A History of the Aupōuri State Forest

Article Source: Wai 46, a report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal

The publication of Chapter 5 of Wai 46 has been made with approval from the Waitangi Tribunal Office on 11 July 2023. The below article has been exported from a provided PDF and so some errors exist including errors in the original article. Footnotes are at the end of this article.

To view the original report, including references, and index use the following download links:

Download Wai 46 M025 PDF

Download Wai 46 Index PDF

Wai 46 A History of the Aupōuri State Forest December 1999, chapter five

THE PARENGARENGA LEASE

A vital historical feature of the Aupōuri State Forest, with major Treaty implications, is that it became on 18 December 1969 a partnership between the Crown and Maori. In December 1969, the National government’s Minister of Forests, Maori Affairs, Lands and Valuation (Duncan McIntyre) signed an agreement that made approximately 16,000 acres of Maori land north of Te Arai Point an integral part of the ASF. It remains part of the ASF today, even though the Crown failed to persuade the Parengarenga owners to participate in the Juken Nissho cutting rights regime introduced in 1990. Today all production activity in the Maori-owned Parengarenga part of the ASF is directed by the Crown’s Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. During the 1990s the Maori owners consistently refused to sell their cutting rights to the company which bought those in the rest of the ASF.125 The title history of the Maori land within and adjacent to the ASF is summarised in Figure 2, ‘Parengarenga Land’. This map, and the associated chart, show how the bulk of the sandhill country along the Ninety Mile Beach was divided from the original 15,973-hectare Parengarenga Topu. Parengarenga A owners formed an incorporation by order of the Maori Land Court in 1965. Eventually, with two smaller areas (B2B and 3G) they leased a total of 6,722 ha. to the NZFS. 'Maori owners of the balance of the original Topu leased a 3,986 ha. area to private forestry companies in 1979, and the Crown took over control of what became known as Paua and Te Rangi, Stations (B3B, totaling 5,806 ha.) for pastoral development. Only in 1988 were these stations returned to full Maori ownership and control. The story of the negotiation of the NZFS Parengarenga lease is very much Treaty history. It is about Crown officials negotiating with Maori an agreement that would make the latter partners in the ASF. The founders of the lease were, unsurprisingly, the principal local founders of the ASF. According to NZFS files, Rikihana Etana met with Mick Sexton on 5 September 1962 ‘To discuss cooperation with his people during establishment of forest on the areas recently taken over’ by Maori Affairs and Lands and Survey for development purposes. Sexton reported to the Auckland Commissioner of Crown Lands that Etana ‘appeared to be in favour of long term leases of the sandhills. I [Sexton] made it clear to him that any land dealings must go through your [Lands] department’.126

Sexton’s motivation in getting Maori to be partners in the ASF was plain to see. Such a partnership was consistent with his assiduous promotion of the forest as ‘part of their community’.127 It was also necessary to plant trees on Maori land if the ASF was to grow to be the giant l00,000-acre forest Sexton planned earlier that year.128 A Maori Affairs officer, PJ Brewster, reported that at the annual meeting of Parengarenga owners on 23 October 1963 at Te Kao, the subject of forestry came up.

The Maori people were quite keen on the idea of utilising the more sandy parts for tree growing and the provisions of the Maori Purposes Act 1962, which provides for long-term leases of Maori lands for afforestation, were explained to them.

Brewster told the owners that he would convey their expression of interest to the NZFS.129 Poole ‘had a long discussion’ with Etana in Sexton’s presence on 5 November 1963regarding the sandhills of the Parengarenga development scheme. There forestry ‘would serve a treble purpose’. It would ‘give protection to farmlands, provide good employment for local labour 'and in the end bring a great deal to the district in the way of improved amenities and increased production’. Sexton recorded that in 1963 NZFS finances prevented ‘an early start to the work… to develop Aupōuri Forest [on Maori land] at a rate commensurate with its importance to the north’. He added that ‘I am sure this obstacle will soon be overcome’.130 Maori Affairs District Officer Keith Laurence wrote to Sexton in mid 1964 with knowledge of pathbreaking NZFS negotiations with Otakanini-Kaipara owners ‘for a long term lease up to 200 years on a profit sharing basis to be fixed by the Maori Land Court’. Laurence had also discussed with Etana his expectation that the NZFS would commence such negotiations at Parengarenga. Since the land was subject to Part XXIV of the Maori Affairs Act 1953, Laurence wrote, ‘it is probably best for our Department to handle the preliminary negotiations with you [NZFSI on behalf of the owners to be followed later by a general owners’ meeting at which both Departments [MA and NZFS] could be represented’.131 Sexton replied:

I am ready, at anytime, to start preliminary discussions on leasing and I suggest that on my next trip north, probably in June, I call in and see you at Whangarei.132

Sexton sent this correspondence with Laurence to NZFS Head Office with a note that, in his view:

There are several ways in which a lease for forestry purposes could be brought about. Mr Laurence[’]s suggestion appears to be the most satisfactory and I recommend that we follow the lead offered by him…133

Sexton had no difficulty in convincing his superior of the value of recruiting Maori as partners in the ASF. Director-General Poole immediately approved his proposal for ‘the continuation of negotiations for the lease of the sand dune part of the Parengarenga Block for afforestation as an addition to Aupōuri Forest’.134 Matiu Rata also supported the idea. He communicated a 3 June 1964 resolution of Te Kao residents requesting Forest Minister Gerard to allocate funds to allow the planting of the Parengarenga west dunes as early as 1965. This would ‘not only afford protection to the developed [grassed] areas [of the adjoining farms], but would also ensure employment for the local people who are in need of it’.135 Writing as secretary of the Aupōuri Maori Trust Board on 31 October 1964, Etana informed Gerard that Parengarenga owners had recently ‘unanimously resolved’ to lease 10,000 acres of dunes to the NZFS.

On behalf of the Elders and people of the Aupōuri tribe I have been requested to approach you or your representatives ... [to] come together to discuss and settle terms and conditions for a LEASE of the above sand block which would be to the benefit of both parties and the country as a whole.136

Sexton saw this an opportunity to remind Head Office of the 5 November 1963 Te Kao meeting between Lindsay Poole and Rikihana Etana. On that occasion, Poole pointed out to Etana that the Otakanini lease then under negotiation ‘would probably set the pattern for future leases of Maori land for forestry purposes’. Sexton had agreed to attend a forthcoming meeting of owners at Te Kao with Laurence, the Maori Affairs District Officer, to consider an incorporation resolution partly to facilitate forestry. Since, ‘it is in our interests to acquire the [dune] land by long term lease’, Sexton requested the Minister’s authority to proceed.137 Poole remembered his 1963 meeting with Etana at Te Kao. He recommended that Gerard authorise Sexton to attend the forthcoming meeting in Te Kao to consider incorporation in relation to leasing land for forestry.138 Gerard signed this letter(referred to in Poole’s 18 November memo) authorising Sexton to proceed in cooperation with Maori Affairs.139 The minutes of the November 1964 Parengarenga owners’ meeting reveal that Sexton had a very receptive audience. He compared Parengarenga favourably to Otakanini and Kawhia where owners:

had agreed after some lengthy discussions had taken place as to the terms and conditions of the lease. The final terms and conditions were that the land be leased for 100 years at a rental of sixpence per acre ...

