“Are there Barriers to Maaori Land Development in North Waikato?”

Abstract. 

Multiple ownership, governance and management experience, access to information, access to finance, access to land, and land rating, are barriers to development of Maaori land. Nationally, these barriers impact on land-use options. In North Waikato, rural Maaori land blocks are small and scattered with fragmented titles. The land’s unsuitability as security for development funding and ‘marginal’ economic value as potential stand-alone enterprises means financial assistance is denied, development cannot occur so the land is perpetually leased or remains idle. 

This research investigated the potential of whanau land as a source of perpetual income for current and future generations of whanau. Revenue contribution is essential to facilitate expansion of the whanau asset-base to potentially counter the compounding effects of multiple-ownership. This approach to land-use not only ensures whakapapa links to Papatuanuku and Rangi-aa-tea is retained but also whanau ownership of land is assured for future generations.

 Table of Contents

Acknowledgements. - 2 -

Table of Contents. - 2 -

Abstract. - 1 -

Introduction. - 3 -

Project Description. - 3 -

Theoretical Context - 6 -

New Zealand Context. - 7 -

Methodology. - 12 -

Results. - 19 -

Discussion. - 24 -

Conclusions. - 26 -

References. - 27 -

Bibliography. - 30 -

Personal Communication. - 30 -

Electronic Resources. - 31 -

Appendices. - 31 -

He Mihi 

Huutia te rito o te harakeke, Kei whea te koomako e koo.

Whakatae rangatira, Rere ki uta, rere ki tai.

Ka patae te patae, He aha te mea nui o teenei ao?

Koo te whakautu,

he tangata, he tangata, he tangata.

Tihei Mauri Ora 

Acknowledgements 

I wish to acknowledge the help and assistance of my supervisor Dr. Hamish Rennie whose help in this research proved invaluable. To Mr. James T. Findlay who provided the dairy farming software and expert assistance in constructing the forecast financial budget, I owe a debt of gratitude. To the whanau who took part in the survey, kia ora raa koutou mo oou whakaaro, me oou awhi hoki. I thank BNZ Agribusiness consultant Mr. Darren Brookes for his feedback and Land Administrator from the Office of the Maori Trustee Mrs. Maureen Tinkler for her contribution. To Mr. Trevor Harris, Rates Administrator from the Waikato District Council I thank sincerely. Te Kauwhata farmer Mr. Maurice Kenna I thank for information pertaining to Maaori land leases.

Introduction. 

Maaori are one of 5000 indigenous and tribal cultural groups making up 4% of the global population (Howitt, 2001:27). Those able to claim indigenous status have a historical connection with “pre-invasion and post-colonial” societies. Indigenous people consider themselves distinct from the established societies so form a non-dominant sector of society.  But they are determined to preserve, develop and pass on their “ancestral territories” and ethnic identity as a basis of their “continued existence as a people” to future generations (Cobo: In Howitt, 2001:27). In Aotearoa, “fortitude and productive spirit” once made Waikato hapuu (tribes) successful and prosperous (Norris, 1972:25) in “pre-invasion” times when indigenous status meant economic prosperity (Barclay-Kerr, 1991:186). This research is attempting to find ways to preserve and develop ancestral territories in North Waikato for future generations of Maaori to continue and exist as a people.

Project Description 

This research is based on assumptions drawn from Ricardian Economics and seeks to explore blocks of Maaori land in North Waikato owned by hapuu to determine if the lands are being utilized to the optimum benefit of the hapuu. Various hapuu have land in North Waikato and unlike Maaori land blocks in other regions such as the East Coast where the land blocks are large and in close proximity to each other, the land blocks in North Waikato are small and widely scattered (Figure 1 and 2). There are similarities however in that, Waikato Maaori land blocks, like other Maaori land blocks, are subject to the same development, governance and management challenges. Further, while much literature on land-based Maaori-owned enterprises exists for other regions, literature pertaining to land utilization in Waikato, is relatively scarce.    

This topic has also been developed from personal experience of growing up on whanau (family) land in North Waikato. Anecdotal evidence from owners of Maaori land there, supports the researcher’s observations of the demise of Maaori farming coinciding with the urban drift of the 1950’s and 60s. As a result, land-use options were restricted because, with that drift, went the expertise and farming knowledge. Successive generations of owners were not encouraged into farming because most were relocated leaving the land to tenants of leasehold tenure.  

The practical significance of the research was to provide avenues to, and optional uses of, Maaori land for the owners. The research focused on alternative land-use options with potential to enhance the economic and social welfare of current and future generations of hapuu and whanau. Alternative activities to leasehold tenure were assessed for consideration, one was selected, and an in-depth analysis was carried out on that alternative to assess its potential viability. A survey (Appendix 1) carried out among owners, descendants of owners and children of owners was undertaken to gauge the attitudes and feelings respondents regarding the land of their tuupuna (ancestors) and what effect if any, the responses will have on the direction and outcome of the research.

Figure 1: Map showing Land Blocks in North Waikato.

Figure 2: Map of East Cape showing East Coast Maaori Land Blocks.            

This research report provides an overview of the relevant New Zealand contexts and describes the methodology and methods employed then presents the results and analyses before drawing the main threads together in a concluding section.

Theoretical Context 

Much of the literature on indigenous development and identity has placed land ownership as an essential base for survival (Mahuta, 1979:18; Walker, 1981:13). The focus of attention has frequently been on the processes of application and associated inputs, and indigenous resistance. Relatively little attention has been paid to the mechanisms of retaining sustainable business specifically for use by indigenous land owners, especially within developed countries. Instead, indigenous land-use has been subsumed within more general analyses of rural farms and land ownership (Campbell, 1979:260; Moran, 1979:240). It is beyond the scope of this research to attempt a critical theorization of such issues. Instead, the research approach draws on traditional economic theories and models from land economics within descriptive studies of barriers to Maaori rural land development.  

Land economics is concerned with the impacts economic concepts of costs, returns, prices, profits and value, have on decisions concerning land use. Economic theory is important because economic activity is dynamic and often conditions arise that do not mirror the rigid assumptions of economic analysis (Barlowe, 1986:4). Underlying the principles of land economics are the practical, institutional and problem-solving approaches required by land owners seeking to sustain their livelihood in an everyday lifeworld (Johnston et al, 2000:449) largely driven by financial aspirations and processes. Land economists are involved in a wide variety of economic relationships and implicit in their functions are the “problems and situations in which land, its use or its control, are regarded as factors of strategic or limiting importance.” This approach pertains to factors of capital, labour and management (Barlowe, 1986:4).  

Land economic theories are based on assumptions that economic returns are at the forefront of attitudes and concepts towards land resources. The income or economic rent, explains the value placed on land resources and its influence on the allocation of those resources among individuals and between competing uses. Economic rent has important effects on land tenure, tax policies, economics of land development, conservation and other aspects of land resource use. It assumes that the uses producing the highest economic rent have first claim on areas of highest-use capacity. While the lower uses can be carried to advantage to the better lands, their lower economic rent-producing capacity restricts them from competing with higher economic production generators. As a result, lower producers are forced to locations where they can compete successfully with other uses. At any location, a single use can always return a higher economic rent than another relative to the amounts of human and capital resources used. 

The high-use capacity compared with high income-producing potential produces the highest economic rent. The economic rent declines as the lower-capacity lands are used. A correlation exists between use-capacity and economic rent and the amount of economic rent a site can earn, producing an index of use-capacity for that site. Operators of land enterprises are free to pursue a variety of land use options: some operators may choose to generate profit; some may seek complementary enterprises; others may seek a combination of enterprises. Their options depend on their utility factor and the availability of capital and labour to maximize returns at the land resource location. The choice of enterprise is reflected by the profitability of various alternatives. Rent relates to the refinement of the economic return accruing to land in the production process. Economic rent is the income received by land resources and the elements of economic rent are identified in the returns received by capital, labour and management. All earnings are regarded as economic rent because no supply costs arise in its production. The economic nature of land resources requires allowances for the minimum supply costs of development and maintenance of the resources. All earnings accruing to the land resource, or should accrue to land, is classed as economic rent. The value of productive land resources equals the sum total of its future economic rents discounted to present day values. The lack of perfect knowledge means individuals assign values to resources and assets that reflect the capitalised value of the present or anticipated future economic rent pertaining to those resources and assets (Barlowe, 1958:150). 

