Subject

Submission on allocation dispute by Te Aupouri

To

Te Ohu Kai Moana

From

Haami Piripi on behalf of Te Iwi o Te Rarawa

Date

26 June 2013

1.0

2.0

INTRODUCTION
1.1

This document provides a brief historical account of the Iwi o Te Rarawa

1.2

This document has been prepared to inform Te Ohu Kai Moana of Mana Whenua/Mana
Moana o Te Rarawa.

BACKGROUND
2.1

Te Runanga Nui o Te Aupouri Trust does not agree to Te Ohu Kaimoana using the
FMA and QMA iwi share percentages set out in Appendix 4 of Panui 1 dated 20
March 2013 to determine the ACE allocation entitlements for the April 2013 ACE
Round.

2.2

To assist Te Aupouri, Ngati Kuri, Ngai Takoto and Te Rarawa to resolve the ACE
dispute Te Ohu Kai Moana initiated a meeting on Wednesday 17 April.

2.3

Te Aupouri, Ngati Kuri, Ngai Takoto and Te Rarawa did not reach an agreement
and Te Ohu Kaimoana is required to resolve the matter in accordance with
section 152 of the Maori Fisheries Act.

2.4

As part of the process for resolving ACE disputes Te Ohu Kai Moana sought from
the mandated iwi organisations for the four iwi Te Aupouri, Ngati Kuri, Ngai
Takoto and Te Rarawa to submit in writing their positions regarding their
interests in the coastline from Hokianga Harbour on the west coast of the North
Island (FMA9) proceeding north to North Cape and then proceeding south, to the
mid-point of the Rangaunu Harbour on the east coast of the North Island
(FMA1), including evidence to support their position.

Ka whatiwhati te hoe o Te Ikanui ka pkarukaru tonu te ara whanaunga. Kia momotu rawa tetahi i
tetahi, hei kanohi tauhou, marae kore, reo kore, me he mana pakeha. E tangi atu au mo te hunga
kahore an i whnau mai ki tenei ao. Ka whakatairangatia rere ki uta, rere ki tai, engari hore rawa he
wai hei piringa mna. Heoi ano he ture kawana noa iho, me ng tari poutpeta, komihana ranei, enei
korito e makkngia. Ki reira te ngau o te whakangarotanga o tatou whaakaro kotahi.
When the paddle of Te Ikanui splinters, the genealogy affiliations between kith and kin will be torn
asunder. Where divided factions will grow new form to produce faces of closely related strangers;
people weakened by absence and ignorance of their culture and extolling the values of the Pkeha. I
weep for our descendants yet to be born into these circumstances. They will seek sustenance inland and
at sea, but they will find no breast to suckle on, or arms to rest in. Instead they will rely on the bitter cold
tenets of Westminster law whose agencies and commissions now succour new growth.
There waits the bite of our lost unity.
Haami Piripi

E te komihana, e Te Heamana
E te Kaiwhakahaere Matua, tena r koutou katoa,
Me mihi ka tika ki te hunga kua okioki, nga mate o tena, o tena iwi o Te Hiku, puta noa ki te motu; haere,
haere, haere atu r. Ki a ttou te hunga ora tena r ttou katoa.
Te Rarawa is extraordinarily disappointed by the application made by Te Aupouri to Te Ohu Kaimoana.
This comes at a time that has the greatest potential to damage and compromise the Iwi relationships in
Te Hiku o Te Ika. It presents a risk for iwi to return to the days of each iwi to itself, without taking
cognisance of, or recognising the importance of iwi unity and the momentum that can be achieved by a
collaborative approach.
We can only assume that the adversarial model initiated by Te Aupouri, is in fact a rejection of the
unification principles and mechanisms that they actively participated in developing first through their
contribution to the Te Hiku Forum and now with their involvement with the Te Hiku o Te Ika
Development Trust whose purpose is to bring about social, environmental, economic and cultural
change. Even if there is a lack of intention of harm, the inevitable outcome of this process being
facilitated and proposed by Te Aupouri and Te Ohu Kaimoana, from our perspective is clearly
unbalanced and draconian.
For many years Te Hiku o Te Ika iwi have been working tirelessly and extraordinarily hard to generate a
unity of purpose required to get all Hiku iwi through the quagmire of Historical Treaty claims and
settlements. To an extent, we have been aided by external agencies including the Crown, who have on
a number of occasions acknowledged and supported a unified approach to expressing commonly held
interests.
The role of Te Ohu Kaimoana in promulgating an adversarial methodology is the antithesis of the spirit
required to complete the process of kotahitanga so long hoped for by our elders of the Far North. It
appears that the Commission has been oblivious to these important developments, yet considers itself
competent and qualified to adjudicate on determining the manawhenua of four Iwi with such swiftness
and confidence.

