Intensive land use and Ngati Porou

Tu Tangata, Issue 26, 1 October 1985, Page 46

Intensive land use and Ngati Porou

Na A.T. Mahuika - TIKITIKI

N issue 23 April/May 1985 of Tu Tangata Magazine, Michael Romanos wrote about the grape venture in Tikitiki. It is because of this article and the statements by Mrs Tawhiwhirangi and myself that prompted this response.

First, a brief discussion on Pt XXIV Development Schemes and Advisory Trustees.

Part XXIV is that part of the Maori Affairs Act 1955, which:

1. Amalgamates several adjoining blocks of land to form one unit. 2. Once the lands have been brought together as one unit, the former titles of each respective block prior to amalgamation, is cancelled in favour of one TITLE.

3. These amalgamated blocks are thus known as Part XXIV Development Schemes.

4. They come under the sole control and authority of Maori Affairs who is the Responsible Trustee in accordance with the legal provision of the Act. 5. Monies for development come from Maori Affairs sources, usually an amount in excess of the valuation of the land.

All farm programmes, planning etc is the sole responsibility of the Responsible Trustee, ie, Maori Affairs.

The above is a simplistic brief of what is entailed in Part XXIV Development.

In terms of the grapes in Tikitiki a Committee of Management is set up and it comprises of:

(a) Representatives from Penfolds who provides the expertise and markets and (b) Representatives of Maori Affairs who front up with the money and

(c) Representatives of owners (who need not be owners).

In the Tu Tangata issue in which I featured under the pen of Michael Ramonos, reference was made about Advisory Trustees. I said that Advisory Trustees do not have teeth. Really, the “teeth” referred to is in regard to the legal status of these Trustees. For instance, consider the following brief on the role of Advisory Trustees:

(a) Advisory Trustees hold a token position only. They may give advice on opinions, but the Responsible Trustee (Maori Affairs) is not under any legal obligation to listen or to accept the advice or opinion made

(b) Advisory Trustees cannot hire or fire staff, or plan budgets, expenditure, farm programmes etc.

Because of the status of Advisory Trustees, my view has always been that

owners should share the legal power equally with Maori Affairs so that owners can determine with authority what will happen on their lands. Further this co-sharing will provide administrative skills for our owners, without which, all the skills and training given to the persons in the field will be ineffective in the future.

It is because of the absence of owner powers to determine their own destiny on their lands which has led me to say that: ”... the administrative machinery maybe faulty but the concept of land use is a boost to Maoridom”.

The article clearly places myself and Mrs Tawhiwhirangi on opposite ends, and accordingly it is my intention to clarify the reality as it is at home. Many of our people away from home and who are earning huge salaries can afford to be magnanimous because they are never in a position where they have to seek another ‘seasonal’ job to provide for family and home. Further, our people often hold to the view that so-and-so is in a high position and therefore should know what would be good for the rest. Again there are many examples where this has not always been the case, and I shall demonstrate this later in this article.

Now allow me to examine and comment on the points raised by my taokete, Mrs Tawhiwhirangi.

1. The decision to amalgamate was based on the premise that:

(a) “...for every 100 acres, 20 people would be employed...” and (b) “...there would be SISOO to S2OOO per acre profit... as against $60...”

I would agree with Mrs Tawhiwhirangi in every respect, but my point is that there would not have been any need for this amalgamation, if there was a policy to lend the same amounts of money and supervision to individual families to do these things on their own lands. If the lands of certain owners were developed simultaneously in regard to obtaining skills in viticulture and therefore re-establish-ing in Ngati Porou to their own lands, because under this concept they have nothing to return to and this is a fact. For me then, this is still a “sell out” policy, (especiallv when the returns are

high) because the re-establishment of families on their lands may not happen at all and if it does, then that may be some 30-40 years away. Further amalgamations divorces future generations from their lands, because in real and practical terms they have no lands to speak of.

2. “...As well, the scheme would bring business to the local community like trucking, equipment and local shops...”

I cannot agree with the above because it is not happening at home!