The Ricardian economic model is based on an economy where agriculture produces a significant proportion of the national product (Morishima, 1989:236). However, assumptions underlying such theories have been subject to considerable critique. Economist John Maynard Keynes challenged conventional theories of capitalism by advocating command capitalism to counter economic crises. He advocated providing alternative sources of employment and income (Waitt et al, 2000:67). Karl Marx the father of communism advocated that collective ownership of all resources would prevent the “inequities of capitalism (Mankiw, 1998:228). Despite these well founded critiques, the neo-liberal, market-oriented reforms that swept much of the developed world in the 1980’s were largely based on such theories (Moran, 1996:387). New Zealand has been considered a lending experiment in such an approach and was an example for the rest of the world (Kelsey, 1997:1).  

In a market economy, rural land resources should be allocated their best use for the highest optimum economical return. Agricultural and arable activities overlap so competition for land results in high land values. Even though there is a fixed supply of land, utilities can change and social highest and best-use, contends with inspirational goals therefore value judgments become predisposed by the lands location and its supply and/or demand (Barlowe, 1986:15). Harvey (1992:207) assumes a market economy when making land-use decisions because resources are allocated on the basis of prices, costs and profits. The prices people are willing to pay depend on their utility, a static environment pertaining to costs, the absence of government interference and market knowledge - the market forces of supply and demand.

New Zealand Context. 

Several commentators have drawn attention to the ways in which the neo-liberal market-oriented reforms of the 1980’s have affected New Zealand (Kelsey, 1996). It is not intended to revisit these here but to focus more specifically on the implications for rural Maaori land development at the micro-scale. The focus of this research has been influenced by the whakawhanaungatanga theories advanced by Bishop (1998:130). These theories contain fundamental kaupapa Maaori strategies of establishing and maintaining relationships with Maaori. In other words being involved with Maaori ethically, morally and spiritually, and embracing the Maaori concept of power and control and adopting methodological approaches that incorporate participatory research practices or “participant-driven research”. Matauranga Maaori or Maaori epistemology is the linkage from whanaungatanga and whakapapa to Papatuaanuku (earth mother) and Rangi-nui-aa-tea (sky father).  

Although there are tribal variations, Maaori traditional belief systems are based on the understanding that life began with the union of Papatuaanuku and Rangi-nui-aa-tea from where all living things descend and land as whenua, is the direct link to them. Life in te ao tawhito (days of old), te ao maarama (today) our tuurangawaewae (place to stand), our destiny in te ao hurihuri (future) and finally the land is our final resting place before descending to te rerenga wairua (spirit world) on the final journey back to tuupuna (ancestors) in Hawaiiki. For Waikato hapuu (tribe), maintaining ancestral links to Papatuaanuku and Rangi-nui-aa-tea are guaranteed while their land is in hapuu and whanau (family) ownership. Ownership of land may be retained despite this ownership and land uses being contrary to what might be expected in a market-led economy.  

Waikato Maaori were customary subsistence farmers. With colonization, technology turned Waikato and other iwi o Aotearoa into successful agriculturalists and horticulturalists. Morton (1946:2) reported wheat, kumara, various fruit and vegetables were grown in the Waikato. Craig (1995:14) in support, said wheat and fruit had been grown since 1830. Since 1848, Waikato had produced flour ground in their own flour mills which was exported to California and Victoria (Australia) between 1849 and 1852. McCan (2001:23) reported an agricultural mission station had been established in Te Awamutu. European-style gardens were planted in wheat and fruit trees and by 1851, 18 flour mills had been built. 

Figure 3: Early Waikato Maaori Industry (Toataua, 1990:6)

The comparisons of economic rents need to reflect land-use and location. Comparisons are illustrated by overlapping production/profitability curves that vary according to different land-uses. Chart 1 shows this effect in four economic rent triangles: EOP; FOR; GOS, and; HOT. 

Chart 1: Economic Rent Triangles of Competing Activities.

Table: 1: Barriers to Maaori Land Development.

                                          (Source: Auditor General, 2004:31)

Multiple-ownership results in fragmentation (Asher and Naulls, 1987:53) and was recognized as a problem in the 1930’s (McHugh, 1980:5). Congested titles caused by multiple ownership created disputes and occupancy rights (McCarthy, 1980:29), it obstructed the utilization of the land (McHugh, 1980:7) and created extra work loading on the Maaori Land Court system thus increasing their costs (Spiller et al, 1995:169). The impact of fragmentation (Walker, 1981:8) and difficulties with gaining decision-making consensus (Asher and Naulls, 1987:59; Mete-Kingi, 1978:18) are adverse effects of multiple-ownership.  

Fragmentation takes two forms: multiplicity of owners, and; multiplicity of parcels (McHugh, 1980:8). Fragmentation is having many owners in one block and, one owner having ownership or shareholding in many blocks (McHugh, 1980:7; Pritchard and Waetford, 1965:5). This phenomenon was caused by the cumulative effect of succession over generations (McHugh, 1980:8) and is believed to hinder land utilization (McHugh, 1991:352). McHugh (1980:53) suggested on-going fragmentation will “perpetuate a historical injustice” and further deterioration of the situation, will encourage future land losses and hinder and prevent “proper” use of Maaori land (Maaori Multiple Ownership Development Committee, 1998:2; McCarthy, 1980:31; Pritchard and Waetford, 1965:6). Consequences of fragmentation shareholders believed, was shares were not worth claiming and neither was submitting succession applications (McCarthy, 1980:31).

Figure 4: Raupatu Land Boundaries (Toataua, 1990:13). 

This research acknowledges the raupatu (confiscation) of land in the Waikato after the land wars of 1863 (McCan, 2001:47). The physical loss in 1864 of 1.2 million acres of land (McCan 2001:1; Spiller et al, 1995:146), losses of villages, waahi tapu, control (Mahuta, 1988:4), long periods of impoverishment (Spiller et al, 1995:146) and the loss of self sufficiency (Toataua, 1991:12), may still affect hapuu today because raupatu        dispossessed Waikato of their most valuable resource, the land (Ngata, 1940:173). Raupatu boundaries were poorly defined and McCan, (2001:54) found that many Maaori did not know if their lands were confiscated or not. In 1866, some land was returned but records of the boundaries and location of the returned land was largely unknown. Evidence showed returned land went to the wrong people; land known to belong to others in occupation, was sold (McCan, 2001:57). Not surprisingly, raupatu was shrouded in confusion, but all rebels had land confiscated (McCan, 2001:51) and these lands were used as remuneration to militia for their part in the war (Toataua, 1991:51). The results of the confusion were a loss of manawhenua (land rights) and tuurangawaewae (place to stand) (Toataua, 1991:12).

Maaori believe all descendants of owners are to be included in succession lists (Pritchard and Waetford, 1965:22) to maintain their whakapapa links to the land of their tuupuna. As long ago as 1867, the compounding adverse effects of succession were recognized (McHugh, 1991:348). The major effect of succession was the diminishing of the shares to the point where “very little can be done with them” (Walker, 1981:8). The difficulties of succession are believed by McCarthy (1980:31) to be a factor for the continued existence of the Maaori Land Court. Succession contributes to alienation or abandonment of land according to the Maaori Multiple Ownership Development Committee (1998:2). Succession is a problem not restricted to Maaori, however. Europe, Quebec, South-East Asia and the Pacific Islands have the same succession problems and phenomena (Pritchard and Waetford, 1965:22).  

The lack of information for decision-making was recognized by Mete-Kingi (1978:26) and the Maaori Multiple Ownership Development Committee (1998:2). Finance is a limiting factor in developing Maaori land and is well documented (Asher and Naulls, 1987:47; Egan, 1982:41; Kawharu, 1987:50; Mahuta, 1981:13; Maughan and Kingi, 1997:22; Maaori Multiple Ownership Development Committee, 1998:2). The lack of farm managerial experience and knowledge is acknowledged similarly (Asher and Naulls, 1987:47; Egan, 1982:41; Kawharu, 1987:150, 155; Mete-Kingi, 1978:20; Ogle, 1993:18, 28).  

