Latest news with #ApiranaNgata
NZ Herald
3 days ago
- General
- NZ Herald
Pastures Past: Breaking in the land for farming
It was slow work, often involving fires, bullocks, and axes. The Vogel Era (1870s) marked a turning point, with major infrastructure investment, with roads and railways making rural land more accessible. The pace then accelerated with technological advances and growing markets for agricultural products. This included advances in fertiliser (especially superphosphate), mechanisation and eventually refrigeration. Breaking in gum land New Zealand Herald, January 21, 1927 'Opus' writes:—Just before the war I purchased, at £11 an acre, 15 acres of gum land midway between Birkenhead and Albany. With the exception of four acres of bush, the land was covered with fern, ti-tree, gorse, and blackberries. At the time I was 67 years of age, and so had to employ most of the labour in breaking in the land, and soon had 11 acres in grass, and divided into paddocks, and ring-fenced. I erected a cottage on this homestead, which I occasionally occupied. In laying down the grass I put 6cwt. of manure to the acre. The greater part of the improvements were done during the currency of the Great War, when labour and material were both scarce and dear. After a few enjoyable years of occupation, for family reasons only, I disposed of the little farm at a profit, and, for eight years, the purchaser has been successfully farming it. What I did under great difficulties, younger men can do much better now if they will only work and forego the pleasure of play, race meetings, etc. The Minister of Lands can know very little of the potentialities of the North. Breaking in land Sir Apirana Ngata's policy Bay of Plenty Times, December 30, 1929 In commenting upon Sir A. T. Ngata's policy of breaking in large blocks of land by organised native labour, subdividing it, and settling on it those whose labour has contributed to its development, a North Island paper states that there are hundreds of thousands of acres that could be broken in cheaply by massed organised labour, which under individual effort unsupported by essential machinery, would take years to bring to production point and at a cost incomparably greater. The creation of a company of land workers, who could, for either Government or private individuals, contract to take and break in blocks of land expeditiously and efficiently, would in itself be an asset to New Zealand. Breaking in land Effect on valuations Department's methods Court questions practice New Zealand Herald, November 28, 1939 [By telegraph—own correspondent] Palmerston North, Monday Further interesting evidence detailing methods by which land valuers work was given at a sitting of the Assessment Court inquiring into objections to Government revaluations in the Manawatu County. Two valuers called by the department stated that they did not allow as improvements initial cultivation and cropping prior to the establishment of virgin land in pasture, because the owner derived benefit from the crop, which recouped him for the expenditure. If a farmer spent £5 an acre breaking in land to pasture, and in the process got back £2 an acre from the crop sown, then the real cost of breaking in the ground could only be regarded as the difference of £3 an acre. The chairman, Mr. A. A. McLachlan, of Christchurch, questioned whether such a practice was a correct one. He contended that what was done in the original cultivation had an unexhausted value for all time. For instance, in the particular case before the Court the owner used large quantities of lime, and although he got back something in the first crop the lime was still having its beneficial effect and so should be allowed for and allowed for as an improvement. Counsel for the objecting ratepayer stated that it was just as necessary for his client to use lime in the initial process as it was for him to fall scrub. The Chairman: If a farmer benefits in the initial crop, then it should be regarded as a windfall. - Source: Papers Past
Scoop
21-07-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Open Letter To New Zealand Regards: Co-Governance
This letter is written by P.L.U.G. on behalf of all citizens of New Zealand, who are concerned at the lack of information, the misinformation and fear about co-governance. What is co-governance? Co-governance in todays' context increasingly means the sharing of governance roles of elected (openly public elected) Councillors with local Iwi (Maori appointed ) people who then jointly make decisions on the long-term strategic directions for all to follow. Co-governance does not confer ownership but is sets requirements for Management to follow. Currently, Agreements at local and regional council level are mostly only about co-management (covered by JMA's – Joint Management Agreements) but it is not surprising that there is confusion, given what we believe is the almost indecent rush to try to enact 'Co-Governance' agreements before the implementation of the Resource Management Act reforms. How