended new owner. Note that the consideration sum, £60, is type written in the document. This would suggest that it was entered at the time the document was first drafted. THOMAS THOMSON: The intended new owner.

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 9, is page 2 of the Transfer.

Document 9

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

COMMENTARY ON DOCUMENT 9 DO HEREBY TRANSFER: The legal words which transfer ownership of the land/block from the former owner to the new owner. Type written in the centre of the document (and over which the schedule has been placed) are the words “In Witness whereof these presents have been executed this___day of ___ One thousand nine hundred and thirty…”. The year 1930 would suggest that the Transfer had been drafted as early as 1930. There are 4 columns. The first has the names of the 6 Maori owners. Worthy of note is that the names are type written (in contrast to the other 3 columns in which the writing is by hand) which would indicate that those names were known at the time the transfer was drafted and were typed in at that time. The second column has the 1/6 share of the price each owner receives for the transfer of the land - £10 each. The third is the owner signature column. The fourth is the witness certificate, date and designated witness signature column. The certificates in this column read “Signed by the said (the name of one of the 6) in my presence on (the date of the signing ). I certify that the said (name of the person signing ) has a knowledge of the English language sufficient to enable him to understand, and that he did understand, the meaning and effect of the foregoing Transfer before he signed the same.” If the Transfer was drafted in 1930, as Document 9 appears to suggest, the dates of signing by the 6 owners clearly shows the lapse of a long period of time, some 4 years, between the drafting of the Transfer and the first signing. It then took a further seven months to collect all the signatures. That the owners resided in different parts of the North Island, as the table overleaf shows, may explain the extended time taken to sign. It would also suggest that no one was rushed into a decision to sell. 52

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

The table below has four columns. The first column lists the name of the Hiko Whanau who were selling. The second and third columns show the month and year when each of the whanau signed the Transfer Document. The fourth column shows the place of signing. Hiko whanau names

Date signed

Year

Place of signing

Pori Hiko

18 October

1934

Auckland

Kuia Hiko

18th February

1935

Thames

Tureiti Hiko

18 February

1935

Thames

Huri Hiko

18th February

1935

Thames

Ruiha Hiko

14 March

1935

Mokai

Hone Hiko

3rd April

1935

Auckland

Mokai is near Taupo. Roads would not have been highways like they are today in 2019. It would therefore have been a great challenge for Solicitor Blomfield to acquire all the signatures.

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 10 is page 3 of the Transfer.

Document 10

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Thomson was in court February 20-27, 1935 (Russell) and March 18th 1935 (Auckland). Armed with the Memorandum of Transfer, he and his Solicitor Mr Blomfield went before Judge Acheson at the Native Land Court and presented their case for Confirmation. The Judge heard arguments for and against but in May 1935 Acheson refused to confirm the sale to Thomson. See document 11 below, in the dotted rectangle. Judge Acheson’s decision reads as follows: “Court. The Court has inspected the land, has considered the evidence, and now decides to refuse confirmation on the grounds that the alienation is contrary to the interests of the Natives alienating.”

Document 11

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Thomson then wrote to Judge Acheson asking him to explain his decision. (Document 12). Thomson felt that in refusing Confirmation, an injustice had been done.

Document 12

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 12

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 12 Thomson made some crucially important points in this letter. First, as Judge Acheson said, the matter of consolidation could not be brought into the matter. Consolidation was principally about retaining land for future generations of the whanau. The Judge quite rightly pointed out that this was not one of the conditions of The Native Land Act 1931, section 273 which was solely concerned with the best interests of the current owners, not future generations of owners. Second, Thomson presented two signed petitions in Court. The first was from the Native owners of the sections of land adjoining Hauai 2G3. The second petition was from the relatives of the Hikos, showing that they were in favour of the sale. Both petitions asked Judge Acheson to confirm the sale. Third, there was only one building site on Hauai 2G3. Why is this significant? The Hiko whanau were six adults, each with their own families. If they returned to the land, which of the six families would get the one building site? In other words, in terms of permanent living for all the Hiko whanau, it would not have been suitable. It is clear from the court records that Hauau 2G3 had not been occupied by anyone in all its history. Fourth, Judge Acheson must have accused Thomson in Court of lying about the size of the kumara patch and the number of house sites, because Thomson, in this letter, was forceful in defending himself. These accusations indicate that very early on, Judge Acheson and Thomson were rubbing each other up the wrong way. The smear campaign against Thomson by Acheson and his officials supports the argument that their relationship was septic at the start and worsened as time went on. Could this have been a second factor which influenced his decision to deny confirmation? By denying confirmation, did he want to clip Thomson’s wings? Put him in his place? Spite him? We can’t rule this out. Fifth, when Thomson wrote that all his paperwork was in order, he was referring to the Memorandum of Transfer. That is to say, all the Hiko whanau had signed it, showing they were willing and wanting to sell. 58

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 12

...reads as follows:

Copy of letter sent to Judge Acheson.

Rawhiti Russell 10/6/ 1935

So far he has not replied.

Judge Acheson President Tokerau Native Land Board Auckland

Your Honour, Although I was present at the Native Land Court when the question of the Confirmation of the transfer of Hauai 2G3 from the Hiko family to myself was raised for your consideration, I am still unaware of your reasons for declining to confirm. May I with your permission record the following facts: 1. At the Court sitting you admitted that the question of consolidation could not be brought into the matter. 2. The papers in connection with the case presented for your perusal were to my knowledge all in order. 3. A signed petition by Native owners of adjoining sections was presented to you, showing that they were in favour of the Transfer taking effect, and asking you to confirm such. You gave me the impression that you feel I was misleading you when I stated that about 200 square yards of the section was used this year for kumara planting by Ria Paaka. I have verified my estimate and found that it was perfectly correct. The question of building sites was then raised, when I

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 12

...reads as follows: (cont..)

informed you there was only one suitable site. I have made further inquiries from those in a position to know, asking them how many building sites were on the section in question. Their answers have been one and one only. I have given the matter careful consideration and I now feel that you were somewhat misled when you made your tour of inspection [of the property]. Therefore, I humbly beg you Honour to re-consider your decision or failing this kindly oblige me by stating your reasons for declining Confirmation. I am Sir, yours sincerely, T. Thomson

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Frustrated at not receiving a reply from Acheson, Thomson wrote to the Minister Of Native Affairs, the Honourable Mr R Masters on the 19th of July 1935, asking him to intervene.

Document 13

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 13

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 13

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 13

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 13 HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 13

...reads as follows:

Hon R Masters

Rawhiti Russell July 9th, 1935

Minister of Native Affairs Wellington C1 Dear Sir, It is with regret that I find it necessary for me to encroach upon your very valuable time, by appealing to you as Minister of Native Affairs for assistance and I am sure you will pardon me and if possible assist me by having what appears to me to be an injustice rectified. Placing the matter as briefly as possibly before you is as follows. 1. I have been Native School teacher in Te Rawhiti for the past 13 years. 2. Have always been on the most friendly and neighbourly terms with the Maoris. 3. Was looking forward to retire amongst them at the end of my career. 4. Hence my desire to secure a piece of land here. 5. An old Maori woman asked me to buy a section approx.12 acres adjoining her own land. 6. This section is owned by six absentee owners, the old lady’s nieces and nephews. 7. The owners live as Europeans. Have been absent for over 23 years and have all stated they do not intend returning. They also have considerable interests in other Native lands. This land returns no revenue. 8. I approached some of the owners. They desired to sell. 9. I instructed my Solicitor E.C Blomfield Esq of Parr and Blomfield Auckland to ascertain from Native Land Board if it was to go head with the matter. 10. He did so by seeing officers of the Board, also the

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

President Judge Acheson. (I enclose herewith a copy of the Judges letter to him). 11. On receipt of advice that all seemed clear, he obtained the signatures of the six owners each being paid a deposit. 12. The Transfer was duly arranged and brought before the Native Land Court in the usual manner. The Judge declined to confirm the Transfer. 13. Nearly 5 weeks ago, I wrote to Judge Acheson (a copy of this letter I also enclose) up to the present I have not received a reply. 14. My Solicitor feels confident that by a Supreme Court action the Judge’s ruling could be altered, but as this is necessarily a costly business to my mind the value of the land dose not warrant it. 15. The Government valuation of the land was agreed upon by vendors and myself. 16. Since I wrote to the Judge asking for reasons for declining Confirmation my Solicitor informed me that he had received a note from the Judge saying his reason for not confirming was that it was not in the interests of the Native alienating. 17. You will observe from the Judge’s letter that all seemed clear for Confirmation, and on his advice I paid out the deposits to each vendor. 18. The transaction so far has cost me a considerable sum of money, now no redress. 19. Should you require information close at hand, W.W.Bird, Esq Retired School Inspector of 40 The Crescent, Roseneath Wellington may be of some assistance as he knows all about the business, My standing with the Maoris and the section in question. Or further information may be had from my Solicitor or from myself. Sir, I appeal to you to give this matter due consideration and if possible to assist in having the Transfer confirmed. Thanking you. I am, Yours respectfully, T. Thomson.

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Important points in favour of Confirmation are made in this letter. 1. First, the Hiko whanau had ‘considerable interests’ in land elsewhere, so in selling Hauai 2G3, they were not going to be left landless. 2. Second, all the Hiko whanau had agreed on the price, being Government valuation. 3. Third, one of the locals, Ria Paaka, a neighbour adjoining Hauai 2G3, asked Thomson to buy the land. 4. Fourth, all the Hikos had lived away from the land for over 23 years1 so it was not their papakainga. 5. Fifth, the Hikos all wanted to sell. In light of Section 273 of the Native Land Act 1931 (See Appendix 1), these points fully and completely satisfied the conditions necessary for the granting of Confirmation. Thomson didn’t want to lose the deposit he’d paid the six Hiko whanau. Presumably, they didn’t / wouldn’t give the money back after confirmation had been refused. This was another reason for Thomson to pursue confirmation.

1 This varied from what Kuia Hiko had said in the court minutes. She said they’d been away for 16 years. 68

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Below is the Native Affairs Minister’s response to Thomson’s letter, dated the 9th of July, 1935. The Minister says he’d be “pleased to have inquiries made into the matter.” The Minister’s letter is dated the 18th of July, 1935. This would have been great news for Thomson, and such a relief for the Hikos. Help was on the way!

Document 14

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 14

...reads as follows:

18th July 1935

Dear Sir, I have to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 9th instant, relative to your desire to secure a piece of Native land (Hauai 2G3) and have carefully noted the position as outlined by you both in your letter to me, and the copy of the communication you have addressed to Judge Acheson. In reply, I have to advise you that I shall be pleased to have inquiries made into the matter, and will communicate with you further as soon as I am in a position to do so.

Your faithfully (Signed) R Masters Acting Native Minister T. Thomson, Esquire RAWHITI Russell

Under Secretary Native Affairs For enquiry and further draft reply 16.7.35

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Finally, Thomson received a reply from Acheson. Below is a letter from Mr Earle, one of Judge Acheson’s officials, dated the 22nd of July 1935. It in he relays to Thomson that Judge Acheson “takes strong exception to your action in writing to the Judge personally on a matter the subject of a decision of the Court.” Thomson had asked the Judge to give his reasons for denying Confirmation. Instead, Thomson received a telling off. It is probably this reprimand which prompted Thomson to write a second time to the Minister.

Document 15

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 15

...reads as follows:

Memorandum for

Office of the Tokerau District Maori Land Board

T. Thomson,

Auckland, 22nd July, 1935

Rawhiti, via Russell, Bay of Islands

Hauai 2G3, Transfer Hiko family to T. Thomson ----------------------------------------------Your letter of the 10th ultimo was received by Judge Acheson who takes strong exception to your action in writing to the Judge personally on a matter the subject of a decision of the Court. It was improper of you to address to Judge Acheson the questions put in your letter. The Court’s decision, as entered up in the Minute Book is as follows. “Confirmation is refused on the ground that the alienation is contrary to the interest of the Natives alienating.” M. Earle Registrar

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 16 is Thomson’s second letter to the Minister. Thomson said in the letter below that he has included a copy of Judge Acheson’s letter to Thomson’s lawyer, Mr Blomfield. You’ll recall that in that letter, Acheson had indicated to Mr Blomfield that Thomson would likely not have any issues with Confirmation. What Thomson is saying in document 16 is something like “Judge Acheson gave me a strong indication in writing that there would be no issues with Confirmation. On the basis of this, I went to the trouble and expense of hiring lawyer Blomfield to prepare the Transfer document. When we went to Court for Confirmation, Judge Acheson denied us. I feel misled.”

Document 16

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Thomson went on to list the reasons Confirmation should have been granted. They are that (1). The Hikos don’t receive revenue from the land. (2). They are emphatic about disposing of it (3). The Hikos are not going to return to the land (4). One of the Hikos was present as the Court hearing (Kuia) and told the Judge she needed the money from the sale to purchase a set of false teeth.

Document 16 74

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 16

...reads as follows: Rawhiti Russell 25/7/1935

Hon R Masters Acting Native Minister Wellington, C1. Dear Sir,

I have to thank you for your letter of the 16th instant, received today. For your information I have to state that with the same mail I received from the Registrar of the Native Land Court a letter in reply to the one I sent to His honour Judge Acheson, over six weeks ago a copy of which I sent you.

The original reply I forward herewith for your perusal.

Personally, I fail to see why he should take strong exception to me writing to him personally and I cannot understand where I committed an improper act. However, his reason for refusing Confirmation of Transfer of the section of land in question is stated “‘contrary to the interests of the Native alienating.” To his knowledge was brought the fact that the Vendors received no revenue whatsoever from this section, that they were all emphatic about disposing of it, for they would not return to Rawhiti. One of the vendors was present at the Court, acting on behalf of her absentee brothers and sisters and told Judge Acheson that she was in great need of her share of the money for the purpose of procuring a set of false teeth. Thanking you for the interest you have taken in this matter. I am, Sir, Yours faithfully, T. Thomson.

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 17 is a letter from the Native Affairs Department in Wellington to the Registrar at the Court in Auckland. It would have been a bombshell to Acheson. We know this because of the response Judge Acheson gave to it (See document 20). He would now know that Thomson had laid a formal complaint at the highest level about his decision not to grant Confirmation.

Document 17

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 17

...reads as follows:

ND 19/1/171

Wellington C.1 1st August,

1935

MEMORANDUM for : The Registrar Auckland Hauai 2G3 Transfer Hiko Family to T. Thomson ----------------------------------------------------------I am directed by the Hon. Native Minister to ask for a report with regard to the facts of the proposed alienation of the above land to Mr.T Thomson of Rawhiti, Russell. Mr Thomson has written to the Hon. Native Minister expressing great dissatisfaction with the decision of the Court in refusing Confirmation of the proposed alienation but it is a great pity that he did not adopt the legal remedy open to him by way of Mandamus in order to put the matter to test. Mr Thomson, it appears, was advised by his Solicitor to take action in the Supreme Court by way of Mandamus but was deterred by reason of the expense involved and the conviction that he should not have been put in the position of having to take that action to obtain his rights. The Department cannot, of course, interfere in any way with the exercise of the Court of its lawful discretion and jurisdiction but the Minister would be glad to be advised of the reasons (if any) given by the Judge (if any) for finding that the proposed alienation was contrary to the interests of the Natives alienating

Acting Under Secretary

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

For the month of August, 1935, things appear to have gone quiet. Judge Acheson was thinking about how he was going to reply to the letter from Wellington asking him to give his reasons for not granting Confirmation. At the same time, Thomson and Blomfield were regrouping, preparing their petition to present to Parliament, which they delivered on the 31st of August 1935, Document 18.