Sexton told the meeting that NZFS Head Office, almost as he spoke, was working out a suitable profit sharing formula. Andrew Rollo, secretary of the Parengarenga Incorporation and Etana then requested that planting start no later than mid 1966, since the Parengarenga scheme workforce would otherwise have to be laid off. Sexton vowed to do his best to get Wellington to approve planting accordingly. Rollo’s resolution (carried unanimously while officials were excused) supported Sexton’s proposal that the NZFS lease the sand sections of Parengarenga Topu:

for a period of 100 years generally on the terms suggested ... Provided ... that work commence not later than the winter of 1966. Further that the owners be encouraged to incorporate as soon as possible... Further that the Forest Service be asked to make the maximum possible use of local labour.140

A few days later Sexton reported that ‘we have made a great deal of progress towards a long term lease of the sand hill portions of [Parengarenga] Topu’. He reminded his superiors in Wellington that the NZFS commenced marram planting at Otakanini in May 1964 only three days after the owners made a verbal commitment to signing an NZFS lease. He reported that the Otakanini situation had ‘immediate bearing’ on that at Parengarenga where there were ‘... some 10,000 acres and [the] ... owners wish to proceed with a lease for forestry purposes .. ’141 Sexton used the Otakanini lease proposal as the basis of all other NZFS lease negotiations with Maori owners. Although he first tendered this proposal in 1964, he found the Otakanini and Kawhia owners reluctant to sign despite the relatively generous terms offered. In his 1965 annual report, Sexton stated his disappointment:

that progress on the actual terms of the leases has been very slow. The lack of progress is a serious matter as far as Forest Service good will is concerned ... [It] will militate against ... further negotiations ... [and] will also serve to confirm the age old mistrust that the Maori holds in regard to land dealings with the pakeha, a mistrust that has very sound foundations in history.

He also referred to the ‘inherent reluctance of [Otakanini] Maori to part with land, however worthless’. He still looked forward to a successful conclusion of the Otakanini negotiations which he had personally managed from the beginning.142 Apparently, Sexton’s Otakanini experience led him to compile a ‘Draft NZFS procedural guide’ in either 1965 or 1966. Since this document formed the basis for the NZFS Parengarenga lease negotiations during 1966-1969, it is worth reproducing in summary form. This is the way it appears in typescript form:

LEASES FOR AFFORESTATION Items suggested for consideration where Forest Service

negotiates for Maori-owned Land

B General Terms l. Scheme to be restricted to afforestation except with consent of owners of land. 2. Working Plan agreed to be essential. 3. Term [duration] of lease. 4. Rights of renewal... 8. Costs of survey, legal costs etc. to be borne by lessor... 12. Land to be left in forested condition at the expiry of the lease (if so agreed) (See D4). 13. Lessor to be allowed access to land at reasonable times, subject to restriction during fire seasons. C. Rental provisions 1. Land rental to be 6d per acre until total annual rental is exceeded by (2) next. 2. Land rental to be (x) percentage of stumpage royalty from thinnings or clear fellings. 3. In appropriate cases (e.g. Otakanini Block and Woodhill Forest) lessees rental income may be commuted ... to a stabilised income by sharing in the annual income from the forest as a whole from the time that ... rental is exceeded by revenue from thinnings, in any case, not less than (15) years from date of lease . . 5. Calculations of stumpage royalty for rental shall be reviewed at agreed intervals… [emphasis added] 6. Either party may call for revision of rental 25 years after afforestation has commenced. . . 10. Lessee has the right to sub-lease land for social and commercial amenities where necessary to further the objects of the Working Plan, subject always to the principle outlined in (11) next 11. Whereas sharing stumpage revenue is the basis of land rental, it is agreed that where other forms of revenue arise from the leased land and contribute significantly to the profits of the enterprise, they are also a just charge for land rental; and the basis of sharing these additional revenues shall be subject to negotiation ... E Rates and Taxes 1. Lessee to indemnify lessor against liability arising from the land in respect of existing or future statutes, regulations, by-laws, etc. (This to exclude debts existing at date of lease)... F Miscellaneous provisions 3. Provision to be made for preservation of tribal areas of religious or historic significance to lessors...143

Joe Levy, Sexton’s immediate subordinate in Auckland during 1965-66 (and the man who first produced an ASF feasibility study in 1958), commented briefly on these guidelines. On B4, he wrote, ‘There should be no right of renewal. The Maori owners have already been offered the option of a termination & running down period...’ On Cl0: ‘I was emphatic that there should be no subleasing and referred specifically to the Otakanini Topu problem...’ He concluded that ‘Mr Morrison is fully in agreement [with the above] but represents a minority view in H.O...’144 According to Cecil Hood, some Head Office staff felt Sexton’s terms were too generous, but, to my knowledge, this criticism did not appear in the written record until August 1968.145 Sexton, on behalf of the NZFS, proposed for Parengarenga on 11 November 1966 a 99-year lease duration, a 6d per acre ‘peppercorn rental’ to be paid annually until production. Then owners would be paid 18.75% stumpage ‘calculated in accordance with the land classification shown in the attached schedule’. To guard against any ‘gross injustice’, he proposed that terms should be reviewed after 25 years.

[The 18.75%] could vary from year to year according to the acres cut and the yield per acre ... [and] this scheme can be adjusted so that the owners can share in the total stumpage from Aupōuri Forest and thus stabilise their income by receiving a more regular annual return.[emphasis added]

Sexton proposed a stumpage adjustment for Aupōuri based on equivalent acreage. The greater Aupōuri acreage (48,800:15,900 in 1966) entitled Parengarenga owners to 4.5% ‘of the total stumpage from Aupōuri Forest’. If Aupōuri expanded, this figure would adjust downwards, and ‘if the owners elect to exercise this option[,] the decision must be irrevocable’. He attached a ‘Land Classification of Parengarenga A, B, & 3G’ identifying three classes of land: Class I - 25% for areas requiring no marram planting; Class II - 20% for areas to be machine planted in marram; and, Class III - 15 % for areas too broken to be machine planted. Out of the total 15,900 acres, only 900 were considered Class I; 10,000were rated as Class II, and 5,000 acres were Class III. This produced the 18.75% stumpagefigure.146 Sexton believed he was offering the Parengarenga owners generous terms in November 1966. These terms were also essentially those the owners agreed to when they finally signed the lease in December 1969, but why did they take so long to sign? A University of Auckland sociologist, Ruth Nuttall, may provide part of the answer. She criticised this, and other similar, NZFS lease offers in her 1980 thesis. Nuttall argued that the leasing of forest-land on a stumpage percentage or royalty basis with only nominal annual payments short-changed Maori. Such arrangements clearly benefited the NZFS (the lessee) to a greater extent than they benefited the Maori land-owners. The stumpage percentage varied a great deal from 18.75% at Parengarenga, to30% at Otakanini. With the benefit of hindsight Nuttall was able to point out how subsequent arrangements also varied. The annual rental varied greatly from 5 cents per acre agreed to at Parengarenga and at Otakanini (both in 1969), to the 72c/acre later negotiated with the NZFS at Pouto (on the Kaipara North Head). The May 1979 Alex Harvey Industries lease for Parengarenga B3C(negotiated in competition with Northern Pulp) got the owners better terms than those obtained by the same Parengarenga Incorporation from the NZFS a decade earlier. The private lease of the B3C area east of Te Kao got Parengarenga owners a stumpage percentage of 20% (compared to the NZFS’s 18.75%); and 10 years rent paid in advance ($20,000 or 25c/acre), compared to the NZFS’s ‘peppercorn’ 5 cents paid annually (ie. not in advance).147 They also got a 75-year duration for the area east of Te Kao, and a 45-year term out of Northern Pulp for a smaller 813 hectare area (also within Parengarenga B3C) north of the village.148 Soon after receiving Sexton’s offer in November 1966, Bruce Thorne, the Whangarei- based Parengarenga solicitor, drafted lease documents totalling 16 legal size pages. Again, this document differs in only minor respects from that signed three years later. It is reproduced in summary form below. At the beginning of the document a preamble stated:

1 THE Owners agree to Lease and the Minister agrees to take on lease the said land upon the terms and conditions set out 2 THAT the Minister with all due diligence will at his own expense cause such survey plans as are necessary... to enable the proposed lease to be registered ... in the Land Transfer Office ... 3 THE Owners will obtain the consent of the Board of Maori Affairs to the proposed leasing.

