recommended that printed notices be placed at prominent places in the domain drawing attention to the final date for removal of all buildings. The board acted on these recommendations. They also decided to make an example of two bach owners and warned them that any further breaches of the tenancy would result in the baches being removed.⁷⁸ On 28 April 1952 eviction notices were issued to these two tenants giving them three months to remove their baches.⁷⁹ The tenants ignored the notices. The Director-General of Lands suggested that the board follow up its eviction notices by prosecuting the tenants. He also suggested that notices be delivered to all tenants reminding them of the ministerial decision that all the buildings must be removed by 1957. These notices were to be receipted so that definite evidence was established that the ‘squatters’ knew of the Minister’s decision.

In October 1954 the Crown solicitor was instructed to again examine the situation and advise whether he thought successful legal action could be taken to remove the tenants. The issue was complicated by the fact that the baches themselves were the property of the tenants and any action by the Crown solicitor under the Tenancy Act would have to concentrate on the land that each bach occupied. Section 6 of the Act exempted ‘camp sites’ from the definition of property if they were let for six weeks or less. It was decided to persevere with the Tenancy Act and argue that, because these sites were let for periods in excess of six weeks, they should be regarded as property.

In 1956 the board attempted to negotiate with the tenants to arrange for the baches to be removed.⁸¹ This was unsuccessful, and the board went ahead with plans to make a road through the sand dimes to the beach at Anzac Bay, which was to be levelled for a temporary camping ground once the baches had been removed.⁸² In response the bach owners appointed a committee and a solicitor to protect their interests.

In a letter to the Minister of Lands, the solicitor argued that the tenants were not what was commonly regarded as ‘squatters who occupied the land without colour of right but were reputable citizens’ who were actively encouraged by the board to build ‘permanent holiday baches under the supervision and with the approval of such Board’.⁸³ He went on to state that the tenants had acted in good faith and that the board had failed to honour this faith. He also argued that they had invested time and money in their baches. The solicitor maintained that the notice issued in 1937 was unreasonable under the circumstances when the tenants, rather than the board, owned the baches. The letter said that the tenants’ representatives felt that they had been ignored by the board and would like the Minister to intervene on their behalf.⁸⁴ However, the Minister responded that he fully supported the removal of the tenants and their baches.⁸⁵

⁷⁸ Director-General of Lands to Minister of Lands, 1957, LS 3/2/40

⁷⁹ Ibid

⁸⁰ Crown Solicitor to Commissioner of Crown Lands, 30 June 1956, LS 3/2/40

⁸¹ Commissioner of Crown Lands to Director-General of Lands, 1 June 1956, LS 3/2/40

⁸² Secretary Katikati Domain Board, Development Plan, 1 November 1956, Katikati Domain Records, WBoPDC

⁸³ Foy and Ryan to Minister of Lands, 22 February 1957, LS 3/2/40 [pp 47-50]

⁸⁴ Ibid

⁸⁵ Minister of Lands to Foy and Ryan, 19 March 1957, LS 3/2/40