Mohaka River Report 1992

05 The Erosion of Ngati Pahauwera Rights Over the River

5.2 Co-operating With Government in the Exercise of Rangatiratanga

George Thomson, a claimant researcher, stated that the Pakeha who settled on the south side of the Mohaka river having paid for Crown titles to land "tended to assume that British law would prevail there". It appeared, however, that Ngati Pahauwera "had no such assumption". Rather there was some evidence to show that Ngati Pahauwera "continued to assume that their mana would remain on both banks of the Mohaka, no matter what changes there were to some aspects of land tenure there" (A29:appendix A: 9).

A letter from the Maungaharuru sheep farmer, Philip Dolbel, to the Hawke's Bay Herald in 1862 described a series of runanga or council meetings to adjudicate on matters arising on the south bank between Maori and Pakeha (ibid). Significantly, about this time other Ngati Kahungunu communities were setting up their own runanga rather than accepting the new institutions being introduced by the government.

Further evidence of the continued exercise of authority by Ngati Pahauwera was an incident in 1862 when two Pakeha on their way through Mohaka were stopped, as the local runanga had stipulated that there be no Sunday travelling. The runanga also prohibited alcohol on the north side of the river (ibid).

A report dated 9 June 1862 from the civil commissioner, Lieutenant Colonel A H Russell of Napier, indicated that northern Hawke's Bay still lay largely beyond the reaches of government. The Maori, it appeared to him, were "anxious to receive European law", though it would deprive them of power which they had "hitherto used without control, but not without discretion". He found the district "little known and much neglected":

The conduct of some of the Europeans who have located themselves in the Mohaka and Wairoa Districts, would almost lead one to suppose that that they were the barbarous, and the Maoris the more civilized, people-scenes of drunkenness and outrage are described in which men have taken part whose education and position should have led to a very different line of conduct and bring the moderation and forbearance of the Natives into very strong contrast. The evils have now been greatly lessened by the Natives, who have interdicted the introduction of spirits to their own side of the Mohaka where there is no European land .... Several Europeans are located upon the banks of the Mohaka, on land purchased from Government, who take no part in the excesses of which I have spoken, but are anxious they should cease.<_fnref7c_0-86472-110-27c_5.27c_7>

To bring about better control, Russell looked to the introduction of the new government institutions, namely resident magistrates and district and village runanga. Among the chiefs he desired as assessors was Paora Rerepu of Mohaka, "whom they stated to be the greatest man upon the Coast by birth and whom they are unwilling to lose even temporarily from among them" (C5A:771).

Mr Sinclair had difficulties with Mr Thomson's evidence about Ngati Pahauwera's continued authority. In response to the problems of the comparatively lawless state of Pakeha society at Mohaka and alcohol, Paora Rerepu "cast the onus of maintaining civil order upon the government" (C5:19). The correspondence on alcohol illustrated "the chiefs' respect for the rule of law and their desire that the Government should assume responsibility for its enforcement, at least when Europeans were involved" (C5:21). Mr Thomson, in the opinion of Mr Sinclair, went too far in stating that there was some evidence to show that Ngati Pahauwera continued to assume their mana would remain on both banks of the river.

A request from Paora Rerepu for permission to run a ferry on the river was seen by Mr Sinclair as "a tacit acknowledgement of the government's authority over the river" (C5:26). Claimant counsel suggested that it could have been merely an application for government subsidy and not because Paora Rerepu believed he needed permission from the government to run the ferry himself.<_fnref7c_0-86472-110-27c_5.27c_8>

Similarly a request from Toha of Wairoa for a ferryman on the Waihua river, which the superintendent of Hawke's Bay referred to Paora, was explained by Mr Sinclair as having been prompted by a wish on the part of the superintendent to diplomatically "avoid any friction between the two chiefs" (C5:24).<_fnref7c_0-86472-110-27c_5.27c_9> Ms Elias suggested that the tenor of the correspondence was more in accordance with Crown concern to defer to Paora Rerepu in an area where he had authority. The government recognised his rangatiratanga by seeking his permission. His response was to assent to the ferry (C14:15).<_fnref7c_0-86472-110-27c_5.27c_10>

As further evidence against Mr Thomson's view that Ngati Pahauwera continued to exercise authority over the river Mr Sinclair pointed to the "absence of any record of protest" over any European uses of the river which seemed surprising given the immense spiritual importance of the river and Mr Thomson's suggestion that Maori "rangatiratanga" prevailed on either side of it (C5:15-16). But, as we have seen, Ngati Pahauwera were willing to share the use of the river and use should not be confused with control. As Mr Sinclair himself conceded the control of the river does not seem to have been tested in the nineteenth century (C5:15).

Ms Elias pointed out that the resources of the river were bountiful and sharing was consistent with Maori cultural precepts and with the exercise of rangatiratanga (C14:12). Sharing the river was beneficial to both parties and Ngati Pahauwera felt no need to protest at the use of the river by Pakeha. It was:

important to recognise that Maori cultural precepts of hospitality and sharing are not to be seen as a relinquishment of 'ownership' but as an exercise of rangatiratanga. (C14:16)

In our view the different stances adopted by the Crown and the claimants over the introduction of British law and law enforcement in the Mohaka district and over the continuation of Ngati Pahauwera's authority need to be considered in their historical framework. Before the East Coast wars, Mohaka was what the historian James Belich has described as a "Maori zone" and Ngati Pahauwera were predominantly independent. A government official or magistrate visiting Mohaka was, to use Dr Belich's words, "an invited guest whose attributes supplemented, but did not replace, those of its host". The introduction of British law was far from comprehensive, lacked coercive backing and "worked only when the Maoris let it-a discretion they exercised very selectively". A "fascinating syncretic system of social constraint" was emerging, "but it did not indicate real British control".<_fnref7c_0-86472-110-27c_5.27c_11>