The bulk of the document took the form of an attached ‘Memorandum of Lease’ which I have summarised as follows:

WHEREAS I THE PROPRIETORS OF PARENGARENGA A ... are registered proprietors of an estate in fee simple... II the said land is both liable to be and is injuriously affected by sand drift and the Owners desire that HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN acting by and through the Minister of Forests ... shall manage and protect a forest or forests there on ... III the Owners and Minister have agreed ... [to] a rental deferred... until substantial profits from the forestry operations on the said land are available ... NOW THEREFORE the Owners DO HEREBY LEASE unto the Minister the surface of the said land and the trees timber and other forest products now or hereafter established and grown on the said land for a term calculated from and including the 1st day of July 1966 and expiring on the 30th day of June 2065

AND I THE MINISTER HEREBYCOVENANTS WITH THE OWNERS AS FOLLOWS: 1. THAT the Minister shall pay the Owners the following ... rental ... (a) ... 5 cents per acre ...paid [annually beginning 30 June 1967] . . (b) ... after receipts for ...first marketable thinnings ... a rent or royalty of l8¾% of the stumpage amount received by the Minister from the sale of any timber ... 4. THAT the Minister:- (a) AT his own expense shall with due diligence stabilise the sand on the said land . .. with marram lupin or other such plants ... (b) AT his own expense shall establish manage and protect a forest thereon in accordance with sound forestry principles ... as will produce a high regular and sustainable yield of marketable forest products ... [including] within three years of .. clear cutting[’the Minister shall’] restock through seeding or planting ... [and] the Minister shall ... commence the planting of trees not later than the 31st‘day of August 1970 and shall plant them at the rate of not less than one thousand acres per annum from commencement ...

(e) Will prepare an initial management plan ... [for] the [Management] Committee... [by 30] June 1970 ... and will during the term of this Lease furnish revised Management plans at intervals of not greater than ten years ... (f) Shall keep accurate records of the ... utilisation of forest products ... and the [Management] Committee ... or [its] representatives have the right to examine the said records.

7. THAT the Minister shall not ... assign sublet or part with possession of said land… 8. THAT the Minister shall .. . pay and discharge all rates, taxes, charges (incl. electric power charges) and assessments (other than the Owners’ Land Tax) ... in respect of the said land ... 12.(a) That if during the carrying out of the objects of this Lease ... any human bones are discovered[,] such discovery shall be notified as soon as possible to the [Management Committee] Secretary ... who shall give the Owners the opportunity to reinter those bones ... [which] shall be treated with respect and ... with all due reverence for their interim safety and custody. (b) That if during the carrying out of the objects of this Lease ... any Maori artifacts are discovered[,] such discovery shall be notified as soon as possible to the [Management Committee] Secretary ... Such artifacts shall belong to the Owners but the Minister shall retain custody of them and take reasonable care of them and retain them in the district in which the said land is situated... (c) Where any such human bones or artifacts have been discovered and the Owners have not reached ... any decision to take custody thereof within two years ... the Minister shall be at liberty to hand over such things to any other appropriate authority chosen by the Minister as bailee thereof. /4. NOTWITHSTANDING the provisions of this Lease the Owners and the Minister hereby agree ... (a) That ... approx. 3 acres ... marked ‘Roimata Wahitapu’ ... shall be known as ‘the burial ground’. (b) That ... approx. 14 acres ... marked ’Beach Camping Ground’ . . . shall be known as ‘the camping ground’.

(c) That the Minister shall not plant trees, erect buildings or otherwise permanently prevent the use of the burial ground or the camping ground by the Owners ... (d) That the Minister shall use his best endeavour to keep the burial grounds protected by marram grass or some similarly effective agent ...

(e) That the Minister shall permit ... the Owners to have access by foot to the burial ground ... (f) That the ... Owners may use the camping ground at all reasonable times ... II AND THE OWNERSHEREBY COVENANT WITH THE MINISTER as follows: 15. THAT... that the Minister shall have and enjoy full quiet and undisturbed occupation of the said land ... III AND IT IS HEREBY MUTUALLY AGREEDDECLARED AND COVENANTED: 17. (a)... the Owners may by notice in writing to the Minister given ... at any time after… [31] March 1994 and before … [31] March 1998 resume … portions of the said land not exceeding 100 acres in total … in a locality adjacent to the sea coast … PROVIDED ALWAYS that if at the time of such resumption there are upon the land growing forest trees[,] such trees shall be valued at the then market rates therefor and the Owners shall pay to the Minister 81¼ per cent of the value thereof ... 23. THAT the Committee shall be at liberty ... at all reasonable times to enter upon [and inspect the Minister’s fulfilment of his obligations in respect of] the said lands ... 28. SHOULD either party be unable to perform its obligations ... either party may apply to the other for a termination ...If the other shall not agree to such a termination[,] the terms thereof ... shall be settled by reference to arbitration ... 30. THE MINISTER shall pay the legal costs of the Owners’ Solicitors of preparation and execution of these presents… [at] the scale ... set by the New Zealand Law Society …149

Bruce Thorne proved to be an exceptionally committed Parengarenga solicitor, because he immediately put his clients in touch with those who assisted Otakanini owners during their protracted negotiations with the NZFS. Keith Laurence, the Maori Affairs District Officer in Whangarei, also helped establish contact between Otakanini and Parengarenga owners. Laurence contacted WC Ward, the Forester who advised the Otakanini owners, and Thorne also sought the advice of BH (Bernie) Clark of the Auckland law firm of Earl Kent, solicitors for the Otakanini incorporation.150 Laurence, however, had an official interest in ensuring a successful outcome to the lease negotiations. He was an ex officio member of the Parengarenga Incorporation’s Management Committee because the Crown was the majority shareholder in the Incorporation. He wrote, in February 1967:

The Board of Maori Affairs decided that as the Crown was the major shareholder in the block, Parengarenga A should not be released under Part XXIV of the Maori Affairs Act 1953. It would be very unlikely that the individual owners would have any objection to [this] provided they are actively associated with the terms of the partnership with the NZ Forest Service for afforestation of the area [emphasis added].

Laurence discussed the Crown’s majority shareholding with Sexton. He suggested to the owners that they seek Ward’s advice on the NZFS offer that they ’share in the whole of the Aupōuri Forest and not just Parengarenga A [emphasis added]’.151 Laurence, therefore, saw the lease as a partnership; but he also saw it as one in which the Crown was the senior, or majority, partner. Under Part XXIV, the Crown could manage the whole 16,000 acre area without consulting the owners in anything except a nominal way.152 Thorne immediately took exception to this situation, which he believed subordinated the interests of the Maori owners who he believed to be his sole clients in the Parengarenga Incorporation. Thorne, in a 15 February letter to Laurence, stated that if Parengarenga A remained ‘under the Department [per Part XXIV], then the Incorporation in fact scarcely manages its own affairs and is a rather empty organisation’. He believed the Crown’s representation on the Management Committee allowed it sufficient supervision of Incorporation affairs. The only ‘justification for continuing to have the land under part XXIV’, he concluded, would be the repayment of outstanding debts.153 Thorne reminded Laurence on 31 May 1967 of his clients’ dissatisfaction with the land continuing to be subject to Part XXIV. He asked him:

will the Board of Maori Affairs now release the block from part XXIV, or is there a debt still charged upon the block, or does the Board of Maori Affairs propose to pay the expenses of the Committee of Management by this means?154

To this, Laurence replied:

The Board [of Maori Affairs] has not considered financing the expenses of the Committee of Management. It seems a most doubtful proposition.155

Thorne would not take this for an answer. On 6 June he asked Laurence how he thought the Maori owners could meet their fencing, travel, consultancy, legal and accounting expenses without income.

Otherwise the [Management] Committee ... is virtually committing a criminal offence by incurring credit without there being any prospect of payment of the accounts being incurred. We do not refer to this problem lightheartedly. There seems to us to be no reason why the Board of Maori Affairs should not be prevailed upon to treat such expenses as part of the cost of development ... for forestry purposes. If the Board is not prepared to cover such expenses, surely it is reasonable to release the land from Part XXIV, so that the Committee ... can use it as security for a loan from other sources to cover such expenses.156

Laurence, and his successors in Maori Affairs, failed to resolve the issue of Crown control either before the signing of the lease, or after.157

Sexton, notwithstanding this Crown subordination of Maori interests, continued to believe he was offering the owners generous terms. He may not have known about Maori dissatisfaction about their minority partnership role, or, if he knew, he may have thought that the good will of people like himself would solve the problem. In August 1967 he forwarded to Thorne the Otakanini draft agreement which he thought ‘will serve as a suitable basis for discussions on the Parengarenga lease’.158 A Northern Advocate article the same month headlined ‘Profit-sharing forest project in Far North’ reported Sexton’s optimistic meeting with the Aupōuri Trust Board in Te Kao. It reported that the NZFS had already begun constructing a Te Kao headquarters (over two years before the lease was finally signed). The Advocate reported that:

The plan is for a 99-year lease with profit-sharing on stumpage between the service and the Aupōuri tribal owners ... it will mean stability of work in the district ... and additional money in the Far North. It will tie in with the Aupōuri State Forest covering most of the balance of the Ninety Mile Beach dunes . . Mr Sexton forsees an export role for Aupōuri. The world shortage of timber is not decreasing, and there is a tremendous market in Asia.159

Meanwhile, Thorne sought professional advice on how he could improve the NZFS lease terms. He revealed to forestry consultant WC Ward that Sexton had provided the Parengarenga owners copies of the draft Otakanini agreement. He wished to know Ward’s advice on the terms Sexton had offered Parengarenga.160 The man who advised Otakanini on the lease terms offered by the NZFS, recommended that Parengarenga retain the services of the Taupo-based forestry firm of Groome Poyry to inspect the Parengarenga offer. At Otakanini Ward believed that a 25% stumpage rate would have given the owners ‘a reasonable return’, but they eventually got a ‘whopping’ 30%.161 Although Groome Poyry found the NZFS Parengarenga proposals to be generally fair, they suggested that land classification be reviewed (and stumpage adjusted) annually. Once marram was established, for example, Class II land should become Class I. Such reclassification would result in progressive stumpage rate increases.162 The NZFS later agreed to a deferred reclassification clause. Generally, however, the NZFS refused to improve its 1966 terms, perhaps because in August 1968 the first official criticism of the generosity of Sexton’s 1966 offer surfaced in Wellington. WJ Wendelken from Head Office criticised the following lease terms. He wrote:

1. The royalty percentage at 18.75 over 15,900 acres ... is in my opinion too high... [This is because] most of the 16,000 acres is raw sand ... [some of which] will be given over to stunted protection forestry... 3. I am puzzled as to how the Crown’s interest (10/l7ths of the block) will be protected when percentage payments are made on stumpage realised...

Presumably, Wendelken anticipated owner pressure that profits should be shared only among the Maori minority shareholders. He then commented on each section of Sexton’s proposal as follows:

(iii) [Re stumpagel The Maori block must be worked in conjunction with the whole Aupōuri Forest but separate accounts must be kept for respective parts ... (vii) I consider this a particularly important problem to be tied up rigidly before finalising any agreement. According to the Otakanini Topu draft there are conditions concerning the timing of resumptions, the recovery of the economic value of any trees felled ... and so on ... I would like to see clauses to cover the recovery of the cost of any protection work ... and finally the Crown should have the first right of acquisition ... (x) We would normally attend to the preservation of artifacts but if the Maoris wish these especially stated there is no objection. (xi) ... the owners should be responsible for marking and fencing off a burial ground... I assume [that] the Forest Service would be responsible for seeing that its particular conditions are not violated.

AD McKinnon in a marginal note on Wendelken’s memo stated: ‘I agree generally with the tenor of your comment[s] …’163 This Head Office criticism of Sexton’s generosity appears to have militated against Parengarenga owners getting better terms during the protracted negotiations of 1966-1969. After August 1968 Sexton held firm on the original 1966 offer. On 11 October that year he informed Thorne of his agreement with Incorporation Secretary Andrew Rollo regarding the location of roading, a 3-acre beach reserve, and ‘the Wharetapu’ (to be marked by Rollo or another representative in Ogle’s presence). Sexton insisted that, in accordance with the existing terms of the proposed lease: ‘The area to be resumed by the owners at a future date is not to exceed 100 acres in extent’.164 In his 1967 and 1968 annual reports, Sexton expressed frustration over the unwillingness of Maori to settle their leases on the concessionary terms he had offered them several years earlier. In 1967 he wrote:

It is unfortunate that with protracted delays in the finalisation of lease agreements for Maori land some impatience should become apparent on the part of the owners. Work on sand fixation on all three areas of Parengarenga, Otakanini-Topu and Tainui-Kawhia has proceeded without interruption, a factor which has served to confirm the bona fides of the Forest service. Nevertheless as I stated in my report of two years ago it is essential that negotiations be finalised without further delay. … 165

Then, in his 1968 annual Auckland Conservator’s report he wrote:

The Otakanini Topu lease is at last ready for signature after several years of negotiation. The stage is now set for relatively rapid progress with Tainui-Kawhia and Parengarenga, and in due course Pouto. These leases will bring into forest production some 25,000 acres of Maori land that would otherwise lie idle.166

In fact, much to Sexton’s disappointment, the Parengarenga lease was not signed until 18 December 1969 (the last month of his long and distinguished Forest Service career).His pride and joy, the Otakanini lease, was not signed until 9 September 1969, while the Kawhia, and Pouto leases were signed in 1977, long after his retirement from the NZFS on 31 December 1969.167 During 1969 both parties negotiated without making any significant variations to the 1966 proposal. Director-General Poole was prepared to yield to the owners on their land reclassification and related stumpage revision proposal.168 Thorne was inclined to press for better terms, but the Otakanini solicitors told him that their clients ‘had a remarkably good deal’, and that the Parengarenga owners could not expect further Crown concessions.169 The Parengarenga owners gradually became resigned to the fact that Bruce Thorne had got about as much as he could get out of the Crown for them. The 18 December1969 Parengarenga lease signing ceremony was a highly memorable occasion. The Herald reported the lease agreement as a ‘profit sharing’ one between the NZFS and ‘the owners, the Parengarenga Maori Incorporation’. The Herald also reported the NZFS’s contractual obligation to begin planting trees by 31 August 1970, and to continue planting at a rate of 1,000 acres per annum thereafter.170 The more detailed Northland Age (Kaitaia) report featured a dramatic headline: ‘MINISTERPAYS THE FIRST $2000 OF $2 MILLION’. It described how Duncan McIntyre handed the Parengarenga Incorporation the first two and a half years’ rent of $2302.50. According to the Age reporter, the NZFS estimated that the ‘owners will in time receive more than $150,000a year, and from the first crop a total of $2 million …’ The Age gave Maori speakers better coverage than the Herald. It reported how Hemi Manuera spoke of how depressed the community had been during the 1930s, partly as a result of poor roads. He remarked that McIntyre had wisely flown to Te Kao, because the North Road was still unsealed. Andrew Rollo indicated how many of the original shareholders at Parengarenga lost their shares to the Crown. He appealed to the Minister to allow these people to buy them back. McIntyre then stated that the Aupōuri working plan for the entire forest (both Crown and Maori land) aimed to protect land, to create an integrated forest products industry for both local and overseas markets, to provide local employment, and to develop recreational amenities. He maintained that the forest would allow Te Kao to diversify into stock raising, fish farming, and (with improved roading) tourism. According to the Age, he concluded the ceremony saying:

