Wayne Ryburn: The “Myth” of Gifting Land for the Founding of Auckland

The following complaint was sent to TV1News at 6 on 26^th Sept 2023 due to a news item that portrayed the so-called “gifting” of land for the establishment of Auckland in1840. No reference to the land purchasing process was mentioned in the news item.

Many media stories for several years now have been largely devoid of critical research due to ill-informed lazy journalism. Recently on the 19^th September 2023, printed media, television and radio all blithely allowed local Ngati Whatua o Oraikei to repeatedly claim that what is now downtown Auckland was gifted to the the new colonial government in 1840. Myth making now abounds with much of our history, primarily derived from the Waitangi Tribunal's deliberations, all from only a Maori perspective while other view-points are ignored or dismissed.

 

The Ngati Whatua claim that an “enduring bond “was made between the local Iwi and British settlers is simply a modern construct along the same lines as stating that the Treaty of Waitangi created a patnership in governing the country. It ignores that other iwi also had interests in the Auckland region.

 

The motives for local iwi to invite Hobson to move the capital of the fledgling colony from Russell to the Waitemata was not only for trade but most importantly to bring security to a tribe that had been almost decimated by the Musket Wars. It was done largely for protection from Ngapuhi in the north and Ngati Paoa in the south east. Ngati Whatua had only been in occupation of the isthmus for little more than 60 years following their invasion and defeat of the Waiohua.

 

Russell Stone, emeritus professor of history Auckland University and author of “From Tamaki Makarau to Auckland” 2001, in The NZ Herald June 19^th 2009, expressed that while chief Apihai Te Kawau invited Governor Hobson to come to the Waitemata, the land some 3000 acres, was not gifted but was in fact sold to the Crown. He told how John Logan Campbell recounted his meeting with the chief in late 1840. The chief had in his possession the sovereigns for the initial sale of the land. The total amount paid for the land was 341 pounds.

 

The myth now being constantly expounded by local iwi apparently came about from a lecture given by Sir Hugh Kawharu at Auckland War Memorial Museum in 2001, in which he made the comment that the land was gifted. But he added that this giving was “a version of the past from a Ngati Whatua perspective.” What actually took place is revealed below and comes from “Settlement by Sail” by author and artist Gainor W. Jackson in 1991.

 

On September 18^th 1840 newly arrived settlers aboard the “Platina” via Wellington, with others from the “Anna Watson”, and with about 100 Maori, witnessed the raising of the union flag over the new settlement of Auckland. Sarah Mathew, wife of Felton Mathew the government surveyor, would write in her diary that at 12;30 a party of government officials landed and proceeded to the height where the flagstaff was raised.The police magistrate, attended by his clerk and an interpreter, read the preamble. “That a certain portion of land was to be given to the government by certain chiefs, therein named, for a certain payment to be fixed hereafter, of which as earnest they were then and there to receive six sovereigns.” The three principal chiefs; (Te Reweti, Te Kawau, Tinana) then signed the agreement following discussion about the boundaries. The police magistrate and other officers also signed the agreement. More land would subsequently be purchased over time as Auckland grew.

 

The flag raising ceremony was marked by a 21 gun salute. “A boat race soon followed by sailors and a canoe race for the natives”.

 

The myth that land was given as a “gift” by Ngati Whatua for the founding of a new British settlement has been cemented in a new plaque provided by the Auckland Port company in 2017. That this took place with disregard to what really happened should have been condemned in the media. It's inexcusable that Auckland Council allowed this to happen, while failing to research its own origins.  This replaced the previous plaque that acknowledged the original 1840 purchase.

 

Ngati Whatua would also like Auckland's anniversary date to be changed to September 18^th instead of the present date on the 29th of January. This last date is related to Auckland's provincial anniversary day, which in turn was related to the arrival of Governor Hobson in the Bay of Islands on the same day January 29^th in 1840. Hobson declared a commemorative date in 1842 for the second anniversary of the establishment of the colony when Auckland was still its capital.  Hobson had prematurely proclaimed British sovereignty on the 30^th January 1840 the day after his arrival in The Bay of Islands. In 1842 the 30^th was on a Sunday and it was deemed  that it would be more appropriate for the anniversary date chosen for the founding of the colony of New Zealand to be held on the proceeding Saturday, the 29^thJan and it has remained  Auckland's anniversary day ever since. A failed attempt was made in 1894 by parliament to change the date to the 30^th January as the founding date for New Zealand. A more appropriate date would have been 21^stMay, when Hobson made his proclamation establishing British sovereignty.

 

The TVNZ Complaints Committee, rejected the complaint, claiming that both Balance and Accuracy had not been breached by the news item. This led to a further complaint that the original had not been satisfactorily answered. Referencing that only one perspective of the historical occasion was mentioned; that of Ngati Whatua, while the British perspective and account of events was completely ignored in the news item. The second complaint, much of which has been abbreviated, made the following pertinent points.

 

 The Waitangi Tribunal's report, Wai 9 1987, alludes to sharing land but the real intent by Hobson was to purchase the land for the settlement. Prof Russell Stone's well researched text on Auckland, mentioned earlier, states that the 1987 Report went against the hearings recorded at the Native Land Court for Orakei in 1868. “The tribe was prepared to sacrifice ownership for this particular land if that it would serve to induce the governor to settle beside the Waitemata.” The land sold was seen by chiefs as a small price to pay for the security that British settlement would bring and also with it, trade. Both Sarah Mathew and John Logan Campbell were witnesses to the events that took place on the 18^th Sept 1840 as recorded in their diaries.

 

Land around New Zealand was in the process of being purchased prior to 1840. Many Maori were aware that settlers would soon be living amongst them. Some had seen the advance of settlement in Australia and understood the impact that this would have on their cultural practices. British settlers would not have wanted to live under any form of feudal arrangements being imposed on them. Most wanted to develop a freer society that was more egalitarian than that of Britain.

 

Both perspectives on how Auckland became the capital for the new Crown Colony should have been expressed by the National Broadcaster TVNZ at the time. The failure to do so helps perpetuate the myth of land being “gifted” for the founding of Auckland, thus denying the truth of the land purchase. This approach to history is reminiscent of what took place in the former Soviet Union. Stalin had removed one of his former opponents from office, comrade Kamenev, in1925. Kamenev was also deleted from a photo taken in 1915 that showed he and Stalin together. Thus obliterating Kamenev from “official” Marxist History. Similarly “official” history in China now excludes the event that took place at Tiananmen Square when people were massacred during demonstrations in 1989.

 

The TVNZ complaints committee, ignoring the second complaint, suggested taking the matter to the Broadcasting Standards Authority, which was duly done. Alas the complaint met the same fate; the decision published on the 5^thMarch this year, claimed that the news item was not inaccurate and that the balance standard did not apply! Thus resulting in a lengthy discussion article featuring how balance and accuracy are no longer to be found in the presentation of New Zealand's History, by an increasingly biased left-leaning media. The full account of the BSA outcome 2023-104 can be accessed on their website.

Wayne Ryburn, an Auckland University graduate, with a thesis on the history of the Kaipara, has been a social science teacher for nearly 50 years.