Assuming that the Commission did possess the cultural competency to make this determination, one
would expect that we would be consulted or involved in examining the efficacy of any proposed process.
Surely Te Aupouri would see some benefit in utilising the manawhenua framework which they
themselves led the development of, and adopted as an iwi during direct treaty negotiations.
We can only marvel at our Muriwhenua elders who fought for our fisheries claims and at what they
would now think about the mechanisms of redress they created for today. Even the Crown has
retreated from this iwi by iwi approach, appreciating the widespread and sustainable long term
importance of achieving collaboration, not just for iwi, but also for the region and indeed the nation. Of
course the Commission has the comfort of being generated by iwi and therefore in theory ought to be
inherently incapable of acting detrimentally toward properly mandated iwi organisations.
Indeed it is disconcerting to observe the haste by which this process is abandoning the status quo which
had held for over ten years. The surprise element employed by this process may lead to a complete
breakdown of relationships between our respective iwi. The process has clearly created potential for
prejudice; enabling the applicant with time and opportunity, and disabling the respondents with paucity
of information and speed of procedure.
Nevertheless Te Rarawa and other iwi are forced by these requirements to address this anomaly of
process at the expense of other key arenas of fisheries management that involve collaborative efforts to
achieve those shared outcomes by joining not separating iwi interests.
Te Rarawa Approach
The approach by Te Rarawa to provide a response to this manawhenua challenge has three aspects. The
first is a contention that all iwi share in a common localised history. Kupe, for example, is an ancestor of
us all and no one iwi could claim him as their own.
The second aspect recognises that each iwi has a point of origin that involves an event, ancestor, place
and time. In recognising that point of origin, it ought not to be possible for any iwi to reach into the
prehistory of shared genealogy clusters to claim as their own common ancestors. For example Te
Aupouri descends from Te Ikanui and his two wives. The mana of his iwi could not be retrospective and
therefore it is illogical for iwi (including Te Aupouri) to claim ancestors prior to their origin. Tohe, for
example, lived long before Te Ikanui (and the formation of Te Aupouri) and is equally the ancestor of all
Te Hiku iwi. Moreover a claim to Tohe involves Kurahaupo waka affiliations relying on Te Ikanuis wives
to make the link.
For the third aspect, Te Rarawa contend that neither the Commission, nor any other external body has
the right nor the ability to adjudicate on any Te Rarawa history or issues prior to 1840 and the signing of
Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Te Rarawa therefore asserts that any determination by third parties, like Te Ohu
Kaimoana, must focus its deliberation on evidence relating to the period 1840 onwards drawing on the
prehistory of events primarily for context. The mandated status of this Runanga has also been affirmed
within the process of direct negotiations between Te Rarawa and the Crown. This has been reflected in
the institutional arrangements of our Post Settlement Governance Entity which will become legislated
late this year along with potentially four other Te Hiku iwi. Furthermore the mandate Te Rarawa gained
to engage in Seabed and Foreshore negotiations has for some years been recognised by the Crown and