You will have light industry, sawmill sand a paper mill will follow. You will not have to ask the Government for money in future —we will borrow it from you. Iam confident in your future and wish Te Aupōuri well. Today we sign the lease - you have planted the seed and I will help the tree grow 171

Sexton’s more sober file note recorded that Aupōuri elders presented McIntyre with a ‘stone axe’, a gift of ‘very great significance ...’. The hakari following was enjoyed by Laurence and Lewin (representing Maori Affairs); Judge Nicholson (of the Maori Land Court); AH Watt (Te Kao Schoolmaster for almost 50 years), Logan Sloane MP, and Millie Srhoj (as Chairman of the Mangonui County Council). According to Sexton, McIntyre concluded the ceremony by talking ‘about the big incomes’ Te Kao people could expect. He ‘then produced out of the hat a cheque for $2,300 and laid it on the table’.172 The signing of the Parengarenga lease was Sexton’s last hurrah in the Forest Service. The ceremony evoked much goodwill, but problems remained to be solved. The main one was, of course, the majority Crown shareholding. Thorne informed the Maori Trustee less than two months after the signing that the Parengarenga owners wished to regain control of the Crown shares. He proposed to do this either by former shareholders purchasing these shares at market value, or by the Incorporation repurchasing them. He also asked the Trustee to explain how the Crown came to acquire its majority shareholding in the first place.173 Bryce Henry, the Maori Affairs Assistant District Officer in Whangarei during1970, failed to answer this question. Instead, he chose to scold Thorne about how the Management Committee had neglected to invite the District Officer to recent meetings. Henry wrote, in March 1970, under the heading ‘The Proprietors of Parengarenga A — Shares held by the Crown’:

You will be aware that the Crown owns 19735 shares out of a total of 32610 shares [60.5%] and because of this, the District Officer for the time being is a member of the Committee of Management.

The Committee had held several meetings to which the District Officer had not been invited, and the resolutions passed therefore represented the wishes of ‘minority shareholders’. The Committee’s meetings‘ should in future be conducted on a more formal and proper basis’

There is no question of the Crown being opposed to divesting itself of its shares, but I do think it time that it was recognised that the District Officer is a member of the Committee of Management [end].174

In reply to Henry’s rebuke, Thorne wrote that the Committee’s failure to invite the District Officer to its meetings was an oversight due to lack of procedural awareness.175 He did not comment on Henry’s failure to explain the origins of the majority Crown shareholding. Thorne also questioned the NZFS solicitor in Wellington about the data on financial returns to Parengarenga owners that Minister McIntyre had quoted at the December 1969 lease signing ceremony. Burst (NZFS Solicitor) recalled that McIntyre:

indicated that in [from?] a period of about 30 years [c.2000?] an acre of leased land was estimated to produce 8,000 cubic feet of wood. This, he said, meant that the Owners should receive up to $150,000 a year, and a total of over $2,000,000 from the first crop.

On that basis [Buist calculated], the total yield over 99 years would be -

First 30 years [1966-1996]      $2,000,000
Next 69 years @ $150,000        10,350,000
Total for 99 years              $12,350,000
Annual average                  124,747 176

These were projections which may have made the owners even more anxious to secure the return of Crown shares. If the Crown retained its 60% shareholding, it would earn $74,848, and the approximately 168 Maori owners would earn only $49,898 per annum. Local Forest Service officers were evidently unaware of the implications of this majority shareholder situation. RC Lloyd, a District Ranger, in examining Auckland Conservancy files during 1971, discovered that the Crown not only owned an estimated 10/17 of the total Parengarenga shares, but that the NZFS and Maori Affairs, together, had a 92.28% ‘interest in the [Parengarenga] tree crop’. Broken down into percentages, this was NZFS 81.25% and Maori Affairs 11.03%. Why then, he asked, did the Crown pay rent for 15,900 acres when it owned the equivalent of 9,350 acres of this total area?177 JE (Jim) Lewin, the Maori Affairs District Officer in Whangarei, explained the history of the Crown’s interest at Parengarenga to the NZFS. The Crown acquired shares (by both uneconomic interests and live-buying means) both before and during the partitioning of the 39,468 acre Parengarenga Topu during the 1950s. Lewin believed that these shares would not yield significant forest dividends during the 1966-1996 planting period when the Incorporation needed all the rental income to cover its operating expenses. In his view:

One cannot say with any certainty what will be the ultimate fate of the Crown’s shares in the Incorporation. It might well be that Maoris may yet settle this land on the termination of the 99-year lease to Forestry. It might well be that the Board of Maori Affairs would be prepared to sell these shares back to the Corporate Body.

He concluded by making ‘one point quite clear. The Crown’s share is not land. It is a share in the assets of the Incorporation’. Lewin admitted that ‘the principal asset of the Incorporation is land’. He nevertheless wanted the Forest Service to understand that the Crown could not partition its interests in the land at Parengarenga.178 KW Prior, writing for new Auckland Conservator GM (Mick) O’Neill, forwarded Lewin’s explanation of the status of Crown shareholding to Lloyd, urging him to discuss the matter further with Lewin.179 The Forest Service needed to be reminded of its obligations under the Parengarenga lease. In August 1970 Ogle reminded Conservator O’Nei11(Sexton’s successor) that according to clause 4 (e) of the Parengarenga lease, the NZFS had to prepare an initial management plan for the Maori-owned part of ASF by 30 June 1970. He asked O’Neill: ‘Has this been prepared?’180 The answer was probably no, but Ogle’s question apparently produced the desired result. Justas the Forest Service had trouble meeting its obligations, so did the Maori Affairs department. Maori Affairs, in 1974, had difficulty advising Koro Wetere MP on how to answer a constituent’s request for basic historical background on the Parengarenga lease. The Maori Affairs draft reply stated that the leased land ‘was placed under Part XXIV/53’, but failed to say when. This reply also assumed, erroneously, that Maori Affairs probably initiated the lease negotiations.181 Even when Matiu Rata, Minister of Maori Affairs, had this researched in Wellington, the official history produced was decidedly patchy. Maori Affairs staff discovered a letter from HH Matiu to Tirakatene ‘dated 5 May 1947’, and another from Rikihana Etana to Hanan ‘dated 11 April 1961 on forestry in the Far North. They believed that the original 339,500-acre Parengarenga Topu’ had been amalgamated and put under a Part XXIV development scheme in 1955 and 1956. Otherwise, the Maori Affairs account of the origins of the ASF was quite misleading.182