Assumptions that Maaori land in the North Waikato is under-performing economically may be valid given the challenges to Maaori land-use and development outlined above. In the absence of literature to confirm or deny successes with land-based enterprises, further investigation on an individual block by block, hapuu by hapuu basis is required to confirm actual economic performance of Maaori land held in such ownership. So while some areas have much land (Durie, 1981:4), other areas including the Waikato, have very little. In the North Island, most Maaori Land is in Taupo, Rotorua, Gisborne and Opotiki with the greatest percentage in the East Coast (Figure 2) to Cape Runaway areas summarised in Table 2 (Durie, 1981:7-14). Noticeably, Durie (1981) makes no reference to land-use in Waikato. 

Table 2: Land Use Activities in the Upper Half of the North Island.

                                                        (Based on Durie, 1981) 

In the context of the 590 Directed Study, a succinct focus is required. This research therefore, addresses the following questions:

• Why is the land not being used to its full economic potential?
• To what extent is land not currently being used to full economic potential?
• Are these really the barriers?
• Why might they not be?

Methodology 

This research adopted a case study approach to Maaori land parcels in an area of North Waikato. A specific area was selected because of the degree of land fragmentation noted, the history of raupatu and land-loss, and because it is the tuurangawaewae of the researcher. Reference points were marked to define the boundaries of the case study area representative of the Ngaati Hine hapuu who are tangata whenua

Figure 5: Map of Case Study Area in North Waikato.

SEE NZMS 260 S13 160103         

Using land blocks within this area as the overall case study, the methodology employed enabled the research to:

• Compare existing economic rents with potential economic rent to assess the extent to which the blocks may be under-utilised from a land economic perspective, and;
• Seek insights into the barriers to economic development by: surveying land owners to gain an understanding of their views on the land and land development, and; explore the institutional barriers to development by presenting a hypothetical proposal to prospective lending institutions and gauging their response (Appendix 2).

All Maaori land blocks within the reference points were identified and examined to determine as far as was practicable: the location of each block; the current land-use of each block; the current revenue being generated by each block per annum; the area of each land block in hectares, and; the total number of shareholder-owners in each block.

Land Information of New Zealand (LINZ) was the principal source of information on Maaori land in the North Waikato. The Geographic Information System (GIS) laboratory based in the Geography Department at Waikato University, provided the technology to access the information held on the LINZ database. The LINZ database contains land parcels for all of New Zealand and includes Maaori land. Alternative sources of information were the Maaori Land Court in Hamilton and the Te Puni Kookiri maoriland.com website. The Maaori land Court’s Hamilton office provided documentation on land block areas and numbers of shareholders; the Te Puni Kookiri website provided the locations of individual Maaori land blocks in the case study area, the number of owners in each block and the area of the blocks in hectares. Each block was then located on a cadastral map and referenced. Each of the sources of information was used to cross-reference and verify relevant material. Information on the potential value of the land in the case study area was sought from the Waikato District Council (WDC). The rate-able values of the various parcels of land were obtained with the express aim of ascertaining the potential borrowing power of Maaori lands individually and collectively. 

The predominant world-view of land contrasts with Maaori world views. Land in the west is conceived as being space, nature, a factor of production, a consumptive good, situation, property, capital, and a source of recreation (Barlowe, 1986:8-9).  By comparison, Mahuta (1979:18) said land holds a central place in Maaori consciousness. Lands have always been part and parcel of tribal and sub-tribal politics. Land represented spiritual and economic survival, identity and livelihood. Land provides spiritual growth, a source of tribal and personal identity, it maintains hapuu identity and social unity (Walker, 1981:13; Kawharu, 1979:53) highlighted by the whakataukii (proverb):

“whatu ngarongaro te tangata, toitu te whenua” (people perish but the land is permanent)

(Durie, 1998:115)

The land is “taku mana, taku ihi” (life force and power), the essence and sustenance of life. Minute amounts of earth are sufficient for attachment and identity with the tribal domain (Walker, 1981:13). Table 3 summarises contrasting world views pertaining to land. 

Table 3: Contrasting Maaori and Western World-view of Land (Durie, 1998:117).  

In a Maaori land-use study prior to the wholesale political adoption of neo-liberal, market-oriented government policies, Egan and Mahuta (1983:26) found that the mean lands on record were leased and at rentals less than the current economic returns. The results of an analysis of 3000 Maaori Land Court records showed sufficient land was available for development activities, but relevant Maaori groups were restricted by the lack of information, sufficient venture capital and knowledge regarding raising capital to pursue those activities (Egan, 1982:41). A high proportion of the results showed leases required renewal within two years. 

Although Maaori land is freehold and unencumbered with debt, finance is required to carry a potential enterprise from the establishment phase, the lead phase through to the actual realisation of an income. The Guide to Services and Funding (Department of Courts, 2002) provides sources of funding outside mainstream lending institutions. Those identified as potential financiers of projects “to improve land-use and management” included: the Sustainable Farming Fund administered by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries; the Sustainable Management Fund administered by the Ministry for the Environment; the Poutama Trust, and; The Office of the Maaori Trustee.  

To assist decision-making between possible land-use enterprises, a method comparing their relative profitability was required. One method was to compare the gross margins (GM) of each enterprise or the margin between gross revenue and direct expenses. Fixed expenses such as rates and interest on capital are ignored because they are costs that need to be met regardless of what enterprise is chosen. This means only those enterprises able to operate within the existing land, labour and capital framework, were considered (NZ Soc. of Accountants, 1977:145). Gross margins are derived from budgeting and are compared using a basic unit commonly the stock unit (Table 4) and per-hectare (Table 5). Table 4 shows the gross margins per stock unit (SU) in descending order of a range of agricultural activities.     
 

Table 4: Gross Margins of Agricultural Activities.

(Based on Lincoln University, 2002:c8 – c22) 

The Maaori land in Waikato is regarded by the literature as being too small to provide a viable, economical and sustainable income. The various activities listed in Table 4, are alternative, mainstream, land–use options suitable for Maaori land of the size found in North Waikato. Land size for these activities is but one consideration: soil type; water stress; climate; finance; farm management expertise; knowledge, and; experience are others. Comparative gross margins based on returns per hectare for typical arable farming activities, are shown in Table 5. 

Table 5: Gross Margins of Arable Activities.

(Based on Lincoln University, 2002:c33 – c60) 

A basic approach applying a strategic business management technique to a potential Maaori land-use venture is the S.W.O.T analysis (Cooper and Lane, 1997:65). The strategy builds on the business Strengths and corrects or counters any Weaknesses of the business to take advantage of external Opportunities and counter external Threats. The strengths and weaknesses refer to the internal operating environment of the business with regard to the resources and capabilities of the business. Opportunities and threats refer to analyses of the external competitive environment. For example, a Maaori business contemplating establishing a premium wine-grape vineyard in Waikato will find the SWOT analysis in Table 6 useful. 

Table 6: SWOT Analysis for Establishing a Premium Wine-grape Vineyard. 

(Based on Cooper and Lane, 1997) 

This analysis reveals strengths for establishing a premium-wine vineyard are freehold land, vineyards exist in North Waikato and New Zealand’s largest city is nearby. However weaknesses of labour, capital and management are factors known to constrain Maaori land development but opportunities may prompt further analysis to investigate methods that can overcome weaknesses. The threats, while common to most land-based enterprises and ventures, remains an essential component in the decision-making process.  

A survey was undertaken in the study area among owners, descendants of owners and children of owners to determine what aspirations, attitudes and feelings they may have for their land. The written survey comprised semi-structured questions and the drop and collect technique was used to circulate the survey. The drop and collect technique was used in anticipation of the expected high participant non-response rate. The respondents were given four weeks to respond to the survey and follow-up visits to each of the respondents were undertaken each week to monitor progress of the survey. The framework of the survey was structured to reveal aspirations, attitudes and feelings toward:

• Maaori land in general;
• The effects of raupatu currently or in the past on Maaori land use;
• Economic development of Maaori land;
• Barriers to the economic development of Maaori land;
• Owning and using Maaori land.