discussions have already commenced in relation to our own rohe takutaimoana; a significant section of
the area you have now opened up for discussion.
Suffice to say we are unpleasantly surprised by the application from Te Aupouri and its ongoing
facilitation by the Commission requiring a firm and comprehensive response.
Te Rarawa is an iwi constituted by thirty hapu whose iwi and hapu identity is manifest in twenty three
marae communities who affiliated to Te Runanga o Te Rarawa nearly thirty years ago. The constituents
of these marae communities live worldwide, forging initiatives, enterprise and careers within a myriad
of occupations.
Almost 15,000 of these iwi members have registered with the Runanga and we estimate another 15,000
are as yet unregistered. The only qualification required to register is ancestry. An applicant must
demonstrate their genealogical relationship to an ancestor of one or more of their Marae communities
which is in turn affirmed by the marae committee. Thus the composition the Runanga maintains a
powerful mandate drawn from the ancestry and marae institutions of the rohe enabling us to function
as a strong iwi organisation. This has been the case for many years and has been consistently
acknowledged by the Commission culminating in our MIO status being approved.
As recently as last year, Te Ohu Kaimoana facilitated an exercise between Te Rarawa and Ngapuhi which
resulted in an agreement involving the Hokianga Harbour. At the time Te Ohu Kaimoana also discussed
with Te Rarawa our northern interests; more specifically an area disputed between Hukatere and the
area Ngapae. As far as we are aware, no other iwi has claimed any manawhenua interest between
Hokianga and Ngapae, which has been opened up for contention. Your correspondence proposes that
four iwi (including Te Rarawa) ought to make mana whenua submissions relative to this area. We now
need to know whether any other unresolved iwi claim to this area exists because if it does not, we then
need to know by what authority Te Ohu Kaimoana is conducting this process over this particular part of
the coast. What analysis or criteria was used to determine that three neighbouring iwi may suddenly
have an interest and then proceeding to invite them to make submissions on it. It occurs that had the
Commission taken cognisance of existing tribunal reports and recommendations then this action intends
to create prejudice.
This of course is in addition to the division, mistrust and misconceptions that will result from the process
and the general way this issue is evolving.
Under such circumstances it is difficult to summon any confidence in the ability of a Commission to
properly complete this very important task. The anonymity of the people, the process, and the
arrogance of the approach betrays the investment by past Te Rarawa elders, who dedicated themselves
to realising the goal of fisheries claim settlement; only to be trampled by the very institution they helped
create.
It is extremely difficult to comprehend the Commissions statement that you would prefer that the iwi
ourselves reach an agreement. The events that have transpired in relation to this issue have not been
conducive to a collaborative outcome. For some years now, in the context of treaty negotiations, we as
4

iwi in Te Hiku o Te Ika have sought to integrate our interests in order to be able to rise above individually
focused outcomes and concentrate on more creative mechanisms for achieving win/win solutions. This
application is inconsistent with that approach, and detrimental to maintaining quality relationships.

Manawhenua/Manamoana of Te Rarawa
A shared History
No nehe ra he kakano i ruia mai i Raiatea
This whakatauki exemplifies the notion of our Polynesian origins and the ultimate goal of our forebears
to explore and survive in new environments. In the case of Aotearoa the notion was manifested in the
desire to populate the Pacific and Tasman oceans over a period of six thousand years. Aotearoa, being
one of the most distant and isolated isles, was populated during the demise of the empire with a view to
migrating and never returning to their original Hawaiki homelands.
Kupe, sailing upon Matawhaorua is perhaps the best known of these explorers. He (and his people)
arrived, traversed, named, and settled, establishing manawhenua and tapu in numerous places as he
circumnavigated the North Island and part of the South Island. It was from Te Hokianganui a Kupe that
he left after establishing Te Rerenga-a-Wairua and Te Puna o Te Ao Marama. In that early period Aotea,
Kurahaupo, Takitimu and Tinana all made landfall within our described rohe between Hokianga and
Hukatere, as did Mamari and Ngatokimatawhaorua who arrived in Hokianga under Kupes directions
given to his uri, Nukutawhiti. The people of Te Rarawa are descended from all these waka through an
array of ancestors.
In the same way, but to greater or lesser extent, so are the other three iwi you have invited into our
rohe. Tamatea Pokai Whenua for example traversed the eastern seaboard, and he was followed by
many of his people including Kahungungu who was born near Kaitaia.
Kupe in the course of his sojourn to Aotearoa (named by wife Kuramarotini) seems to have left
descendants from six wahine rangatira from various regions around the country. However the people of
Hokianga are also the descendants of Kupes original kainga who sailed here on Mamari and
Ngatokimatawhaorua waka.
Pohurihanga, aboard Kurahaupo, made landfall in the Far North, giving rise to the name Muriwhenua.
His descendants have also become an important stream of Te Rarawa ancestry. Miru, on the waka
Ruakaramea, also features in our early history as an important ancestor. So too with Puhi on Mataatua,
who is an eminent tupuna with footprints that remain in our rohe.
Other waka with genealogical ties to Te Rarawa are Tokomaru, Tainui and Te Arawa.
The most significant waka for Te Rarawa is the Tinana, captained by Tumoana. Tinana made landfall at
Tauroa and populated the region now within Te Rarawa rohe over the succeeding 600 years. During this
time, many of his descendants gained notoriety, and like all other waka, all iwi of Te Hiku can trace
descent from Tumoana.
As I have already stated, each iwi in Te Hiku o Te Ika has a unique combination of all these strands of
genealogical pathways that are defined by the pre-histories of our individual iwi identities which have
5