Thorne, the Parengarenga solicitor, continued to remind the Crown of his clients’desire to recover majority ownership throughout the first decade of the lease. When the Forest Service valued their improvements at Parengarenga at $29,335 in 1972, Thorne expressed two concerns to the Maori Affairs District Officer Lewin. The first was that the NZFS had failed to reveal the method used to calculate value. The second concern was that by increasing the value of Parengarenga shares, it would discourage ‘former owners’ from repurchasing them from the Crown.183 In an internal memo in response to Thorne’s letter, Lewin virtually conceded the apparent injustice. He admitted that former owners believed that ‘they were induced to’ sell their shares becausethey ‘were told the Crown would not undertake development unless it owned morethan half the shares.’ Lewin believed these people were misinformed, but understood why they believed what they were told (apparently by other owners). 184 During 1973, the Deputy Secretary of Maori Affairs agreed in principle to allow former owners to repurchase Crown shares at a mutually agreed upon price.185 When Henry succeeded Lewin as District Officer in 1974 little further progress occurred in negotiations between owners and the Crown. Henry insisted on a strict interpretation of the terms of 1966 Maori Land Court orders regarding the costs of roading at Parengarenga. These orders made the Crown not liable for compensating owners for land taken for forestry roads.186 He also refused to adjust the annual rental paid to Maori to the rate of inflation.187 In 1975 the Parengarenga Incorporation offered the Crown a price of two cents a share for the repurchase of the majority shareholding. The Incorporation Secretary, Andrew Rollo, said that this offer was the ‘equivalent to a price ... of $4.00 per acre, which is several times the cost of the sand-dunes at the time the Crown acquired [Parengarenga] land interests…’ 188 The Crown refused to entertain this offer until a new valuation of Parengarenga assets could be prepared. When the valuation matter was referred in 1977 to a Maori Affairs officer in Kaitaia, he reported that he was ‘unable to present a workable suggestion on how Incorporation shares’ could be valued. On the other hand, he believed ‘that their current worth is minimal and speculative only.’189 When the matter was referred to the Valuation department the following year, however, the Senior District Valuer in Whangareivalued the ‘Lessor’s(ie. Incorporation) Interest’at $42,000.He also valued ‘the land exclusive of improvement’ at $250,000.190 On the basis of this new valuation the Management Committee raised its offer to the Crown from two cents to seven cents per share. The Crown accepted this new 1977 offer, but the Parengarenga shareholders then voted to rejectit at their following Annual General meeting. They voted, instead, an offer of four cents per share. The Crown failed to respond until Rollo appealed to the Minister of Forests and Maori Affairs, Ben Couch, in 1982. Rollo gave Couch a history of the Crown’s involvement at Parengarenga. He calculated that when the Crown acquired its shares during the 1950s, it did so at a cost of less than one cent per share. The four cents offer, therefore, represented ‘a return in excess of 800% on the Crown’s initial investment’. Rollo argued that the Crown ‘deprived’ 1,243 former owners ‘of their land heritage’ by its compulsory acquisition of their ‘uneconomic shares’ under the 1953 Act. This left only 168 owners with any shares. He appealed:

Sir[,] another three years have elapsed, and we feel that extreme urgency should be given to our submission of four cents per share.191

Only a week later, Tom Parore, the Director of Maori Affairs in Whangarei (1977-87), announced a new Crown policy proposal regarding the return of shares. He indicated to the Incorporation Management Committee that both Couch and Prime Minister Muldoon supported this ‘proposal:

A Land acquired by ‘live buying’ - to be offered back at present market value. B. Land used in conjunction with Maori land—to be offered at ‘cost plus interest’. C. Land acquired as ‘uneconomic interests’—to be offered back at ‘present market value’.

The Committee agreed to A and B, ‘but they were unanimous in their opinion that C was totally unreasonable and unjust’. They resolved that Rollo should ‘write to Sir Graham Latimer seeking his support to have the policy regarding “uneconomic interests” reconsidered.’ Latimer had spoken in support of the compassionate return of compulsorily acquired Crown shares at Waitangi on 6 February 1983.192 Despite the Muldoon government’s adherence to its Tu Tangata (Stand Tall) policy, and despite Tom Parore’s vigorous advocacy of that policy as Tai Tokerau Director of Maori Affairs from 1977-1987, the Crown stuck to a policy on compulsorily acquired shares that the Parengarenga owners regarded as ‘totally unreasonable and unjust’.193 Rollo stated this very clearly in a 17 December 1982 letter on ‘uneconomic interests’ to Prime Minister Muldoon, and the Board of Maori Affairs, led by Sir Graham Latimer, also refused to accept the Crown policy. Nonetheless, offering back compulsorily acquired Crown shares ‘at market rates’ remained Crown policy.194 The Management Committee resolved on 10 November 1983 to urge Parore to formulate ‘a case for the return of all Crown shares in Parengarenga’.195 The Parengarenga chairman, Etana Nathan, reported in January 1984 that the Crown’s policy on the return of its shares ‘was universally rejected...’ Instead, the owners sought ‘a meeting with the Prime Minister, Minister of Lands and Minister of Maori Affairs (possibly at Waitangi in March [1984]) in a final attempt to solve this problem’.196 At its AGM that month, the owners instructed the Management Committee to:

concentrate all its efforts on the return to Maori ownership of the Crown shares in the whole of the original Parengarenga Development Block.197

Parore had every reason to support the owners on the return of compulsorily acquired Crown shares. His Department’s April 1984 manifesto, entitled Kia Kokiri, and subtitled: ‘Proposals for Progress of the Maori People of Taitokerau’, pledged Maori Affairs to share ‘power and responsibility’ with ‘the community it serves’.198 This Maori Affairs manifesto advocated ‘strong affirmative programmes’ to promote Maori ‘social, cultural and economic development’, based explicitly on Treaty of Waitangi principles. Kia Kokiri recognised that Taitokerau Maori could deliver development only through their own organisations (such as the Parengarenga Incorporation).199 On the subject of leased Maori land (such as at Parengarenga), Kia Kokiri stated the Maori Affairs commitment to ‘return leased land to occupation by owners for the benefit of owners’, and to assist owners in a ‘comprehensive review’ of the terms of their leases ‘with a view to renegotiation …’ to ensure that the leased land benefited the owners.200 On forestry, again, Maori Affairs committed itself to assist owners in obtaining ‘the maximum benefit’ in any arrangements either with the NZFS, or with private companies. On the owners’ desire to reduce the duration of existing forestry leases, Kia Kokiri was unequivocal:

[Forestry leases [should] be short term (one rotation) to enable all development options to be considered by the next generation. While forestry companies would prefer longer terms they have now accepted the principle of one rotation leases, and the New Zealand Forest Service is the only part of the forest industry which has not done so. The attitude of the Forest Service must be changed if the Maori people are to have the realistic options open to them.201

Although Kia Kokiri generally avoided the thorny subject of the return of Crown shares, its emphasis on Maori community control was a positive way of advocating the cause of the owners (including those at Parengarenga). Maori Affairs pledged ‘to ensure that within a reasonable and acceptable time all suitable Maori land and its forests are owned, managed and worked by Maori people within an appropriate Maori management structure as an integral part of the Northland forestryindustry’.202

Kia Kokiri essentially pledged that the Crown would honour Treaty commitments to Taitokerau Maori. On the question of the return of compulsorily acquired Crown shares in Maori Incorporations, the Crown’s previously announced policy was entirely at odds with such commitments. The owners’ outrage over the Crown’s failure to exhibit fairness in the dying days of the Muldoon government, sparked further protest over the concessionary terms regarding the duration of the 1969 lease. Sexton had insisted on the 99—year duration throughout the 1960s negotiations at both Parengarenga and Otakanini. He argued successfully that without security of tenure, the Crown could not invest in large-scale afforestation. While Parengarenga owners agreed to this (albeit reluctantly) in 1969, by 1984 they had come to recognise that they had given the Crown too much. 203 Taitokerau Maori continued to give the Crown what Nuttall regarded as too much leeway in forest land negotiations throughout the 1970s. This was primarily because during the 1970s Northland suffered ‘the highest unemployment rate of any region’. In Nuttall’s words, it was ‘a region marked by rural depopulation and demographically unbalanced age structures’.204 In her l980 thesis, she described how the 1978 Northland Regional Resources Survey [NRRS] promoted forestry development. The NRRS predicted that 190,000 hectares(ha.) would be planted between 1971-1995.205 Another factor influencing Taitokerau Maori to offer overly generous terms to the NZFS and private forestry companies was their relative landlessness. By 1977 only 135,600 ha. (335,000 acres) of Maori land remained in Northland. Thus, 11% of the Northland land area was in Maori ownership (although 20% of this was leased), while 25% of Northland’s population was Maori.206 Relative landlessness significantly reduced Maori bargaining power in forestry negotiations. Nuttall noted that although sales of Taitokerau Maori land decreased during the 1970s,leasing increased from about 10 million ha. in 1976 to over 30 million in 1979.

