The Hand of the Crown and its Board 56

To replace the traditional governance system, the Crown instigated an agenda rooted in colonial thinking. The whakapapa for such ideas stems from Governor Grey and his pacification policies for the rebels. Grey’s generally good relationship with leaders like Iwikau and Potatau in his first appointment led to his reappointment for a second term. In his second term his main priority changed to the maintenance of pax Britannica and the securing of land for the influx of British settlers.269 These were the underlying reasons for his pacification policies. One of those policies grew out of his time in South Africa where he looked at the establishment of chiefly councils. This proved valuable to him as he understood the Maori preference to come together and debate issues of relevance to hapu and iwi.270

Using his knowledge of Maoridom and along with the Premier William Fox, the Attorney-General Henry Sewell and Francis Dart Fenton, Grey constructed a

new governance system of local and regional Runanga. His previous

investigations in South Africa aided in this. They were to be run in areas were

the Maori population was dominant. They were subservient to Pakeha district

commissioners and were only given general, mundane administrative tasks.271

At a local level they were to deal with things like fencing, stock trespass, lack of sobriety, common nuisance and most importantly, title to land.272 Effectively,

what Grey had created was a system that drew in rangatira so that they were

of the belief that they were in control, when in reality they were subservient to the Crown.

Grey’s colonial style thinking arrived in Tuwharetoa in 1923. Prior to this, Tuwharetoa was earning income from tourism, as tourists came to fish the

269 _{Cox, “Kotahitanga,” 80.} 270 _Ibid.

271 _{Ibid, 81.}

272 _{G.V. Butterworth and H. R Young, End of an Era: The Departments of Maori Affairs 1840-1989 (Wellington:}

57

lake and rivers. According to Tuwharetoa kaumatua there were no issues and

no real threat to the fishery.273 _{They also contend that when the Crown came}

to talk it was not about the lake, but about establishing a licensing regime for the fishery. We believed that under this new system we could continue the operation of fishing camps that we had established to take advantage of the tourists. We as Tuwharetoa were not ready to engage in discussions about taking the lake and access rights.274 This is highlighted by Te-Hokowhitu-a- Rakeipoho Taiaroa’s testimony to the Waitangi Tribunal that:

The Crown’s original objective of securing access to the trout fishery for anglers ended up with the passage of the Maori Land Amendment and Maori Land Claim Adjustment Act 1926, in which a chain right of way was created around the lake. More significantly from the Tuwharetoa point of view, the bed of the lake and the bed of the Waikato River extending as far as the Huka Falls, was wrongful declared to be property of the Crown.275

However, this was extended to include 13 major tributaries that flow into the lake on the 7 October 1926.276

This Act of the Crown, together with its request for public access to the lake during 1923–1925, led to the establishment, by Act of Parliament, of the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board (TMTB) with Hoani Te Heuheu as its chairperson.277 It provided Tuwharetoa with an annual sum of ₤3,000 pounds. Under the original Act the board’s sole function was, 'to administer all funds held by it for the general benefit of the Tuwharetoa tribe or their

273 _{CFRT, “Te Taumarumarutanga o Ngati Tuwharetoa,” 397.} 274 _Ibid.

275 _{Te-Hokowhitu-a-Rakeipoho Taiaroa, Brief of Evidence, Waitangi Trinunal, 26 April 2005, 2.} 276 _Ibid.

58 descendants.'278 _{Over time the TMTB was given free reign in that it was given}

by the Crown the ability to extend 'its functions to other fields.'279 _{George Asher}

believes that on some level there was coercion by the Crown.280 This is because rangatira were by now fully aware of the power of parliament to create legislation whether agreed to by iwi or not. It is likely that, faced with this eventuality, Hoani Te Heuheu and others must have agreed to the compromise in which there was some benefit for the iwi.281 Therefore, in the origins of this organisation is a form of basic self-determination. Their actions are not surprising given the economic and health climate of Maori at the time.

Today the TMTB is mainly governed by the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955. As a part of that legislation the Crown provides an annuity of $1,500,000 dollars.282

However, as per Grey’s runanga ideas, under section 24 of the Act the Crown

controls the actions and functions of the Board. Ultimately, the Board itself is answerable to the Minister of Maori Affairs. Before this, Tuwharetoa were politically, socially and economically independent and in control of their own destiny. Essentially, what the Crown did was make Tuwharetoa totally dependent through many cases of purposeful coercion. Thus the TMTB is a form of very limited control where the Crown arguably retains control of iwi

affairs.

278 _{TMTB, Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board: Golden Jubilee 1926-1976 (Turangi: TMTB, 1976), 14.} 279 _{Ibid., 18.}

280 _{George Te Waaka Asher, Brief of Evidence, 29 April 2005.} 281 _{Ibid, 15-16.}

59