A sample land block within the case study area was selected to provide the basis of a feasibility study to assess the viability of a land-use option. The feasibility-study method was used to assess a land-use alternative using one of two approaches: to use the land as a stand-alone enterprise with an appropriate option suited to the characteristics of the land e.g. premium wine grapes or bull farming, or; to purchase an existing enterprise nearby and combine the two into a single, viable, farm business enterprise.

The SWOT analysis demonstrated above assessed the viability of premium wine grapes as an example of a stand-alone enterprise. For this study, the purchase of an existing enterprise in close proximity to the sample land block to be merged into a single, farm business enterprise provided the basis of an in-depth study and analysis. The questions asked of that study included:

• Are the owners of the sample Maaori land block positioned strategically and financially, to purchase a farm business enterprise?
• If not, what was required of the owners to enable them to purchase the enterprise?  
• Will the enterprise be more lucrative than the current option?   

Ricardian economics influenced the selection of dairy farming as the land-use option for the feasibility study. Chart 2 shows the comparative advantage of dairying over four land uses competing for the highest-use capacity in North Waikato. The triangles were constructed using the respective gross margins compared with the stock units involved (Table 4).

 Chart 2: Economic Rent Triangles for Competing Land Uses.

Realistic assumptions were used for the hypothetical purchase of a dairy farm business enterprise. They included:

• The first season for the dairy farm business to be 2005 – 2006;

• The purchase price of the dairy farm as a going concern to be $2.25 million;
• The purchasers have equity in cash and land amounting to ~16% of the purchase price;
• The owners are strategically positioned to carry out the tactical and operational planning, implementation and monitoring requirements of the dairy farm business to the satisfaction of mainstream financial  lending institutions;
• Mean dairy farming statistics were calculated and used in the compilation of the dairy farm business forecast budget.

A Dexcel dairy farm monitoring report covering the years 1993 to 2003 (Appendix 3), was analysed using the Minitab statistical software. The mean statistics from that analysis (Appendix 4) was entered into a spreadsheet programme to construct a farm business financial budget for the 2005 – 2006 dairy season. The mean statistic: farm size = 85.5 hectares, was used to select a combination of Maaori land and potential neighbouring farm land of similar size to the mean farm size for use as the feasibility study model.

Results. 

Figure 6: shows Lot 512C, Parish of Whangamarino in Te Puni Kookiri format with supporting data (the balance of the blocks are appended to Appendix 5). 

Figure 6: Lot 512C, Parish of Whangamarino and Supporting Data.

    (Source: www.maoriland.com) 

The total land blocks in the study area were 16. However, anecdotal evidence shows at least three land blocks exist within the study boundary that were not identified by any of the resources used to locate and identify them (M. Kenna, lessee; M. Tinkler, Office of the Maaori Trustee; pers. comm.). According to anecdotal evidence from owners and lessee’s, most of the blocks are in leasehold tenure and used as grazing and arable land. It was not possible to obtain lease rental details from all the land blocks in the study area. Of the 16 blocks identified, two were commanding ~$618 per hectare per annum (M. Kenna; W. Clark, pers. comm.) summarized in Table 7. 

Table 7: Annual Rental Income from Maaori Land.                                                              

Based on this rental income, an assumption is made that all blocks will potentially generate an annual income from leasing of $244,456 as at September, 2004. There is a total land area of 395.88 hectares and their sizes range from 1.23 hectares to 86.66 hectares. The 16 blocks have a total of 993 owners as at 20 September, 2004; 13 land blocks are unoccupied by owners, two were occupied by one or more owners and for one block, its occupation by owners could not be established.  The average number of owners per land block is 62. 

The survey undertaken in the Te Kauwhata rohe had a response rate of 32%. Of the total 25 survey forms circulated: six of the respondents had lost their forms; two respondents suffered recent bereavements; one respondent was illiterate and could not arrange a whanau member to assist in time; another respondent was too ill to take part; four exceeded the response time, and; five changed their minds after initial agreement (Appendix 8). Of the 25 potential responses, eight were returned and analysed. Three respondents are actively participating in governance and management of Maaori land and two age-ranges of respondents, 35 – 45 and 46+, emerged.  

The numbers of responses are insufficient to use rigorous statistical analyses. However, some trends appear evident. Questions on attitudes to land and owning and using Maaori land drew the most responses. These were followed by responses to raupatu, attitudes to barriers to development and active involvement in Maaori land. These were followed by understanding and feelings toward land, attitudes to economic development of land and land use preferences. Next were responses to existing barriers preventing land use and comments contributing to the research. The questions drawing least comments were those disagreeing with the attitudes (provided) those providing alternative attitudes to land and disagreement with the barriers to development of land.  

Interpretation of the responses to land confirms the findings of the literature. Responses to the question of owning lands and attitudes to land highlighted overwhelmingly the importance of whakapapa, tuurangawaewae and papakainga for respondents in both age groups.  Comments on raupatu ranked next along with attitudes to barriers to development and comments on active involvement in Maaori land matters. “Kei te mamae tonu”(there is pain still) is an example of the emotional expressions. This particular statement has been echoed throughout the 131 years of Tainui’s search for redress to raupatu. Emotion continued with comments on the “pressured acceptance” of the “unreasonable raupatu settlement” in 1995. In terms of the settlement, the sense of disparity between decision makers and potentially disaffected hapuu groups of Waikato where “too few decision-makers” appear distant and aloof to the “needs and concerns of the many” was expressed. Feelings differ with the raupatu settlement however, with many responses commonly along the lines of: “compensation will contribute to the survival of the people” and “compensation received indirectly by whanau and hapuu through grants to respective marae” but, “more should be done”. 

Barriers to development were recognized by the majority of the respondents and recognition of individual short-comings in the management of land resources was acknowledged. One respondent said “barriers are barriers if we let them…” This respondent preferred the term “challenge” rather than barrier. An important factor was identifying “pro-active leaders” crucial to “over-coming issues and challenges’. An alternative to barriers (provided) was the risk of failure… Three respondents admitted to active involvement in land administration responsibilities in various roles.       

The responses to the understanding of, and feelings toward Maaori land, revealed spiritual, intrinsic values and respect for tuupuna (ancestors). References made of the trials and tribulations of tuupuna “who lived, produced food, fought, slept and died” on the land emphasised those feelings The “attachment and tribal identity as hapuu and iwi” were regarded as important factors together with the lands “historical significance and possession”. To some, Maaori, land was viewed “with pride that impacts on ones self esteem”. Land provides “a footstool to forebears representing waka, hapuu, personal belonging and conviction”.  Acknowledgement was made to those dispossessed of land and currently “without tuurangawaewae and papakainga”. They appeared genuine in their concern and aroha (care) for them.  Reference was made to successes of Waikato iwi with agriculture and cropping ~150 years ago but it was also noted this had been removed by raupatu “shattering iwi, hapuu and whanau prospects of economical survival”. With Waikato’s contribution to the national economy since the 19^th century, “it was little wonder Waikato was much desired by colonizers”. Further, raupatu resulted in “hapuu being disjointed, small land pockets remain across the greater Waikato”, and; raupatu “isolated tangata whenua from their food basket”.     

There is general agreement in favour of economic development. Some respondents imposed conditions pertaining to: appropriate management; accessibility to finance; provisions for future generations, and; ensuring an avenue of revenue but “not at any cost”. There was doubt and concern over whether development is possible. There is belief amalgamation of lands is needed while conscious of adverse effects that include loss of individual contact, loss of identity, and personal intrinsic value, while not amalgamating could result in the loss of economies of scale. The survival of people some argued is dependant on retaining land especially so that the younger generation could return to the land “to maintain roots”. Provided profits are invested in trusts, the allocation of funds can be made available for future generations, was another comment made.  