Document 18

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 18

...reads as follows:

Petition No. 25 / 1935 To the honorable speaker and members of the house of representatives of the Dominion of New Zealand in Parliament assembled. The Petition of Thomas Thomson, of Rawhiti, Russell, Bay of Islands. Humbly showeth. That negotiations were entered into and completed with the Maori owners of a parcel of land consisting of about 12 acres and know as Hauai 2G3 at Rawhiti in the Bay of Islands. Application was made to the Tokerau Native Land Board for Confirmation of the agreement for sale and purchase. The Solicitors acting for your petitioner, Messrs Parr & Blomfield, then received a letter from the Judge of the Native Land Court which stated that as the land was of little or no use to the present owners, none of whom were in occupation, Confirmation was sufficiently probable to warrant your Petitioner to proceeding with the necessary contracts. Their course was followed and your Petitioner paid deposits to all the Native owners. In due course the case came before the Native Land Court in Auckland. All the evidence tendered was in favour of the Confirmation of the contracts but the Judge surprised everyone concerned by refusing Confirmation. Your Petitioner therefore prays that the Native may be instructed to re-hear the case and to Confirmation desired or that your petitioner may such other relief as may suit the case and your will ever pray.

Land Court grant the be granted Petitioner

T. THOMSON.

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

This was the formal receipt from Parliament, showing the date that Thomson’s petition was received - 31st of August, 1935.

Document 19

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 19

...reads as follows:

House of Representatives Wellington 31st August 1935.

Sir No. 25/1935

Native Affairs Committee

Petition of T. Thomson

I have the honour to forward you herewith the petition noted in the margin and ask you to attach any papers you may have on the subject, and to return it to the Committee together with any report you may wish to make thereon. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedient servant. E.M Anderson Clerk of the Committee.

The Under - Secretary Native Department Wellington

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 20 is Mr Cooper’s letter to the Registrar of the Native Land Court in Auckland, dated the 2nd of September 1935. Cooper was one of Judge Acheson’s officials. This letter was a reaction to the news that Thomas Thomson had sent a petition to Parliament, effectively complaining about Acheson. No doubt Cooper was writing under instruction from Judge Acheson. Tension between Judge Acheson and Thomson was escalating.

Document 20

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 20 HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 20

...reads as follows: Kaikohe 2nd September,

1935

The Registrar Native Land Court Auckland Hauai 2G3 Transfer Hiko Family to T. Thomson ------------------------------------------For record purposes I give what I know about this matter. The section comprises 11 acres, 3 roods, 06 perches, and is owned by six members of the Hiko family some of whom are married and have families. This is their only papakainga or Homestead area. This is eminently suitable for such as it contains several home sites, sufficient cultivation ground, and easy access to plentiful sea food supplies. This family has very little other land, only about 10 acres each, all of it, except 2G3, being unsuitable for home and cultivation purposes. The great bulk of their balance lands is poor hill country. When alienations take place in the Tokerau District, Judge Acheson always requires a report from the consolidation Officers, who are in close touch with the needs of the Natives. The Judge is very particular about alienations. This is needed for the protection of the Natives whose numerous past alienations of good land confirmed by previous Presidents has resulted in acute shortages of cultivation and homestead areas for so many Maori families in the North. In the case of the Hiko family, I do not consider that they should be allowed to sell the whole of Hauai 2G3. Their own interests and the rights of their children should be protected.

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 20

...reads as follows: (cont...)

A mere £10 for each of them (1/6 of £60) is a very poor exchange for so desirable a property. Their children should have a home site they can return to, even if their parents wish to cut entirely adrift from their ancestral kainga. From a consolidation point of view this sale to a European is not desirable or advisable. The land is in the midst of a settlement entirely Native. It is in a lovely bay, with Native land on either side, and an Urupa or Cemetery cut off in the middle of the section. Access to Native sections beyond will be required through 2G3. Part of the land is already used for cropping purposes by adjoining owner Ria Paaka. Under consolidation,it had been my intention to arrange to reserve an area suitable for home site and cultivation needs of the Hiko family and their descendants as a papakainga and to vacate the balance of their values into a much bigger area in the Kaikohe district for purposes of sale by them, or preferably so that with Unemployment assistance, the family might establish a farm. The adjoining Hauai owners would then increase their holdings by absorbing the area vacated and would give up values elsewhere to compensate. An alternative was to allow Natives in nearby hill sections to secure home cultivation and fishing sites on 2G3 in return for values to be given under consolidation to the Hiko family elsewhere. This is one of the principles of consolidation, and I submit that it is not in the interests of the Natives that the wishes of an individual European purchaser should be allowed to upset it. In the event of either of these proposals being carried out, the Hiko family would retain a papakainga site and in addition get land elsewhere of much greater prospective value to them than the £60 cash offered by Mr Thomson. It is only the delay in consolidation, due to lack of staff, and the opposition of Ratanaites, that has prevented one or other of these proposals from being finalised before this. When the matter came before the Court at Russell, I made my representations at the invitation of the Court. Mr Thomson informed the Court that none of the adjoining Native owners objected to the sale. After he went out, however, Rino Te

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 20

...reads as follows: (cont...)

Nana Paora a cousin of the Hiko family, and an adjoining owner, informed the Court she objected. She also alleged that Ria Paaka the adjoining owner on the other side and an aunt of the Hiko family would have objected only she was afraid that Mr Thomson the schoolmaster would not assist her to get an Old Age Pension if she opposed him. I do not know what truth if any there is in this allegation. The inspection was made by the Judge and myself in the absence of all the parties, and it made doubly clear the fact that the sale to Mr Thomson should not be allowed. During the inspection, a strange thing happened. Ria Paaka the adjoining owner was watching us from about fifty yards away but refrained from approaching. This is not in accord with usual Maori custom. The Judge gained the impression she was keeping aloof under advice from someone. I do not know what happened in Court at the adjourned hearing in Auckland in May last. I am still endeavouring to make suitable consolidation arrangements for the Hiko family. When these are further advanced it may be possible to cut out a portion of 2G3 for sale by them but I cannot recommend any sale that will leave them without a portion suitable as a site for a home and cultivation area.

(Sgd) Wm. Cooper Consolidation Officer.

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

This is Mr M Earle’s first letter, dated the 4th of September, 1935 to UnderSecretary of Native Affairs in Wellington. Mr Earle is another of Judge Acheson’s officials. Essentially, it’s Judge Acheson’s reply to the letter sent to him from the Ministry of Native Affairs on the 1st of August, asking him to explain why he turned down Thomson’s Confirmation.

Document 21

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 21

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 21

...reads as follows:

N.D 19/1/171 The Under -Secretary Native Department

Office of the Tokerau District Maori Land Board Auckland, 4th September, 1935

Wellington, C1 File 5022 Hauai 2G3, Transfer Hiko family to T. Thomson ----------------------------------------------I regret the delay in replying to your memoranda of the 1st and 28th ultimo, but the Minute Book and the board file have been away with the Court in the North. The only Minutes of the Court dealing with refusal of confirmation reads as follows: “Confirmation is refused on the ground that the alienation is contrary to the interest of the Native alienating.” This is the stock form of Minute in cases of refusal of Confirmation. The facts of the case in explanation of the consolidation officer’s objection to the sale are set out in Mr Cooper’s report of the 2nd instant, copies of which are enclosed herewith. I have nothing to add, but am directed by Judge Acheson to quote his comments exactly, as set out below. “The delay in replying to the Under-Secretary is due to no fault of the Auckland Office or the Registrar. The memoranda of the 1st August raised a most important issue of principle and I required time to consider it fully. Further, I wished to go into the consolidation position of the Hiko family at the present Kaikohe sitting as this has an important bearing on their freedom to sell. Dealing with the question of principle, I am glad of the assurance given in the Under-Secretary’s memorandum of the 1st of August that the Department cannot interfere in any way

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 21

...reads as follows: (cont...)

with the exercise by the Court of its lawful discretion and jurisdiction. However, the request to be advised of reasons for a judicial decision itself raises a big question. A weak Judge might easily feel embarrassed by an enquiry such as is contained in the carefully worded memorandum from the UnderSecretary. He might conceivably feel the pressure of an iron hand within the velvet glove. I have not been supplied with the usual copy of a complaint to the Hon. The Minister but I take it that Mr Thomson’s complaint was sent in the hope that the Hon. The Minister would bring pressure to bear on me in the matter of a judicial decision. If this assumption be correct, the implications are important. It seems to the Court that Mr Thomson (or his Solicitor) had a choice of three constitutional methods, and three only, of securing reconsideration of his transaction, namely: 1.Mandamus proceedings in the Supreme Court. These would have proved quite abortive of course as the Supreme Court never interferes with the decision of a President or Judge who refuses Confirmation on the simple ground that an alienation is contrary to the interest of the Natives alienating. 2. Petition to Parliament. As to this, I make no comment, except that the Court is on sure ground and has not objection whatever to Mandamus or Petition proceedings. 3. Formal application to the Registrar, to be gazetted in the usual way, applying to the Court to itself allow the proceedings to be re-opened to permit of the submission of revised proposals for the Court’s consideration. In this connection, the Court itself suggested at the hearing in May last that Mr Blomfield should ask for an adjournment so that he could explore the possibilities of a compromise that would enable Mr Thomson to secure a home and garden site at an adequate price without depriving the Native owners of what they need for their own papakainga and consolidation purposes. However, Mr Blomfield, after conferring with Mr Thomson, pressed for confirmation of the sale of the whole 11 or 12 acres at the Government valuation £60. The Court promptly refused confirmation on the ground stated 90

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 21

...reads as follows: (cont...)

in the Minute Book. It will be noticed that the complainant has not adopted any of the constitutional methods mentioned above. He has chosen instead to seek the aid of the Hon. The Minister to have a judicial decision reversed. In the Courts opinion, there will be serious repercussions if disgruntled would be purchasers of Native land in the North once get the idea that they can safely use this method (i.e. Writing directly to the Minister) of attacking a Judge who carries out his duty of protecting the Maoris of his District. I understand that Mr Cooper is setting out the essential facts in a separate report. It will no doubt disclose factors not revealed in Mr Thomson’s complaint. Mr Thomson can consider himself lucky I have not issued other proceedings against him. I had never met the man before, yet after the preliminary hearing in Russell in February last, he waited for me outside my hotel, walked inside with me without my consent, then called to me as I was ascending the stairs, inviting me to have a drink. Ignored, he later rang up Mr Cooper, and invited Mr Cooper and myself to accept the hospitality of his home at Rawhiti for a couple of days while inspecting the land. The Court, objecting to favours offered by parties to a case before the Court made other arrangements. Later still, on Court refusing Confirmation in May last, Mr Thomson wrote to me direct, asking for my reasons. Rebuked by the Registrar on my instructions, he apologised in writing, but I have not yet accepted his apology. I think I should first examine what he has said in his complaint to the Hon. The Minister to ascertain to what extent he has overstepped the mark or even slandered a Judge in respect of a judicial decision.”

M. Earle Registrar

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

This is Mr E. P. Earle’s 2nd letter, dated the 5th of October, 1935 to the UnderSecretary of Native Affairs in Wellington. Once again, it’s essentially Judge Acheson’s response to the news that Thomson had lodged a petition at Parliament. Acheson was fuming.

Document 22

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 22

...reads as follows:

The Under-Secretary Native Department Wellington, C1

Office of the Tokerau District Maori Land Board Auckland, 5th October, 1935

ND 18/1/171

Petition No. 25/1935 Mr. T Thomson Hauai 2G3 ----------------------------------------------Your memorandum of the 25th ultimo was referred to Judge Acheson who reports as follows: (1)”The Petitioner seriously misrepresents the position in alleging that the application for Confirmation was before the Court when his Solicitors received the letter from the Judge. The true position is that Mr Blomfield saw the Judge personally and made certain representations before the Transfer was signed or any application lodged. On the facts as then submitted, he was told that he would be justified in taking steps to get signatures and applying for Confirmation but was expressly warned that the Court would decide only on the facts in evidence at the formal hearing and would not commit itself beforehand to grant Confirmation. Mr Blomfield assured the Court he quite understood that the Court would be free to decide the case on its merits at the hearing. (2) At the hearing, and the inspection of the land, a very different state of affairs was disclosed, and the Court thereupon refused to confirm. At the hearing Mr Blomfield himself did not attempt to claim that the Court or Judge had promised to confirm the transaction, but apparently Mr Thomson had no compunction about wording his Petition so as to make it appear that a promise was given.

(Sgd) E.P Earle

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Feeling that in the eyes of officials in Wellington his character was being maligned by waves of toxic letters from Judge Acheson and his officials, Thomson called in support. It came in the form of a letter from Mr Fred Baker, the Director of the Four Square Stores in Russell, dated the 9th of October, 1935.

Document 23

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 23

Baker alludes to the fact that this Hauai 2G3 drama was happening at the tail end of the Great Depression in New Zealand. For New Zealand, as for most of the world outside Russia, the great depression of the early 1930s was the most shattering economic experience. During this time, Thomson was a great strength and support to Maori in Te Rawhiti. This letter from Mr Baker appears to have been well received by Wellington and helped to neutralise the letters written by Acheson and his officials that were so derogatory of Thomson. HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 23

...reads as follows:

The Right Hon G W Forbes Minister of Native Affairs Wellington

Russell Bay of Islands 9/10/35

Dear Sir, We are taking the liberty of writing to you re the proposed Transfer of Maori Land, Hauai 2G3 at Rawhiti, Bay of Islands, by Mr T. Thomson, Native schoolmaster at Rawhiti, Bay of Islands. Mr Thomson for the past 13 years has been wonderful asset to the Native fraternity of Rawhiti, having right from the commencement of his teachership there taken the keenest interest in the welfare of the Natives. Apart from what may be considered his duty as a schoolmaster, Mr Thomson has shown that he has a fellow feeling with the surrounding Natives and has helped them not only with time and advice, but with disbursements from his private purse has done his utmost to help the Natives over this particularly trying period through which we have passed and are still passing. The Natives look upon the present schoolmaster as a father to the community. He has always fostered the sporting element, particularly the younger generation and has gone to endless trouble and expense to train and transport these athletes to and from the competitions. Mr Thomson is highly respected in Rawhiti, Russell, and the surrounding districts. In our long years of dealing and association with him leads us to say that he is one of the best. His residence at Rawhiti in possession of Hauai 2G3 will have a stimulating effect on the surrounding Natives, and we trust that no obstacles will be placed in the way to prevent Mr Thomson being given a clear title to Hauai 2G3.

Respectfully yours For and behalf of the Baker Brothers Ltd C. Fred Baker, Director.

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 24

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 24 is a memo from one of the Native Affairs officials to the Native Affairs Minister recommending that he view Thomson’s petition with favour. There is a significant shift of opinion in this letter. In his letter to lawyer Blomfield way back on the 27th of October 1934, Judge Acheson maintained that he had never guaranteed Confirmation of the sale of Hauai 2G3. Thomson had always said he did i.e “..Judge Acheson, after accepting, has now declined.” i.e. Acheson at first said “Go for it. It’s good to go!” then changed his mind. This memo from the Under-Secretary sides with Thomson. The reference to Thomson’s good character and standing in the community would likely have been gathered from many sources: reports from Maori in Rawhiti as per the Court Minutes, Blomfield’s observations of his relationship with local Maori, the views of Education Department Inspectors who would have visited Thomson regularly in Te Rawhiti, and so on.

Document 24

Wellington NZ

...reads as follows:

October 11, 1935 Memorandum for Rt. Hon. Minister of Native Affairs. A Native School Master at Rawhiti Bay of Islands (Thomas Thomson) has petitioned Parliament praying for the completion of purchase of land from Natives at Rawhiti, which, I am informed, Judge Acheson after accepting has now declined. Thomson is a very straight, reliable, and popular man, especially with the Natives, and I should be glad if favourable consideration could be given to the matter when it comes before you. The Under - Secretary For Draft reply. GWF 11/10/35 The Rt. Hon. Native Minister Draft letters to the Rt Hon.Mr Coates and Mr Thomson herewith for your signature, if approved. D. M. Campbell, Under-Secretary 5/11/35

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

In this letter, dated the 15th of October 1935, the Under-Secretary of Native Affairs urgently requested from Auckland the full board and Court files covering the transaction referred to in Thomson’s petition. They arrived on the 21st. This meant that the Chairman of the Native Affairs Committee and his committee members had a long 2 days to study the files before the next sitting of the committee on the 23rd of October.