After Te Kooti's April 1869 raid on Mohaka and the massacre of over 60 Maori and seven settlers, and the destruction of Te Huki pa while Paora Rerepu and other warriors were on an expedition to Waikaremoana, "the tide of Maori autonomy" began to turn. Through land alienation in the early twentieth century, it gradually ran out.<_fnref7c_0-86472-110-27c_5.27c_12>

Mr Thomson's evidence fits nicely into Dr Belich's framework. "With the end of open fighting", Mr Thomson said:

Ngati Pahauwera found that the rules had been changed and the goal posts shifted.

However, local authority over much of the community remained. The very real power of kaumatua (elders), and rangatira, (chiefs) over the Ngati Pahauwera community was reflected more by the absence of a Pakeha policeman stationed at Mohaka from 1865 to 1910, than in positive evidence. (A29: appendix A: 9)

Mr Thomson further stated:

There is no evidence to suggest that Ngati Pahauwera would have agreed to give up authority over the river ... in the 1850's, Ngati Pahauwera's values and beliefs were those of Maori custom. Those norms may have been modified for some, ... from the 1850's to the 1920's by such things as the introduction of the British legal system. However, I have seen no evidence to suggest that by 1930 such modification ... was general, to the point of a change of stance on rangatiratanga.

Ngati Pahauwera had positive reasons to think that they retained the mana, due to them being ... the definite numerical majority within the lower valley, able to pursue a lifestyle primarily founded on their own values. Because of this majority and lifestyle, the use and control of the river was an unquestioned part of the way of life. (A49:3-4)

In reference to the erosion of Ngati Pahauwera tino rangatiratanga since the 1850s, Mr Thomson pointed out that:

Much of the erosion was piecemeal and indirect ... [and] may have been aided by the declining economic base of Ngati Pahauwera and its leadership, and the diminishing of customary resources. (A49:5)

Notwithstanding this, it seems clear to us that the sale of land on both sides of the river was not understood by Ngati Pahauwera to be a relinquishment of rangatiratanga over the river.

Ngati Pahauwera cooperated extensively with central and local government, including great sacrifice in war from 1864 on:

Whether this co-operation can be construed as agreement to diminish their rangatiratanga and whether kawanatanga can be seen by Ngati Pahauwera as legitimately overruling tino rangatiratanga over the river in any way, are open questions. They must remain open questions while there is little evidence available to answer them. (A49:5)

Not only did Ngati Pahauwera serve with government forces in the east coast wars from 1864 to 1872, but when the First World War broke out in 1914 they resolved to gather funds and send men to the front. Five men from Mohaka served in the first Maori contingent of 1914, three local men were decorated and mentioned in despatches for their war services, and at least four were killed or died of wounds or disease. There are 38 other names of Maori on the Mohaka world war memorial. In the Second World War at least 21 Ngati Pahauwera served overseas and at least five were killed.

Perhaps however a greater insight to this particular dimension can be gained from the now classic exhortation by the Reverend Henry Wainohu (a member of Ngati Pahauwera who served as chaplain) to his Maori soldiers prior to the night attack on Gallipoli:

Whatever you do, remember you have the mana, the honour and good name of the Maori people in your keeping this night. Remember our people far away in our native land are watching you, waiting eagerly, anxiously to hear how you have behaved yourselves in battle. In a few minutes perhaps many of us may be dead. But go forward fearlessly, with but one thought. Do your duty to the last and whatever comes never turn your backs to the enemy. Go through with what you have to do, to the very utmost of your powers. (A29:28)

From the evidence we have heard on Ngati Pahauwera's attitude and contribution to central government and the war effort, the following things become obvious. During nearly all of the last century, Ngati Pahauwera had an implicit trust in the word of the Crown and believed their rights and property would be protected. That trust was not seriously questioned by them until now. There are many signs and symbols that testify to the high regard that the people and for the Crown's word. These things are dotted around the perimeter of their marae and testify to loyal service and commitment made in the past by the Pahauwera iwi to the Crown and nation.

For the tribe, co-operation between Ngati Pahauwera and the government was the politics of reciprocity and partnership, not the politics of assimilation and subjection. As the Waitangi Tribunal has stated in the Ngai Tahu Report 1991:

The cession by Maori of sovereignty to the Crown was in exchange for the protection by the Crown of Maori rangatiratanga.

This concept is fundamental to the compact or accord embodied in the Treaty. Inherent in it is the notion of reciprocity ....<_fnref7c_0-86472-110-27c_5.27c_13>

In this context we accept the claimants' view that Ngati Pahauwera did not relinquish any of their tino rangatiratanga over the Mohaka river (A49:7). Ngati Pahauwera is entitled to and must rely on the honour of the Crown to act reasonably and in good faith as a Treaty partner and respect their rangatiratanga.

Supporting evidence for this view is to be found in the lack of any reference to river rights in the long history of Ngati Pahauwera complaints and petitions to the Crown. Most of these concerned the alleged inadequacy of the payment for the Mohaka block, the lack and loss of reserves, and exclusion from titles, leases and sales. These grievances are the subject of another claim and only concern us here in so far as they show that the issue of control over the river did not come up until the Crown imposed the water use regime and assumed authority to take land for public works and gravel extraction (C14:12).