|
|
Main textTaupō-nui-a-Tia, or Lake Taupō as it is more widely known, is famed throughout both New Zealand and the rest of the world for the richness of its trout fishery and the size of its fish. One of the most remarkable aspects of that fame is the speed at which the sport fishery was established. Brown trout were first liberated in the lake in 1886 by the Major Scannell, the local Native Land Court judge. He was unsuccessful, but by the turn of the century there was a modest brown trout fishery in the lake and the rivers which flowed into it.[1]
What really made Taupō's reputation was the introduction of rainbow trout around the turn of the century, with the first big release being made in 1903. They were a much better sport fish, according to the fishermen. Within ten years, people were coming from overseas to fish at Taupō, with the consequent growth in a tourism service industry. The government was also extremely keen to have a say in this new industry, and in late 1906 they took over control of the fisheries in both Lakes Rotorua and Taupō from the Acclimatisation Societies and handed it over to the Department of Tourism and Health Resorts and other departments. Sole control was later passed to the Internal Affairs Department.[2]
Right from this early stage in the development of the fishery as a tourism venture, it was apparent that Ngāti Tūwharetoa were not going to stand back and let Pākehā interests take over the management of the lake fishery. The government's control of the trout fishery remained incomplete at this time because local Māori continued to issue their own fishing licences for the lake, which were effectively a permit allowing fishermen access to riparian Māori land, where they could fish without a government licence as guests of the owners. This was prevalent in Taupō because almost all of the land around the lake and the lower parts of the rivers leading into the lake was still Māori owned, due to its unsuitability for farming.
The issue of access control became a little less pressing in the 1910s because of a sudden collapse in the size and number of trout in all the lakes on the Volcanic Plateau. While officialdom put the collapse down to disease factors, it was mostly the result of the trout stripping the indigenous fish stocks from the lake. Over 100 tons of trout were taken from Lake Taupō in two years, and either sold by the Crown or just dumped.[3] Moves were also made to introduce new food species into the lake for the trout, some indigenous and some introduced, and this resulted in a substantial bounce-back in trout quality by the early 1920s.
The resurgence in the recreational fishing industry in the early 1920s, helped by high profile visitors such as Zane Grey and the Duke and Duchess of York, brought all old questions of State versus Māori control of access to the fishery back to prominence. At the root of the problem lay a number of conflicts in the legal status of introduced fisheries in New Zealand, even leaving aside any questions raised by the application of the doctrine of aboriginal title.
The Salmon and Trout Act 1867 had put introduced sport fish quite firmly under Crown and acclimatisation society regulation, as we have seen reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal in the recent case of Kirk McRitchie v the Taranaki Fish and Game Council.[4] However, ownership of and access to the waterways in which the fish lived was a quite separate matter. There was no real dispute that the rivers feeding into the lake remained in Māori ownership. It was an established part of English common law that the bed of a river belonged to the owners of the banks unless some substantial point of rebuttal could be demonstrated. Fishing rights then flowed on from the ownership of this underlying soil, which was the legal source of the extensive private fisheries of England so despised by many of the New Zealand colonists. Private ownership remained the case in New Zealand unless the Queen's Chain had been surveyed in or the river was navigable, neither of which applied in the Taupō district. It was in this way that Māori were legally able to control access to the river fisheries, and to privatise the fishery, if they so wished, by leasing the banks of the river.
The status of Lake Taupō itself was not so clear-cut. Under English law, smaller lakes were treated like rivers, with riparian ownership carrying rights out to the central point of the lake. This was difficult to apply to a body of water the size of Lake Taupō. In other parts of the country, the Native Land Court had investigated title to lake beds and made orders in favour of Māori owners.[5] This did not happen at Taupō and all Land Court titles to riparian land were bounded by the shore of the lake. It would therefore seem that the bed of Lake Taupō remained under customary Māori title.[6]
Compounding this situation was the Crown's assertion that it, not Māori, owned the beds of the larger lakes in the North Island under its prerogative right. This assertion never carried much legal weight, but it was repeated so often that the Crown seems to have come to believe it. This point was at issue in the case of Tamihana Korokai v Solicitor-General in 1912,[7] which I will mention here because it seems to have set the whole train of events at Taupō in motion.