Overall, the majority of respondents have a general understanding of multiple-ownership: “makes consultation, governance and management difficult; is a hindrance; unable to have say in decision making” are typical comments. There is limited knowledge of land management and avenues to access finance but the belief is these can be overcome by identifying proactive leaders with integrity, honesty and knowledge of business. For governance issues, there is a need for committed, skilled, paid staff. Some believe they are able to manage their future economic development – but there is fear of risk and failure. 

There is consensus the survival of land requires economical development. There was general agreement that economically sound ventures taking into account the environmental and climatic issues and of markets, would be supported. Development means the survival of the land. Multiple-ownership “influences decision making” (doing the right thing for the whanau), but importantly, the right to visit the land would be retained. Responsibility as a decision-maker was seen by some as requiring energy and commitment and ensuring “the transfer of land to future generations in similar or enhanced state currently”. There is concern with the lack of farming experience of the owners. Disparities between lessor’s rental receipts and lessee’s profits from farming while disproportionate, highlighted an awareness that farming is the best economic use for Maaori land through continued lease to others in the industry even though intimidation and prejudice from lessees, who consider they have “rights” to continue with current lease arrangements, was experienced. There are intrinsic and spiritual values from buried whenua were important to most. 

Known barriers to land uses that were expressed included: limited supply of land; available finance; foresight; risks; lack of expertise; forward planning, and; knowledge. There was a comment that resistance to change impacts on decision making. The formation of a corporate body to assist with succession issues by being a registration body with the added function of carrying out bargaining roles for the collective good of lessor’s was suggested.  Encouragement was given to whanau to return to the land, to form trusts, to undertake educational farming ventures and to undergo training in farming while some were content with the status quo. 

The Te Kauwhata rohe was used to explore an alternative use of land to the current land-use option. Okaerea Family Trust, the owners of Lot 512C, Parish of Whangamarino, consented to the use of their property as the basis of a hypothetical, in-depth, feasibility study involving the purchase of a dairy enterprise in close proximity to their land block. A dairy option was selected because it produced the highest gross margin (Table 4) and the highest rent (∆ EOT, Chart 2). Financial budgets were prepared in collaboration with the Principal Farm Consultant of NZ Agricultural Consulting Group based in Hamilton (Appendix 6). Table 8 summarises some forecast tactical and operational data.  

Table 8: Key Farm Business Tactical and Operational Data, 2005 – 2006 Season. 

Table 9 shows a total of $1.85 million as short and long term debt. Also shown are the total asset values of the farm business enterprise comprising the land, buildings, dairy company shares, livestock, and second-hand plant and machinery amounting to a total of $2.25 million. Estimated cost of debt is ~$27 per kilogram of milk-solids (kgsMS).                     

Table 9: Key Farm Business Forecast Equity Values, 2005 – 2006 Season. 

Table 10 shows a sensitivity analysis of the forecast financial budget. At the forecast price per kilogram of production of $3.87, and an in-going equity of 16%, a deficit of -$48,737.50 is forecast meaning a loss in the first year of production of the same amount. To break even or make a small profit ($6000), the price per kilogram of milk-solids needs to increase by $0.40c (to $4.27) plus, the production must increase by 6740 kilograms (to 72489 kgsMS).   Alternatively, the price per kgsMS needs to increase by $0.19c (to $4.06) but, the production must increase by 10,363 kgsMS (to 76113 kgsMS).   

Table 10: Sensitivity Analysis of Farm Business, 2005 – 2006 Season. 

(Red signifies budget figures used; blue the break-even/profit point) 

The Bank of New Zealand (BNZ) has a threshold for lending based on $15 per kilogram of total milk-solids production. The feasibility study farm has a forecast annual production of 65,750 kilograms of milk solids so qualify for finance worth $986,250. The farm purchase price of $2.255 million means there is a shortfall of $1,268,750. Taking into account the 16.18% ingoing cash and equity ($365,000), there is an overall shortfall of $903,750. The total equity required by BNZ is 40% of total purchase price.

Table 11: Bank of New Zealand Lending Criteria. 

Agribusiness manager Darren Brookes said, provided the financial criteria are met, the business is profitable, it generates a cash-flow, the borrowers have practical, dairy farm management experience, they have a proven financial track record, a loan application would be considered. Lending criteria of the office of the Maaori Trustee on the other hand, is more rigorous.  

Land Administration Officer Maureen Tinkler advises an extra $72,750 interest is required to meet their lending rates. Further, the Office of the Maaori Trustee requires the trustees of an Ahuwhenua Trust to undergo scrutiny of their personal competence and financial credit worthiness plus, full disclosure of their personal assets and liabilities are also required. An Ahuwhenua Trusts existing property would be held by the Office of the Maaori Trustee as security and they require full monitoring rights to “respond to potential issues” (Appendix 7).  

The rate-able values of the land blocks within the case study area were obtained and are summarized in Table 12. Individual land block valuations are appended to Appendix 5. 

Table 12: Combined Rate-able Values of Maaori Land in Case Study Area. 

 Given the current return for pastoral leases of ~$618 per hectare (Table 6), the return on equity for the Okaerea Family Trust feasibility study (after tax), amounts to around 2.93%. Statistics obtained from Statistics NZ for the seasons 1991 – 1996, show an average return on equity for owner-operator dairy farms of 2.22%.         

Discussion.                                                                                                                       

The bulk of Maaori land in New Zealand is tribal land (Walker, 1981:10). The lands are small and scattered, are subject to multiple-ownership and succession (Asher and Naulls, 1987:55, 59), are “pepper-potted” among general lands (Durie, 1981:3), are of “marginal” quality (Asher and Naulls, 1987:47; Walker, 1981:14) and most are of negligible economic value (Kawharu, 1987:162). My research has confirmed that these characteristics aptly describe Maaori land in North Waikato. The North Waikato land is also a means of providing an economic base by using what little land remains “under our control” (Nottingham, 1989:4).

The process for loss and fragmentation of land vary around New Zealand but as expected, raupatu concerns rated highly in my survey. The literature is overwhelming in its criticism of the damage and grievance, division and confusion raupatu caused (Asher and Naulls, 1987:28; Mahuta, 1988:4; McCan, 2001:58; Ngata, 1940:137; Spiller et al, 1995:146; Sutherland, 1940:433). That my respondents felt this way in 2004, “kei te mamae tonu” means raupatu land has retained its wairua (spirituality), ihi (breath), and mauri (life force) and the land commands the mana (respect) it deserves from its whanaunga – nga hapuu o Waikato (the tribes of...).  

Nationally, there is a high land under-utilisation and under-development rate of Maaori land (Maaori Multiple Ownership Development Committee, 1998:2). While fragmentation provides opportunities to return to communal land ownership (McCarthy, 1980:36), it has also been argued that is provides a pathway to making land a commercial resource (Asher and Naulls, 1987:47). Judge Durie, a retired Maaori Land Court Judge, believed fragmentation was not a problem, but the answer to one (McHugh, 1991:368). The establishment of a strong economic base for Maaori can emerge through co-operative land development (Mahuta, 1982:11). But these arguments assume the blocks are economically viable and can be sold. If the blocks are not economically viable and cannot be sold and succession generates fragmentation, there is a need to acquire more land.  

The feasibility of purchasing additional land was explored using a case study. Labour, management and a large proportion of capital is required by the Okaerea Family Trust to pursue the purchase of a dairy farm business enterprise. Barriers to development of Maaori land mentioned earlier, were found to prevent this proposal succeeding at this time. The institutional responses to the hypothetical loan proposed by the feasibility study were basically similar, and the BNZs requirement of more equity to meet the 40% threshold was not unexpected. However the stringent requirements and higher interest rates of the Office of the Maaori Trustee were unexpected. Essentially, it was assumed that the Office of the Maaori Trustee would be more understanding and sympathetic of Maaori needs than would be a commercial bank like the BNZ. That it required a higher threshold clearly refutes any initial argument it subsidises Maaori.  

