Ohau Post Office, Ohau

The land for the Ohau Post was discussed by the Waitangi Tribunal as shown in the following extract from pages 319-321 of Waitangi Tribunal research document: Chapter 12 Horowhenua County 1885-1970 - (online at http://www.waitangi-tribunal.govt.nz/doclibrary/public/researchwhanui/district/12/Chapt12.pdf):

'In 1921, to give another example, the Crown gazetted the intention of taking an acre of Muhunoa 1B2B, for the purpose of building a post office. Muhunoa 1B2B was a block of 500 acres. It belonged to Hemi Ropata Te Ao, and had been leased to a Pakeha farmer. Apparently Te Ao had originally offered to sell the acre in question, but had then withdrawn the offer before the purchase could be made. When the Crown advised him that it intended to acquire the land anyway, Te Ao objected, on the ground that removing the acre in question would ruin the block. He offered land he owned on the other side of the road.

The Chief Postmaster inspected the two sites, and reported that he preferred the original location. It was sunnier, while the alterative site was low-lying and would require filling before it could be built on. None of the land in question was suitable for agriculture. He described it as third-grade grazing land. For this reason he felt that the suggestion that the larger block would be depreciated in value if the one acre section were to be cut out of it need not be given serious consideration. In addition, the land had been leased out for 21 years, and the leaseholder had no objection to the land being taken.

The official verdict was that Te Ao’s objection was not well-grounded, and that any loss sustained could be met by way of compensation. Te Ao was informed accordingly. The required proclamation was made, and the matter of compensation referred to the Native Land Court.

In November G Halliday, a land purchase officer, wrote to Te Ao to tell him that he (Halliday) would be attending the court sitting at Levin, to ask the judge to settle the compensation. He asked if he could meet with Hemi beforehand, and talk things over. The original asking price had been £100, and Halliday indicated the department was willing to settle for that amount. Te Ao apparently was not, and the matter went before the judge.

Halliday subsequently informed his superiors that compensation had been fixed after an on-site inspection by the judge, and in the absence of any evidence from the landowner, at £130 for Te Ao and £20 for the leaseholder. Halliday went on:

I was afterwards informed by the Judge himself that he had tossed a coin with the solicitor for the Natives to decide whether he would award £125 or £150. The whole proceeding was farcical, and I think the Minister should be approached to take steps to prevent a recurrence of such a method of disposing of public money. I consider this Judge’s last two awards (Porirua and this case) have cost the Department about a thousand pounds in additional compensation, an expenditure absolutely unwarranted, the Crown’s evidence in both cases being practically ignored. Unfortunately there is no appeal on the question of value.

The substance of Halliday’s report was passed onto the Minister, the Under-Secretary adding:

I understand in addition to the evidence in Mr Halliday’s report that after the case at Levin was over the Judge called upon the claimant to shout for the party, which was duly done.

The Minister’s reactions, if any, are not recorded. But the compensation, in the amount ordered, was eventually paid, the land surveyed, and the Ohau post office constructed.'

Related Items

• Ohau Post Office </ li>
• Ohau Post Office, view of rear </ li>
• Ohau Post Office </ li>