Document 25

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 25

...reads as follows:

ND 19/1/171

Wellington C.I. 15th October, 1935

The Registrar Auckland Petition 25/35 - T Thomson Referring to your memorandum of the 5th instant with regard to the above petition, the Chairman of the Native Affairs Committee has requested that the complete Court and Board files covering the transaction referred to in Mr Thomson’s petition be sent to him for the use for the committee on Wednesday the 23rd instant. Please forward these files etc to this Office immediately for production to the Native Affairs Committee.

Under - Secretary

100

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 26

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

101

Document 26 This letter, dated the 16th of October 1935, was from the Under-Secretary of Native Affairs to his Chairman. In it, he gives a summary of Thomson’s case, and then explains why Thomson had lost the right to an appeal in any Court because he missed the cut-off dates for: 1. A hearing in the Native Land Court, which had to have been applied for with 14 days of the refusal of Confirmation. 2. A writ of Mandamus in the Supreme Court, which had to have been applied for within one month of the refusal of Confirmation. This letter was effectively informing the Chairman that Thomson had no legal recourse for an appeal left to him, other than to appeal via petition to Parliament. The goal of the petition was to have Parliament pass a special Act for Thomson which would allow him to have his case heard in the Appellate Court, the highest Court in the land. Obviously, at this point in New Zealand’s history, such recourse had not been possible, hence the need for an Act of Parliament to make it possible. In this respect, the sale of Hauai 2G3 became famous in New Zealand’s legal history.

102

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 26

...reads as follows: Wellington C.I.

ND 19/1/171

16th October, 1935

The Chairman, Native Affairs Committee House of Representatives Wellington Dear Sir Petition No.25 of 1935 of Thomas Thomson Re-hearing of Confirmation of a transfer of the Hauai 2G3 block. ----------------------------------------------This petition refers to the refusal of the Native Land Court to grant confirmation of an alienation by way of sale to the petitioner of the land called Hauai 2G3 block, containing 11 acres, 3 roods, 06 perches. The petitioner desired to purchase the land from the Native owners, but before taking signatures to a deed of Transfer his Solicitor approached the Judge of the Court for an indication of the Court’s view of the proposed dealing as to whether or not the granting of Confirmation of the sale as required by the Native Land Act was likely to issue. On the fact submitted at the interview the Judge intimated to the petitioner’s Solicitor that he would be justified in taking steps to obtain the signatures of the owners to a transfer and is subsequently applying to the Court Confirmation of the sale as required by the statute. The Judge expressly warned the Solicitor, however, that the Court would decide the question of Confirmation only on the facts in evidence at the formal hearing of the application for confirmation and would not commit itself beforehand, to grant confirmation. The subsequent hearing of the application and an inspection

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

103

Document 26

...reads as follows: (cont...)

of the land by the Court revealed a different state of affairs and the Court thereupon refused to confirm the alienation on the ground that it was contrary to the interest of the Natives alienating. The petitioner has now lost any right that he may have had to apply to the Court for a rehearing under section 39 of the Native Land Act as applications for that purpose are required to be made within 14 days, nor has he the right to apply to the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus as against the Court as an application for such a writ must be made within one month of the refusal of Confirmation. I enclose copies of two reports upon the petition by the Registrar. Petition is returned herewith. Your faithfully, Under - Secretary.

104

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

On the 21st of October, 1935 Parliament received the full Court and Board Minutes from Auckland with respect to Thomson’s case.

Document 27

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

105

Document 27

...reads as follows: 18th October, 1935

ND 19/1/171 Memorandum for: The Under Secretary Native Department Wellington C1

Hauai 2G3 Petition 25 / 35 -T Thomson ----------------------------------------------Further to memorandum of the 16th instant from the Registrar, I forward under separate cover for production to the Native Affairs Committee the undermentioned Minute Books: Bay of Islands (Court), M.B 14 Relevant Minutes Folios 139 and 163 Tokerau Board M.B 15 Relevant Minutes Folios 369-371 and 383-388 Would you kindly return when finished with to the Registrar at Auckland. O.R.P Spanich District Clerk

Returned 23/10/35

106

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

In this letter, dated the 5th of November 1935, from the Minister of Native Affairs himself, Thomson is informed that an Act of Parliament had been passed on the 26th of October 1935 which paved the way for him to have his appeal heard in the Appellate Court. Thomson would have received this news with ecstasy. It had been a long grueling fight for justice to get to this point. He probably cried. What joy he would have experienced telling the Hikos!

Document 28

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

107

Document 28

108

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 28

...reads as follows: 5h November, 1935

T. Thomson, Esq. Rawhiti Russell Dear Sir Hauai 2G3 - Transfer - Hiko family to you. ----------------------------------------------With reference to my letter to you of the 9th September last, I have to advise that the Government, after considering the report of the Native Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives on your petition, approved of the inclusion in the Native Purposes Act 1935 which became law on the 26th October last, of a clause granting a right of appeal to the Native Appellate Court against the decision of the Native Land Court in refusing a certificate of Confirmation of the Transfer from the Natives to you of Hauai 2G3 block. For your information, the full text of section 13 of the Native Purposes Act 1935 is quoted hereunder. Your attention is directed particularly to the proviso to subsection (1). 13. To give effect to a recommendation of the Native Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives upon Petition Number 25 of nineteen hundred and thirty five, of Thomas Thomson, with respect to the land herein mentioned. Be it enacted as follows: (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection two of section three of the Native Land Amendment Act, 1932, an appeal my be brought against the decision of the Court refusing a certificate of Confirmation of an instrument of alienation by way of Transfer from the Native owners of the Hauai No.2G, section 3 block situated in the Tokerau Native Land Court District to one Thomas Thomson, of Rawhiti, school teacher.

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

109

Document 28

...reads as follows: (cont...)

Provided that any such appeal shall be commenced by notice of appeal give in the prescribed manner on or before the first day of February nineteen hundred and thirty six. (2) The Appellate Court is hereby authorised to hear and determine any such appeal by way of rehearing. (3) The application for Confirmation shall be deemed to have been made in respect of all the successive executions of the instrument of alienation referred to in the application.

Yours faithfully R. Masters For Native Minister.

110

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

This is the Act which was passed which made it legally possible for Thomson to have his case heard in the Appellate Court. His appeal had to be lodged in Court before the 1st of February, 1936. This he did. He wasn’t going to miss the cut off date for this one!

Document 29

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

111

Two Appellate Court Judges studied all the evidence from all parties, for and against. They scrutinized all the details and finally concluded that an injustice had been done, and reversed Native Land Court Judge Acheson’s decision. The copy of the decision of the Appellate Court is given below, document 30. This was the final step necessary to complete the legal sale of the land. The decision is carefully worded. It appears that the Appellate Court Judges considered that Judge Acheson had been wrongly moved more by Rino Te Nana Paora than by the law, as stated in The Native Land Act 1931, Section 273. As such, the Judges considered that it was their task to reconsider all the evidence solely and only in light of section 273, particularly paragraph (b), sub-section 1. When they did this, they could see no legal reason to deny Confirmation.

Document 30

112

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 30

...reads as follows: HAUAI 2G3

Appeal against decision of the Native Land Court refusing Confirmation of transfer of this land to Thomas Thomson DECISION This appeal is brought in pursuance of Section 13 of the Native Purposes Act 1935 It appears from the records of the proceedings in the Native Land Court that all the owners of the land were desirous of selling their interests in it to the applicant Thomson. The Court, however, was moved by Rino Te Nana Paora, a relative of the owners, but not herself an owner, to refuse Confirmation and after a somewhat lengthy hearing it decided to do so upon the ground that the alienation was contrary to the interests of the Natives alienating. The block contains under 12 acres and the owners number 6. None has lived on the land for many years and they are scattered in various places in the North Island, and apparently the land is not likely to be a material means of support to them. Under the circumstances, disclosed at the hearing of the application, we are unable to see that the alienation is contrary to the interests of the Natives alienating. No adequate reason for a decision on the grounds given arose out of the evidence led before the Court, nor do the surrounding circumstances show that the alienation was contrary to the interests of the Natives alienating, within the meaning of Paragraph (b) Subsection 1 of Section 273 of the Native Land Act 1931. No question has been raised in respect of the other matters as to which the Court is required to satisfy itself before granting Confirmation. This Court therefore orders that the alienation be confirmed, subject to payment of the consideration to the Tokerau District Maori Land Board, less the sum of £6 as deposit if supported by receipts. Deposit £10 to be refunded to the depositor.

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

113

Document 31 is a copy of the Certificate of Confirmation of the Memorandum of Transfer (there are 3 pages to this document, documents 8/9/10) made by the Native Appellate Court on the 7th of March, 1936 following a Confirmation Order hearing on the 18th of March. Confirmation is concerned with compliance i.e. with the legal requirements applying to the alienation/disposal of Maori Land. So the primary purpose of such a hearing is satisfaction that any proposed alienation/disposal of land (in this case the transfer to Thomson) complied with the law governing the alienation of Maori Land. The role of ensuring compliance is normally carried out by the Native Land Court. In this instance the final decision was made by the Native Appellate Court, on appeal from the decision of the Native Land Court. The eventual issuing by the Court of the Certificate of Confirmation means that the Transfer satisfied the Law relating to the alienation/disposal of this block of Maori Land.

Document 31

114

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 31

...reads as follows:

In The Native Appellate Court of New Zealand Tokerau District CERTIFICATE OF CONFIRMATION The Native Land Act 1931 and its Amendments and Section 13 Native Purposes Act 1935 ----------------------------------------------AT a sitting of the Native Appellate Court held at Auckland on the 18th Day of March, 1936, before Robert Noble Jones, Esquire, Chief Judge and Charles Edward MacCormick, Esquire, Judge. Whereas the said Court after due enquiry is satisfied that the alienation purposing to be effected by the within deed here been effected in all respects in accordance with the law in force at the time of the execution thereof and as to all matters upon which the said Court is by law required to be satisfied, the said Court hereby confirms the alienation purporting to be effected by the within deed. As witness the hand of the Chief Judge and the Seal of the Court this 27th day of March, 1936

Signed: R.N. Jones Chief Judge

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

115

HOW THE SALE OF THE LAND TO THOMAS THOMSON WENT TO COURT TWICE. (1) As at 1935, Thomas Thomson had a contract and transfer for the sale and purchase of the land. He applied to the Native Land Court for conﬁrmation of the transfer, as required by law.

(5) Rino Te Nana Paora, a relative of the Hiko whanau, though not an owner of the Hiko land, was the sole objector to the sale. (6) In court, Rino's

main argument was that the Hiko whanau needed the land to grow crops and produce i.e. it was their Papakainga

(2) In court,Thomson argued the the Hiko whanau had not lived on the land since 1919 (roughly 16 years) and the land was therefore not used by them to support their livelihood. They were scattered all over the North Island, living, according to the court minutes, a 'Pakeha way of life'. Furthermore, Thomson could also show via document 9 that all the Hiko whanau wanted to sell. (3) The court minutes document that local Maori had been using

the land to cultivate their own crops while the Hiko's were away from Hauai. In addition, Rino Te Nana Paora asked the court if she could swap Hauai 2G3 for some land she had in Kaikohe. For these two reasons, the motives of Rino to 'save the land for the Hiko's' were dubious.

(7) The Native Land Court judge was swayed by Rino's arguments. Conﬁrmation was declined. Thomas Thomson was not allowed to buy the land. (9) He missed the cut off date for an

(4) Thomson told the court that if he purchased the land, he would create an access way to the Urupa for local Maori and cut a track through his land so that anyone could travel between north and south Rawhiti.

appeal, so he went to Parliament asking it to pass an Act enabling him to appeal the Native Land Court decision (PETITION 25)

(8) Thomas Thomson set about appealing the decision of the Native Land Court.

(10) The Government passed special legislation - The Native Purposes Act 1935, Number 39, section 13 (see Appendix 2). which allowed for his appeal to be heard in the Appellate court, the highest court of the land. It's equivalent today is the High Court.

(11) Thomson and his lawyer appealed to section 273 of the Native Land Act 1931. In court,

they proved that blocking the sale of the land to Thomson was unjust, and not in the best interest of the Hiko whanau (Section 273, subsection 1, paragraph b). Their reasoning was the same as is outlined in box (2) above. The bottom line was this - the Hiko's all wanted to sell. It was their land. There was a willing buyer, so why shouldn't they be allowed to sell?

(12) The Appellate court heard all the arguments from both sides and ruled that all the conditions of Section 273 of the Native Land Act 1931 (see Appendix 1) had been satisfied. The court considered that the sale of the land to Thomas Thomson was in actual fact in the best interest of the Hiko whanau and that Rina Te Nana Paora's arguments were not. It therefore overturned the earlier (unjust) decision of the Native Land Court. This decision meant Thomson was legally allowed to buy the land. A Certificate of Confirmation was granted and the sale was completed.

116

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 32 is a copy of the request of 8th of December, 1936 also from the Native Land Court to the Land Registry Office at Auckland to lodge with that office for registration, the 2nd of October 1928 Succession Order (Document 6) and a further step in that same process of the conversion of the block from Maori Land to General Land to enable the sale to be completed and ownership transferred.

Document 32

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

117

Document 33 is a copy of the request of 1st of December 1936 from the Native Land Court to the Land Registry Office at Auckland to lodge with that office for registration, the 22nd of January 1918 Partition Order (documents 4 and 5). This request marks the start of the conversion of the block, which was Maori Land in origin, from Maori Land to General Land and thereby to enable the purchase of the block by Thomson, a Pakeha. This transaction had already been negotiated with the Maori owners and the documentation regarding it signed (between 1928-35), to be completed by the Transfer of ownership to Thomson.

Document 33

118

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 34 is a copy of the District Land Registrar’s notice of 9th of December 1936 to the Lands and Survey Department to secure their costs of survey still owing, if any, for their survey of the block completed for the purpose of, and prior to, the making of the 1918 Partition Order. The notice was issued by the District Land Registrar after receiving the Partition Order from the Native Land Court for registration. It was notice to the Lands and Survey department to have registered against the title a survey lien for any costs still owing to them for that survey which had produced the survey plan attached to the Partition Order.

Document 34

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

119

Documents 35/ 36/37 are 3 pages of Provisional Register 180/114. Below is page 1.

Document 35

120

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

When a request is lodged at the District Land Registry for registration, and a full Certificate of title does not already exist for the land to which that request relates, it is registered in the Provisional Register. That was the case with this block. The 1918 Partition Order declared Ware Hiko the owner of Hauai 2G3. On 11th of December 1936 it was registered by the District Land Registrar in the provisional register at the Land Registry Office Auckland. It assigned the registration reference PR 180/114.

COMMENTARY ON DOCUMENT 35

There are six items which have been endorsed on the face of the Partition Order by the District Land Registry after receiving it from the Native Land Court for registration. 1. The registration date stamp 11/12/1936 2. The District Land Registry seal – top left 3. Hand written reference – PR 180/114- top right 4. Hand written “No Prior title” - top left 5. Initialed Postage stamps x2 - top right 6. The red handwriting at the foot of the page These endorsements have all been made by the District Land Registrar on the date of registration 11th of December, 1936. REGISTRATION DATE STAMP: The date the Partition Order was registered by the District Land Registrar and entered in the provisional register. PR 180/114: The folio and volume reference number given to the registered Partition Order by the District Land Registrar. RED WRITING (at the foot of the page). District Land Registrar’s note of 7th of December, 1936 on noted features of the block. NO PRIOR title: This is a notation made by the District Land Registrar on 11th of December, 1936, the date the Partition Order was registered and reference PR 180/114 given, to indicate that, prior to this PR, no registered title existed for this block. THE INITIALED POSTAGE STAMPS The stamps are evidence that stamp duty payable on the Partition Order had been paid.