This increase in leasing is very closely linked to the expansion of exotic forestry in Northland, and indeed leasing was deliberately introduced as a means of gaining access to Maori land, since its owners were so reluctant to sell.207

By 1980 the NZFS had established concessionary long-term leases at Parengarenga A and 3G (6,722 ha.); Pouto 2F (1,392 ha.); and Otakinini Topu (668 ha.). Private competitors with the NZFS, however, had granted Maori better terms. Northern Pulp had leased 4,000 ha. from the TeHapua 42 [later the Muriwhenua] Incorporation, while Alex Harvey Industries (AHI) leased 3,279 ha. from Parengarenga Incorporation east of Te Kao. The May 1979 AHI lease for Parengarenga B3C (negotiated in competition with Northern Pulp) got the owners a stumpage percentage of 20%, and 10 years rent paid in advance ($20,000 or 25c/acre). AHI, therefore, gave the Parengarenga owners better terms than the NZFS had a decade earlier.208 AHI were able to concede a 75-year lease duration in contrast to the NZFS 99-year formula. Nuttall argued that the long duration of the NZFS leases conveyed effective ownership of the land to the lessees, almost in perpetuity. In her words:

. . this necessarily cuts across some aspects of the traditional importance of land to the Maori people. The removal of land for 2-4 generations into the control of profit-making enterprises and the Crown is not likely to enhance the bonds of the people with the land.209

Nuttall also made a strong case that during the 1960s and 70s, Maori lessors were disadvantaged in not knowing the kind of forestry production planned, and its impact on their future royalty income. On this score, the NZFS may have served lessors better than the private companies. The NZFS usually planned to export logs which returned three or four times the revenue of private company pulpwood. According to Nuttall, the Department of Maori Affairs misinformed lessors in 1979 that an 18% (sawlog) and 25% (pulpwood) stumpage royalty would equalise revenue.210 Employment creation formed the major justification for forestry schemes among public (NZFS) and private company promoters. Yet forestry employment created in the Far North fell well short of the original projections.211 Nuttall cited Roper’s 1978 study of comparative state-sponsored land development, which found that, in the Mangonui County, Lands and Survey spent more per hectare on its schemes than did the NZFS. The NZFS spent only $58.15 per hectare at Parengarenga, compared to Lands and Survey’s $68.17 per hectare in its land development schemes (including Paua and Te Rangi Stations, eventually returned to Parengarenga owners in 1988).212 Nuttall concluded her 1980 critique of Northland forestry development based on leasing Maori land with a rejection of the ‘mutual-benefit-agreement’ position of the NZFS and private companies:

… the obstacles to Maori land development remain, and in fact force the alienation of land so that someone else can carry out its development. Until positive moves are made to assist the owner- development of Maori land, particularly in the provision of capital and sufficient reliable, expert advice; the afforestation of Maori land must be seen as another stage in the continuing alienation ofMaori land [emphasisin original].213

Although few Maori had an opportunity to familiarise themselves with Nuttall’s critique of forestry leases, the Crown’s unwillingness to return shares on fair terms encouraged them to assert their interests more vigorously duringthe 1980s. 214 In 1984 the Parengarenga Management Committee braced itself for a struggle to end the concessionary terms the Crown had enjoyed during the 60s and 70s. It resolved:

THAT this Committee ... do all in its power to have the 99 year term of its lease with the NZ Forest Service reduced and also look into the possibility of an annual rental based on a lower stumpagerate.215

One hopeful sign appearing in the dying days of the Muldoon National government was the support offered to Parengarenga by both Tom Parore and Sir Graham Latimer. By April 1984, Parore was vigorously supporting the owners, and so was Latimer, especially in his capacity as a leading member of the Board of Maori Affairs.216 The concessionary Parengarenga terms were not set in stone. The Muldoon government had also initiated the process that led to the demise of the NZFS in 1987. This process helped stimulate community concerns about the future of forestry on the Aupōuri Peninsula. The next chapter will, therefore, review the extent of community involvement in the operation of the entire ASF, including the Maori-owned Te Kao division, prior to 1987.

The Parengarenga lease needs to be seen as a product of its time. The terms Sexton originally offered the Maori owners during the 1960s appeared to be generous from the Crown’s perspective. The 99-year duration of the lease also appeared to represent the long-term commitment of the NZFS, which certainly appealed to Maori. As economic circumstances changed with the entry of private competitors into the forestry market during the 1970s, the terms of the 1969 lease suffered by comparison with new private leases. The key question for Maori, however, was the Crown’s apparent unwillingness to vacate its majority shareholding position at Parengarenga. This sullied the forestry partnership between Maori and the Crown, because it appeared to deny Maori the equality they sought in that partnership.

Footnotes

125	​Jesse Everitt, Oral history interview (12 July 1999); Peter Gorman (Min. of Agriculture and Forestry), personal communication (29 June 1999). I am indebted to both Jesse and Peter for this information.
126	AN Sexton to Auckland CCL 13 Sept. 1962, BAOY 4229/41a
127	​Sexton, Aupōuri Forest, p. 4
128	​AN Sexton (Auckland Conservator) to Head Office 22 March 1962, F 6/1/187; NZFS Auckland Conservancy, ‘Annual Report for the year ended 31 March 1962', BBAX 1502/1b
129	​PJ Brewster (Acting District Officer, Maori Affairs) to Sexton 6 Nov. 1963, F 6/1/187
130	Sexton to District Officer, Maori Affairs, Whangarei 13 Nov. 1963, BAOY 4229/41a
131	K Laurence (Dist. Officer, Maori Affairs, Whangarei) to Sexton S May 1964, F 6/1/187
132	Sexton to Laurence 25 May 1964, F 6/1/187
133	Sexton to HO 25 May 1964 [typed on a copy of the above], F 6/1/187
134	Poole to Sexton 3 June 1964, F 6/1/187
135	Matiu Rata MP to Gerard 10 June 1964, F 6/t/187
136	R Etana to Gerard 31 Oct. 1964, F 6/1/187
137	Sexton to HO 10 Nov. 1964, F 6/1/187
138	Poole to Minister 18 Nov. 1964, F 6/1/187
139	​Gerard to Etana 19 Nov. 1964, F 6/1/187
140	Minutes of Parengarenga Topu Owners’ meeting 24 Nov. 1964, encl. in HT Waetford to Rikihana Etana 30 Nov. 1964, Parengarenga A Incorporation records, Te Kao
141	Sexton memo to HO 18 May 1965, Parengarenga Incorp. records
142	NZFS Auckland Conservancy, ‘Annual Report for the year ended 31 March 1965’, BBAX 1502/1d
143	Draft NZFS procedural guide nd., BAOY 4229/33a
144	JWL[evy] memo [on above] 9 Nov. 1966, BAOY 4229/33a
145	Wendelken, ‘PARENGARENGA LEASE’ memo, 18 Aug. 1968, BAOY 4229/41a; Cecil Hood, pers. comm.1 July 1999. Cecil heard frequent mention of Sexton’s ‘excessive’ generosity at Head Office during his long NZFS career from 1973 until 1987. I wish to thank Cecil for his frank discussions with me on this, and other 'touchy’ subjects.
146	Sexton to Thorne & Dallas (Parengarenga solicitors) 11 Nov. 1966, Parengarenga Incorp, records
147	Ruth Nuttall, ‘Land for the Forests: a Shadow for the People’ MA thesis, Sociology, University of Auckland 1980 pp. 221-223
148	Parengarenga Incorporation submission (presented to Hon Koro Wetere at Waitangi) 2 Feb. 1985, MLC/Wh 4/2/12
149	Draft ’Agreement for Lease of Parengarenga A and B2B Blocks’, Thorne & Dallas, Solicitors, Whangarei, Parengarenga Incorp. records
150	File note 18 Jan. 1967, Parengarenga Incorp. records
151	K Laurence (MA District Officer) to Thorne & Dallas 10 Feb. 1967, Parengarenga Incorp. records
152	On the Crown’s management of the Parengarenga development scheme, see David Alexander, ’Consolidation and Development in Muriwhenua’ (Wai 45, QI) pp. 349-382
153	Thorne & Dallas to District Officer 15 Feb. 1967, Parengarenga Incorp. records
154	Thorne & Dallas to District Officer 31 May 1967, Parengarenga Incorp. records
155	K Laurence to Thorne & Dallas 2 June 1967, Parengarenga Incorp. records
156	Thorne & Dallas to District Officer 6 June 1967, Parengarenga Incorp. records
157	Even today the Crown retains a substantial shareholding in the Parengarenga Incorporation. Anne Herbert (former Incorporation secretary) pers. comm. 28 July 1999
158	AN Sexton to Thorne & Dallas 4 Aug. 1967, Parengarenga Incorp. records
159	Northern Advocate 21 August 1967, Parengarenga Incorp. records
160	Thorne & Dallas to WC Ward 26 Oct. 1967, Parengarenga Incorp. records
161	WC Ward to Thorne & Dallas 29 Oct. 1967, Parengarenga Incorp. records
162	PC Crequer for JG Groome & Associates (Forestry Consultants, Taupo) to Thorne & Dallas 18 March 1968, Parengarenga Incorp. records
163	WJ Wendelken, ‘PARENGARENGA LEASE’ memo 9 August 1968, BAOY 4229/41a
164	Sexton to Dallas & Thorne 1 Nov. 1968, Parengarenga Incorp. records
165	NZFS Auckland Conservancy, Ann. Report for the year ended 31 March 1967, BBAX 1502/1e
166	NZFS Auckland Conservancy, Ann. Report for the year ended 31 March 1968, BBAX 1502/l f
167	Peter Gorman, pers. comm. 22 October 1999
168	AL Poole (Director-General) to Thorne & Dallas 25 July 1969, Parengarenga Incorp. records
169	AC Rattray (of Earl, Kent, Massey, Palmer & Hamer) to BC Thorne 14 April 1969, Parengarenga Incorp. records
170	New Zealand Herald 19 Dec 1969, BAOY 4229/41a
171	Northland Age 19 Dec. 1969, Parengarenga Incorp. records
172	Sexton file note 19 Dec. 1969, BAOY 4229/41a
173	Thorne & Dallas to Maori Trustee 10 Feb. 1970, Parengarenga Incorp. records
174	Asst. District Officer MA (TB Henry) to Thorne & Dallas 1 l March 1970, Parengarenga Incorp. records