To be strategically and financially positioned to pursue an offer of purchase of land resources requires labour, capital and management. The utility of Maaori owners given the limited knowledge and expertise means utilities can reflect the “capitalized value of present or anticipated future, economic rent” if the feelings for the mauri of the land is considered. Mauri is not valued in the formal land market in terms of being able to realize financial capital. The spiritual and other returns to mana do not fit western lending criteria but do affect the decision making of the land owners. Decision-making on proposals to purchase land resources, will be influenced by Maaori attitudes to land, affecting their utility values “as the social highest and best-use of land contends with inspirational goals”. Maaori attitudes to land therefore, can be perceived to conflict with Ricardo’s “rigid assumptions of economic analysis of costs, returns, prices, profits and value”.    

The leasing arrangements identified by Egan and Mahuta in 1982 (1983:28) had its origins in the 1950’s with the urban drift. Land according to Ngata (1940:151) was considered a resource for the future maintenance of Maaori and the research repeated here suggests that this view continues to predominate amongst Maaori landowners but may not be financially realised. Asher and Naulls (1987:12) believe land will build and establish a strong economic base for Maaori to achieve self determination and cultural renaissance. Not all Maaori have affinity with Maaori land (Walker, 1981:13), but Maaori could still create better lives for themselves where-ever they want. The land could cater for social needs without compromising the heritage value for Maaori (Mahuta, 1982:9). But if land is the way to wealth (McCan, 2001;228) and if that wealth is construed as being material wealth not social wealth, then attempting to locate most land-use in production farming practices like dairy farming, could lead to the loss of Maaori land and associated spiritual and social well being. If this is not done, Maaori will end up without land or the use of it, because “land is the way to wealth” (McCan, 2001:226). 

The multiple ownership of Maaori land nationally is estimated at 1.9 million individual ownership interests in 1.5 million hectares of Maaori land and this ownership statistic is increasing by 185,000 per annum according to Te Puni Kookiri (2002:52). Portrayed in this light, multiple-ownership will continue to create congestion of ownership schedules thus compounding the issues identified in the literature. But if the land asset-base were increased at a rate perceived to compete with this annual rate of increase, multiple-ownership and fragmentation created by succession and recognized as barriers to development, could be overcome.   

Responses from the prospective lending institutions to the feasibility study were basically similar. The responses differed in relation to institutional, economic objectives, policies and theory. The BNZ operate within an economically competitive environment based on Keynesian economic theory of command capitalism where an individual western land ownership system is paramount requiring any Maaori land title to be changed to General title. The Office of the Maaori Trustee on the other hand is guided by government legislation under Te Ture Whenua Maaori Act (1993) that prevents the alienation of Maaori Land under Part VII of the Act. Their criteria of disclosure of trustees personal economic status required under s.82.1 (b) together with a higher interest rate are the major lending criteria differences.  

Comparative profitability margins between the current land-use option (leasing) and the dairy farm option indicates a higher return on equity (2.93% cf 2.22%) for the status quo. On this basis, the status quo should prevail but further analysis may reveal an increase in return on equity as debt is reduced whereas, the economic rent will remain static. Furthermore, if the broader cultural and socio-economic factors are taken into account, the expansion option may prove in the long term to be the most prudent option to pursue.    

Conclusions. 

Practical and real-world implications were identified in this research. The implications that most Maaori land is leased, Maaori land is not being utilized to its fullest potential, there are barriers to developing Maaori land and anomalies exist between current and potential economic rent of Maaori land, were largely confirmed. The case study undertaken confirmed anecdotally that the land blocks within the case study area were currently being leased at an economic rental of around $600 per hectare. Barriers to development identified in the literature relating to governance and management issues, access to information and access to finance, were partially able to be overcome through establishing trusts, but although well positioned strategically, they may not be able fiscally to pursue the dairy farm business enterprise.  

Institutional responses to the feasibility study were positive with the BNZ identifying equity as the only constraint. However, the requirement to convert the status of Maaori land to general land (for lending security purposes) will not be acceptable to some owners. The Office of the Maaori Trustee with their requirement of the trustee’s to provide statements of assets and liabilities provide potentially, a new barrier. Upper lending limits could be influenced as a result, by wealthy and affluent Ahuwhenua trustees or conversely, development and expansion opportunities could be constrained by the wealth and affluence of its trustees. However, the Office of the Maaori Trustee feels compelled to impose stringent criteria for lending to Ahuwhenua Trusts such as Okaerea Family Trust. Te Ture Whenua Maaori Act (1993) protects Maaori land from alienation resulting from failed business ventures so all risk must be avoided or mitigated.  

From a land economics perspective, Maaori land is currently used to its fullest economical potential. Given the barriers identified in this research and the current agricultural environment, the highest economic rent is being generated by dairy farming. Dairy farmers therefore, are able to pay the highest economic rent as lessee’s of Maaori land because dairying is the best land-use option. However, to address the issue of multiple-ownership and diminishing share values over successive generations, further study and research to prevent alienation of land is imperative. In particular, a mechanism for valuing the retention of kaitiaki status in the servicing of fixed debt needs to be investigated.

References. 

Accountants, N. Z. Society of. (1977). Management Accounting for the New   Zealand Farmer.Wellington, New Zealand Society of Accountants.           

Asher, G. and D. Naulls (1987). Maaori Land. Wellington, NZ Planning Council.           

Auditor-General (2004). Maaori Land Administration: Client Service Performance of the Maaori   Land Court Unit and The Maaori Trustee, The Audit Office: 82.           

Barclay-Kerr, K. (1991). Conflict over Waikato Coal: Maaori Land Rights. Mining and Indigenous Peoples in Australasia. J. Connell and R. Howitt. Sydney, Sydney University Press: 183-191.           

Barlowe, R. (1986). Land Economics: A study of Land and People. Land ResourceEconomics: The Economics of Real Estate (4th Ed). Englewood Cliffs NJ,   Prentice-Hall.           

Bishop, R. (1998). Whakawhanaungatanga as a Research Process. Te Oru Rangahau, Massey University, Palmerston North.         

Campbell, G. H. (1979). The Cultural Context of Rural Landuse Decision Making. 10th NZ Geographical Conference 49th ANZAAS Congress. W. Moran, P. Hosking and G. Aitken. Auckland, NZ Geographical Society. 10: 260 - 261. 

Cooper, J. and P. Lane (1997). Practical Marketing Planning, Macmillan Business.           

Craig, D. (1995). The Realms of King Tawhiao, Waitomo News Ltd. 

Durie, E. T. J. (1981). New Approaches to Maaori land in the 1980's with particularreference to its settlement and resettlement in the Northern half of the NI. Auckland, NZ Geographical Society.           

___________(1998). Te Mana Te Kawanata; The politics of Maaori Self Determination. Auckland, Oxford University Press.           

Egan, K. (1982). Outline of Tainui Report. Proceedings of Tainui Lands Federation Conference, Waahi Pa, University of Waikato.           

Egan, K. N. and R. T. Mahuta (1983). The Tainui Report. Hamilton, Waikato University.           

Farm Management Group. University (2002). Financial Budget Manual, Lincoln University.           

Harvey, J. (1992). Land Use and Land Values. Urban Land Economics. London, Macmillan Press: 199-239.           

Howitt, R. (2001). Rethinking Resource Management, Routledge.           

Johnston, R., D. Gregory, et al. (2000). Dictionary of Human Geography, BLackwell.           

Kawharu, I. H., Ed. (1979). Land as Tuurangawaewae. He Maataapuna, NZ Planning Council. 

_______________(1987). NZ: Salvaging the Remnant. Land Tenure in the Pacific. R. Crocombe. Suva, University of South Pacific: 143 - 163.                       

Kelsey, J. (1997). The New Zealand Experiment. Auckland, Auckland University Press and Bridget Williams Books.           

Kookiri, Te Puni. (2002). Maaori in the New Zealand Economy. Wellington, Te Puni    Kookiri.           

Maaori  Land Court. (2002). Services and Funding: A Guide, Department for Courts. 

Maaori  Multiple  Ownership Land Development Committee, (1998). Maaori Land Development, Ministry of Maaori Development. 