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

121

Document 36 is the 2nd page of the Provisional Register and has been endorsed by the District Land Registrar with the PR reference 180/114

Document 36

122

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 37 Document 37 is the 3rd page of PR 180/114. The first two entries on the page, both dated 11th of December, 1936, were entered by the District Land Registrar and together prohibited, by Government order, the private alienation (i.e disposal) of the block other than to the Crown from 20th of September, 1920 for a period of 18 months. That prohibition time lapsed on 20th March, 1921. HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

123

Document 37

...reads as follows:

K 2677 Order in council dated 20/9/1920 prohibiting for a period of one year all private alienation of within land other than in favour of the Crown. Entered 11/12/1936 at 10:00am K 3004 Order in Council dated 30/8/1921 extending k2677 for a further period of six months. Entered 11/12/1936 at 10:00 am. Transmission No.38102 to Hone Hiko m, Pori Hiko m, Kuia Hiko f, Tureiti Hiko f, Huri Hiko m, and Ruiha Hiko f, as successors equally as from the year 1918. Entered 15/1/1937 at 2:22 pm. Transfer No. 282 971 The Native owners to Thomas Thomson of Rawhiti, Bay Of Islands, school teacher produced 15/1/1937 at 2:24 pm. The land comprises herein is subject to the restrictions imposed by section 248 of the Native Land Act 1931.

Canceled and Certificate of title issued see Vol: 683 Folio 56

124

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 38 is the back page of Transmission 38102. A transmission is a legal instrument by which an interest of a deceased person in land under the Land Registration System is passed to those legally entitled to succeed to it. By this transmission the interest in the block of the legal owner, Ware Hiko, passed to the six named successors equally as from the year 1918, in accordance with the Succession Order (Document 6). The transmission was registered in the District Land Registry Auckland on 15th of January 1937 by the District Land Registrar and given reference T38102. A memorial of that registration was entered on PR 180/114. It is the third entry on Document 37.

Document 38

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

125

Document 39

126

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

COMMENTARY ON DOCUMENT 39 Documents 39, 40, and 41 are the 3 pages of the signed and stamp duty paid Memorandum of Transfer lodged at the District Land Registry Auckland for registration. Lodgment of the Transfer is the responsibility of the Transferee (purchaser) and done, usually, on his behalf by his legal representative (a lawyer). On 15th of January 1937 this Transfer was registered and given reference 282971 by the District Land Registrar. The highlighted endorsements on the face of it have all been made by the District Land Registrar at the time of registration. The postage stamps are evidence that stamp duty payable on the Memorandum of Transfer had been paid. A memorial of that registration was entered on PR 180/114. It is the fourth entry on Document 37. This registration marks the legally recognised transfer of ownership of the block/land from the Maori owners to Thomas Thomson.

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

127

The circle shape on Document 40 marks an official departmental stamp endorsement confirming the stamp duty payable on the Transfer had been paid. Payment of the stamp duty was a legal requirement to be satisfied before the Transfer could be registered.

Document 15.2

Document 40 128

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 41 is page 3 of the Memorandum of Transfer.

Document 41

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

129

There are eight endorsements on Document 41 1. No 282971 - top left corner 2. Transfer of Hauai No2 G No3 - top left corner 3. North stamp – top left 4. Hand written entries and signature – top left side 5. The District Land Registrar stamp under the signature - left side 6. Hand written numbers – bottom right corner 7. Hand written name – top right corner 8. Solicitors name and address - bottom left corner Endorsements 1-6 were all made by the District Land Registrar at the time of and as part of the registration process. Endorsements 7-8 were placed there by Thomas Thomson’s lawyers prior to lodging the Transfer for registration.

COMMENTARY ON DOCUMENTS 3941 Memorandum of Transfer 282971 is the legal instrument by which ownership of the block transferred to Thomas Thomson from the Maori owners upon its registration in the District Land Registry at Auckland. At the time of registration, the land was Maori Land. However, as a result of the steps taken in December 1936, it had its own District Land Registry reference number, PR 180/114. Every dealing affecting the land once it had entered the land registration system has been memorialized on the record. The memorial concerning the Native Land Act 1931 immediately following the Transfer memorial (Document 37, 5th entry) was a required legislative restriction of the day imposed where Maori Land was being transferred and designed to contain the accumulation of land by individuals. 130

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

The final entry on Document 37 is a notice by the Land Registrar canceling PR 180/114 as the Land Registry’s record of the block and replacing it with a new record by the issue of Certificate of title 683/56. The cancellation has been endorsed by District Land Registry stamp on this page and the firstt page. The new Certificate of title reference 683/56 has also been endorsed on the first page. The issue of CT 683/56 marks the land’s status now as General Land.

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

131

Document 42

132

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 42

...reads as follows:

Reference: Warrant No. P.R. vol. 180, Fol. 114 Transfer 282971

Certificate of title UNDER LAND Transfer ACT This certificate, dated the fifteenth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-seven, under the hand and seal of the District Land Registrar of the land registration district of Auckland, being a certificate of lien of grant, witnesseth that THOMAS THOMSON, Rawhiti, Bay of Islands, schoolteacher, is seised of an estate in fee simple (subject to such reservations, restrictions, encumbrances, liens and interests, as are notified by memorial under written or endorsed hereon, subject also to an existing right of the Crown to take and lay off roads under any Act of General Assembly of New Zealand in the land herenafter described, as the same is delineated by the plan, hereon bordered green, be the several admeasurements, a little more or less, the said land, was originally acquired by Ware Hiko, alias Kataraina Rewha (f), as from the twenty second day of January, one thousand nine hundred and eighteen, under the Native Land Act 1909, that is to say, all that parcel of land containing eleven acres, three roods, and six perches more or less being the block situated in block XV, of the Bay of Islands Survey District, called Hauai No. 2 Section 3. The land comprised herein is subject to the restrictions imposed by Section 248 of the Native Land Act 1931. Transfer 357375 Thomas Thomson to Jean Elizabeth Griffiths and Dorothy Joan Lawford, both of Auckland, married women, as tenants in common in equal shares, produced 15/4/1943, at 12:25 pm. Pursuant to section 35 (3) of the Counties Amendment Act, 1961, Lot 4, plan 51670 is vested in Her Majesty the Queen, as Access way.

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

133

Document 42

...reads as follows: (cont...)

Pursuant to section 35 (3) of the Counties Amendment Act, 1961, Lot 7, plan 51670 is vested in Her Majesty the Queen as Road Reserve. Pursuant to section 35 (4) of the Counties Amendment Act, 1961, Lots 8 and 9 plan 51670 are vested in the Chairman, Councilors, and inhabitants of the County of Bay of Islands as a reserve for Esplanade, subject to the Reserves and Domains Act, 1953. A.104541 Transfer of Lots 1 and 5, plan 51670 to Diana Yates and John Hemus Griffiths, as tenants in common in equal shares, produced 20/9/1965 at 10:23 o’c. 7A/428

134

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

This is the second page of Document 42

Document 42

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

135

Document 42

..the second page of document 43 reads as follows....

A. 125240 Transfer of Lots 2,3 and 6 Plan 51670 to Peter Elliot Lawford, John Elliot Lawford, and Mary Ann Beatrice Lawford as tenants in common in equal shares, Produced 22/12/1965 at 1:50 o’c Lot 2, Vol. 7C, folio 1438 Lot 3, Vol. 7C, folio 1438 39 Lot 6, Vol. 7C, folio 1438 40

Canceled. Expediting the Lots being vested. B. 3849981 Transfer of Lot 4, Plan 51670, to Her Majesty the Queen for the purposes of an access way 25/2/1985 at 1:38 o’c 55b/1183 B. 3849981 Transfer of Lots 8 and 9, plan 51670, to Her Majesty the Queen as Esplanade Reserve, subject to the Reserves Act, 1977. 25/2/1985 at 1:38 o’c Lot 8, 55b/1184

Lot 9, 55b/1185

Canceled.

B. 489421.1 Resolution under Section 11(1) Reserves Acts 1977 Dedicating Lot 7, Plan 51670 as road - 9/12/1985 at 4:25 o’c

136

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Following the purchase of the land by Thomas Thomson, a new Certificate of title was issued : NA 683/56. (The two pages of document 42). Notice what is written on the title below the stamp in the middle of the title: “THE LAND COMPRISED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY SECTION 248 OF THE Native LAND ACT 1931.” Section 248 of the 1931 Act Reads as follows:

Document 43

Section 248 was made law to stop people land banking. So if in purchasing Hauai No.2 G section 3, Thomas Thomson ended up with more than 5000 acres of either Native Freehold land, Crown, or European land, he could not have purchased the land. Needless to say, this restriction did not effect the purchase of Hauai No.2 G section 3 for Thomas Thomson did not own any other land. As per Document 41, Thomas Thomson sold the land to Jean Elizabeth Griffiths and Dorothy Joan Lawford on the 15th of April,1943. HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

137

COMMENTARY ON DOCUMENT 42 (CONTINUED) Then there are 3 references to the Counties Amendment Act 1961. Via this Act, the Crown acquired Lot 4 (to create the access way up to Oke Bay from Te Rawhiti Road), Lot 7 (to create the road outside the Lodge), and Lots 8 and 9 (to create the Esplanade Reserve better known as the Queen’s chain). The rest (i.e. Lots 1/2/3/5/6) were owned by Jean Elizabeth Griffiths and Dorothy Joan Lawford. Then on the 20th of September, 1965 Diana Yates and John Hemus Griffiths purchased Lots 1 and 5. Jean Elizabeth Griffiths and Dorothy Joan Lawford still owned Lots 2/3 and 6 at this point. On the 22nd of December, 1965 Lots 2/3/6 were sold to Peter Elliot Lawford, John Elliot Lawford, and Beatrice Lawford in equal shares. Then the dates are given for when the Crown took Lots 4/7/ 8/9: Lot 4, the Access Way (i.e. the steps up to Oke Bay) 25th of February 1985. Lots 8 and 9, the Esplanade Reserve 25th of February 1985. Lot 7, the Road way outside the Lodge 9th of December, 1985. John Lawford purchased Lot 5 on the 23rd of March, 1972.

138

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

The 11 acres 3 roods & 6 perches was subdivided into 9 Lots on the 24th of June 1964, as per the map on this page.

Document 44

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

139

This shows the lands Transfer of Lot 5 to John Lawford in 1972. This is the land on which The Lodge at Oke Bay now sits.

Document 45

140

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

This shows the lands Transfer of Lot 5 from John Lawford in 2008 to Grace Alone Oke Bay Holdings Ltd. This land has since been transferred into a trust.

Document 46

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

141

Before John Lawford sold Lots 3, 5 , 6 in 2008, he paid Russell McVeagh, a law firm in Auckland, to study the historic titles of the 3 Lots of land from a legal point of view, and to report back to him. Mr Lawford wanted to know if any of the Waitangi claims on his land had any hope of being successful. Conclusion? There was no hope. (particularly note point 15 in the letter). The following is the letter received by John Lawford from Russell McVeagh.

Document 47

GERARD

CURRY

PAUL OLDFIELD CAMERON

FLEMING

PATRICK

BOWLER

DEREK NOLAN JEFF MORRISON DEREK JOHNSTON GREG THOMPSON PRUDENCE

Mr John Lawford PO Box 306 Shortland Street AUCKLAND

FLACKS

PAUL

MAJUREY

MARK GAVIN GRAEME

QUIGLEY

ALAN PATERSON GARTH SINCLAIR FREDERICK RiCHARD

WARD

MclLRAITH

GRANT

KEMBLE

ADVICE REGARDING EFFECT OF WAITANGI TRIBUNAL CLAIMS ON PRIVATE LAND

HAMISH McINTOSH PIP GREENWOOD CHRISTIAN

WHATA

JAMES PALMER DAVID CLARKE RiCHARD

SCOULAR

BRENDAN

BROWN

SARAH KATZ MALCOLM

CROTTY

JOE WINDMEYER ANDREW

PETERSON

GUY LETH8RIDGE JOHN POWELL ROSS PENNINGTON ED CROOK TIM CLARKE CAMPBELL BALTHAZAR

ROSE

MATHESON

MATTHEW

MALLETT

SARAH KEENE MICHAEL

(a)

HERON

The likelihood of success of any claim before the Waitangi Tribunal in respect of your freehold properties; and

JOHN KING GEOFFREY

RICKETTS

ALAN A'COURT PROF.

PHILIP NICOLA

JOSEPH PURVIS

Russell McVeagh is experienced in matters relating to Waitangi Tribunal claims. We regularly provide advice to numerous parties, both Maori and nonMaori on the implementation of the Treaty of Waitangi and on legislation requiring consideration of the Treaty of Waitangi or Treaty principles. We have also acted for parties, both Maori claimants and corporate entities, before the Waitangi Tribunal in various claims and inquiries. We are therefore well qualified to provide advice in relation to Waitangi Tribunal claims in general and this matter in particular.

142

We confirm that the following advice you have received from the Waitangi Tribunal is an accurate statement of the law, in respect of your freehold properties: .

CENTRE 48 SHORTLAND STREET PO BOX 8 AUCKLAND NEW ZEALAND HAUAI TE WHENUAVERa The Untold Hauai 2G3 PHONE 64 9 367 8000 FAX 64 Story 9 367 8163 Of DX CX10085 www.russellmcveagh.comIALSO 1382803 v2

AT WELLINGTON

Document 47

"Maori may submit claims that relate to private land and the Tribunal may inquire into such claims, however the Tribunal may not recommend: • The return to Maori ownership of any private land; or • The acquisition by the Crown of any private land."

You are legally entitled to sell your freehold land subject to any normal legal encumbrances on the certificates of title.

The Waitangi Tribunal was established in 1975 under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 ("Act"). It is responsible for inquiring into and making recommendations to the Government on claims brought by Maori claimants ("claimants") in relation to any actions, inactions, laws, policies or practices of the Crown, which were inconsistent with the Treaty principles and prejudicially affected claimants. The Waitangi Tribunal can recommend that action be taken to compensate for, or remove, the prejudice suffered by claimants, or that action be taken to prevent other persons being similarly affected in the future.1

Under the Act, claimants may submit claims that relate to private land and the Waitangi Tribunal may hear, inquire into and report on such claims.2 However, unless the private land is memorialised (see paragraphs 10 to 12 below), the Waitangi Tribunal cannot recommend: (a)

that the land be returned to Maori ownership; or

(b)

that the Crown acquire it. 3

In these circumstances, claimants are able to seek other compensation, such as the return of alternative Crown-owned land or monetary compensation from the Crown.

10.

Memorialised lands are lands owned, or formerly owned, by State-owned enterprises or tertiary institutions, or lands formerly owned by the New Zealand Railways Corporation, that have a notation, or 'memorial', on their certificate of title.4 These memorials refer to:

(c)

section 39 of the New Zealand Railways Corporation Restructuring Act 1990.

1 See sections 5 and 6 of the Act. 2

Section 2 of the Act defines 'private land' as follows: "Private ,than-

land means any land, or interest in land, held by a person other The Crown; or A Crown entity within the meaning of the Public Finance Act 1989."

(a) (b)

3 See section 6(4A) of the Act. 4 See section 27 A of the State-Owned

Enterprises Act 1986, section 211 of the Education Act 1989 and section 38 of the New Zealand Railways Corporation Restructuring Act 1990.

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

143

Document 47 11.

The memorials serve to inform any potential buyer that the property may be subject to a recommendation by the Waitangi Tribunal that the land be returned to Maori ownership.5

12.

We note, for completeness, that recommendations in relation to memorialised land may, in certain circumstances, be binding upon the Crown (for instance, the Waitangi Tribunal can make a binding recommendation for the resumption and return of memorialised lands).6 This is important, as generally the Waitangi Tribunal's recommendations are not binding on the Crown, the claimants, or other parties participating in its inquiries'? Analysis

13.

We have reviewed the certificates of title relating to Lots 3,5 and 6 DP 51670.8

14.

Our review has confirmed that Lots 3, 5 and 6 are owned by you and that all three properties comprise freehold title. Our review has not revealed the presence of any of the memorials described above.

15.

As such, even if any Waitangi Tribunal claim affecting Lots 3, 5 and 6 is successful, the Waitangi Tribunal does not have the power to recommend that the Lots be returned to Maori ownership or that the Crown acquire the Lots, as they are privately owned freeholrl l::Inn

16.

You are therefore legally entitled to sell Lots 5~nd 6. We note mere IS an old caveat on the certificate of title for Lot 5 in favour of the Bay of Islands County Council which would need to be addressed as a separate matter.

17.

We trust that the above addresses your query. However, if you have any questions or require further information please do not hesitate to contact us.

