2.4 Hapu and their Territories

In this section, we locate the lands of the various Tauranga hapu. The territories we describe are those that seem to have been in existence at around 1865, before the outbreak of war with the Crown. We also relate these lands to three areas which will be discussed later in this report: the cms Te Papa blocks, the 50,000-acre confiscated block, and the Te Puna–Katikati blocks. Our identification of the territories of the hapu is based mainly on the evidence and submissions of the claimants themselves. There is some overlap between these territories, but as we explain below, this is common in Maori custom.

2.4.1 Maori customary land tenure

Professor Stokes summarised the broad principles of customary tenure at Tauranga in her response to questions submitted to her by Crown counsel. She argued that present-day hapu politics at Tauranga Moana are not necessarily the same as those of the 1860s, since some old hapu names are no longer used and ‘modern hapu focus on the present pattern of marae’. Stokes then explained that neither in the nineteenth century nor today were boundaries between hapu strictly delineated:

There were areas where various hapu belonged. These, like the high islands of Polynesia, comprised segments of coastal and harbour environments, cultivable areas and inland bush. There were also overlapping rights between and among hapu, which are related to the network of whakapapa and ancestral ties. There was no recognition of an individual alienable property right in Maori customary tenure of land, which can best be described as a system of overlapping and interlocking usufructuary rights derived from ancestry and long occupation. Any rights derived from conquest were reinforced by occupation and marriage, so that children inherited the whakapapa of those who had long occupied the land.²⁵

We endorse this description, which is consistent with the views of customary tenure advanced by the Tribunal in various reports.²⁶ The question of rights derived from conquest will be addressed further below.

As Stokes explained, hapu territories and interests in land should not be viewed in terms of state-like boundaries. We adopt the view stated by the Ngati Awa Tribunal that:

The question was not where the boundary lay between hapu but which hapu could access a particular resource at what time and for what purpose. Resources could thus be shared

25. Document m6, p 4

26. See particularly the following Waitangi Tribunal reports: Muriwhenua Land Report (Wellington: GP Publications, 1997), pp 14–15, 21–30; The Ngati Awa Raupatu Report (Wellington: Legislation Direct, 1999), pp 131–134; The Whanganui River Report (Wellington: Legislation Direct, 1999), pp 28–36; Rekohu: A Report on Moriori and Ngati Mutunga Claims in the Chatham Islands (Wellington: Legislation Direct, 2001), pp 138–142; and Te Whanganui a Tara me ona Takiwa: Report on the Wellington District (Wellington: Legislation Direct, 2003), pp 32–34.