This case revolved around the conflicting claims of Māori and the Crown to own Lake Rotorua. The Crown had argued its ownership of the lake on the grounds that the lake had been openly used by the public for many years, and that any exclusive Māori fishing rights, if they ever existed, had been long abandoned. It also denied any customary Māori title to the lake bed, saying that the title had also been abandoned, if it ever existed. This was opposed by some Māori owners of the riparian land around the lake, who claimed to own the bed either as an incident of their riparian ownership or through an unextinguished customary right.
The Court of Appeal did not make any decision on the ownership of the lake bed, but it did affirm the right of the Native Land Court to investigate the title to the bed of Lake Rotorua. It also considered the Crown's assertion that the lake bed was Crown land and rejected this, saying that the Crown had to prove its title or produce a valid Proclamation vesting the land in the Crown, not simply assert title. Strong hints were given that the lake probably was Māori customary land.
This sent the Lake Rotorua question back to the Native Land Court, but a negotiated settlement was reached between the Crown and Te Arawa before the Land Court could make a finding. The matter was solved with legislation in 1922, under which the beds of most of the Rotorua Lakes and the use of the waters was vested in the Crown free of any Māori customary title, in return for the establishment of the Te Arawa Maori Trust Board to administer the £6000 per annum paid by the Crown. The sole right of fishing for indigenous fish in the lake was reserved for Māori, although not exclusively for Te Arawa.[8]
Once a settlement had been negotiated in Rotorua the government began moves to negotiate a similar settlement at Taupō. A deal had already been struck over fishing rights in Lake Rotoaira, near Lake Taupō. That lake was also in Māori ownership, and because of its value as a traditional kōaro fishery, the owners asked that trout not be liberated into its waters. The Crown agreed but some anglers ignored the owners and released trout, which quickly destroyed the indigenous fishery. The owners were compensated in a 1921 deal which allowed Ngāti Tūwharetoa exclusive fishing rights to trout and native species in Rotoaira.[9]
Attention was then turned to fisheries in the larger lake. The Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Bill of 1924, the so-called 'washing-up bill' which dealt with various miscellaneous Māori matters, contained a clause allowing the Crown to enter into negotiations with Ngāti Tūwharetoa for an agreement similar to that made with Te Arawa. The area under discussion in the Bill was the lake and all the rivers leading into it, plus the Waikato River as far as the Huka Falls. The negotiations were to be between the Native Minister and Māori who, in the words of the Crown, claimed to be the owners of the lands bordering on the lake. The agreement was to be in respect of both the fishing rights and the ownership of the lake and river beds and margins – the so-called 'Queen's Chain' on the banks. It was also proposed at this early stage that there be a special fishing licence fee for Lake Taupō, with some of the proceeds of that fee going to those Māori with an interest in the lake. Any proposed deal had to be agreed to by a majority of Māori with interests in the lake and present at negotiation meetings.[10]
At this early stage in proceedings, parliamentary debate dealt only with the fishing rights in the lake, not the ownership questions. Apirana Ngata presented the proposal to the House, and spoke briefly about the Government's reasons for entering into negotiations.[11] The very first reason given was that there was a risk of fishing rights being acquired by what Ngata called 'rich gentlemen from overseas'. He named no names, but it appears that the writer Zane Grey was negotiating to lease or buy a large stretch of the Tongariro River from the Māori owners.[12] The stated purpose of the negotiations, therefore, was to ensure that all New Zealanders and overseas visitors retained equal access to the very best fishing grounds.
The clause did not attract a lot of debate at this stage. Tau Henare spoke briefly in favour of the proposal. The only other comment came from Frank Hockly, the member for Rotorua, who didn't think the extent of the negotiations went anywhere near far enough.[13] He was quick to say that Māori rights in regard of their fisheries could not be refused, but he wanted to extend the negotiations to include rivers in the Bay of Plenty and Urewera areas, where he claimed that Māori were charging fishermen access fees to cross their land.