Yours faithfully RUSSELL

McVEAGH

f}!I~}t.;u~

.---

Derek Nolan I Katy Nathan

Partner I Solicitor Direct phone: Direct fax: Email:

093678274/093678124 093678590 derek.nolan@russellmcveagh.com

1 katy.nathan@russellmcveagh.com

5 See sections 8A(2)(a) and 8HJ of the Act. See also section 27A of the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986, section 211 of the Education Act 1989 and section 38 of the New Zealand Railways Corporation Restructuring Act 1990. 6 See section 278 of the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986, section 212 of the Education Act 1989 and section 39 of the New Zealand Railways Corporation Restructuring Act 1990. (The Waitangi Tribunal can also make binding recommendations in respect of Crown forest lands which are subject to a Crown forestry licence: see section 36 of the Crown Forest Assets Act 1989). 7 Further, the Waitangi Tribunal is not responsible for settling claims. Generally, once the Waitangi Tribunal has released its report on a claim or inquiry, the Office of Treaty Settlements manages the negotiation of Treaty settlements on behalf of the Government. We note that it is Office of Treaty Settlements policy that private land is not generally available for use in Treaty settlements. 8 Certificate of title references NA7C/1439 (Lot 3), NA22A1975 (Lot 5) and NA7C/1440 (Lot 6).

144

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

TE RAWHITI SCHOOL A Brief History HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

145

A SUMMARY OF THE HISTORY OF THE SCHOOL AT TE RAWHITI, BAY OF ISLANDS Te Rawhiti Native School opened on 25th of July 1904 with a roll of 26 pupils. The first Head teacher was Mr Alfred E. Welsh. Locals had wanted a school at Te Rawhiti since 1888, but it was not till 1903 that Land for the site was Gazetted. Pukepuke Ahitapu, Te WAka Hakuene, Himi Te Anan, Rewiri Ahitapu, Hare Warena, Turie Heke and Hone Hau of Te Rawhiti and Henare te Rangi of Te Haumi consented to the appropriation of the land proposed in plan ML 6943. The cost of building Te Rawhiti school, including both labour and materials, was put out for tender. The successful tender bid was paid by the Department of Education. Local Maori were not required to pay any contribution towards the building of the school, or the provision of resources. Te Rawhiti Maori School was only ever accessible by sea, and as a consequence in 1907 the teacher was also appointed the “postmaster without salary”. In 1964 the school was closed and it was consolidated with Ngaiotonga Valley Maori School. Native School System The Native School system was established under the Native School Act 1867 to provide for the education of Maori. The Act established a national system of Native primary schools, under the control of the Native Department. Prior to this Maori were mainly educated in church missionary schools. To establish schools under the Act, it was necessary for ten Maori living in an area to request that a school be established and they were required to provide land and half the cost of the buildings. 146

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

The requirement to provide for the costs of the building and teacher’s salary was removed in 1871 but not the requirement to provide land. In 1879 the 57 Native schools were transferred to the Department of Education, which had been established in 1877, and regular visits by an Education Department Inspector began. In 1880 conditions such as curriculum hours of instruction and governance in the Native Schools were standardised by the Native School Code, and in 1894 schooling became compulsory for Maori children. The separate Maori School System administered by the Department of Education was abolished in 1969. Head teachers at Te Rawhiti School. Mr Alfred E Welsh 1904 M Tom R Southall 1911 Mr D Barnett 1912 Mr T Thomson 1923 Mr M Madgwick 1941 Mr H Lunn 1947 Mrs G J Hayman 1949 Mr L W B Coucn 1950 Mrs A Bevan (Relieving) 1952/3, 1956/7, 1960 Mr G G McAlister 1953 Mr P S Alcock 1957 Mr H Hau (Relieving) 1960 Mr F M Shepherd (Relieving) 1961 Mr R L Shepherd 1960-1964

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

147

ADDITIONAL QUOTES FROM NZ HISTORY TEXTS “Under the Native Schools Act of 1867 a Maori community who wanted schooling for their children were required to form a committee and formally request a school. They were also required, initially, to supply the land and pay half the cost of the building and a quarter of the teacher’s salary. These conditions were relaxed with an amendment to the Act in 1871. A number of Maori communities responded positively to the move and, by 1879, 57 Native Schools had been established. These were mainly in the far north and eastern parts of the North Island.”1 “As a result of the Report to the Minister of Native Affairs, the 1867 Native Schools Act was introduced in order to establish Native schools under the administration of the Government and in doing so, provide the Government with more control over the content of the curriculum (Walker 1990: 147). Essentially, this Act replaced mission schools by establishing Native schools for Māori children. The settler Government was to claim part responsibility for the provision of teachers and school buildings, provided that Māori gifted land for the school to be built and covered the remaining costs for teachers, buildings and books. In 1871, this Act was amended so as to remove the financial burden from Māori, which had been proving too heavy (Barrington & Beaglehole 1974: 101, 105-106). By 1874, this amendment had resulted in twenty-five new schools, increasing from thirteen in 1870 to thirty-eight in 1874.”2

SUMMARY The Native Schools Acts 1867 required Maori communities to provide the land for a school, half the cost of the building, and 1/4 of the teacher’s salary. In 1871 the 1867 Act was amended. Maori were no longer required to pay anything towards to the cost of educting their children, except to provide 1 Simon, J. (1994). Historical Perspectives on Schooling. In E. Coxon, K.Jenkins and J.Marshall, L.Massey (Eds.). The Politics of learning and teaching in Aotearoa, New Zealand. Palmerston North. Dunmore Press. 2 Te Kaharoa, vol. 4, 2011, ISSN 1178-6035 148

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

the land on which the school was to be built. The Education Acts 1877 made Education for all children in New Zealand, free, secular, and compulsory. The Native Schools Amendment Act 1871 is provided in full on page 153.

When was Te Rawhiti school opened? “The following schools are comprised in this group Ohaeawai, Te Ahuahu, Oromahoe, Taumarere, Karetu, Whangaruru, Poroti, Takahiwai, Otamatea, and Te Rawhiti. All these schools were inspected and examined in the early part of the year with exception of Te Rawhiti, which was opened in July 25th, 1904.”3

3 Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1905 Session I, E-02, page 5

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

149

Document 47 indicates the roll of the school 1905 - 1906. Around 25-27 children were in regular attendance. Note that the salary of the teacher fluctuated according to attendance levels.

Document 48

150

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document Document 48 43

Reads as follows....

From Teacher, Te Rawhiti Subject: For computation of his salary on attendance of a previous quarter in view of falling off through prevalence of sickness and consequent loss of salary.

Working average attendance for whole of 1905 -26 Working average attendance for March quarter 1906 -25 (roll, 27) Working average attendance for June quarter 1906 - 23 Salary according to Code - June quarter (on March average) £105 Salary according to Code - September quarter (on June average) £102 Reduction £3

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

151

Document 49 is a letter from the first headmaster of Te Rawhiti school to the secretary of Education. The school was opened on the 25th July 1904. Mr Welsh went the extra mile in the community, taking night classes in his own time in the evenings once a week for adults.

Document 49

152

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document Document 49 43

Reads as follows....

For information regarding the establishment of evening classes. Memorandum for the secretary of Education.

Te Rawhiti, Russell, 25th July 1904

Sir, I have the honour to inform you that I have opened the school today, enrolling twenty six scholars. I have been requested to hold a night school for adults once a week, so should be obliged if you will let me know of any regulations bearing thereon. I shall be glad to have a copy of the Code as soon as possible. Yours obediently Alfred E. Welsh.

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

153

The table below shows how much funding from the Government Te Rawhiti received compared with other Maori schools.

Document 50

154

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 50 shows the funding for the building of the school received by the Government for Te Rawhiti school in 1904 when it opened. It received the highest funding of all the schools on the page: £710, 11 shillings and 1 penny. The two teachers, a husband and wife, Mr and Mrs Welsh, received salaries of £107 6 shillings and 2 pence, and £20, 5 shillings and 9 pence respectively. Mr Welsh was the headmaster (HM)and Mrs Welsh would have been his part time assistant (AF= assistant female).1 No land was given to the school teachers in lieu of salaries. Teacher salaries were paid in full by the Government. On the following 3 pages is a copy of an amendment to the Native Schools Act, 1867. In this amendment, dated the 14th of November, 1871, Maori were no longer required to pay anything towards the cost of the education of their children, except to provide the land on which the school would be built. In other words, there was a short period in New Zealand’s history when Maori were required to pay part of the salary of teachers. But this idea was abolished in 1871, as per the Act. From this point on, all salaries of all teachers in the country were paid in full by the Government.

1 ATOJS ON LINE: E-02 Page 17.Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1905 Session I, E-02 Page 17 HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

155

Document 51

156

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 51

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

157

Document 51

158

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

This is a letter from the Department of Education to Mr Welsh advising him that he had been appointed the first principal/teacher of Te Rawhiti School.

Document 52

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

159

Document Document 52 43

Reads as follows.... Te Rawhiti Education Department, Wellington, 5th July 1904

Sir I have the honor by direction of the Minister of Education to inform you that you are appointed teacher of the Native School at Te Rawhiti and that your appointment will date from the day on which you are reported to have entered on your duties. Enclosed is a copy of the “The Civil Service Reform Act, 1886” also a copy of the “Civil Service Insurance Act 1893” with the regulations made thereunder. If your age does not exceed 40 years at the date of your appointment, it will be necessary for you under the provisions of the last named Act to effect a policy on your life with the Government Insurance Commission. If you age is over forty, you may (within three months) elect either to take out the policy or to have 5 per cent of your salary lodged with the Public Trustee in accordance with Section 10 of “The Civil Service Reform Act”. In either case, a monthly deduction will be made from your salary to provide for the payment. Your salary will be regulated by the provisions of the Native Schools Code for the time being in force. I send with this letter a copy of the Code, a Supplement to the Code, containing a digest of certain important circulars, and a Log Book. Please let me know your name in full and the date of your birth. I have the honour to be Sir your obedient servant E. O. Gibben Assistant Education

160

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Secretary

for

This is a gracious polite letter from local Maori to the Minister of Education. Locals thank him for establishing the school but they wanted a teacher who could mix medicine.

Document 53

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

161

Document 53

162

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document Document 53 44

Reads as follows.... Te Rawhiti May 3rd,

1904

The Honourable Minister for Education,Sir, greetings to you under the blessing of the Most High. First and foremost I must convey my thanks to you and your Government in authorising and finding full effect to the application of your children for a school for our children at Te Rawhiti in the Russell district. Well then, this is to let you know that the school at Te Rawhiti was finished at the end of April last, and we now therefore ask you to send a teacher for that school but let him be one who knows how to mix medicine for this place is perhaps of 20 miles from a doctor. It is almost 10 miles by boat to Waitangi and by land over 10 miles to the doctor. In winter time it will not be possible to reach this doctor. The person who mixed medicine for us for 10 years past was a Pakeha lady of great experience living at Russell, and us and our children were relieved by her in the years past. But last year and this year we have not been allowed by the police man to get medicine from her for our children, telling us we must go to the doctor for medicine and if that woman persisted, and any trouble arose, he would arrest her. Upon this we felt that we should ask you to send someone who knew how to prepare medicine hence our application to you as made above. From your humble servant That is all.

Te WAka others.

Neene

Hakuene

and

Te Rawhiti Russell.

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

163

The Public Works Department built the school at Te Rawhiti. The memo says they expected the school to be finished by the end of April, 1904.

Document 54

164

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

,Document Document 54 44 Reads as follows.... Kaingahoa, Te Rawhiti Public Works Department, Wellington, April 16th 1904 KAINGAHOA (TE RAWHITI) NZ Native SCHOOL. Memorandum for the Secretary Education Department

In reply to your memo of 11th instant, NS 03/151/ 210, with reference to the completion of the above School buildings, I have to state that I am just in receipt of advice from the District Engineer at Auckland to the effect that he expects to have the whole of the work finished by the end of this month.

Under-Secretary.

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

165

Document 55 is a report regarding tenders received for the building of the school. The lowest tender was successful: £618. Ordinarily, a school of the size of Te Rawhiti would have cost £607 but because it was ‘somewhat out of the way’ they allowed £618. Eventually, the school was funded to the tune of £710. The difference between £618 and £710 was probably the cost of resources to start the school. They expected the school to be finished by the 19th of April, 1904. Roughly 3 months after completion, the school opened July 25th.

Document 55

166

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document Document 55 44

Reads as follows.... Kaingahoa, Te Rawhiti

Native SCHOOLS FROM: D.E Auckland (Department of Education) SUBJECT: Kaingahoa Native School schedule of Tenders Copy of covering sheet on PWB / 5650

Date fixed for completion of contract 19th April, 04

MEMORANDA £

1. Cook, W and Son, Waimate N. 618: 0

2. Frankham, C.H, Auckland.

728: 0

Estimate £700 The secretary for Education. I propose to acceptance.

recommend

the

lowest

tender

for

(Signed) W.D Dumbell 5.11.03 Rt. Hon. Minister I recommend that the acceptance of the lowest tender by the Public Works Department be approved by you. The district is somewhat out of the way and on the ordinary basis £607 would be allowed to an Education Board for school buildings of the same dimensions. S. Hogben 27.11.03

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

167

This memorandum to the Department of Education asks if the school teacher’s residence is to be match-lined or papered. Permission is given to scrim and paper the rooms, 7th of September, 1903.

Document 56

168

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

The Governor, the Earl of Ranfurly, is advised to accept the title of the land which was given by locals for the site of the school, 6th of June 1903.

Document 57

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

169

In this letter, the local Te Rawhiti chiefs ‘consented for the appropriation of the land’ for the school, and were entitled to do so. Then a description of the land is given. The letter is dated th 20th of May, 1903.

Document 58

170

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

171

Document Document 58 44

Reads as follows....

MEMORANDUM

The Magistrates Office, Russell

20th May, 1903 To the secretary of Education Wellington

Report under “The Native School Sites Act, 1880” Whereas certain Natives consented to appropriate for the site, a school land alleged to be owned by them at Kaingahoa Bay, block XV, Bay of Islands Survey District, hereunder more fully described, the title to which land has not been determined by the Native Land Court. And whereas His Excellency the Governor appointed me the undersigned to ascertain the title of such Natives to the land, and their consent to such appropriations. And whereas I have made the necessary enquiry, now I do hereby report as follows: that having duly notified the date of my enquiry, as required by the aforementioned Act, I sat at the Court House Russell, on Saturday 25th April, 1903 for the purpose of such enquiry. At such meeting, Pukepuke Ahitapu, Te WAka Hakauene, Hoiui Te Hana, Rewini Ahitapu, Hare Warena, Turei Heke, and Hone Hau, all of Rawhiti in the vicinity of the block, and Henare Te Rangi of Te Haumai near Opua attended. All claimed to own the land. A copy of the plan (No.6943)of the land proposed to be given for a school was provided, and the provisions of the aforesaid Act were explained by me. After due enquiry I found that the ownership of such land was limited to the chiefs before mentioned. Each of the chiefs consented to the appropriation of such land for the site of the school under the provisions of the before mentioned Act. The land is described as all that parcel of land in the Auckland land district situated at Kaingahoa Bay block XV Bay of Islands Survey District and containing 3 acres more or less, bounded towards the N.W by a line commencing at a point 928 links bearing 2020 44’30” from trig station No. 4a in the said block XV Bay of Islands Survey District 400 links towards to N.E by a line 750 links towards the S.E by a line 400 links towards the S.W by a line 750 links to the point of commencement. As witness my hand at Russell this 18th day of May 1903 E.F Blomfield,

172

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

In this letter, dated the 24th of February 1903, Mr Blomfield is acknowledging that he has been asked by the Secretary of Education to ascertain the title of the land on which the school was to be built.

Document 59

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

173

This is just another description of the land on which the school was built.

Document 60

174

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

On the 18th October 1901, the Secretary of Education states that an application for a school at Te Rawhiti had been received from Hone Heke. It appears that this was the first official application for a school from Te Rawhiti Maori. It was a further 3 years before the school at Te Rawhiti was finally established.

Document 61

Document 63 HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

175

Document Document 61 44

Reads as follows....

