Ngati Haua Deed of Settlement - Terabyte Interactive

NGĀTI HAUĀ DEED OF SETTLEMENT2: HISTORICAL ACCOUNTCourt was necessary for Māori to sell or legally lease land or to use it as security toenable development of the land.2.92 There was no consultation with Ngāti Hauā or any other Māori concerning the NativeLands Acts prior to their being enacted and Māori were not represented in the NewZealand Parliament at the time. The legislation did not reflect Ngāti Hauā’s customarytenure system, which accommodated complex and fluid relationships and land andresource usages. The Native Land Court awarded titles to named individuals, whowere also free to apply for investigations of title without reference to other right-holders.Ngāti Hauā considers this undermined the communal basis of their customary landtenure and the ability of the iwi and its hapū to manage their lands in a considered way .In 1885, 49 members of Ngāti Hauā petitioned Parliament asking that “the Native LandCourt should be abolished as every Native who consents to his land being adjudicatedupon by this Court obtains no benefit therefrom”.NGĀTI HAUĀ ENGAGEMENT WITH THE COURT2.93 In March 1866 the Native Land Court sat for the first time in Hamilton. It investigatedthe titles to some blocks outside of the confiscated area claimed by members of NgātiHauā. Wiremu Tamehana appeared at the hearing on behalf of Ngāti Hauā. Heexerted his leadership role in a new context, accommodating the interests of other hapūand iwi in accordance with Ngāti Hauā tikanga. However, Wiremu Tamehana did notattend the Court again after the first hearing.2.94 Besides the early hearings at Hamilton, many of the cases involving lands claimed byNgāti Hauā were held at Cambridge. Most supporters of the Kīngitanga, including anumber of other Ngāti Hauā, opposed the Court’s jurisdiction over their lands andrefused to participate in its hearings. In November 1868, Wiremu Tamehana’s sonTupu Taingakawa travelled to Cambridge to protest in the name of the Kīngitangaagainst the Court dealing with certain Waikato lands. However, his protest was ignoredand the Court continued.2.95 Members of Ngāti Hauā who attended the Court were required to pay fees to the Courtitself, along with survey costs and other expenses. The costs could be high,particularly when cases were contested. In 1871, participating in hearings for TeAroha, Ngāti Hauā were reported to have incurred expenses in excess of £575.2.96 Some of the costs incurred by Ngāti Hauā at Native Land Court hearings were for foodand accommodation, since it was common for the Court to be convened in Europeantownships such as Cambridge that were often some distance from the lands underinvestigation or from their usual places of residence.TEN-OWNER RULE2.97 Between 1865 and 1873, the native land legislation provided for the Native Land Courtto limit the number of owners named on a title to ten or fewer individuals. Those sonamed on the certificates of title were legally able to act as absolute owners if theychose to do so, and could alienate lands without reference to other members of theirhapū or iwi. By 1867 the Native Land Court had applied the ten-owner rule to a numberof large blocks in which Ngāti Hauā interests were recognised, including Hinuera,Wharetangata, Matamata, Puketutu, Te Pae o Turawaru, and Te Au o Waikato.2.98 Section 17 of the Native Lands Act 1867 amended the ten-owner rule. This providedfor additional right holders to be named on the back of the certificates of title, indicatingthe trust relationship between the legal owners and other members of their community.22