In response to him, the Native Minister Gordon Coates advised that it was up to the Māori inhabitants of other areas to set the process in motion by petitioning Parliament if they wanted a negotiated settlement. Hockly then interjected to ask, 'What about the Europeans wanting something?', and he was clearly of the opinion that Pākehā interests were not being given enough weight.[14] Coates was quite scathing in response, saying that Pākehā wanted a lot of things, but that he was Native Minister, and as guardian of the rights of Māori he was 'not a bit interested in the pakeha.' He did however say that the Native Minister could negotiate an agreement that would be satisfactory to both Māori and Pākehā and settle the whole matter.[15]
After the debate, the clause was passed with no change and the Crown began its negotiations with Ngāti Tūwharetoa for the purchase of the fishing rights in Lake Taupō.
The Act specified that negotiations were to take place by way of public meetings, at which a vaguely defined 'substantial majority' of Māori opinion was required for a ratification of the Crown's terms. It soon became clear as a result of the early meetings, based largely at Tokaanu the southern end of the lake, that the Crown might not have taken the full diversity of the area into account.[16] As early as April 1925, a petition was sent to the Native Minister from Māori living at the northern end of the lake. They said that there were at least nine tribes, presumably meaning larger hapū, who had traditionally occupied the fishing grounds in that part of the lake, and that there were also several sub-tribes certain to contest for rights in those areas. The signatories to the petition came from at least a dozen different hapū, and they wanted the Crown to come to their end of the lake to discuss the proposals.[17]
By mid 1926, the Ngāti Tūwharetoa representatives and the Crown were close to agreement. The Māori representatives met in Wellington and passed a resolution to accept £3000 per annum for their fishing rights, plus half of what the Government collected every year in excess of £3000 from the special fishing licences for the area. This money was to go to a trust board for Ngāti Tūwharetoa, set up especially to administer the money. They were determined, however, that the beds of the lake and rivers stay in Māori hands, and they were not willing to let these be vested in the Crown as a public reserve.[18]
Different proposals were put forward by the Crown over several days of meetings, including some which would see the interests of some river riparian owners met separately, with the in perpetuity amount to drop once these owners were paid off. The Government was resolute in its insistence that the beds of the lake and rivers be vested in the Crown, even though the Tūwharetoa delegates had made it clear that they did not want this.[19]
In the end, the Native Minister Coates and the Tūwharetoa delegates went back to the proposal first agreed to by Tūwharetoa – £3000 per annum in perpetuity, plus half of the annual licence revenue, camping fees and fishing fines above £3000. This income would be managed by a new body, the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board, whose members were to be appointed by the Governor-General and not by the iwi. There would also be compensation paid to individual stream bank owners who had been making a living from fishing camps and the like. A non-commercial right of fishing for indigenous fish in the lake was reserved exclusively to Ngāti Tūwharetoa. The tribe was also to have a set number of free trout licences each year, but the right to allow guests to fish from private land without a licence was to be suspended. The agreement stated that the beds would be vested in the Crown as a public reserve, with a chain-wide right-of-way around the margins of the lake. Apirana Ngata draw up the final agreement, Hoani te Heuheu signed it on behalf of Ngāti Tūwharetoa, and it was incorporated into the Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Bill for 1926.[20]
Despite the signing of the agreement, there was indication that there was still some dissent within Ngāti Tūwharetoa, and the final proposal does not appear to have been sent back to the people for a mandate. One Māori owner of lake-side land, who was a civil servant, wrote to the Native Minister's office saying that he was sure that the majority of the people would prefer that the 'mana' of the beds of the lake and rivers, as he put it, not be taken away from them. He said that he was speaking for a large section of his people, who were not represented at the final settlement.[21]
There were also concerns over the provision which would put a right-of-way all around the lake. Some members of the te Heuheu family wrote to the Native Department to point out that one of the blocks they owned contained a number of valuable hot springs, which were within the riparian strip.[22] This was taken into account, and there was a clause in the Bill which allowed the Crown to exclude portions of Māori land from the right-of-way around the lake. A much more complicated system was drawn up for river banks, designed to allow the Crown to grant special exclusive camping access licences to some parts of the river banks while allowing compensation payments to those with existing fishing and camping rights along the rivers.[23] No Pākehā property rights along the lake or rivers were affected by the Bill, but most ordinary freehold land would already have been bounded by the Queen's Chain.