survived to this day. These identities are reflected in nomenclature events, manawhenua presence,
marae and tikanga.
Ko Te Rarawa Te Iwi
For Te Rarawa our unique identity emerged during the mid 1600s. Te Ripo, a kuia Ariki of the time, was
kidnapped from Rangiputa paa and eventually killed at Kaipara. Retribution was achieved through the
leadership of Tarutaru, his wife Te Ruapounamu and their immediate community who lived in North
Hokianga.
In the process of gaining retribution the invading party lead by Tarutaru consumed the bodies of their
adversaries after burning their homes.
This gave rise to the name Te Rarawa Kaiwhare and the beginning of the iwi confederation known as Te
Rarawa. This confederation became strengthened by the subsequent settlement of Tarutaru and Te
Ruapounamus children and relatives. The western seaboard became dominated by Ariki and Rangatira
of Te Rarawa descent while maintaining the unique identities of numerous hapu that occupied and
utilised the natural resources of our region. In some areas like Ahipara there were conflicts resulting in
areas of occupation by conquest, and in others by marriage, however by the time the first pakeha
appeared on the horizon the manawhenua of Te Rarawa throughout North Hokianga and most of Te
Hiku o Te Ika was well established. In addition to the origin of iwi there are also the origins of hapu
some of which predate iwi.
The chronology and description of these events and histories are already well documented by the
Waitangi Tribunal in the Muriwhenua Fisheries and Land Report which were pivotal to empowering the
direct negotiations leading to the Sealords deal and the consequent establishment of Te Ohu Kaimoana.
Therefore, the request by Te Ohu Kaimoana for evidence of Te Rarawa manawhenua is perhaps the
most ironic paradox of this entire exercise. More poignant by the fact that the author of this submission
also coordinated the Te Rarawa evidence for the Muriwhenua Fisheries claims hearing in 1982.
Collating the detailed and referenced evidence of the above chronology is extremely time consuming
and would prove hugely onerous and unfair within existing time frames.
Mana Tupuna, Mana Whenua, Mana Tangata
The first Te Rarawa Ariki and paramount leader to meet a Pakeha was Poroa who lived between 1750
1830.
Poroa, and others under his leadership also took part in the national war campaigns that were lead by
Hongi Hika during the early 1800s. This reflected an alliance based on genealogical relationships and
the avocation and the obligations that developed between them.
As a result of these campaigns Poroa developed a national perspective and an understanding of Pakeha
and shared with others of Te Rarawa leadership who also participated in the campaigns down country.

During this period Poroa also engaged in battles on his home front taking by conquest pa and kainga at
Ahipara before pushing its occupants back down the beach. Poroa, noted for his military prowess, also
gained the assistance of his ally and relative Hongi Hika. In the early 1820s he led a party with Hongi to
nullify Te Houtaewa of Te Aupouri and take the Utia Paa at Hukatere. The victory was decisive, and the
subsequent death of Te Houtaewa resulted in the eventual vanquishing of Te Aupouri as an iwi. Utia
Paa was never reoccupied, and Poroa held complete mana over large parts of the beach.
At Te Wherowhero, a place about 5 kilometres north of Hukatere, Te Rarawa completed the ultimate
victory, consummated by Te Rarawa removing from the Te Aupouri iwi any semblance of mana whenua
on the peninsula. Since that time (early 1820s) no rangatira Maori has eclipsed the mana of Poroa over
the beach and to a large extent many of the lands adjacent to it. Poroa lived a long and prosperous life
dying of old age at about 1830.

