(1) The Affiliate (comprising the Iwi and Hapu of Te Arawa that are now affiliated to the Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa trust) traditionally operated as independent entities, coming together when prompted by common interests. Together they exercised customary interests within the approximately 1 150 000-acre area from the Bay of Plenty coast to the inland Rotorua lakes and into the interior to the Mamaku Ranges and Kaingaroa Forest. Other iwi and hapu also exercised customary interests within this area. The Affiliate engaged with the opportunities created by the arrival of Pakeha traders and missionaries in its rohe from the 1830s. By the late 1860s, however, few Pakeha had settled in the area, and the Affiliate still held almost all of its land in customary title:

(2) The Crown introduced the Native Land Court (the Court) into the central North Island in 1867, without consulting with the Affiliate, to convert customary title into title derived from the Crown. Some of the Affiliate engaged with the Court to gain secure titles to assist leasing of land and secure their lands against claims from other groups. Others objected to the Court. The Crown received complaints about the cost of hearings, survey charges, and applications initiated without the consent of other owners:

(3) From 1873, the Crown focused on the acquisition of Maori land to facilitate Pakeha settlement in the central North Island. The Crown was aware of widespread resistance to land sales among some of the Affiliate, and initially proposed to restrict negotiations mainly to the lease rather than the sale of land. By August 1874, the Crown had opened, but not completed, lease negotiations for almost 650 000 acres and purchase negotiations for almost 400 000 acres of land within the Affiliate area. In most cases it opened negotiations before the Court had determined owners. The Crown sought to secure land by making preliminary agreements with, and paying deposits to, sections of “recognised owners”. In some cases this bound the recipients into negotiations before the purchase price or rent had been agreed. The Crown generally did not pay rent on land it negotiated to lease until title had been determined. Between 1873 and 1877, the Crown suspended the operation of the Court over much of the land in which the Affiliate had interests, which delayed the finalisation of most negotiations:

(4) The Crown’s attempts to lease or purchase land brought a variety of responses from the Affiliate. Some of the Affiliate entered negotiations because they wanted to derive an income from their land. Others expressed unhappiness at the Crown’s approach and opposed negotiations. Some sought to maintain tribal control over land through tribal komiti (committees):

(5) In the 1880s, the Court adjudicated over much of the land in the area over which the Affiliate exercised customary interests, including many of the blocks the Crown had brought under negotiation in the 1870s. Land was generally awarded in individual interests, and the Crown could partition out the interests it had purchased from owners without gaining the agreement of other owners of the land. This enabled those individuals to deal with the land without reference to their iwi and hapu, making the land more susceptible to partition, fragmentation, and alienation, and contributing to the erosion of the traditional tribal structures of the Affiliate, which were based on collective tribal and hapu custodianship of land. Attending Court hearings, sometimes considerable distances from their kainga (homes), was costly for the Affiliate:

(6) During most of the 1870s–1890s, the Crown protected its negotiations from interference by using legislative provisions and proclamations to prevent private parties from negotiating for land over which it was negotiating. The Crown provided few reserves in lands purchased from the Affiliate during the 1870s–1890s. The combined effect of actions such as the use of payments for land before title was determined, aggressive purchase techniques employed on occasion by the Crown, and the use and implementation of monopoly powers over dealings in land meant that the Crown failed to actively protect the interests of the Affiliate in the land it wished to retain, leaving some of the Affiliate virtually landless:

(7) By the late 1920s, many Maori owned small, fragmented, and uneconomic interests in a number of blocks throughout their rohe as a result of individualisation and partition of land interests. The Crown attempted to resolve this by introducing consolidation schemes and providing funds for development schemes to utilise land. Landowners’ rights were significantly affected while their land was tied up in development schemes. The Affiliate placed land into over 25 development schemes between 1929 and the mid-1980s. By the early 1990s, most scheme lands in the Rotorua area had been released from Crown control. Some schemes were successful while others struggled to fulfil expectations:

(8) The Crown acquired lands of particular significance to the Affiliate through public works and scenery preservation legislation. In the nineteenth century, land was compulsorily acquired for public works purposes, including roading and railway. In the twentieth century, land was taken for internal communications, electricity generation, scenic reserves, forest plantation, and an aerodrome. Compensation was generally paid for the taking of lands. However, some Affiliate lands were used for roading purposes without compensation. Over time, through purchases and public works takings, the Affiliate lost ownership of some important geothermal lands and wahi tapu. The loss of these lands has impeded the ability of the Affiliate to exercise control over its taonga and wahi tapu and maintain and foster spiritual connections with those ancestral lands: