their right. Their position, as stated by their counsel in closing submissions, is that Ngati Tapu cannot be clearly characterised as a hapu of either Ngai Te Rangi or Ngati Ranginui to the exclusion of the other.⁵⁵

The situation of Ngati Tapu is a good illustration of the dangers of drawing a rigid distinction between Ngati Ranginui and Ngai Te Rangi. As Puhirake Ihaka of Ngati Tapu suggested, difficulties arise ‘if you attempt to translate the contemporary affiliations of hapu and iwi to the events that occurred in the 1860s. In those times the hapu was the main social and political unit and each hapu acted according to its own policies.’⁵⁶ This view is consistent with our own understanding, and we follow previous Tribunals in regarding the hapu as the unit exercising corporate functions on a daily basis.⁵⁷ It is not surprising, therefore, to find strong ties between hapu which affiliate with different iwi. These ties are based on proximity, ancient whakapapa links, and more recent intermarriage. For example, there are close connections between Ngati He and Nga Potiki (both of whom are Ngai Te Rangi), Ngati Pukenga, and Waitaha, all of whom live in the eastern part of our inquiry area. Similarly, there is a close relationship between the neighbouring hapu Ngai Te Ahi (of Ngati Ranginui) and Ngati He.

The division between Ngati Ranginui and Ngai Te Rangi requires particularly careful consideration. While this division has meaning for claimants today and certainly has some relevance to the nineteenth century, we reiterate that the hapu was the primary corporate unit, with wider iwi identities becoming important mainly in times of war or on other occasions which required the presentation of a united front to outsiders. As Professor Richard Boast argued in his report for Ngai Te Rangi, there is very little evidence of conflict between Ngai Te Rangi and Ngati Ranginui in the nineteenth century before the wars of the 1860s. Rather, he suggested, the impression that comes through in the available evidence is one of an ‘interconnected identity’ among Tauranga Maori, which includes a common alliance with Ngati Haua and a common enmity with Te Arawa and Marutuahu.⁵⁸ We agree with this description in general terms, although we add some qualifications. As noted above, common alliances and enmities were not always clear-cut. Also, while intermarriage between Maori groups at Tauranga Moana meant that those groups were all interrelated, it did not follow that they lost their distinct identities. It was in assuming that such interconnections meant that all Tauranga hapu had been subsumed under the common identity of Ngai Te Rangi (or ‘Ngaiterangi’, as they spelled it), that Crown officials in the 1860s and afterwards went astray.

In this respect, those officials were typical of Pakeha commentators throughout New Zealand, as historian Angela Ballara has shown. Ballara has argued persuasively that Pakeha

55. Document h12, pp 1–2; doc 124, pp 2–3; doc n3, p 2

56. Document 124, p 3

57. See the following Waitangi Tribunal Reports: Ngati Awa Raupatu Report, pp 13, 132–133; The Taranaki Report: Kaupapa Tuatahi (Wellington: GP Publications, 1996), p 1; Muriwhenua Land Report, pp 14–15; Te Whanau o Waipareira Report (Wellington: GP Publications, 1998), pp 17–18. See also Alan Ward, National Overview, 3 vols (Wellington: GP Publications, 1997), vol 2, pp 4–10.

58. Document 112, pp 93–96