Upon the death of Poroa the leadership of Te Rarawa passed to Panakareao, one of his nephews and
prodigy. Panakareao and others from Te Rarawa signed the 1835 Declaration of Independence
signifying their allegiance to the notion of national sovereignty. He also maintained his ability to
undertake military campaigns and in doing so at Oruru against his cousin Pororua, Panakareao
established his own identity and prominence as the paramount chief of Te Rarawa.
Prior to the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi the Reverend Richard Taylor approached Panakareao with a
plea for the remnant members of Te Aupouri to have a permanent home. Since their defeat by Poroa
they had remained transient with no sanctioned residence in any particular place.
Panakareao refused to sanction the allocation of land to Te Aupouri because he considered they had
already lost by conquest any manawhenua they may have possessed as an iwi. However on being
pressed he offered to grant Taylor land and if Taylor felt so inclined, he could settle the Aupouri on his
land. Taylor took up the offer to establish the lands in the far north as Taylors Grant
The other redeeming circumstances for Te Aupouri were that their eponymous ancestor Te Ikanui,
married two Ariki women of Kurahaupo descent. Although he never survived to live among his iwi in the
far north, Te Aupouri has nevertheless maintained a strong presence through the blood lines of these
women. This was also supplemented by Te Aupouris own pre iwi ancestry, which also linked them to
the Kurahaupo waka. However their stated iwi waka is the Mamari which made landfall at South
Hokianga. Waimirirangi, an ancestor that they revere, lived in Hokianga and through her ten children
became an early ancestor for the whole region long before the iwi of Te Aupouri were created.
Thus the unique combination of historical histories and events has created in Te Aupouri an iwi whose
waka landed on the south side of Hokianga with ancestry that weaves its way into the fabric of Te
Rarawa and historical occupation rights that have been short-lived and usurped on several occasions.
Today it is their Kurahaupo ancestry that enables them to claim tangata whenua interests in Te Hiku o
Te Ika not their Mamari ancestry. In recent history, Te Aupouri have re vitalised their presence. Acting,
7

as an iwi through a reliance on that ancestry but equally through asserting themselves in leadership
roles, relegating for generations the pre-eminence of the other Kurahaupo groups who have
continuously occupied the area since Pohurihanga, and who now call themselves Ngati Kuri.
The consolidation of the Aupouri iwi presence on the peninsular also included the enveloping of their
close relatives Ngai Takoto who until very recently were affiliated to Te Aupouri, making them the only
recognised iwi on the peninsular for many years.
The well known waiata of the 1930s (Ueoneone Ra) concerning the Tai Tokerau contains the following
verses indicating the prevailing beliefs of the time.
Waimirirangi ra Te Kuini o Ngapuhi
E noho ma na ki roto Hokianga
Nana I Kauhora
ki runga Tokerau
E rima nga iwi e
Ngapuhi, Te Rarawa me Ngati Whatua
E noho mai ra kei runga tamaki
Ka huri whakararo ki Ngati Kahu
Nui me Te Aupouri e.

It is clear from the wording of this waiata that our leaders of the time had converged the interests of
Ngati Kuri and Ngai Takoto under the persona of Te Aupouri, who over the last hundred or so years have
shown great skill and authority in progressing the affairs of the entire region. Eru Ihaka for example was
a senior statesman who had immense credibility amongst his peers, and this provided impetus and a
philosophical framework for Te Aupouri to assume a position of leadership. Whether they were able to
provide equitably for Ngati Kuri and Ngai Takoto in this role is another question, best answered by them.
However Ngai Takoto of today claim separate iwi status. This iwi status is not evident in Te Rarawa
history except as a branch of Te Aupouri which was the situation my generation grew up in. For this
reason we consider any interest that Ngai Takoto may have had on Te Oneroa-a-Tohe to be contained
within the Te Aupouri interest as determined by themselves. This is affirmed in the evidence given by
Hohepa Kanara in the 1956 beach case where he identifies himself as of Ngai Takoto, a hapu of Te
Aupouri. Our oral and written history contains no reciprocal relationship with Ngai Takoto as an iwi or
any reference to any Ngai Takoto ancestor whose mana over any part of the Te Oneroa-a-Tohe south of
Hukatere. We have always known and respected them by their motto which relates to their harbour
and home of Rangaunu. There is no questioning their ability to access and utilise the coast as a resource
but not the exercise of mana whenua/mana moana off Te Oneroa a Tohe this side of Hukatere. That has
been held by Te Rarawa since the time of Poroa, then Panakareao, Te Huhu, Te Ripi Puhipi, Te Morenga,
Waka Rangaunu, Rewi Ngapera whose descendants continue to occupy and use today. The pre
8