18th October, 1901

Sir, I have the honour to state the Mr Hone Heke, M.H.R. has made application to the Minister of Education on behalf of the people of your district for the establishment of a Native School. I have therefore to forward you two list forms, and to ask you to be good enough to insert in each column the information specified at the top of it and to return the lists when complete to this office. I shall be glad if you will also give me some information about the three acres of land you offer for a site, especially information with regard to the quality of the soil, and the kind of title under which you hold it. I have the honour to be sir, Your obedient servant. S. Hogben Secretary for Education.

Mr Wire Hauai, Te Rawhiti, Russell

176

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 62 is a letter from one of the locals saying that he ‘will give’ that part of the land for the school, but asks for a surveyor. He says “it is good land.” Notice it’s signed ‘from your humble friend.’ There is no animosity between parties here on the 11th of December, 1901.

Document 62

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

177

Document Document 62 44

Reads as follows....

Education Department 11th December, 1901

The part for the site for a school is at Kaingahoa on the South East end of the sandspit near the sea. It is good land but has not yet been surveyed. Our wish is that a school for our children be granted. If this is approved of, let a surveyor be sent and we will give that part for the school. That is all. From your humble friend Wiremu Paaka Hauai, Te Rawhiti

178

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

The next pages are a series of letters between the Secretary of Education in Wellington and one of his officials in Northland. They are dated 1885, 1888, and 1889. The official was trying to persuade the Government to establish another school at Russell for Te Rawhiti children. It seems that Te Rawhiti was not provided with their own school between 1885 and 1904 because the Education Department in Wellington argued that Te Rawhiti children could go to a nearby boarding school in Russell. Te Rawhiti was not therefore the subject of prejudice. For the Government, it was about practicalities. The Government couldn’t warrant the building of a new school at Te Rawhiti when there was already a school to which Te Rawhiti children could attend. By the early 1900’s the number of children in Te Rawhiti was sufficient to warrant having its own school so a school was built. Maori in Te Rawhiti today have concocted a great story about how the government in the early 1900’s forgot about Te Rawhiti because it was a Maori community. They say that the government ‘back then’ only cared about European children, and that local Maori men had to build the Te Rawhiti school themselves, pay for all the materials themselves, and pay the wages of the school teachers. The chief idea being communicated is that the European government of the day were guilty of terrible injustices towards Maori, thus Maori have a case for a grievance. This book proves all such thinking to be completely false. The absolute opposite is true. The government paid for the school to be built in every respect (including survey costs), and the wages of all the teachers were paid by the same. Maori only had to provide the land, which they did. This land has since been returned.

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

179

Document 63

180

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

63 Document 44

Russell, 9th May, 1885

Memorandum for The Secretary for Education Wellington

Sir, I beg to return your following remarks.

enclosed

correspondence

with

the

The Chairman of the Russell school committee is quite correct in his statements that no Native children are at present resident at Russell, and that the accommodation of the school is already inadequate for the requirements of the European residents. A few months back the “Union S.S. Coy” ceased to employ Maoris in their steamer. Since then the Natives do not reside at Russell as much as formally - staying more at their permanent homes or on the gum fields where the partial failure of their crop, this year, has driven many away. Still the fact remains that there are about twenty five children at Te Rawhiti without any means of education. People live on the various islands and promontories and the little bays outside the Bay of Islands harbour, and at no one place are there more than say half a dozen children. As matters are at present I believe a more central place than Russell, somewhere nearer their own homes, would be the better proposition for the school, but this would necessitate the erection of a school a and a teachers residence, the cost of which the circumstances of this case will not warrant. At Russell a subsidised school could be established at a very small expense and if not found I assume could be closed again. My opinion however still is that many of these children would attend, and that an opportunity should be given them of obtaining some little education. Signature

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

181

Document 64

182

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Document 44 64 N.M. Office Russell 22nd June 1886

Sir, I have the honour to bring to your notice the total wants of means of education amongst the Natives residing at Te Rawhiti Bay of Islands. As these people live in the various secluded bays and on the islands in that part of the harbour no school could be opened near their homes that would benefit say more than half a dozen of the twenty seven children of school age living there. The others would be unable to attend owing to distance. Several of the parents appear to feel the want and suggestion has been made that the trial of a subsidised school on the same lines as those at Taumarere and Paihia be made at Russell, the general meeting place of the whole of these Natives.

Secretary for Education Wellington.

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

183

Document 65

184

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

44 Document 65

Russell, 18th June. 1889

Sir, Before I leave the district I cannot resist again calling your attention to the subjects of my letters of date 27th June and 7th July 1886 re the Native children at Te Rawhiti. What I stated then in a modified degree holds good still. The Russell Boarding School has insufficient accommodation for the European children attending it, so the Native children could not be admitted even if their parents were inclined to send them to it. I have the honour therefore again to suggest that a subsidised school be opened for them at Russell. The services of the teachers I then mentioned are still available. Should the school not be considered a success it could be again closed without much loss to your department. I am still of opinion that it will be a moderate success, and I think more people should have the same advantages accorded to them as their brethren elsewhere where they happen to live in more compact settlements. I trust therefore that your department will see fit to act as I have suggested. I have the honour to be Sir Your most humble Servant (then signature) Memorandum for The Secretary for Education Wellington

COMMENT IN THE MARGIN FROM THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, WELLINGTON. “Out of the question to have a subsidised school so close to a boarding school.”

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

185

SECTION THREE. CONCLUSION.

186

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

CONCLUSION In the period between the end of December 2015 and February 2016 a group of local Maori (from here on in called the CGOM - short for Criminal Group Of Maori)1 committed 16 crimes against us. These crimes include: • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • •

Defecating on our driveway. Attempted home invasion. Throwing our full council rubbish bags back over our fence. Terrorising guests (including women and children, causing children to wet their beds). Smashing windows. Throwing stones on the roof of the Lodge in the early hours of the morning while guests inside were sleeping. One of the stones was so large it punctured the roofing iron. Maori men doing a haka at 2am on the front lawn on the Lodge while women and children were inside, again causing children to wet their beds. The men were rattling on the doors shouting to the occupants inside ‘We are going to F***king kill you!” Locals staging protests outside the Lodge, complete with offensive gestures, and in the presence of children. Breaking and entering. Spray painting threatening messages on the road outside the Lodge. Graffitiing our retaining wall with threatening messages. Smashing up our cars and tourist cars parked on the road outside the Lodge. Some were so badly smashed, they were written off. Smashing our security cameras. Maori shouting verbal abuse at guests from the walking track steps by the Lodge. Cars and motor bikes being used in intimidating ways on the road outside the Lodge.

1 There are good / decent Maori in Te Rawhiti, which is why I am differentiating between the CGOM and the rest of Maori in Te Rawhiti. HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

187

• •

Publishing untruthful propaganda videos / articles / blogs on social media. Chopping into our new retaining wall with an axe.

As I said in the opening pages of this book, in undertaking this research I had to put aside Maori racist attitudes and hate towards us as Europeans and their criminal behaviour and answer some crucially important questions such as - “In the early 1900’s, did locals really have to pay the wages of school teachers with land? How accurate was the knowledge of locals with respect to the history of government back in the early 1900’s? Was there ever any whiff of corruption anywhere in the history of the sale and purchase of the land we now own?” When I completed my research, I came to the same conclusion as the Auckland law firm, Russell McVeagh.2 The CGOM are / were terribly and completely in the wrong. Maori way back in history did not have to forfeit the land we now own in order to pay the wages of school teachers. Nor was there any whiff of corruption in the history of the sale and purchase of the land. The CGOM who committed all the crimes did not / do not have a just cause. The truth of this matter is that based on the historical facts, as shown by the source documents herewith, there is no legal, factual, or ethical basis for any Maori to feel aggrieved with respect to the history of Hauai 2G3. There is no factual evidence that any party (Maori or otherwise) was ever tricked, deceived, or wrongfully treated with respect to the sale and purchase of this land. All historic land transactions were fair, honest, legal, and transparent. They were willfully and knowingly entered into by all parties, who were adults in their right mind (See Appendix 2 for a summary of the intense scrutiny this land sale received.) My research not only clearly answered the questions I set out to answer. It also uncovered the reasons why the CGOM in Te Rawhiti have become violent criminal bullies. One reason is that for a very long time they have been feeding on a rich diet of what I have called ‘fake history’. 2 See page 140 of this book. 188

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

FAKE HISTORY For example, it’s not true that the school teachers who taught at Te Rawhiti school way back in history were paid with land. Its not true that local Maori had to pay for the materials and labour to build the school in the early 1900’s. It’s not true that the land on which our property now sits was stolen from Maori. It’s not true that Te Rawhiti Maori in 1937 didn’t understand about ‘money as currency’, or ‘land transactions’. When the Hiko whanau sold the land to Thomas Thomson in 1937, none were living in Te Rawhiti. Where had they gone? Records show they had left Te Rawhiti to go to Auckland, Thames, and Mokai to earn money. Conclusion? They knew all about money as currency. It’s not true that the Maori Land Court Judges in 1937 were corrupt and acquired Hauai 2G3 in ‘underhand’ ways etc. According to Dr Paul Moon, the Native Land Court at the time operated to convert the status of Maori Land from collective ownership to individual title. The process was scrupulously monitored and regulated, as this book proves. It’s not true that the Hiko whanau, who originally owned the land we now own, were children who didn’t know what they were doing when they sold the land to Thomas Thomson in 1937. All the legal documents prove that they were fully matured adults who knew exactly what they were doing. It’s not true that Maori ‘loaned’ the land to Thomas Thomson when he became the school teacher in Te Rawhiti and that when he left he was supposed to give it back. This book proves ‘the land loan’ idea to be complete fiction. It’s also an insult to Te Rawhiti Maori in 1937 to suggest that they relied only on oral transactions and didn’t know any better. Says Dr Moon, “by 1937 most Maori in New Zealand were literate, educated, and articulate, fully conversant with the mechanics of the sale and purchase of land.” For example, Rino Te Nana Paora went to Court in Russell in 1935 against Thomas Thomson and presented her case. In doing this she demonstrated that she was very familiar with the protocols of the sale and purchase of land. Another example? The owners of Maori land in Rawhiti went to court in 1918 to have their land subdivided. The all agreed on who owned what, and the subdivision was completed, thus HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

189

demonstrating that Maori were very savvy when it came to the issue of land sale, purchase, and subdivision. Other statements on the web site http://ngatikuta.maori.nz are not ‘fake history’ but they are inaccurate and misleading. They are lies. Dr Moon writes “The Declaration Of Independence 1835 was initiated by Busby without approval or even instruction from the Colonial Office. It was not seen as a forerunner of the treaty, and never came into effect.” So, as a result of my research, I discovered that all of the ‘history’ of Te Rawhiti with which locals had been ‘educating’ me to be completely untruthful. Putting it bluntly, locals had been concocting lies among themselves and gourging on them. They had been believing fiction to be true. Their accounts of history are on a par with Snow White and The Seven Dwarves or Goldilocks and The Three Little Bears. The bottom line? Te Rawhiti is awash with historical dishonesty. This truth has led to an attitude of intense Maori racism and hate towards Europeans, which in turn has led to other criminal behaviour (further to what I have already listed) namely slander and the concoction and dissemination of false accusations. The CGOM have done their best to spread these through the community i.e. ‘to let everyone know’. Really, to slander and defame an innocent person is the ultimate evil. FALSE ACCUSATIONS AND SLANDER The following are some examples. 1. That we will ‘close the steps up to the Oke Bay and therefore prevent Maori from accessing their Urupa.’ This book shows this accusation to be completely false. The steps and esplanade have been owned by the Government since the 22nd February, 1985. That is to say, only the Government can close the steps to the Urupa. The steps and esplanade 190

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

don’t belong to us. They are public land. We don’t have the desire nor the right to close the steps. 2. That we cut the Pohutukawa tree at the front of the Lodge without consulting Hapu. This is not correct. Auntie Mere walked up our driveway one day, before we trimmed the tree, and gave us permission. In fact, we didn’t need the ‘permission’ of anyone. The truth of the matter is that this tree and the land on which it is growing used to be part of Hauai 2G3 until it was taken by the government in 1985 to form the road. Maori first lost ownership of this tree and this land when Thomas Thomson purchased both in 1937. As such, we have the right to do whatever we like with this tree. 3. That our septic tank leaks. It is impossible for the septic tank to leak. It is an engineered heavy duty plastic underground sealed container, approved by the FNDC. 4. That we have chopped down Kauri trees. On the contrary, we have planted Kauri trees, and over 200 other natives, wanting to bring back the native bush and birds. In the early 1980’s Kauri trees were planted by locals up both sides of the steps leading up to Oke Bay. Most died because they were not looked after by locals who planted them. When we arrived in 2008, we went into the area where the remaining Kauri were, and cleared some of the Manuka around because they were being smothered. If we hadn’t done this, those few remaining Kauri would have died too. Why did locals let all the others die? Why didn’t they look after them? Why don’t we ever see locals planting trees? We are working hard to get rid of the dreaded Acacia trees and pests like possums, stoats, and rats. Locals, other than the DOC ranger, seem to have no interest in pest / weed control. 5. That we ignored the Far North District Council (FNDC) instruction to consult with Hapu when we undertook our development in 2015. FNDC did not require us to consult with Hapu. 6. That we damaged archaeological sites. An archaeologist visited our land and his report to the FNDC shows no damage. 7. That we chopped down a 120 old tree to make way for the retaining wall. HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

191

The truth is, we saved the only significant tree, moving it onto another part of the property. The large Pohutukawa at the roadside was pruned, and is now flourishing as a result. New growth is in evidence everywhere. 8. That we built a 8m high wall. The wall is only 4m at the highest point. The old retaining wall was not sufficient to stop erosion and slippage. It had failed and had fallen over. The new retaining wall has rectified these problems. 9. That the strip of land between the new retaining wall at our property and Rawhiti Road was Maori Land and was ‘stolen’ by the Government. Once again, this is incorrect. As I have already pointed out, Maori lost ownership of this strip of land in 1937 when Thomas Thomson purchased his 12 acres from the Hikos. In 1985, when the Lawfords owned this strip, the Government ‘took it’ and the land was used for the road, under the Reserves Act 1977. Therefore, if anyone has the right to occupy this strip of land it ought to be the person who currently owns Lot 5 (which is Julian Batchelor), because it was originally and historically part of Lot 5. There is no truth in any of these nine false accusations. They are propaganda. They too are lies. By circulating these, the CGOM wanted to incite other locals to hate Europeans, to fuel racism, and join in with their violence and crime. By propagating fake history, concocting false accusations, and pumping out slander, the CGOM also wanted to create ‘noise’ to stop the rest of the community in Te Rawhiti from hearing about some of the positive things we are doing for local Maori. What are these things? FIVE POSITIVE THINGS WE ARE DOING FOR LOCAL MAORI First, we own the first 300m or so of the Cape Brett walking track. Maori collect fees from track walkers, so we are in effect paying the rates on land for which local Maori are reaping the benefit. Yet we have not required Maori to compensate us for our contribution to their business enterprise. We are viewing this situation as a koha3 to the community. 3 A donation. 192

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Second, we have set up web sites to attract track walkers to Cape Brett. Those were set up at our expense, and are maintained at our expense, yet Te Rawhiti Maori who own businesses (e.g. the camp ground, parking for Cape Brett walkers, and the water taxi business) are benefiting from them financially. Third, since we came to Te Rawhiti in 2008, we have been quick to want to help the community and to contribute to it, giving away fire wood, wood for hangis, appliances, fence posts, soil, use of men and machines, and various other items and services. Fourth, passers by, both Pakeha and Maori, using the walking track beside the Lodge, often stop and admire it, including the retaining wall, and they thank us sincerely for restoring it. An average of 3000 + tourists from NZ and overseas walk the Cape Brett track each year and visit Oke Bay. They now have a stunningly beautiful, well presented, property to greet them at the start of the track. Or would the CGOM prefer that tourists and visitors be greeted with a neglected run down shack with over grown weed ridden surrounds, graffiti, erosion, and a broken down retaining wall at the road front, as it used to be? Fifth, we are providing employment. Well, fortunately, these benefits are now well known in the community. In spite of this, no one has come to thank us. I can only conclude that local Maori must believe that they are simply entitled to all these benefits. Is expressing gratitude and appreciation not part of true Maori culture? It would seem so. In summary, so far I have: •

Listed the crimes the CGOM committed and why they committed them.