The different provisions for lake and river margins were paralleled by a difference in the Crown's views of Māori proprietary rights in lakes and rivers. While the Bill spoke of the customary or other title of Māori to the riverbeds, it spoke only of 'the Native customary title (if any) or other Native freehold title' to the lake bed. This was in line with the Crown's position over the Rotorua lakes, that there was not necessarily any Māori customary title to the lakes, but rather that they were subject to the Crown's prerogative title. Yet in the Taupō case, as at Rotorua, the Crown decided to purchase interests which it did not believe existed rather than to risk a Native Land Court investigation.
When the whole Bill was debated in the House of Representatives in the small hours of the morning, the few clauses relating to the Taupō agreement dominated the debate. This gives an indication of the interest in the agreement, as this Bill also contained important clauses on matters such as Māori land development. The Prime Minister, Gordon Coates, in his capacity as Native Minister, once again introduced the history of the Bill. He again raised the fear of private leases of prime fishing spots to people who were not New Zealanders, saying that a lot of negotiations had taken place and that most of the rivers would have been leased out in a few years if the Government had not intervened. He said that the purpose of the Government's negotiations with Māori had been to obtain the undisputed use of a riparian strip around the lake and rivers.
Coates also asserted the Crown's prerogative title to the bed of the lake, but said that Māori had always contested it and that the Crown did not want to continue the dispute because of the potential costs of investigation. He said that Māori had based their claim to the lake on the Treaty of Waitangi, but that the Crown had never admitted this. He complained that the Māori would not listen to any other point of view, and that it had become a grievance:
and, of course, every honourable member knows that it is dangerous to allow a dispute of that sort to drag on, particularly as the Native mind is apt to magnify the trouble.[24]Coates was relieved that the Crown had been able to resolve the dispute simply by legislating in the Crown's favour. They had, in his words, 'removed all the ancient rights by agreement, and without any cross-currents or heat.' After complaining about the Māori unwillingness to abandon their rights on the disputed word of the Crown, he was magnanimous enough to add that Ngāti Tūwharetoa themselves had been very generous in the settlement.[25]
Some other members of the House of Representatives picked up on the inconsistencies in the Crown's legal position on lake ownership. Albert Samuel, the member for the Hauraki seat of Ohinemuri, was opposed to almost every aspect of the agreement. He thought that the Government ought to know what the legal position of the lake bed was, and that the Crown should simply take the bed of the lake if it was certain of its rights. Otherwise, it should formally purchase the lake bed. Samuel complained that Ngāti Tūwharetoa had only been put up to the claim by 'a certain pakeha', and that it was only because he had told Māori that the fishing rights belonged to them that a claim had been made.[26]
Some of the Māori members leapt on the claims of Samuel and other members that the fishing rights in the lake belonged to the people of New Zealand. Sir Maui Pomare quoted legislation such as the Constitution Act of 1852, which preserved Māori fishing rights. Pomare's view was reasonable, that Māori had alienated their fishing rights in many parts of the country through sales of riparian land, but that in the Taupō area the land along most of the rivers had not been alienated and Māori retained their control of access to the fisheries. When an interjector claimed that Pākehā had paid for the trout in Taupō, Pomare pointed out that this had led to the destruction of the indigenous fisheries.[27]
By and large, most of the debate revolved around the effects of the new Act on Pākehā fishermen rather than on Māori. Mr Samuel claimed to speak for the majority of the fishermen in New Zealand in his disapproval of the higher fees to be charged for fishing in Taupō. The lake and rivers were not covered by the £1 acclimatisation society annual licences, and to fish in Taupō would cost New Zealanders £3 per annum, less for local residents and more for overseas visitors. The extra cost was to cover the annuity for Ngāti Tūwharetoa. Samuel thought that the fee would be such a deterrent that the Crown would not even raise the initial £3000 per annum needed to pay Ngāti Tūwharetoa.[28] He did not mind Ngāti Tūwharetoa being paid this sum of money each year, 'assistance' as he called it, but he did object to it coming out of the pocket of the 'wage-earner'. He felt that the agreement was one-sided in favour of Ngāti Tūwharetoa. Samuel also pointed out that, despite the rhetoric, no sales or leases to foreigners had actually taken place, but that the new pricing could mean that only rich foreign tourists could afford to fish. He wanted these foreign tourists to bear the entire cost of the agreement through expensive fishing licences.
