OHU: UTOPIAS IN A PARADISE LOST?
This article describes the establishing and operation of the New Zealand Governmentís "Ohu" land settlement scheme from 1974 to the present day.
It links it to other land-based utopian settlements such as the Israeli kibbutz model, and explains similarities and differences. It also attempts to put it in the context of the era of the "counter-culture" in terms of its transitory nature. Last, it examines the utopian quest for sustainability and asks whether ohu have relevance to efforts to achieve it.
1.0 The Beginnings
Ohu- a Maori term meaning either a communal or volunteer work group, or to work together as a communal group. n. & v; sing and pl.
The third New Zealand Labour Government (1972-75) under Prime Minster Norman Kirk was known for its strong social conscience in both international and domestic affairs. (Govt Whips Office 1974, Bassett1978, Hayward 1981). On the international front,it had confronted the global nuclear arms race by strong opposition to French testing in the Pacific, and by the sponsoring of non-proliferation measures such as the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone (later embodied in the Rarotonga Treaty of 1986) and South Pacific Environmental programme. It had also ended national conscription and New Zealandís contribution to the Vietnam War upon coming to power in 1972, and had cancelled the visas of a visiting South African rugby team in early 1974 because of its abhorrence to the regime of apartheid in that country.
On the domestic front, it demonstrated its commitment to environmental protection by setting up a Royal Commission on Nuclear Power which reported in 1974, and the establishment of the Guardians of the Rotorua Lakes and Lake Manapouri (both 1973).
In October1974, the Labour Government announced the establishment of the ohu scheme for groups of New Zealand citizens willing to set up alternative communities or settlements in rural areas. Prime Minister Kirk said that the reasons for it were mainly spiritual and social- to reconnect people to the land and to give them a chance to develop alternative social models to everyday New Zealand society.
He saw the kibbutz type environment as a possible antidote "to the ills of modern society, as well as a means of showing people the virtues of a simpler life." (Hayward 1981 p.173 ) For Norman Kirk, a politician who knew the value of manual labour, the scheme had a strong therapuetic bent for participants as well as for the larger society.
The Minister for Lands, Hon. Matiu Rata also emphasised the social implications of this alternative land settlement scheme. For Minister Rata, the scheme had a strong Maori spiritual dimension.
"For some time now I have been concerned with the needs of that section of society that has worked so hard to gain social, economic and cultural integrity while trying to maintain spiritual and cultural strength and self-respect. I refer of course, to the Maori section of our society." [Matiu Rata to the Ohu Working Party, August 1974]
The 2nd NZ Whole Earth Catalogue [1975 p30] suggests that the genesis of the scheme came from the disparities between life as Matiu Rata and other urban Maori experienced it in cities such as Wellington, and the more relaxed lifestyle of rural Maori in the Hokianga area of rural Northland. But this seems too simple an explanation.
Undoubtedly the contrasts for urban Maori were great in that they lost attachment with their whaungatanga and the spiritual basis of links with their tribal lands in exchange for promises of material wealth in the cities. These pressures continue today. But it may well have been the well-publicised exploits of James K. Baxter ( a personal friend of Mat Rataís) and his Jerusalem commune on the Wanganui River which struck a chord with the Labour politicians and their younger policy advisers. Baxter took in the "lost ones" of the cities- the ex-drug addicts, the young and alienated Maori. He gave them a home and a surrogate family in a communal setting located in a remote area that had deep spiritual links to both Maori and Pakeha 1. Baxter had had enormous appeal to the young as an anti-establishment rebel who spoke of attachment to the land and fabric of New Zealand and what it meant to be a New Zealander 2.
When dealing with politicians, even those with a social conscience, one can not discount the political factor. In the1972 election, the newly formed Values Party running on a platform of environmental sustainability (although the word was not yet coined) and political integrity, garnered a respectable percentage of the vote. While Matiu Rata stressed the setting up of ohu were "not meant to be the Governmentís answer to dissident left or right wingers" (p4 Ohu Settlement Scheme 1974), it can be inferred from the various remarks that both he and Prime Minister Kirk made, that ohu were at least partly conceived as a counter to the Values Party manifesto 3 ,and as an outlet for those who might otherwise engage in dissident political action (cf PYM) 4.
