had interests at Otumoetai. The interests of Te Whanau a Tauwhao were located on the islands of Tuhua, Rangiwaea, and Motiti, and on the mainland around Otawhiwhi and Tua- piro, and at Otumoetai. In giving evidence to the Tribunal, claimant Taiawa Kuka noted that Ngati Tauaiti are sometimes known as Ngati Makamaka and are closely related by descent to Ngai Tuwhiwhia and Ngai Tamawhariua – hapu with interests in areas that overlap with Ngati Tauaiti’s. Claimant Alan Bennett gave evidence on behalf of Te Whanau a Tauwhao and explained that it is really a confederation of several hapu, including Te Urangawera (who traditionally are associated with Tuhua), Te Ngare (who reside on Rangiwaea), and Te Papaunahi (who were the section of Te Whanau a Tauwhao that occupied Motiti).⁴⁴

Finally, we discuss several neighbouring groups whose predominant areas of interest lie outside our inquiry boundaries: the Marutuahu confederation; Ngati Haua; Ngati Hinerangi and Ngati Tokotoko; Ngati Raukawa; and Ngati Rangiwewehi. Of these groups, only the Marutuahu confederation is a claimant in this inquiry. As we noted in chapter 1, the confederation is made up of four Hauraki iwi. They have claimed as a group, so we are not required to distinguish between the interests of its constituent tribes. The confederation’s claims concern the Te Puna–Katikati purchase – it asserts that it has exclusive ‘mana whenua’ in the Katikati block and shared interests to Ongare and Uretara in the northern part of the Te Puna block, and that it has wahi tapu ‘located deep into the Te Puna Block’.⁴⁵ We accept that the confederation had interests in the Katikati block and the northern part of the Te Puna block, but we do not believe that its interests excluded other hapu from also having customary rights within any part of those blocks. We consider that the area was a contested zone, an area where the rights of the confederation overlapped with those of Ngai Te Rangi. The extent of each side’s rights was in dispute at 1840, and was still disputed in 1864 when the purchase of the Te Puna– Katikati blocks commenced. Moreover, as we have indicated above, we believe that assertions of exclusive interests and clear boundary lines between groups are not consistent with Maori custom. We also endorse the Rekohu Tribunal’s concerns about the use of the term ‘mana whenua’, particularly when it is used to assert that one group has exclusive authority within a particular area.⁴⁶ Maori custom was characterised by complex overlapping and intersecting interests, so that, in different circumstances, the interests of one group or another might be more significant. The concept of ‘mana whenua’ appears to be a nineteenth-century innovation, which confuses the personal or spiritual quality of mana with the distinct issue of rights to land. We discuss this distinction further in the next section, when we describe relationships between Tauranga hapu, and we discuss the rival claims more fully in chapter 7, which deals with the Crown’s purchase of the Te Puna–Katikati blocks.

Ngati Haua’s lands lay to the west of the Kaimai Range, but the iwi had very close ties with Ngati Ranginui and Ngai Te Rangi. They travelled regularly across the range on the Wairere

44. Document 119, pp 3–4; doc 123, pp 2–3; doc 130, pp 3–4; doc n6, pp 6–7; doc n18, pp 6–8; doc n19, p 5

45. Document n16, pp 20–21

46. Waitangi Tribunal, Rekohu, pp 28–29, 260–262