Mahuta, R. T., Ed. (1979). He Hinengaro Motuhake: A Separate Reality. He Maataapuna: Some Maaori Perspectives, NZ Planning Council.           

_______________ (1981). The Maaori People in the Waikato and Beyond. Hamilton,             Waikato University: 14.

_______________ (1982). Nothing is Impossible: Overview and Objectives.   Proceedings of Tainui Lands Federation Conference, Waikato University.           

________________(1988). Raupatu and its Impact on Waikato Attitudes, Waikato     University.           

Mankiw, N. G. (1998). Principles of Microeconomics, Dryden Press. 

Maughan, C. W. and T. T. Kingi (1997). Efficiency and Maaori Land: A Conceprtual Framework for Economic Development, Massey University.           

McCan, D. (2001). Whatiwhatihoe: The Waikato Raupatu Claim, Huia Publishers.           

McCarthy, S. T. P., W. T. R. Mete-Kingi, et al. (1980). Report of the Royal Commission    of     Inquiry, The Maaori Land Courts: 149.           

McHugh, P. G. (1980). The Fragmentation of Maaori Land, Legal Research Foundation  Inc. 

____________(1991). The Maaori Magna Carta, NZ Law and the Treaty of Waitangi, Oxford   University Press.              

Mete-Kingi, W. T. R. (1978). Farming of Maaori Leasehold Land, Ministry of Maaori Affairs.           

Moran, W. (1979). Processes and Policies for Land Use Diversification. Proceedings of the 10th NZ Geography Conference and 49th ANZAAS Congress. W. Moran, P. Hosking and G. Aitken. Auckland, NZ Geographic Society. 10: 240 - 245           

_________(1996). Changing Places, NZ in the Nineties. R. L. Heron and P. P. (Eds). Auckland, Longman Paul.           

Morishima, M. (1989). Ricardo's Economics, University of Cambridge.           

Morton, S. M. (1946). The Confiscation of the Northern Blocks of the Waikato and their Settlement by Assisted Immigrants. MA History. Auckland, Auckland: 103.                       

Ngata, A. T. (1940). Tribal Organisation. Maaori People Today. I. L. G. Sutherland,    Whitcomb and Tombs: 155 - 181.           

Norris, H. C. M. (1972). Early European in Waikato. The Waikato: Man and hisEnvironment.  D. H. Goodall, NZ Geographical Society.           

Nottingham, I. M. (1989). Maaori Whenua , Mana Tangata Land, People. Ecopolitics IV Conference, Adelaide, Waikato University. 

Ogle, G. B. (1993). Lending to Maaori Farmers, MAF Policy.           

Pritchard, I. and H. Waetford (1965). The laws Affecting Maaori Land and the   Jurisdiction and Powers of the Maaori Land Court. Wellington: 161.           

Spiller, P., J. Finn, et al. (1995). A NZ Legal History, Brookers.           

Sutherland, I. L. G., Ed. (1940). The Maaori Situation. The Maaori People Today,   Whitcombe and Tombs.           

Toataua, H. (1991). Tainui and the Treaty of Waitangi, Kirikiriroa 1990 Community   Committee.           

Waitt, G., G. McGuirk, et al. (2000). Human Geography, Globalisation Difference and Inequality, Longman.           

Walker, R. (1981). Maaori Land Use National Conference. Nga Tumanko, Wairoa,     Auckland University.

Bibliography.           

Hurinui, P. te (1960). King Potatau, Polynesian Society.                                               

Renne, R. R. (1974). Land Economics. New York, Harper and Brothers.           

Ricardo, D. (1960). Rent. Classics in Economics. G. D. H. Cole. London, Kennikat  Press:      29 - 34.           

Sarantakos, S. (1998). Social Research, Charles Sturt University.           

Sorrensson, M. P. K. (1965). Politics of Land. The Maaori and NZ Politics. J. Pocock,            Blackwood and Janet Paul: 55 - 61.           

Stokes, E. (1997). Maaori Customary Tenure of Land. Hamilton, University of Waikato.           

Sutherland, I. L. G., Ed. (1940). The Maaori Situation. The Maaori People Today,       Whitcombe and Tombs.          

Personal Communication. 

Mr. D. Brookes, Agribusiness Manager, BNZ, Hamilton.

Mr. W. Clark, Chairman Okaerea Family Trust, Auckland.

Mr. J.T. Findlay, Farm Management Consultant, Hamilton.

Mr. T. Harris, Rates Administrator, Waikato District Council.

Mr. M. J. Kenna, Lessee Farmer, Te Kauwhata.

Mrs. M. Tinkler, Land Administration Officer, Office of the Maaori Trustee, Hamilton.

Electronic Resources 

http://www.tpk.govt.nz/business/mlidb/default.asp

Appendices.

Appendix 1:

Written Survey.

AGREEMENT TO PARTICIPATE

in the research project:

“Are there Barriers to Maaori Land Development in North Waikato”

Background to Research.

Respected kaumaatua and kuia have long recognized economic development of land will provide for future generations of Maaori. Barriers to economic development identified in the 1890’s, remain today. There are remnants of customary Maaori land scattered throughout the rohe o Te Kauwhata. This project seeks to derive from these lands an alternative income stream with capability to improve on current returns. Through astute management and investment practices, barriers to economic development may be overcome and perpetual wealth for the hapuu could be realized. A consequence of this is an improvement in the socio-economic status of the hapuu.

The researcher of this project is Alex Hopkins and this survey forms part of the GEOG590 Directed Study paper in the B.Soc.Sci. honours degree in Geography. Should you have any questions or concerns regarding this project or the conduct of the research, please contact either the researcher or his supervisor Dr. Hamish Rennie (07) 856 2889 (ext 6023) or email hrennie@waikato.ac.nz

Participant Understanding.

I understand my participation in the survey is voluntary and no coercion or inducement has been used. I can withdraw from the survey at any time and can decline to answer any questions I choose. I understand my identity will remain confidential and no material will identify me or my survey responses. I understand all responses will be stored securely and will be destroyed at the completion of the project by incineration by the researcher.

Participant Commitment.

I have read and understand fully the purpose of this survey.

I understand my participation in the survey is voluntary.

I am secure in the knowledge my identity and the contribution I make to the project, will remain confidential.

Statement:

I …………………………………. hereby consent to participate in this survey.

Participant signature: ………………………………Date:….……………2004

Researcher signature:…………………………

Thank you for your co-operation in completing this survey.

Conducted in fulfillment of the Directed Study paper by A. Hopkins, Geography Department, University of Waikato

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Participant Commitment:

I have read and understand fully the purpose of this survey.

I understand my participation in the survey is voluntary.

I am secure in the knowledge my identity and the contribution I make to the project, will remain confidential.

Statement:

I …………………………………. hereby consent to participate in this survey.

Participant signature: ………………………………Date:….……………2004

Researcher signature:…………………………

“Are there Barriers to Maaori Land Development in North Waikato” 

Survey Instructions:

All questions relate to Ngaati Hine lands o te rohe o Te Kauwhata;

All respondents will be owners, descendants of owners or tamariki of owners;

All responses will remain confidential and anonymous.

Answer all questions.

Part 1: Your Understanding and Whakaaro (feelings) toward Maaori Land.

1. What do you consider Maaori Land to be?

……………………………………………………………………………………………… 

The following have been identified as attitudes to Maaori land (by Maaori).

1. Land represents spiritual survival;
2. Land represents economic survival;
3. Land provides identity and livelihood;
4. Land provides spiritual attachment;
5. Land is a source of tribal and personal identity;
6. Land maintains hapuu identity;
7. Land maintains social unity;
8. Land provides an economic base.

2. If you agree with any of the attitudes to land (in 1-8 above), write their numbers here and say why you agree.

……………………………………………………………………………………………… 

3. If you disagree with any of the attitudes to land (in 1-8 above), write their numbers here and say why you disagree.

……………………………………………………………………………………………… 

4. If you have alternative attitudes to land, write them here.

……………………………………………………………………………………………

Part 2: Effects of Raupatu on Attitudes to Land Use.