eminence of Te Rarawa in many arenas has never been challenged except by the advent of Pakeha law
and commerce. These have been the tools of change in our history, and are the subject of this very
submission.
The myth of the Honuhonu/ Ngapae boundary
Te Aupouri manawhenua in Te Hiku o Te Ika is determined by a number of factors, including ancestry,
occupation and perception. Having emerged from South Hokianga originally, in order to gain mana
whenua in Te Hiku, Te Aupouri needed to take it or be given it from already existing mana whenua hapu
and iwi.
This would prove impossible given the scenario of military defeats inflicted by Te Rarawa at several
battles between Whangape and Hukatere. There is not one historical account from either Te Rarawa or
Te Aupouri historians that attributes victory to Te Aupouri in any of these conflicts.
Perhaps the closest Te Aupouri came to victory on the beach was through the brilliance and prowess of
Te Houtaewa who succeeded in dispatching Te Rarawa toa as he escaped along the beach. A good
indicator of where his mana resided however, was that he actually lived with his people at Utia Paa,
Hukatere, many kilometres North of the Ngapae contended by Te Aupouri.
The incident concerning Te Houtaewa occurred at least five years after the battle at Honuhonu and yet
Te Aupouri had not established settlements South of Hukatere except inland through their Ngai Takoto
relatives.
The ongoing skirmishes between Te Rarawa and Te Aupouri were still continuing (as evidenced by the
kumara incident) and this adds strength to the assertion that no boundary line existed at a place called
Ngapae. The location of Ngapae is itself a contested issue with a number of different versions of the
location.
Thus the first question emerges; where is that line. Is there any korero whatsoever that specifically
indicates where the line is, obviously not because the line would have disappeared with six hours due to
the tide. Therefore the line as a boundary marker is highly questionable. It is not consistent with
tikanga, and even if it were, it would not be implemented during the heat of a battle by the imminently
victorious forces. It is more likely to be a strategy employed by a force who were staring defeat in the
eyes.
These are also the sort of circumstances where other examples of the use of a line can be found in
Maori Society. It usually occurred in a battle situation when an important member of the victorious,
who is closely connected to the vanquished, delineates a line which they can retreat behind, in order to
save their lives. It was a strategy designed to salvage a party from annihilation but required a member
of the opposition to initiate it.
The notion of a dividing line is actually more of a Pakeha whakaaro linked to mapping. Maori usually
utilised natural geographical features as markers, and in doing so, employed ritual and pronouncements
to implement it, it was not a hasty decision made in the full heat of the battle.
In the case of the battle at Ngapae all historians from each of the iwi agree that a battle between Te
Rarawa lead by Poroa did occur on the beach at Honuhonu/Ngapae ( notwithstanding its disputed
9

location) and that Te Aupouri suffered a resounding defeat resulting in their retreat northward
eventually arriving at Hukatere and occupying Utia Paa. There is also consensual agreement that in the
course of the battle the Aupouri rangatira Kaakaa became compromised and in order to preserve his
mana, Whangatautia (a woman) intervened, pleading with Poroa for the life of Kaakaa and the
remainder of Te Aupouri to be spared. Some historians say she drew the line on the beach and others
say it was Poroa. Aupouri historians have said that she was of Aupouri descent and that she was a niece
of Kaakaa. That is interesting. She was in fact a sister of Wharewhare, who was the first husband of Te
Marino who was the older sister of Poroa. This explains why she had the ability to intervene in the
battle and is consistent with the practice of someone of authority on the side of the victorious
demarking an area where the lives of the defeated could be spared. It is also highly improbable that
Poroa himself drew the line because he would have been acting as director general of his troops
maintaining an overview of the situation to ensure victory. All historians agree that the line was drawn
in the heat of the battle evidenced by the threat to Kaakaas life. In that context Poroa would have
needed to delegate that job to someone else to do. According to the oral histories contained within the
whanau of Whangatautia (who had no issue), it was she who drew the line mandated by Poroa who was
impressed with her passion for the pleading for Kaakaas life. Whangatauatias brother married Te
Marino and they had Te Morenga who had Te Kirihini Te Morenga who had Mereana, who had Hera
who had Maki who had Rapata who had Raiha who had the author of this submission. Thus our family
mana whenua is based at Ahipara nestled below the Mountain renamed Whangatauatia by Poroa whom
he took as a wife after the battle at Honuhonu. Whether it was Whangatauatia or not who drew the
line, it was drawn under the mana of Poroa and this explains why kaumatua from both Te Aupouri and
Te Rarawa refer to it as Poroas line and the alternative name of the beach Te One I Haea a Poroa.
Most kaumatua of both iwi do refer to the line as a dividing line between the two iwi and some go on to
refer to it as a boundary line. However logic defies this assertion. Boundary lines are not determined in
the heat of battle and when they are declared they are denoted by sacred markers that can continue to
be seen and identified by the people over time. In this case there was no marker except a line in the
sand that everybody must have known would not last more than six hours before the tide washed it out.
It is clear therefore that the line drawn at Ngapae under the mana of Poroa was in fact a lifeline and not
a boundary line as Aupouri contend. Given their imminent defeat and the plea for Kaakaa the question
is begged, how did they escape the decimation? The answer can only be that Whangatautia initiated a
lifesaving strategy that allowed them to retreat behind the line in order to survive the battle. It has been
during the intervening time that the boundary story has emerged as a credible explanation. However,
nowhere in the annals of world history concerning decisive battles, do we find the vanquished defining
the terms of the victor. It is ludicrous for Te Aupouri to contend that they are the appropriate voice to
be given to Poroas actions.
However, as I stated earlier Te Aupouri need to have manawhenua given to them because they were
unable to obtain it by conquest and Poroas line they call a boundary marker, is the only way it could
have been achieved. As a descendant of the Poroa dynasty I cannot accept such an assertion.
Our history records that the defeat of Te Aupouri at Honuhonu/Ngapae did not stop them from
continuing to challenge the mana of Poroa and over succeeding years continued to harry and get into
skirmishes with Te Rarawa people. This is a further indicator of an absence of a clear boundary line
which if existed would serve to mitigate ongoing conflict. Certainly Te Aupouri did not acknowledge any
line because Te Houtaewa for some years later invaded Te Rarawa kainga including the theft of kumara
from below the mountain of Whangatauatia where he gained notoriety.