•

Detailed the propaganda the CGOM deliberately pumped out in order to fertilise hate and racist attitudes.

•

Taken the covers off the ‘fake history’ circulating in the community.

•

Made my readers aware of the benefits we are bringing to local Maori.

My next question is this - what effects are the CGOM having on Te Rawhiti?

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

193

HOW MAORI YOUNG PEOPLE ARE BEING HINDERED. Do the rest of the community in Te Rawhiti realise that the young people in Te Rawhiti, by believing fake history /untruthful accusations/ lies, are having a culture of hate, violence, and racism passed down to them? They are being poisoned. That’s right, the CGOM are poisoning their own people. Is this going to help the young people get ahead in their lives and make the most of their lives? The answer? Absolutely not. There can be no doubt that the young people in Te Rawhiti are being influenced by what they see and hear from the CGOM.4 They are jumping on the bandwagon. This will ensure that they are sucked into this destructive cycle of hate, racism, and prejudice. As such, these negative attitudes will be passed down from generation to generation. THE HIGH PRICE OF LIVING A LIE Feeding fake history/ lies / false accusations / slander into the Te Rawhiti community comes with a very high price tag. Te Rawhiti is becoming known as a criminal hot spot in Northland. As such, tourists are starting to avoid coming here. In turn this will negatively impact on track walker income, income for the camp ground, income for shop keepers, and anyone else who owns a business in Te Rawhiti, which in turn will trickle down to negatively impact on the economic well-being of the whole community. Do the CGOM realise this? Have they thought this through? In summary, by what they are doing, the CGOM ‘s are: 1. Destroying themselves by breeding racist hateful attitudes. 2. Leading the young people at Te Rawhiti astray. 3. Bringing a divisive cancer into the community and all the social ills which go with it. 4. Frightening local and international tourists and track walkers away. 5. Slashing their own income and the income of the community generally. 6. Giving Te Rawhiti a reputation for being a criminal hot bed. 7. Bringing shame and embarrassment upon the upright / decent / law abiding Maori in the community. 4 E.g Prior to the summer of 2015/16, sometimes kids on the school bus could be seen shaking their fists and shouting obscenities at us as they passed our place. Who is inciting them to such behaviour? It can only be their CGOM parents. 194

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

That’s a very high price tag. Can Te Rawhiti really afford it? Is this what the majority of the locals in Te Rawhiti really want? The actions of the CGOM are also glaringly hypocritical. HYPOCRISY. It’s ironic that the CGOM are very angry about perceived historic injustices committed against them way back in history by ‘colonials’,5 yet they have no problem committing injustices today against innocent people. That is to say, the very thing they perceived others did to them way back in history (e.g. had land unjustly stolen from them), they are now doing to others today (unjustly trying to take land from Europeans). Isn’t this blatantly hypocritical? Let’s not forget, Maori committed many crimes against Pakeha6 in their history too, but does this give Pakeha today license to go around smashing up Maori property in Te Rawhiti, bullying Maori, slandering them, encouraging Europeans to have racist attitudes towards Maori, acting like animals,

5 In the case of Te Rawhiti history, these perceived historical injustices have all been proved to be fake. 6 The Boyd Massacre, 1809. HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

195

conjuring up fake history? Absolutely not. (Below - a group of protesters outside the our home during the summer of 2015/16. Notice the child giving the one finger, learning racist attitudes early in life) For other examples of how Maori committed injustices against Pakeha in history, click here. IS T E R AW H I T I A V E RY T R O U B L E D D I S - F U N C T I O N A L COMMUNITY? When we first purchased the land at Oke Bay, we were told that the land under the Urupa was needed by Maori. So we offered to sell this land to them. Glenys Papuni tried for a whole year to get the locals together to purchase it. In the end she gave up trying because she found the Te Rawhiti community to be too divided and fractured to come together to make the purchase i.e. Glenys reported that in Te Rawhiti there are many Maori who hate other Maori, and many Maori who hate Pakeha. HOW NEGATIVE BEHAVIOUR AND ATTITUDES DESTROYS PEOPLE AND COMMUNITIES. It is well documented that any community which is motivated by prejudice, racism, anger, jealousy, lies, fake history, and hate slowly self destructs. How so? People who are motivated in such a way can never be happy people. Rather, they become very unhappy. And unhappy people eventually make the people around them unhappy too. This in turn leads to division and infighting in the families and communities in which they live, which in turn leads to the spawning of social ills like alcoholism, incest, drug addiction, poverty, smoking, animal cruelty, family violence, child abuse, crime, porn addiction, bullying, obesity, rape, dependence on the state etc. Character flaws like laziness and sloth flourish. The natural end of these social ills and character flaws is prison7 and unemployment.8 Psychological conditions such as suicide

7 Māori make up only 14.6 percent of New Zealand’s population, but a staggering 51 percent of its prison population. 8 9% of Maori are unemployed, yet only 4.5% of non-Maori are unemployed i.e. Maori have twice as many unemployed compared with the rest of the population. 196

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

and depression spring up9. Obesity rises.10 Dependence on state welfare and child abuse rise too. It also leads to a lack of desire to care for the environment e.g. no interest in eliminating noxious weeds; no interest in eliminating pests like possum, rats, and stoats; no interest in planting native trees; no interest in using land for production; no interest in maintaining/developing/ improving personal property; no interest in personal development i.e. becoming a better person etc. It’s a well known fact that Northland is economically among the poorest of all the provinces in New Zealand, and socially one of the most troubled. And Te Rawhiti is one of the poorest and most socially troubled communities in Northland. There are reasons for this and this book helps explain what they are. HOW HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF History seems to be repeating itself here. If local Maori in 1937 had come together, pooled their resources, and offered the Hiko Whanau more than the £60 Thomas Thomson was offering, they could have legally purchased the whole of Hauai 2G3. If they had done this back then, it would all be owned by local Maori today. Since 1937 Maori have had many opportunities to purchase this land legally and legitimately, but they haven’t. If it’s so important to them, why haven’t they taken one of those many opportunities? So far in this discussion, I have laid out what the CGOM did, why they did it, and how their behaviour is having a devastating effect on the rest of the community. Now I want to turn my attention to a discussion about the rest of the community (i.e. those in the community who are not part of the CGOM) and to Maori culture generally. “Where does the rest of the Maori community in Te Rawhiti stand with respect to the CGOM? Are they ashamed of the CGOM or do they support them? Are the CGOM just a radical group, and the rest of the community are not like them at all? Or are the CGOM and the rest of the community in Te Rawhiti one and the same? Do the CGOM represent “true Maori culture” or not?” 9 Youth suicide rate is 84 per cent higher for Māori than non-Māori. 10 50% of Maori are obese, yet only 32% of the general population are obese i.e. Maori are over represented with respect to obesity. It’s a fact that many people over eat because they are unhappy. It’s called comfort eating. HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

197

WHERE DOES THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY STAND? In every community, there are good / honourable / honest people and there are bad / corrupt / dishonest people. Why haven’t the good people in Te Rawhiti stood up and opposed the bad? Why haven’t they shut the CGOM down? Reigned them in? Pulled them into line? Held them to account? If they had done this, it would demonstrate that the rest of the community in Te Rawhiti are not like the CGOM. Or are the rest of the community good people who are being intimidated and bullied by the CGOM to remain silent? Jesus Christ faced similar issues in his day. He said He was God and He called people to follow Him. Many did, but many opposed Him. The majority wanted to sit on the fence not wanting to take sides. They wanted to be neutral. They didn’t want to stand up, show their colours, and join with Jesus. Neither did they want to be identified with those who opposed Him. Jesus called the fence-sitters out. He said “Anyone who isn’t with me opposes me, and anyone who isn’t working with me is actually working against me” (Matthew 12:30). Commenting on this verse, the famous theologian Dr William Barclay wrote: “In this one piercing sentence, Jesus lays down the impossibility of neutrality. In this war against Satan’s strongholds, there are only two sides, for Christ or against him, gathering with him or scattering with Satan. If our presence does not strengthen the Church, then our absence is weakening it. If a nation is at war, then the neutral nation is an enemy by withholding the help it might have given. In all things in this world a man has to choose his side. Abstention from choice, suspended action, is no way out, because the mere refusal to give one side assistance is in fact the giving of support to the other.”11 How does this scripture and commentary relate to the community in Te Rawhiti? If the rest of the community don’t become brave and bold to stand up against the CGOM, then by their silence they are showing that they support and endorse them. They are showing that the CGOM are a true representation of Maori culture. What other conclusion is there? If Jesus was to walk through Te Rawhiti today, he would call the good people out. He would say boldly to them “Be brave. Don’t allow criminals to bully and 11 William Barclay. The Gospel of Matthew. Saint Andrews Press. Edinburgh. 1974. p.44

198

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

intimidate you. Silence is not golden. Silence is wrong. Get off the fence. Stand up and be counted. Show your true colours. Are you for the CGOM or are you against them? If you are one of the good Maori people, show it. Prove it. Speak up. Show courage. Make a stand.” 12 Furthermore, if no one in the rest of the community (or any Maori anywhere in NZ for that matter) will stand up and say boldly, “the behaviour of the CGOM does not represent true Maori culture” then one would have to conclude that their behaviour is what true Maori culture is really like, surely? It’s now 2020, and to date the rest of the community have not stood up. Multiple copies of this book have been in circulation in the community for the past five years. The rest of the community cannot say “We didn’t know.” During the summer of 2015/16 the violence and crime committed against us was the talk of the town. The Northern Advocate covered the story. Given that no Maori in the rest of the community or anywhere else in NZ has come forward to say “The behaviour of CGOM does not represent true Maori culture,” I can only conclude that in true Maori culture it’s normal to: •

Remain silent / uninvolved when other people in their cultural group do wrong. As Edmund Burke said “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”13

•

Make up false accusations and then spread them around with a view to destroying people and their lives and to hold strong racist/hate attitudes towards white people. Go on to the private land of other people and do damage to their property. Incite people to commit crime. Use standover tactics. Harass, bully, and intimidate people.

• • • •

Not value face to face dialogue. Maori never came to us peacefully and calmly to talk about their issues. Why didn’t they do this? One conclusion

12 After having owned property in Te Rawhiti for a decade, it has been my observation that the good Maori in the community are being harassed, bullied, and intimidated by the bad to either join the CGOM or remain silent. Bullying, harassment, violence and intimidation seem to be ‘normal’ in Maori culture. 13 Edmund Burke (12 January 1729 – 9 July 1797) was an Irish political philosopher and statesman who is often regarded as the father of modern conservatism. HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

199

• •

is that they knew all along that they had no legitimate claim on the land and therefore their crimes were nothing less than a terrorist attack to try and force white people off the land. Acquire land via devious and corrupt means without paying for it. Contrive history.

What I am doing here is challenging the rest of the community in Te Rawhiti to take responsibility to compensate for all the damage the CGOM caused.14 TAKING RESPONSIBILITY AND COMPENSATING. Why should they do this? The main reason is that there cannot be real peace without justice. And what’s the basis of this call for justice to be done? Firstly, this book proves beyond any doubt that the CGOM were terribly wrong in every possible respect. They were wrong in their understanding of history, wrong in their racist / hateful attitudes, wrong in their criminal actions.15 Their behaviour and attitudes are simply appalling. Secondly, media today continually reports how Maori are vociferous in their demands for financial compensation and apologies for wrongs done in history by past generations of Pakeha. Pakeha in this generation, even though they had nothing to do directly with what happened in history, responded by setting up the Waitangi Tribunal. In other words, good Pakeha in this generation have taken responsibility for what ‘bad’ Pakeha did in history. Good Pakeha in this generation didn’t remain silent. Rather, they stepped up to the plate. This shows Pakeha to be a decent / honourable / civilised / responsible race of people. Yet no Maori from anywhere in NZ has stepped up to the plate to take responsibility and compensate on behalf of all Maori for what ‘bad’ Maori did to us in 2015/16. It would appear that when the boot’s on the other foot, true Maori culture doesn’t take responsibility for the bad behaviour of its own. Rather, it endorses it through silence, thereby damning itself. Some might ask, “What would standing up and taking responsibility look like? What would it entail?” 14 I have heard one family in the community say “Oh, the CGOM were outsiders, not locals.” This is not true. Security camera footage and police investigations make it clear that CGOM were locals, and they were Maori. Furthermore, the decent Maori in Te Rawhiti have come to me privately saying that they know for certain who the CGOM are. They are all from one local family. The community and I are waiting for this family to humble themselves, step up, apologise, and compensate. 15 I wonder in how many other places in New Zealand are Maori grievances based on fake history? 200

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Firstly, I am asking the rest of the community to step up to the plate and to reason with the CGOM to start thinking and writing truthfully about their history and to come clean. Ask them to take down their slanderous social media posts, and to close their web sites which are pumping out fake history. This is a call to Maori in Te Rawhiti to face the truth and tell the truth. Secondly, stepping up and taking responsibility entails formally apologising. Thirdly, stepping up and taking responsibility entails financial compensation for damage done to property. This is what the Waitangi tribunal has done for Maori today, so why should we shall expect anything less from the rest of the Maori community in Te Rawhiti? Or from Maori outside of Rawhiti as a collective group? So where to from here? It it my prayer that the leaders of the community get a vision (and a plan in writing) to completely eliminate unemployment, drugs, alcohol abuse, violence; pests like possums, rats, and stoats; crime, animal abuse, domestic violence, child abuse, bullying, intimidation, racist / hateful attitudes towards Europeans. All the weeds in the bush need to go e.g acacia trees, tobacco tree, and moth plant. Te Rawhiti desperately needs a vision for a clean up across all these areas. THE NEED FOR LEADERS WITH INTEGRITY The health of any community is a direct reflection of the quality of its leaders. That is to say, if a community is in trouble, you can point the finger at its leaders. Corruption, bullying, intimidation, harassment, lies, crime, violence, racist attitudes, hate, jealousy etc all flow down from the top. As the leaders are, so the community will be. Only leaders with integrity and pure hearts can bring renewal to Te Rawhiti. THE POWER OF MUTUAL RESPECT According to some fine Maori who live in the community, past generations of Maori who used to live in Te Rawhiti but who have since died would turn in their graves if they knew what the CGOM have been up to. They would be so ashamed of them. HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

201

This is the view of our deputy Prime Minister, Winston Peters, who still has relatives living in Te Rawhiti. These fine Maori want to do what’s right. They want to see a renewed clean living community, with community leaders who are marked by impeccable integrity. They want to live peacefully, working in co-operation with their neighbours. They understand the concept of mutual respect. They know that for respect to take root and grow between individuals and cultures, it has to be two way and it has to be based on honesty and truth, not lies, fake history, propaganda, violence, crime, bullying, intimidation, racism, and jealousy. They fully accept that when land is sold, it’s sold, and the people who don’t own it have no right to say what the people who do own it do with it. They recognise that the land we legally and rightfully own is private freehold land. They hold to the view that like any other private land owner in New Zealand, we can do anything we like on our property, within the rules and regulations of the local council, being the law of the land. This may or may not include consultation with others, just as local Maori can do whatever they like with their private land within those same rules, which may or may not include consultation with others. They affirm that Pakeha, outside of the local city council, have no right to say what Maori do and don’t do, can and can’t do, with their private freehold Maori Land. They expect Pakeha to respect the rights of Maori and their culture, just as they respect Pakeha rights and culture. They view all cultures as equal, and recognise this equality as the very foundation of mutual respect, and the basis of living at peace with one’s neighbour. They don’t expect Europeans to become Maoris, and they won’t expect Maoris to become Europeans. They see clearly that the actions of the CGOM are unjust. And being unjust, they are wrong. And if they are wrong, they need to be made right. They take the view that for justice to be done, wrongs need to be put right. They are not happy allowing injustice to linger, un-dealt with, just as the Waitangi Tribunal have not been happy to let historic injustices against Maori linger, undealt with. It is therefore their view that the rest of the community needs to step up to make the wrong right via formal apology and financial compensation i.e. follow the example set by good, decent Pakeha who established the Waitangi Tribunal to deal with Maori grievances and historical injustices. 202