does co-governance relate to the Treaty of Waitangi? The Treaty of Waitangi was an agreement between some Maori tribes and the Crown for mutual benefit. There is no provision for co-governance made in the Treaty of Waitangi. We see some so-called elite Maori representatives looking to gain representation on local and central government controlled organisations in co-governance roles Some people are saying, that regarding and treating individuals with equal respect would be divisive. Yes, based on this fantasy view many of those pushing the co-governance agenda are using their versions of Treaty obligations. There has been some debate over the years about what, exactly; Maori believed they were signing in 1840 and did Maori cede sovereignty to the British Crown when they signed the Treaty of Waitangi or, as is now contended by some, did they not? Sir Apirana Ngata prepared an English translation of the Treaty in 1922 that argued that the Chiefs had 'cede(d) absolutely to the Queen of England for ever the Government of all their lands '. Indeed the standard translation used by the Waitangi tribunal in the early 1990's had been made by Professor Sir Hugh Kawharu. Sir Hugh and the Tribunal in this time were in no doubt that the chiefs had ceded sovereignty to the Queen. If ever there was a declaration that we are one people and that Maori have the same rights and duties of citizenship, surely it is Sir Hugh's translation of the Treaty? Efforts have been made to argue that some kind of 'partnership" exists between the Crown and Maori as a result of the Treaty signing, A simple reading of the Treaty document or Sir Hugh's translation of that document quickly provides plain evidence that there is no mention whatsoever in either document which requires the provision of any type of partnership or co-governance role for Maori. Sir Hugh's translation of the Treaty surely rules out any special relationship/privilege for Maori or for their modern descendants over non-Maori. And since there was no such thing as a properly functioning democracy in New Zealand in 1840, the question of 'political rights' wasn't an issue at the time. We believe some people are just trying to re-write the Treaty to suit their current agendas? There most certainly was no implication of special rights, 'political' or otherwise for Maori. Their land was protected, but so was the right of Maori to sell that land on agreed terms. And Maori had the same 'rights and duties of citizenship' as non-Maori. What is the current situation in regard to co-governance? Racial harmony is currently one of the biggest issues for all New Zealanders and with approximately 200 different ethnicities, is it conducive to social harmony to accord special political status to those with a Maori ancestor or provide them with a co-governance role? The short answer being NO! Yet, currently it seems that decisions are being made by local and regional councils behind closed doors with the public excluded, in relation to the direction of JMAs and Co-governance, which are providing for the application of co-governance roles for Maori. In fact we believe the reality is that these extremely important decisions are being made in haste so as to be in place prior to the implementation of the RMA reforms which the coalition government has signalled will be ready late this year. No matter what view people hold, there can be no mature discussion about our future as a country until everybody accepts that the Treaty provided for the government to have final authority, with all citizens - no matter their ancestry - having equal rights as stipulated in the New Zealand Bill of Rights. In New Zealand we have one of the world's oldest democratic societies which we should rightly be proud of. It is time this current government under Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, decided to 'Fully' implement their campaign promises to do away with all race based legislation and stop all talk of co-governance at any level. Race based governance has never succeeded anywhere and it would not be any different here in New Zealand if it was implemented. We can have co-governance without democracy. We can have democracy without co-governance. But we cannot have democracy and co-governance. Democracy will only prevail if we oppose any moves towards legislated race based co-governance policies. We need to oppose co-governance for Democracy to prevail.
NZ Herald
02-07-2025
- Politics
- NZ Herald
Students from Tairāwhiti gain experience as Youth MPs in Wellington
Jake Higgins, 16, Youth MP for Cushla Tangaere-Manuel, Labour MP for Ikaroa-Rawhiti. He is from Ruatōria and is a direct descendant of Sir Apirana Ngata, a statue of whom they are standing next to. Future leaders of the East Coast joined MPs this week at Parliament in Wellington as Youth MPs. More than 140 students, working with MPs from around Aotearoa, travelled to Parliament in Wellington for Youth Parliament from Monday to Wednesday this week. The Gisborne Herald spoke with the three local youths