10

Te Mutunga o Te Riri Ki Hukatere

This is the last of the battles on the beach and was a defining event in the history of Te Hiku o Te Ika. We
know the time of the event (in Gregorian calendar terms) because missionaries have recorded the visit
by Hongi Hika to Poroa and it was during his two week visit to his friend, relative and ally that the battle
at Hukatere occurred. Poroa and Hongi had already shared a long history of warfare together all over
the North Island and this is clearly recorded in writings and manuscripts that describe that epoch of New
Zealand history. The reason for the excursion to Hukatere according to Te Rarawa history was to end the
continuing challenges being made by Te Aupouri and in particular Te Houtaewa who openly opposed Te
Rarawa and Poroa. The presence of Hongi Hika was incidental but also proved crucial with the
possession of muskets. Muskets were not new to Poroa who was already familiar with their use and
effectiveness, as was Te Morenga who himself had already lead armed excursions to Hauraki and
Mercury Island. Te Aupouri historians have argued that it was in fact Hongi and therefore Ngapuhi that
took the Utia paa at Hukatere. However the history records without doubt that Poroa himself directed
the attack and Poroa himself determined the arrangements that were made after the defeat. Poroas
wife Ngarimu Hongi Hika was herself one of Hongis whanau as was her sister who married Hone Te Koni
the son in-law of Poroas youngest sister Te Ruakuru. Therefore the presence of Hongi is because of an
invitation from Poroa to participate. There was no issue of the time which would precipitate an attack by
Ngapuhi, and it is recorded in our histories that the Ngapuhi rangatira Pene Taui arranged with Te
Aupouri to fire a warning shot when Poroas war party became close. The fact that Pene Taui did indeed
fire that warning shot indicates that it was not a Ngapuhi raid. If it was, Hongi would have held him
accountable and he would have paid a price. But he did not, however when the Aupouri fled upon
hearing the shot he did lead the party which rounded them up from his home area in Whangaroa and
returned them to Te Wherowhero north of Hukatere. It was here that a number of rituals were
performed leading to the subjugation of Te Aupouri. These formalities were the nature of proceedings
undertaken when a defeat had occurred. They included the acquisition of mana, the demarcation of
ongoing interests and the arrangement of marriages between each of the parties. Perhaps the most
important of these arrangements was the marriage between Te Houtaewas sister Meringaroto and Te
Ripi (Puhipi) who represented the leading genealogies and whose descendants would possess a
genealogy which bound the two iwi together, albeit one of them in defeat. This was a way of preserving
the ongoing mana of the vanquished. Unfortunately Te Aupouri did not see it that way and what they
were unable to do physically, they did by using makutu to ensure that Meringaroto would remain
barren. Nevertheless Meringaroto lives on in the world famous whakatauaki, Hutia te rito o te harakeke,
kei hea te Komako e ko. Whakatairangatia rere ki uta, rere ki tai, mau e ui mai ki a au, he aha te mea nui
o te ao, maku e ki atu, he tangata, he tangata, he tangata.
These were the words spoken in the ritual of her betrothal to Te Ripi and some say were part of the
makutu to make her barren. Other marriages were determined by Poroa mainly between the ancient
hapu Ngati Waiora (who had got caught up in the conflict with Aupouri who had come to live amongst
them at Ahipara.) and Te Rarawa rangatira living at Ahipara under the mana of Poroa. Te Ripis sister
was Ngapoura who had Ngahemo who had Unaiki who had Herepete, the father of the author of this
submission.
Even from this scanty summary of events that occurred along the beach, it can be discerned that the
final decisive battle at Hukatere was of much greater significance than the prior battle at Ngapae.
Besides the drawing of the lifeline by Whangatauatia, no other arrangements were made and the matter
became washed out with the next tide. Nor was any such boundary evident in the excursion to Hukatere
by Poroa. Except for the story about the line Ngapae is not even mentioned by our kaumatua in our
version of events.
11