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

AN INVITATION If anyone reads this document, and they can see we have missed something vital, or can show us where there is a basis for any grievance, or they find an inaccuracy in this document, or something that offends them, please come and see us in person, face to face, and let’s dialogue. But when you come, don’t come with more fake history, false accusations, violence, bullying, threats, hate speech, racist attitudes, and crime. Rather, come as decent people would, peacefully, calmly, and respectfully with all your facts, proofs, and source documents in order and in hand. We’ll be genuinely interested in getting around the table with you, over a meal perhaps, at least a cup of coffee or tea, and listening carefully and intently to what you have to say and show. Our prayer is to not just live at peace with our neighbours, but to work with them to create a better / more socially and psychologically healthy Te Rawhiti. Why can’t Te Rawhiti become the best / healthiest / most united / most economically and socially prosperous small community in NZ? As we journey along together, we want to walk in the truth of history, and to accept and respect each other’s cultural differences. Peace (Matthew 5:9 ). IS THIS BOOK ‘HATE SPEECH’? No, it is not. Why? To call for wrongs to be put right is not hate speech. Rather it’s a call for justice to be done The very foundation of our Western democratice justice system is based on the truth that people who have done wrong must make their wrongs right, either via restoration (e.g. paying money to the victim) or some form or punishment e.g. a fine or imprisonment. For example, the man who was responsible for killing 50 or so Muslims in Christchurch is now in jail awaiting trial. If found guilty, he will rightly be punished for his crimes. This is how justice works. If he was found guilty and not punished (i.e. if there were no consequences) that would be unjust. Calling the Christchurch killer to justice is therefore not hate speech. Calling the CGOM to justice is not hate speech either. As the saying goes, if you do the crime, you do the time. Later in this chapter, so that justice is done, I challenge the CGOM to step up and come clean which means formally apologising and compensating for the crimes they committed against us, and

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

203

all the damage they caused. Note too, that I write after living in the middle of one of the most staunch Maori communities in New Zealand for over a decade to I am not an outsider looking in. As the Good Book says “Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.” (Proverbs 27:6). POST SCRIPT The violence and crime against us happened during Christmas / New year 2015/16. Five years have passed and it’s now 2020. In these 5 years we have had only three incidents. In December 2018, a local woman, Jackie Rewha came up our driveway in a heavily drunken state and physically and verbally assaulted one of our team working on the property. She wanted her “stolen land back”. The whole incident was captured perfectly on our security cameras. The police formally charged her with assault with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. She pleaded guilty in court. The judge let her off, citing the effects of colonialism. The judge’s decision put wind in her sails. Since then, on three occasions she emptied the 35,000 litre water tank that stores water to irrigate our newly planted native plants. She continues to post videos on line which are dripping with lies and deceit. Her purpose is to poison the community against us, inciting them to hate, crime, and violence. In another incident, a Fuller’s staff member who was a Maori racially abused one of our team. Surveyors working on our property were similarly racially abused and threatened while they were carrying out their work. Apart from these incidents, we’ve had great peace for 5 years. I attribute this peace to the circulation of this book, to the work of some fine Maori in the community, and to prayer. In this time we’ve built relationship with one or two significant Maori. It’s been good. But even these people are not prepared to go public condemning the CGOM. They are fearful of being subjected to bullying, harassment, intimidation, and violence. This appears to be how Maori culture operates. Maori are cruel and criminal with each other, not just with Paheka. Despite knowing the truth as it is detailed in his book, to date the CGOM have not taken down their propaganda videos on social media, their web sites with fake history and fake information, their slanderous blogs and social media posts. There is no evidence of remorse or contrition. 204

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

Clearly and obviously they have an agenda to perpetuate lies with a goal to creating division, hate, racial prejudice, and dissent. Clearly, they want to keep the fake grievances and fake history going. Clearly, they have no interest in the truth. And having no interest in the truth, they are demonstrating that they have no interest in being part of the solution for Maori. They’d rather keep Maori, their own people, winning the gold medal in every event in the Olympics of negative social indicators (e.g. over-represented with respect to suicide, depression, prison numbers, unemployment, obesity, child abuse, animal abuse, dependence on the state etc). Let me bring this to a close. Here are five burning questions. 1. Does Te Rawhiti have any leaders? 2. If so, where are they? 3. If it has leaders, are they part of the CGOM? 4. Will the response of the rest of Maori to the behaviour of the CGOM (i.e. silence) cause Europeans to respect Maori and their culture?” You know the answer. 5. In how many other places in New Zealand is my experience in Te Rawhiti being played out? i.e. where else in New Zealand is fake history / fictitious story the foundation of / driver of Maori aggression and violence / grievances against Europeans / claims lodged with the Waitangi Tribunal? What is most tragic of all is this - before I moved to Te Rawhiti I was pro Maori. I have good friends around NZ who are Maori, and they are still good friends. They are absolutely ashamed of the CGOM. As a result of what they have seen happen to us in Te Rawhiti (and elsewhere in NZ) they want little to do with their own race of people. My own experience with the CGOM in Te Rawhiti has made me question absolutely everything about ‘Maori culture.’ As the Good Book says , “You shall know them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:1520). This document has been in the public domain for five years and literally thousands of people in New Zealand and overseas have read it. Not one person has come to either Dr Paul Moon or myself with proofs and documents which challenge / question the accuracy of the research in this book. Conclusion? The record of the history of Hauai 2G3 and the history of the school, as

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

205

documented on these pages, is factually accurate and complete. This book tells the truth. UPDATE: In 2018, The Far North District Mayer John Carter read this book. He suggested that we submit it to the Maori Land Court with a view to having them endorse it. This we did. The MLC took nearly two years to reply. We wondered

206

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

207

why it took so long. Now we know why. It turned out that officials inside the MLC were colluding with the CGOM in Rawhiti. These officials wrote to the CGOM in Rawhiti informing them that this book has been submitted to the MLC for verification / validation. They in turn instructed Auckland Lawyer Cameron Hockly to block the verification process. The MLC document is below. By blocking the MLC assessment, obviously the CGOM don’t want to know the truth of their history as recorded in this book, and to live in the truth. For them, historical fantasy / lies / denial are more palatable than truth and reality. The reason the verfication was blocked? The document above reads “The trust opposes the application. It does not consider this court has jurisdiction to do this kind of historical assessment and think it potentially prejudices the trust, it’s beneficiaries the hapu of whenua.” If good people had known of the application to the MLC, leaders with integrity, they would have welcoming it with open arms. Why? They would have said to themselves “Wonderful! It would be good to have the research and findings of Julian’s book crossed checked and peer reviewed. As leaders of the Hapu, we want to know the truth and to lead our people into the truth.” You see, good people, people of integrity, know that in the end truth will always triumph. Good people want to know the truth and to walk in the truth. And whereever truth triumphs, individuals, families, and communities flourish. That is to say, the fruit of truth is goodness and health, and the fruit of lies/ fake history is darkness, trouble, infighting, division, and sickness So was blocking a review of this book a good thing for the hapu of Te Rawhiti or a bad thing? You know the answer. For the sake of bringing healing and health into the community, good leaders would have assembled the community of Te Rawhiti together, explained the truth of the history of our land to them as documented in this book, and everyone could then move on, unified. This hasn’t happened yet. Instead, the CGOM want to keep the people of Te Rawhiti living in deception, believing lies, and propagating lies. Reflection: All the crime and slander committed against us in 2015/16 was not about the truth at all (i.e. “The land you own was stolen from us”). The CGOM knew full well from the very start that this land was never stolen from them. They concocted all the stories about how the land was stolen, and they deliberately sowed these stories like poisonous seeds into the hearts of the soil of innocent people in the community. For the CGOM, the crime/ slander/bullying/ intimidation was about one thing and one thing only - the CGOM were white hot with jealousy. We 208

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

owned the land that they wanted. With jealously driving them, they plumbed the depths of evil to have a go at getting it. The Bible describes the behaviour of the CGOM perfectly in Proverbs 6:16-19 “There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.” As I have said before, in any family / community / city /country, leadership is the problem, and leadership is the solution. Rawhiti desperately needs the fine Maori in the community to step up. They need to take control, and lead their people out into a new chapter and a bright future i.e. to resurrect the Mana of the community by standing strongly against the CGOM, and pushing them out. Singly and solely, the CGOM are the people holding the community down and holding it back.

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

209

SECTION FOUR APPENDICES.

210

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

APPENDIX 1

The Native Land Act 1931, section 273. This details the strict conditions which needed to have been satisfied in order for Maori Land to qualify for sale. The government at the time was doing all it could to stop Maori selling their land.

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

211

APPENDIX 2 CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS 1934-36 ABBREVIATIONS NLC = Native Land Court TT= Thomas Thomson NAC= Native Affairs Committee NA = Native Affairs START JA = Judge Acheson 10/6/35 TT wrote to JA asking to know why he refused confirmation. JA took over 6 weeks to reply. TT reminded JA about some crucial and memorable features of the hearings 1) consolidation issues would not be brought into the matter of confirmation 2) that a signed petition of the neighbouring natives and relatives of the Hikos was presented showing they were in favour of the sale to TT 3) that there was only one suitable building site on the land 4) that 200 sq.yards of the land was being used by Ria Paaka for growing kumera (Document 12) 70 1/8/35 The under secretary of the NLC in Wellington wrote to the NLC registrar in Auckland asking him to explain the reasons behind Judge Achesen refusing confirmation (Document 17) 61

212

Between October 1934 and April 1935, TT's lawyer Blomﬁed was preparing the Memorandum of Transfer

March 18 1935 2nd PRELIMINARY HEARING in AUCKLAND P 12 of Hauai 2G3 conﬁrmation

17/5/1935 FINAL HEARING AUCKLAND JA refused conﬁrmation (page 53) 52

9/7/35 Not hearing from JA for over 6 weeks, TT appealed to NA Minister Mr Masters for the 1st time telling him about the conﬁrmation issue (Document 13) 63 25/7/35 TT's 2nd letter to R Masters outlining his case. (Document 16) 47

31/8/35 Parliament received TT's Petition 25 (Document 18) 57 and 56

27/10/34 JA wrote to Lawyer Blomﬁeld indicating that there would be no issues with conﬁrmation (Document 7) 74

20-27/2/35 1ST PRELIMINARY HEARING RUSSELL of the TT case was heard by JA in Russell 52

18/7/35 NA Minister Mr Masters wrote back to TT saying he received his letter about the conﬁrmation issue and would be happy to look into the matter (Document 14) 62

22/7/35 Mr Earle, the registrar of the NLC court in Auckland, quoting JA, expressed displeasure at TT writing to JA asking questions and questioning his judgement (Document 15) 50

2/9/35 Mr Cooper, the consolidation ofﬁcer sent a letter to the registrar of the NLC at parliament. Attempted to slur TT's character with innuendo (Document 20). 53

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

4/9/35 Mr Earl sends a letter to the under secretary of the NAC denigrating TT. Accuses TT of trying to manipulate he and Cooper in the Russell hotel plus inviting them to stay with him in Rawhiti (Document 21) 51-52

5/10/35 Mr Earl sent a second letter to the under secretary of the NAC bagging TT. This time accusing TT of seriously misrepresenting the facts and wording his petition so as to convey the idea a promise was given for conﬁrmation. 27/10/34 (Document 22) 37

9/10/35 The Baker Brothers, a business in Russell, sent a glowing endorsement of TT to the minister of Native Affairs in Wellington. (Document 23) 31

16/10/35 The under secretary of Native Affairs at Parliament wrote to the chairman of the NAC informing him that TT has missed the cut off date for appeal to the NLC (must be within 14 days of confirmation refusal decision) and the High court (must be within 1 month of confirmation refusal decision ). The only appeal option left for TT is parliamentary petition. (Document 26) 35-36 21/10/35 The Chairman of the NAC at Parliament received board and court files from Auckland re: the refusal of confirmation (Document 27) 33

18/3/36 The rehearing takes place at the Appellate Court. An injustice is found to have been committed by Judge Acheson in the Native Land court. Conﬁrmation is granted. (Document 30)

11/10/35 The under secretary of the NAC says that he had received TT Petition 25 and asked the minister to give it favourable consideration. This would indicate that he had received sufficient information to conclude that an injustice had been done. Why else would he make his recommendation to the Chairman of the NAC? (Document 24) 16 15/10/35 The chairman of the Native Affairs Committee lit up and URGENTLY required from Auckland the complete board and court files in the TT refusal of confirmation case (Document 25) 42-43

21-26/10/35 Between 21st and 26th, the Chairman of the NAC at Parliament studies the evidence according to Section 273 law, and recommends to Parliament that the Petition of TT be viewed favourably. This would indicate that he and his committee members had reviewed the evidence and considered an injustice had been done 28 26/10/35 At a sitting of parliament, Section 13 of the Native Purposes Act 1935 became law. This enabled TT to take his case to the Appellate Court for an appeal by way of a rehearing. (Document 29) 17-18

31/8/1936 True to his word in court, Thomson had organised the construction of a road, and track up to the Urupa. By this date, these projects were well under way, funded by the Government, employing local men to do the job.

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

213

What’s crucial to note is that the Under-Secretary of Native Affairs, his Chairman and committee members viewed the evidence and considered an injustice to have been done. Because of this they have made their recommendation to Parliament to view Thomson’s Petition with favour. In the final analysis, Judge Acheson’s decision was reviewed /intensely scrutinised by four parties: 1. The Under-Secretary for Native Affairs in Parliament. 2. The Chairman of the Native Affairs Committee in Parliament. 3. The Native Affairs Committee in Parliament 4. Two Appellate Court Judges. Conclusion? Thomson’s road to Confirmation had to pass through multiple layers of intense investigation in order to reach its final destination. With such rigorous scrutiny, corruption / fraud would literally have been impossible. The sale of Hauai 2G3 was the farthest thing from a dodgy back room underthe-table land deal. On the contrary, this sale was one of the most highly reviewed and publically-done-in-the-full-light-of-day land transactions in New Zealand’s legal history. The evidence presented in Court was carefully and meticulously sifted to ascertain whether all the conditions of Section 273 of the Native Land Act 1931 had been fully and completely satisfied. You know the result. They had, so Confirmation was granted by not one but two Appellate Court Judges. These judges were among the highest, most qualified/ experienced/reputable/proven in all of New Zealand at that time. They were the top of the tree. In their view, Thomson was completely and legally entitled to buy the land, and the Hikos were completely and legally entitled to sell. What’s interesting is that Judge Acheson could have appealed to the Privy Council1 if he had wanted to. He had every right to take this course of action. But he didn’t appeal. Why? He knew he had made a wrong decision, so there was no point. The fact that he didn’t appeal is signficant. It demonstrates that he agreed with the ruling of the Appellate Court i.e. he accepted that he’d made a wrong decision. As I have already pointed out, New Zealand history records injustices being 1 The Privy Council formerly acted as the court of last resort for the entire British Empire (other than for the United Kingdom itself), and continues to act as the highest court of appeal for several independent Commonwealth nations, the Crown Dependencies, and the British Overseas Territories. 214

HAUAI TE WHENUA The Untold Story Of Hauai 2G3

done to Maori where they were forced to sell their land against their will2. The story of Hauai 2G3 is an example in New Zealand history of how a Maori family nearly had a shameful injustice done to them when the law threatened to prevent them, against their will, from selling their land. Thankfully, in the end, and thanks to Thomson, an injustice was not done to the Hikos or Thompson and they were all able to move on with their lives. Justice finally prevailed. The story of Hauai 2G3 is a timely reminder of the place of the law to preserve, protect, and honour the free will and best interests of land owners. It’s also a reminder of what can be achieved by one person with courage, character, and perseverance when they decide to fight for what is right, and oppose what is wrong. It took a lot of guts to go head to head with Judge Acheson and his officials, and to weather such a ferocious storm. But he did it. Really, he was a hero.

2 These injustices have been / are being addressed completely and finally by the Waitangi Tribunal with each tribe compensated for any loss.