Samuel also said that the £1 licence fee was a right that had been held by fishermen since 1908, and other members endorsed his view that cheap fishing was a right. He complained that the acclimatisation societies had not been a party to the negotiations between Māori and the Crown. He didn't like the fact that Tūwharetoa were to police the fishery, and to receive half the fine revenue, because he claimed that they were the worst offenders when it came to unsportsmanlike and illegal fishing methods, such as the pitchfork. He did not want any Māori to be Rangers because of this, although he was quick to say that he did not mean his comments to be hostile.[29]
Despite the hostile opposition of a few members, the Bill was passed through the lower House of Representatives virtually unchanged, and was debated by the upper Legislative Council a few days later. It perhaps reflects the interests of that chamber that the trout fishing provisions dominated the short debate. Sir Heaton Rhodes, Leader of the Council, introduced the Bill, and pointed out that Ngāti Tūwharetoa had a legal right to control and alienate their riparian rights and had been reluctant to part with their interests. One other councillor believed that the deal was overly generous, but others pointed out that Ngāti Tūwharetoa had also donated the Tongariro National Park and deserved some recognition for their generosity.[30] The Act was therefore passed with no dispute, and the bed of the lake became vested in the Crown. Within a month the beds of the lower parts of its tributary rivers were also vested in the Crown by Order in Council, along with a right of way along the banks.[31]
It was clear throughout the debate on access to fishing rights that there was no need for the Crown to acquire the lake and river bed titles outright, when what it really needed to control was riparian access and the fishing rights. While the Crown constantly asserted its prerogative title to the lake bed, it wasn't willing to put this to a legal test, with Coates mumbling some unconvincing excuses about the cost of investigation. He also accused Māori of intransigence in refusing to give up their claim to a customary title, and seemed to expect that Māori would defer to the Crown's unproven claims without a fight. In the end, the Crown seems to have used the legislation to enforce its very shaky rights against the wishes of most of the customary owners.
Many other commentators, especially in the lower House, seemed reluctant to accept that the agreement was a cession of Ngāti Tūwharetoa's property rights. Many members expressed the widely held but erroneous belief that fishing rights were public property. Robert Smith, whose Waimarino electorate included most of Lake Taupō, felt that the Government had done Ngāti Tūwharetoa a favour by negotiating with them.[32] Albert Samuel, the harshest parliamentary critic of the agreement, characterised the annual payment to Ngāti Tūwharetoa as financial assistance from the Crown, rather than the price of public access to their fishing rights. He did not even accept that the assertion of their rights was led by Ngāti Tūwharetoa, and claimed that they had been put up to it by a Pākehā resident (Samuel did not name this person, but it was possibly a missionary).[33]
Samuel was clearly unaware of the depth of evidence from sources such as the Native Land Court minute books, and the petitions lodged during the negotiation process, which demonstrated the extent of Ngāti Tūwharetoa's traditional fishing rights. No-one recognised the development and management efforts that Māori had put into the lake fisheries over the centuries to build up the stocks of indigenous fish; food stocks in the lake had been limited at the time of early Māori settlement because of damage caused by volcanic action.[34]
There was quite a clear contrast from many participants in the debate between their reluctance to acknowledge Māori property rights in the fishery and their advocacy for the interests of mostly Pākehā sports fisherman. Underlying the whole debate was a demand for equal access to fisheries, a remnant of the colonial abhorrence for the British system of private fisheries reserved for the gentry and those poachers willing to risk their liberty. Indolent Māori landowners and rich foreign tourists were targeted as the New Zealand equivalent. In contrast, the fisherman was presented by at least a couple of parliamentarians from fishing districts as an average bloke, a wage-earner, who could easily be forced out of the sport by raised licence fees.