Conclusion
It is extremely unfortunate that I am forced to advance the version of history that has been held in
written and oral form among our Te Rarawa repositories of knowledge since the time of Poroa.
Unfortunate because it is not helpful to a healthy ongoing relationship between our iwi in Te Hiku o Te
Ika. However it is no longer possible to remain silent while others claim over our mana, a full response is
required to give the respect due to our tupuna who both spilt and drew blood in these tragic
circumstances between these closely related people. I can only hope that understanding will prevail.
Obviously Te Rarawa claim and have always claimed that our iwi mana derived from the feats of Poroa
clearly demarcates our rohe boundary at Hukatere. More arguments could be made to go further but
this has been resisted by our kaumatua and we will continue to resist it. Since Poroa and then
Panakareao there has been no other iwi mana on the beach south of Hukatere and nor has the Utia Paa
ever been reoccupied by any iwi since. From Hukatere to Ahipara the descendants of Poroa, Te Ripi,
Patana, Te Morenga, Te Huhu, Waka Rangaunu and Rewi Ngapera have continued to reside and use the
beach uninterrupted since the time of Poroa. No tupuna or force has ever been gathered to challenge
this iwi mana since the events at Hukatere. Therefore in relation to the beach there is no question of our
ongoing insistence on this manawhenua status on behalf of Te Rarawa.
However, as Te Rarawa we are also very conscious of the inextricable affiliations between all of our iwi
and a contemporary requirement to continue to examine, explore and adapt our current circumstances
moving into our future. In this respect we have enjoyed and benefited from the developing relationship
between our respective iwi and in particular with Te Aupouri which makes this submission all the more
unfortunate. In the context of settling treaty grievances we have met with Te Aupouri and come to
understandings looking inland. For example, Te Rarawa have agreed to the Aupouri acquisition of Utia
Paa (Hukatere Hill) and in doing so acknowledged their position and status as a bona fide iwi of Te Hiku
o Te Ika. It also acknowledges their presence on the beach and the role they have played in relation to
kaitiakitanga. This is a significant concession by Te Rarawa given that Panakareao in his day considered it
totally inappropriate to accord them mana whenua status. Our decision recognises that there are now
indelible Aupouri footprints that exist on the peninsular and that in the mix of redress arrangements
within our treaty settlements; they have found their turangawaewae tuturu as descendants of Te Ikanui
and his two wives. This acknowledgement also extends to Ngai Takoto with whom we have agreed a
number of shared land arrangements, but once again we have not and cannot concede our iwi mana
whenua over the beach which is a well established historical fact. We have assumed that the Te Rarawa
and Te Aupouri evidence provided by kaumatua for the Ninety Mile Beach Claim in 1954 includes Ngai
Takoto interests and on the beach, but these interests do not provide them with separate iwi mana
whenua status. As their whakatauki indicates their mana whenua/mana moana has its source in the
Rangaunu Harbour. However their interests do include access and utilisation of the beach which they
have always enjoyed right into Ahipara on the basis of our whanaungatanga and we have never
questioned it. But from our perspective it does not amount to iwi mana whenua on the beach and there
is no evidence which can substantiate such an assertion since the time of Poroa. However, in recognition
of our ongoing relationship as Te Hiku Iwi, Te Rarawa has agreed to a joint management board over the
beach which includes all the iwi in Te Hiku including Ngati Kahu who, although lacking mana whenua
continue to enjoy and use the beach as a contemporary whanau resource.
Notwithstanding the sacrosanct nature of iwi mana whenua on the beach, Te Rarawa have strived to
make compromises inland in order to reflect the contemporary reality of our demographic
12

circumstances in the region. To achieve that we have been required to relinquish numerous interests
and rights, but we have embraced this as an opportunity to bring about unity of purpose, people and a
future that will provide for us all in the spirit of he tangata, he tangata, he tangata.
Kua marino te moana; haere mai ki te kaukau.

13