The Waiapu Farmers Company in Tikitiki is not the servicing agency for the grape venture and it never has since the inception of the scheme. For example, posts, wines etc come from outside concerns. There are no new businesses in the area, as a result of grapes, as all the produce is processed in Gisborne.

The trucking of the grapes have never been given to local truckies but to Direct Transport in Gisborne. The irony in employing Direct Transport is that some years ago this truck firm pulled out from the East Coast (and there was great media publicity about the effects of this move on the local farmers and employees). Trucks belonging to Waiapu Farmers, Goldsmiths and Haereroa’s were never and have never been used. This is a fact.

On the other hand, seasonal workers on the grapes do have season funds to spend locally, something they did not have before.

3. “...Profits from the enterprise could be used to upgrade the marae, education and the general well-being of the local people...”

Those who upgrade our many marae are the individual farmers in Ngati Porou and not Part XXIV Development Schemes and have never been the schemes. If we waited for the profits of these schemes we will have a very long wait and by the time the profits come the marae would have succumbed to the destructive hand of time and the elements and there would be nothing to update!

On the other hand, if individual families were settled on their land, they, like other individuals in the area, would find a way to contribute to the upgrading programmes whilst at the same time, identify with their respective marae.

As far as communal well-being is concerned, that has not happened as yet, except for seasonal workers, which I applaud because it means spending power for individual families.

4. “...People have to get out of a narrow way of thinking...”

We at home have broadened our outlook for more than what absentee Ngati Porou and bureaucrats tend to think. Our repeated requests to bureaucracy

to inject money into individual farmers to enable them to pursue more intensive farming programmes have always failed because of “narrow” policy of bureaucracy.

Ngati Porou at home are not as “narrow” in their thinking as some absentee Ngati Porou and bureaucracy would seem to think. The fact of Maori Affairs policy is “narrow” as far as we are concerned because:

(i) If Maori Affairs is responsible for development under Part XXIV they receive initial capital to beyond the value of the land. Contrast this with individuals, who, if they are successful, will receive money below the value of the property.

(ii) Grants for farming are injected annually to government run schemes, apart from the initial grant, whereas for individuals, there are no further finances to maintain and sustain development. In other words, individuals receive a loan on a ONCER basis only! (iii) The policy would appear to be, that only government agencies can develop lands... that is another story with very revealing figures, but that is not the purpose of this article.

I am saying that narrow thinking is

prevalent in government policies which pertains to land development. If such policies were broadened to enable Ngati Porou farmers to acquire loans as for Part XXIV schemes, then we will see the joint development of people and their respective physical assets the land!

5. “...I could have gone into kiwifruit... but it wouldn’t have a benefit for the community...”

Community is a term which can be sociologically debated without any winners! Community for me is my family who is scattered around New Zealand. My pursuit of kiwifruit as stage 1 of my development is to provide an economic base to which they can return to and to ensure Mahuika identity on Mahuika lands, which is the same source that my “tuakana” Porourangi Tawhiwhirangi acquired his land rights.

Further, I can assist other families in kiwifruit if they so wish (and many wish to) and accordingly I am helping, and if this is of no benefit to the community, I am damned if I know what is! The suggested employment figures put out for kiwifruit farms is as follows:

1. If a T Bar system is used, one can

employ one full-time person on 10 acres. According to this break down, we can shortly employ six full-time people on our land. This compares very favourably with the four or so permanent staff on 236 acres of grapes.

2. If the pergola system is used, more full-time people will be required. Therefore my venture will provide employment and can be of benefit to the wider Ngati Porou community at home.

Finally, I want this article to provide the context in which my statements were made over the phone to Mr Romanos. I am also concerned about the views expressed about Ngati Porou at home being “...narrow...” and the manifestation of the facts in regard to the matters raised by Mrs Tawhiwhirangi. I too had pre conceived and fixed ideas about the people at home, but what Koro Dewes and myself have done is to “put our money where our mouths are..” and we have left good salaries to come home to live the problems, difficulties and strengths of the Ngati Porou at home.