The writer of the definitive history of New Zealand acclimatisation societies, Bob McDowall, has pointed out that fishermen have always overestimated the real cost of licences, and that the cost of the licence fee has always been a small part of the cost of sport fishing.[35] Nevertheless the average fisherman was presented in the debate as the small Kiwi battler, confronted on both sides by rapacious Māori and the Crown. The Māori members also challenged the portrayal of the average sport fisherman as a poor man, and Pomare challenged Samuel to find three poor people who travelled to Taupō to fish.[36] The cost arguments were not given much weight in the end by the Crown, which did set the licence fee at £3 for non-local New Zealanders.[37]
The rationale of sports fishing was another related area on which the Pākehā and Māori members of Parliament clearly had difficulty in understanding each other. Perhaps with the culls of the 1910s in mind, Pomare pointed out that Pākehā often wasted the trout they caught, while Māori, who did poach sometimes, were fishing only for subsistence and always used what they caught.[38] Apirana Ngata pointed out that the whole concept of sport fishing was incomprehensible to Māori, especially the way that 'sporting' fishing methods made it difficult to catch the trout, and the throwing away of fish once they were caught. No doubt he was being sarcastic when he remarked that the Māori 'may yet ... gain full honours in civilization by being able to handle a rod and tackle', but he touched on a serious point – that sport fishing was a hobby, not a means of subsistence, and that 'a people with a psychology like that ought to be charged £3 for the fun'.[39]
Another of the issues raised in the course of the 1920s was the approach to be taken when it came to dealing with complex issues such as the Lake Taupō fishing rights. Coates commented in 1924 that his experience of working with the Māori members of the House on such issues was that they generally ignored party politicking and put the interests of the country as a whole first, ahead of the individual interests of Māori. In contrast, Coates said, 'The average pakeha is often able to settle the whole Native question in about five minutes.' He pointed out that matters going back decades, based on the exercise of traditional rights not always corroborated by written authority, required due investigation before the issue could be justly and finally settled.[40]
His expressed views had changed by 1926, when he accused Māori of intransigence in failing to agree with the Crown's assertions, and of blowing grievances out of proportion, although he still remarked upon the generosity shown by Ngāti Tūwharetoa in the negotiation of the settlement.[41] It was left to others such as Sir Maui Pomare and some members of the Legislative Council to remind Parliament that Ngāti Tūwharetoa had also been generous donors of 40,000 acres for New Zealand's first National Park, and a similar amount for settlement of returned servicemen, and that the price paid by the Crown for the fisheries should be seen in the light of the tribe's public-spiritedness.[42]
I had hoped to provide some comparison of the rhetoric of the Crown in the 1920s to the rhetoric of the Crown today in the assessment of Māori claims to rights in waterways, but it appears that I have run out of time. Those of you who are familiar with these issues will have recognised some of the continuities – the refusal to recognise basic customary Māori property rights without recourse to a lengthy and expensive legal process; the negotiation of deals with Crown-constituted iwi authorities and an associated unwillingness to deal with sometimes conflicting hapū interests; and the demands of Pākehā recreational interest groups to be given full party status in the negotiation of matters concerning Māori property rights.
[Examine some of these contemporary
themes.]
(Author's postscript: The beds of the rivers surrounding the lake were revested in the Māori owners in the Maori Land Court on 21 December 1999. The bed of the lake was returned in 1992.)
Bibliography Court cases Legislation and Parliamentary Debate
Appendices to the Journals of the House of Representatives Archival material
Footnotes
|
