10 May: Bledisloe proposes categories, not seven fixed offices
In his 10 May 1932 letter to Prime Minister George Forbes, Lord Bledisloe said it would satisfy the donors if the Board “could include” appropriate Government members and representatives of Māori, the immediate locality, the South Island, and the Williams and Wakefield families. He said this would emphasise the national character of the memorial and help heal old controversies.
The same contemporary account said it was “proposed to include” those categories in the personnel of the Board. It also expressly recalled the 1834 flag gathering and the 1835 Declaration of Independence at Waitangi. But the letter did not set out the final seven clause 7 offices or name Te Rata Mahuta, Riri Maihi Kawiti or Tau Hēnare.
11 May: the Press Association gives a more detailed provisional structure
A Press Association report published the next day went further. It described Tau Hēnare by reference to the Northern Māori parliamentary seat; referred to one Māori member from outside North Auckland without naming Te Rata; described a South Island representative who could be either British/Pākehā or Māori, with Heaton Rhodes as the then person; and identified the Bay of Islands, Williams and Wakefield interests. The OCR of the northern signatory-family wording is imperfect, so that portion should not be relied on word-for-word without checking the newspaper image.
What matters is the structure: in May several positions were still described as offices, categories or current examples — not yet in the precise form that appears in the November deed.
18 November: the final deed crystallises the offices
The proved Schedule 1 deed executed on 18 November is much more exact. It converts the Māori and territorial categories into defined continuing capacities:
Tau Hēnare is no longer described as sitting because he is the Northern Māori MP. He is the representative of Māori living in the North Auckland Peninsula.
Te Rata Mahuta is named and given the much wider constituency of Māori living in the North Island south of Auckland.
Heaton Rhodes is not simply a South Island representative who happens to be Pākehā. His office expressly represents the people, Pākehā and Māori, living in the South Island.
Riri Maihi Kawiti is expressly chosen from the Hōne Heke, Maihi Kawiti, Tāmati Wāka Nene and Pōmare families.
The final deed then gives those offices continuity through its succession clause: a vacancy must be filled by somebody qualified for the same particular representative position.
December: Parliament ratifies rather than designs the architecture
The Bill was introduced by Governor-General's Message in early December. On 7 December the Lands Committee recommended that it proceed without amendment. In the House, members still debated whether Southern Māori, the Opposition and the Bay of Islands parliamentary electorate should have additional representation.
Sir Apirana Ngata's response is particularly important. Contemporary reporting records him saying that tribes south of Auckland had accepted the decision of Their Excellencies to have one representative, while Ngāpuhi had the first claim to representation at Waitangi.
That tells us two things. First, representative design existed before Parliament passed the Act. Second, the donors' decisions had real weight in the Māori representation structure. It does not prove Bledisloe designed every office alone: Ngata, the ministers and every named trustee were parties to the final deed, and the missing correspondence may show negotiation with rangatira and other actors.
The design chain we can presently prove
10 May: donor's national-representation concept → 11 May: more detailed provisional public plan → 18 November: named family and territorial offices in executed deed → 7–9 December: Parliament incorporates the already-executed structure substantially unchanged.
This is a stronger and more precise finding than saying the seven offices simply “came from Parliament”. Parliament gave them statutory force. The architecture itself was already embedded in the private/public trust instrument placed before Parliament.
Why this matters to the constitutional hypothesis
The structure was deliberately designed. That is now documentable. What is not yet documentable is that its designers were consciously reproducing Te Wakaminenga, seven pre-existing constitutional districts, or a transferred Māori governmental authority.
The next evidential target is therefore the negotiation file between May and November 1932: Bledisloe correspondence, Ngata papers, draft deeds, donor instructions and communications with the rangatira or constituencies whose representatives were ultimately named.
Sources: Bledisloe's 10 May letter and contemporary explanation; 11 May Press Association report of proposed Trust membership; Schedule 1 Trust Deed; Lands Committee report, 7 December 1932; 8 December parliamentary debate; Buick, Waitangi: Ninety-Four Years After (1934).