175	Thorne to TB Henry 12 March 1970, Parengarenga Incorp. records
176	Although the lease was signed in 1969, its duration began in 1966 and ended in 2065. M Burst to Thorne & Dallas 24 March 1970, M Buist to Thorne & Dallas 24 March 1970, Parengarenga Incorp. records
177	RC Lloyd (Kaikohe) to Auckland 19 Jan. 1971, BAOY 4229/41a
178	JE Lewin (DO, MA) to Auckland Conservator S Feb. 1971, BAOY 4229/41a
179	KW Prior to Kaikohe 16 Feb. 1971, BAOY 4229/41a
180	Ogle to Auckland Conservator [GM O’Neill] 17 August 1970, BAOY 4229/41a
181	Pia Karena Ihaka to KT Wetere 15 May 1974; GD Fouhy (Asst. DO, MA) draft reply 25 June 1974, Maori Land Court, Whangarei [hereafter MLC/Wh] 4f2/12
182	Rata to Wetere 22 July 1974, MLC/Wh 4f2/12
183	Thorne to Lewin (DO, MA), 16 Oct. 1972, MLC/Wh 4/2/12
184	Lewin memo, 11 Dec. 1972, MLC/Wh 4/2/12
185	Thorne to Lewin 25 July 1973; IW Apperley (Dep. Sec. MA, Wellington) to Lewin 19 Oct. 1973, MLC/Wh 4/2/12
186	Henry to Rollo (Sec., Parengarenga Incorp.) 4 November 1974, MLC/Wh 4/2/12
187	Henry to Rollo 12 November 1974, MLC/Wh 4/2/12. The NZFS also refused to increase the annual rental in 1975. PJ Berg to DO, MA, 7 March 1975, MLC/Wh 4/2/12
188	Rollo to Henry 3 April 1975, MLC/Wh 4/2/12
189	DB Kennedy (Dist. MA Field Officer, Kaitaia) to Whangarei 23 March 1977, MLC/Wh 4/2/12
190	LT O’Keefe to Registrar, MLC 30 March 1978, MLC/Wh 4/2/12
191	Rollo to Couch 19 October 1982; Tom Parore file note 19 Oct. 1982, MLC/Wh 4/2/12
192	Parengarenga Management committee minutes 7 April 1983, MLC/Wh 4/2/12; Sir Graham Latimer, pers comm. 23 Sept. 1999
193	Tom Parore, Oral history interview (13 July 1999)
194	Couch to Rollo 7 June 1983, MLC/Wh 4/2/12; Sir Graham Latimer, pers. comm. 23 Sept. 1999
195	Parengarenga Management committee minutes 10 Nov. 1983, MLC/Wh 4/2/12
196	Parengarenga A & B3C Trust, Chairman’s report [presented on 7 Jan. 1984], MLC/Wh 4/2/12
197	Parengarenga Incorp. Annual General Meeting minutes, 7 Jan. 1984, MLC/Wh 4/2/12
198	T Parore, ‘Preface’, Kia Kokiri, Dept. of Maori Affairs, Whangarei, 1984, p. 4
199	Maori Affairs, Kia Kokiri, p. 5
200	Maori Affairs, Kia Kokiri, p. 14
201	Maori Affairs, Kia Kokiri, pp. l5-16
202	Maori Affairs, Kia Kokiri, pp. 17-18
203	Nuttall, Land for the Forests, pp. 1-2, 7-8, 130-131
204	Nuttall, Land for the Forests, p. 167
205	Northland Regional Development. Council and Northland Regional Planning Authority, Northland Regional Resources Survey (Whangarei 1978) p. 148; cited in Nuttall, Land for the Forests, pp. 173- 174, 179-189
206	Nuttall, Land for the Forests, pp. 201, 210-211
207	See Fig. 22: Nuttall, Land for the Forests, pp. 212-214
208	See Fig. 23: Nuttall, Land for the Forests, pp. 217, 223. Note that Nuttall's financial data is not inflation adjusted.
209	Nuttall, Land for the Forests, p. 220
210	Department of Maori Affairs, Afforestation on Maori Land (1978); cited in Nuttall, Land for the Forests, p. 224
211	See Northern Pulp Ltd, Report to Te Hapua 42 Incorporation 1978); cited in Nuttall, Land for the Forests, pp. 228, 231
212	RE Roper, ‘Data collected for a study of alternative land uses in Mangonui County, Northland’, Forest Research Institute, Rotorua 1978; cited in Nuttall, Land for the Forests, p. 233
213	Nuttall, Land for the Forests, p. 238
214	Even Nuttall's ‘hero’, Graham Alexander (the man who forced Carters to over the Ngati Hine Forest Trust better terms), had not read her thesis when I gave him my summary of it in July 1999. Graham Alexander, Oral history interview (13 July 1999). Graham won a celebrated case in the Auckland Supreme Court, with Mr Justice Mahon presiding, in July 1978.
215	Parengarenga Management committee minutes 28 Feb. 1983, MLC/Wh 4/2/12
216	Tom Parore, File notes 5 April 1984, MLC/Wh 4/2/12, Oral history interview (13 July 1999); Sir Graham Latimer, pers. comm. 23 Sept. 1999