NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE, No. 99 — 27 SEPTEMBER 2017

long been confirmed.

[55] Mr Neho of Ngāti Kuri questioned Mr Brown and challenged the basis of the Courts’ title determinations in favour of Te Aupōuri, suggesting that Ngāti Kuri had been wrongly left out of the land. Mr Brown disagreed and deferred to the evidence given in Court in the 1890s. He referred to Te Aupōuri’s rights in the land by conquest of Ngāti Kuri, though he acknowledged that Ngāti Kuri were not exterminated and emphasised the common links between the two iwi. He referred to the founding ancestors, Te Ikanui and his two wives, Tihe and Kohine. Mr Neho asked whether Tihe and Kohine were of Ngāti Kuri. Mr Brown did not know.

[56] In light of this questioning, Te Aupōuri called Anaru Rieper to give whakapapa and historical evidence of the origins of Te Aupōuri. Mr Neho questioned Mr Rieper in regard to Te Ikanui’s origins in Whangape and the whakapapa of Tihe and Kohine. Mr Rieper acknowledged that Tihe and Kohine had Ngāti Kuri whakapapa but said that Te Amongaariki’s land interests did not come from her Ngāti Kuri whakapapa. Mr Neho disputed the Courts’ title determinations, suggesting that Ngāti Kuri were not present at the hearings. Mr Rieper disagreed and maintained that Ngāti Kuri was represented at the hearings.

[57] At the conclusion of the hearing Te Aupōuri emphasised that the issue was not one of competing mana but recognising the role and responsibility of the local Māori community as kaitiaki of the fishery. In this case, Te Aupōuri says that local Māori community is Te Kao and therefore the people of Te Aupōuri.

Ngāti Kuri

[58] Mr Neho, as chairman of the Ngāti Kuri Trust Board, filed a submission dated 11 November 2008 opposing the taiapure proposal. Ngāti Kuri agreed that Waka Te Haua should be accorded greater protection and that those who hold mana-whenua should have greater management control over the area and its resources. It noted that Te Aupōuri, Ngāti Kuri and Ngāi Takoto simultaneously claimed mana-whenua over Waka Te Haua. The iwi had agreed to use the Te Hiku o Te Ika Iwi Forum (“the Forum”) to resolve mana-whenua issues. Ngāti Kuri held the firm view that the Forum’s mana-whenua resolution process should be completed before the taiapure should be given effect to, and was concerned that the taiapure proposal might predetermine the outcome of that process. Ngāti Kuri therefore opposed the proposal but wished to discuss its concerns directly with Te Aupōuri.

[59] Mr Neho took a lead role as representative of Ngāti Kuri at the judicial conferences and the hearings but did not give evidence. Ngāti Kuri called evidence from Malcolm Peri, Tom Bowling Murray and Wayne Petera.

[60] Mr Peri, who is of Te Rarawa, presented evidence at the request of Mr Neho. This was in the form of a historical paper concerning battles from the Hokianga to Te Oneroa a Tohe which led to Te Ikanui leaving Whangape and eventually settling on Te Hiku o Te Ika. Mr Peri placed the timing of the migration at the mid 18th century, though I note that other evidence placed it about 50 years before Captain Cook’s arrival in New Zealand, that is, in the early 18th century. Mr Peri had not prepared his paper for the purposes of this inquiry and acknowledged that it represented a Te Rarawa version of history. Overall, the relevance of Mr Peri’s paper was that it confirmed that Te Ikanui originally came from Whangape in the early to mid 18th century – a fact that Te Aupōuri acknowledges.

[61] Mr Murray, who is of Ngāti Kuri, was primarily concerned that granting the taiapure would signal that Te Aupōuri have mana-whenua in the area. He explained that Ngāti Kuri does not claim to have a waka as the iwi has resided on the land since time immemorial. In contrast, he said that Te Aupōuri could not show evidence of original occupation, conquest or extermination of Ngāti Kuri. Te Aupōuri only came to occupy the area by reason of Ngāti Kuri accommodating them as whanaunga (relations) but Ngāti Kuri did not cede mana-whenua to Te Aupōuri.

[62] Mr Murray acknowledged that Te Aupōuri had been caretakers of Waka Te Haua and had lived on the land for approximately 250 years but maintained that Ngāti Kuri’s mana-whenua remained. In terms of the Native Land Court’s findings in favour of Te Aupōuri in relation to the Parengarenga block, Mr Murray acknowledged that the block is predominantly Te Aupōuri’s but said that the Court had not been given the full picture of Ngāti Kuri’s interests. Accordingly, he invited the Tribunal to ignore that evidence. He asserted that Te Aupōuri had subjugated Ngāti Kuri history by taking on roles as interpreters and staff in the Native Land Court, and in teaching Te Aupōuri history in schools. Under questioning, he could not substantiate these claims. He did not give any evidence of Ngāti Kuri performing a role as kaitiaki at Waka Te Haua.

[63] Mr Petera was the final witness for Ngāti Kuri. He saw his role as articulating information gathered from his kaumātua and kuia. He touched on key ancestors of Ngāti Kuri, and emphasised Ngāti Kuri’s longstanding occupation of Te Hiku o Te Ika. Te Aupōuri, in contrast, had settled at Te Kao by the "tacit approval" of Ngāti Kuri and not by conquest – this occurred no more than 50 years prior to the arrival of Captain Cook.

[64] Mr Petera discussed various options for fisheries management including taiapure, mātaitai and customary fishing regulations, and offered the view that mātaitai would have suited Ngāti Kuri better in relation to Waka Te Haua. In answer to questions, Mr Petera modified this view by explaining that his difficulty was that there had been "no dialogue", that the kaumātua and kuia of Ngāti Kuri struggled to understand the concept of "taiapure".