Mahara (reminders) of the pakanga (war) of 1863 in the rohe can still be seen. One million 200,000 acres of land was lost to raupatu as direct result of the war. Geographically, Te Kauwhata is situated near the centre of those lands. In 1995, a deed was negotiated between the National Government and Waikato-Tainui as full and final settlement for the injustices the raupatu caused to hapuu.

5. Do you think grievances of raupatu remain with hapuu and whanau today despite the compensation settlement? Comment on your answer.

……………………………………………………………………………………………… 

6. Do you think raupatu has affected the way the land in the rohe has been used in the past or currently? If so, how?

………………………………………………………………………………………….…. 

Part 3: Economic Development of Maaori Land.

It has been said economic development of Maaori land is a means to provide for future generations of Maaori.

7. What is your response to this comment? Do you agree or disagree and why?

……………………………………………………………………………………………… 

Part 4: Barriers to Economic Development of Maaori Land.

A 2004 report released by a government department identified the following barriers to the economic development of Maaori Land:

1.      Multiple ownership;

2.      Governance and management issues;

3.      Access to finance;

4.      Access to information;

5.      Access to land-locked blocks;

6.      Rating of Maaori Land.

8. If you agree with the barriers (in 1-6 above), write their numbers here and comment on each as required.

……………………………………………………………………………………………… 

9. If you disagree with the barriers (in 1-6 above), write their numbers here and comment on each as required. If you have alternative barriers, note them also. ………………………………………………………………………………………………

Part 5: Owning and Using Maaori Land in the rohe o Te Kauwhata.

10. Describe what owning and using Maaori land means to you?

(eg: tuurangawaewae, kaitiakitanga, take wairua, economic development.)

……………………………………………………………………………………………..

11. Do you have a preference for any particular land-use option (or uses)? If so, what is/are those uses?

……………………………………………………………………………………………… 

12.  From your response to question 11 above, what barriers exist which prevent you using the land in this/these ways?

……………………………………………………………………………………………… 

Part 6: Additional Comments.

13. Any comments you think may contribute to how Ngati Hine lands could be used to improve the socio-economic status of the hapuu can be made here.

……………………………………………………………………………………………… 

Part 7: Information about You and your Whanau.

14. Are you actively involved with Maaori land in any capacity? If yes, what is your involvement and how long has your involvement been in that activity? If not, why not? 

………………………………………………………………………………………………

15. Are you actively involved in any decision-making process with Maaori land? If yes, how are you involved and how long have you been involved?

……………………………………………………………………………………………… 

16. Please describe the members of your household. 

.

Appendix 2:

Hypothetical Loan Application

Okaerea Family Trust

Proprietors of Lot 512C Parish of Whangamarino

Jamieson Road RD1Te Kauwhata

Postal Address: Montgomery Avenue, Pukekohe 

Office of the Maaori Trustee

Garden Place, Hamilton

20 September 2004

To: Maureen Tinkler, Land Administration Officer

 Subject: Loan Application to Purchase Property 

The Okaerea Family Trust (the Trust) has an opportunity to purchase a dairy farm opposite their property in Jamieson Road, Okaerea. The proposed purchase is a 68.8 hectare dairy enterprise situated 0.5 km along Jamieson Road on its eastern side. The property is situated in a valley with a north-south aspect; has a flat to easy rolling contour and is sheltered on its eastern boundary by the southern reaches of Maramarua Forest and a range of hills to the south and west.  

The Trust proposes to purchase the enterprise as a going concern. A Farm Consultant has been engaged and in collaboration with the Trust, has compiled the accompanying disc containing a forecast budget. Eventually, a farm manager will be appointed to carry out the day to day functions of the farm under the consultants’ supervision. A management plan is included and shows the management structure and monitoring procedures proposed for the enterprise. 

Estimated total debt is $1.85 million with annual debt servicing of $141,000. This estimate is for the purchase of land and buildings, stock and plant, dairy company shares and a farm managers’ salary package of $45,000. The Trust has an ingoing cash amount of $75,000 with $290,000 equity in their property that will be incorporated into the dairy enterprise. Total in-going equates to ~ 16%. The budget has been compiled using mean statistics extracted from Dexcel research data of owner-operator enterprises over the last 10 years. This approach has been taken at the Trusts instigation in the absence of actual data for the dairy enterprise and by the fact the total area of the enterprise matches the mean farm area of the Dexcel data.  

The Trust comprises a new seven-member committee recently elected in the wake of vacancies forced by resignations and losses. The Trust is yet to be confirmed by the Maaori Land Court and its members are made up of:

• Chairman Waru Clark– 40’s; Married with whanau; Education degree; Education sector; Auckland.
• Secretary Sharron Ross – 30’s; Married with whanau; Airport staff; Auckland Airport; Pukekohe.
• Treasurer Alex Hopkins – 50’s; Single with whanau; Appl.Sci. degree (Agribusiness); Student; Hamilton.
• Girlie Iwihora – 40’s; Married with whanau; Farmer; Te Kauwhata.
• Sean Clark – 30’s. Single; Transport industry; Tuakau.
• Thomas Iwihora - 40’s; Married with whanau; Transport industry; Hamilton.
• Elaine Kingi – 50’s; Married with whanau; Housewife; Te Kauwhata.

As recently discussed, this “application” forms part of my Research for a 590 Directed Study paper in fulfillment of a B.Soc.Sci. Honours Degree. The application seeks supporting information for a case study exploring a possible expansion opportunity by a progressive Ahuwhenua Trust. The information required relates to the success or otherwise of this hypothetical application: the thresholds and criteria for lending, and; comments on the calibre of the trustees as applied by the Office of the Maaori Trustee. Finally, comments on what further information or action is required to secure a successful outcome will be appreciated. A similar application is being submitted to the Bank of New Zealand.  

An ethics clearance has been provided by the University of Waikato for this Research and all information you provide will remain confidential. Any information will only be released and included in the paper on your written authority. Thank you.

Naku noa,

A, Hopkins.

(Researcher)

Management Plan for a Maaori-owned Dairy Farm Enterprise.

A Maaori Ahuwhenua Trust with limited farm business management experience will need to recognize the distinctions between governance responsibilities and farm business management responsibilities when contemplating the purchase of a farming enterprise. There is familiarity by trust members with governance issues relating to the smooth running of the trust in accordance with its trust deed. Farm business management responsibilities on the other hand, pertain to the business management of the farming enterprise with an asset value of over $2 million. The bulk of this responsibility must be delegated to experts in the agricultural sector such as Farm Consultants and in the initial years of establishment, this is critical.

Governance and Management Components and Responsibilities

Components:

• Governance body;
• Management body;
• Operations team;
• Accountants;
• Agribusiness Banking Consultants.

Schematic of Management Components:

Farm Business Management 

Crucial to the operation of any farming enterprise are the strategic, tactical and operational planning decisions made by management to achieve a pre-determined goal or goals. Strategic decisions concern the long-term goals of the enterprise (off-farm investments), tactical decisions concern the medium-term (breed of cows) and short-term decisions (determining calving dates). Operational decisions refer to the day to day management on the farm. A goal for the Trust is shown as:

Tactical Management Plan to Achieve Sustainable Growth  

Farm Seasonal Targets

Operational decisions will be made each season to:

• Achieve a forecast milk solids (MS) target of 66,000 kilograms;
• Achieve a per cow production of 305 kilograms MS per cow;
• Achieve a rate of 93% live calves;
• To achieve recommended animal target live-weights;
• Breed high index calves to maintain a 25% replacement policy;
• Select 50 calves of beef extraction for beef production;
• Achieve an in-calf rate of 90% to AB by day 45;
• Restrict cow losses at or below 3%;
• Maintain a Somatic Cell Count level at or below 200,000 counts per million;
• Harvest sufficient silage to maintain feed reserves through to the spring flush;
• Implement a pasture renovation programme to improve10% of the farm pastures each season.

Conducted in fulfillment of the 590 Directed Study paper by A. Hopkins, Geography Department, University of Waikato

Appendix 3:

Dexcel Monitoring Report.

                                               Statistics used in formulating forecast budget