[1] The development of the Taupō trout fishery is outlined in: P Burstall, 'Trout fishery—history and management', in D J Forsyth and C Howard-Williams (eds), Lake Taupo: Ecology of a New Zealand Lake, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Wellington, 1983, pp 120–125 [2] 'Report on Fisheries at Lakes Rotorua and Taupo from 1st June, 1913', AJHR, 1914, H-21, p 1 [3] ibid, pp 1–2; 'Report on Fisheries at Lakes Rotorua and Taupo from 1st June, 1914', AJHR, 1915, H-21, pp 1–2 [4] unreported, 24 November 1998, Court of Appeal CA184/98 [5] Well-known examples of such cases are Lake Wairarapa (1881–83), Lake Horowhenua (1896) and Lake Omapere (1929). In twentieth century cases, orders were usually made only if all the surrounding land was still Māori owned: Waitangi Tribunal, Report of the Waitangi Tribunal on the Muriwhenua Fishing Claim (Wai 22), Wellington, The Waitangi Tribunal, 1988, pp 104, 106–107; Suzanne Doig, 'Customary Māori Freshwater Fishing Rights: an exploration of Māori evidence and Pākehā interpretations', PhD thesis, University of Canterbury, 1996, pp 198–200 [6] New Zealand Law Commission, The Treaty of Waitangi and Maori Fisheries: Mataitai: Nga Tikanga Maori me te Tiriti o Waitangi, Law Commission, Wellington, 1989, pp 74, 76–79 [7] (1912) 32 NZLR 321 [8] s 27 Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1922; Mataitai, pp 78–79 [9] s 28 Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1921 [10] s 29 Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1924 [11] 1 November 1924, New Zealand Parliamentary Debates, 1924, vol 205, p 1047 [12] Burstall, p 125 [13] 1 November 1924, NZPD, 1924, vol 205, pp 1048–1049 [14] ibid, p 1049 [15] ibid, pp 1049–1050 [16] There is a much fuller analysis of the tensions between the Crown, Crown-recognised leaders of Ngāti Tūwharetoa, and the various lake-side hapū in Angela Ballara, Iwi: The dynamics of Māori tribal organisation from c.1769 to c.1945, Wellington, Victoria University Press, 1998, pp 319–325 [17] Petition of several hapu of Ngati Tuwharetoa, Taupo, to Native Minister, 15 April 1925, MA 31/23b, National Archives Wellington [18] 'Fishing Rights in Taupo Waters', memorandum, 21 July 1926, MA 31/23a, National Archives Wellington [19] MA 31/23a, National Archives Wellington [20] MA 31/23a, National Archives Wellington; ss 14–16 Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1926 [21] W R Ngahana, Native Trust Office Wellington, to Raumoa Balneavis, Private Secretary Native Minister's Office, 29 July 1926, MA 31/23a, National Archives Wellington |
[22] L M Grace to Raumoa Balneavis, 3 September 1926, MA 31/23a, National Archives Wellington [23] As the agreement initially stood, riparian owners were to have a year to apply for compensation, but the House of Representatives voted to restrict the compensation period to three months: 3 September 1926, NZPD, 1926, vol 211, p 295; section 14 (4)(d) Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act 1926 [24] 3 September 1926, NZPD, 1926, vol 211, pp 285–286 [25] ibid, p 286 [26] ibid, pp 286–287 [27] ibid, p 289 [28] Robert Smith, MHR for Waimarino (which included Lake Taupō), and H E Holland, MHR for Buller, also wanted the fee to be reduced in the interests of the poorer fishermen. Alternatively, Holland wanted concessionary fees for wage-earners and farmers. 3 September 1926, NZPD, 1926, vol 211, pp 292, 294 [29] 3 September 1926, NZPD, 1926, vol 211, pp 286–289 [30] 7 September 1926, NZPD, 1926, vol 211, pp 378–379. Most Pākehā observers characterised the gift of the mountains to the National Park as a tribal gift from Ngāti Tūwharetoa, rather than a personal donation made by Horonuku te Heuheu. [31] 'A Proclamation Declaring Beds of certain Rivers or Streams flowing into Lake Taupo to be Crown Land, and reserving a Right of Way over Land on Each Bank of such Rivers or Streams, and restricting the Use of certain Parts thereof', 7 October 1926, New Zealand Gazette, 1926, no 69, p 2895 [32] 3 September 1926, NZPD, 1926, vol 211, p 292 [33] ibid, p 287 [34] Doig, p 276; R M McDowall, New Zealand Freshwater Fishes: A Natural History and Guide, 2nd edition, Auckland, Heinemann Reed, 1990, pp 112, 310–311, 332, 421–422 [35] R M McDowall, Gamekeepers for the Nation: the story of New Zealand's acclimatisation societies, 1861–1990, Christchurch, Canterbury University Press, 1994, pp 26–27, 72–73 [36] 3 September 1926, NZPD, 1926, vol 211, p 289 [37] Regulations for Trout-fishing, Taupo District, 8 October 1926, New Zealand Gazette, 1926, no 69, p 2896 ff [38] 3 September 1926, NZPD, 1926, vol 211, p 289 [39] ibid, p 290 [40] 1 November 1924, NZPD, 1924, vol 205, p 1050 [41] 3 September 1926, NZPD, 1926, vol 211, p 286 [42] ibid, p 289 |
Buttons and bars by Alistair Luke; background image by Kemera Wilson
This page has been visited ![[counter]](http://viswww.oocities.org/it/counter.gif)
times since 23 January 2000.