2.0 Ohu as Kibbutz.
"[The kibbutz ] is the foundation cell of the future society that is already in process of realisation today...The kibbutz society has carried out a complete revolution of life, and has changed the ancient order of human social living. The property system, method of production,division of labour, foundation of the family, the character of human relations, the status of women, the foundation of education- all have changed in their fundamentals and are in the process of a permanent change." Kibbutz Leader quoted in Spiro "Venture in Utopia" 1972.
Whatever the local origins, one of important internationalist strands influencing the philosophy of the scheme was the example of the kibbutz. Both Prime Minister Kirk and Matiu Rata drew parallels with the pioneer Israeli kibbutz movement and the need for nation building. While the proposed ohu were not meant to be carbon copies of kibbutz, it was stressed that they were places that people were to contribute to the nation by "their own hands and sweat"(ibid p5) away from the materialism of the cities.
The kibbutz movement in Israel came out of a particular nationalist and religious movement known as Zionism (Near 1992). Zionism stressed the duty of the Jewish people to re-settle Palestine as the ancient homeland of the Jewish nation. At the time the first kibbutz were established (1911 Merhavia ,1912 Derania, ), Palestine was then part of the Turkish empire. Those setting up kibbutz had to combat the hostility of the Turkish authorities, as well as resist incursions from Beduin tribes who traditionally used some of the lands now claimed by Jewish settlers as their grazing lands. Although the settlers did not personally pay for the land -purchase coming from the Jewish National Fund, they usually had insufficient money at the beginning to erect more than primitive shelter (Spiro 1972, Near 1992), and to grow subsistence crops. Some of the kibbutz pioneers at this time were as young as 16.
Out of these difficult beginnings, they made a virtue from the hard work necessary for survival. As few of the kibbutz founders were farmers, this was particularly hard and it was not until the late 1920s when many more settlers had arrived 5, that the living and economic situations of chaverim improved.
Superficially, the situation of ohu members was similar to kibbutz settlers. They did not own the land -it was leased from the Department of Lands and Survey at a peppercorn rental (4.5% of unimproved current market value per year) and was perpetually renewable at ten year intervals after an initial one year temporary lease. But it was not expected to contribute to the nationís agricultural productive capacity, merely to enable community enterprise of a subsistence nature.(Hansard Vol 415 pp4063-4; 1 Nov 1977). Kibbutz on the other hand were and still continue to be strong contributors to Israelís national agricultural and light industrial output.
Ohu living situations were probably similar to early kibbutz -being rudimentary and fashioned from locally available materials (see illustration). Over time kibbutz turned into self sufficient communities with schools, factories, childrenís houses and nurseries, orchards, and fields, and a good variety of housing for both residents and visitors. Capital employed from agricultural surpluses made this possible as well as generous loans from the Jewish National Fund. Ohu remained at a rudimentary level due to their remote locations, initial lack of capital from group members, and lack of an economic production and distribution system to which they could contribute. Of the three ohu that were established 6, only Earth Extract Ltd of Waipu (Northland) had sufficient capital and expertise to eventually freehold the land in 1988 but even they did not earn a living from it -most income being derived from off-farm activities (personal comm. K Francis 21/5/98).
Perhaps the biggest difference between ohu and kibbutz was the philosophy behind the settlement. Kibbutz members felt they had a calling to be part of a new Nation founded on a particular nationalist faith (although most kibbutz are secular). They also had a very strong work ethic that on occasions even disregarded membersí illness or unfitness for hard manual labour. They developed a form of community goverance which involved every one in collective decision-making and most in positions of community responsibility for aspects of community life (Spiro 1972). Ohu never grew beyond their initial membership and so never fully developed the specialisation of the kibbutz 7.
They also did not develop the elaborate support systems and national organisation that characterises the kibbutz movement in Israel 8. Ohu pretty well functioned as autonomous units and succeeded or failed on their own terms.
3.0 Ohu as culture of the times.
The late 1960s and early 1970s was characterised by a ferment of the young and their older peers (Roszak 1970). Partly this was due to a reaction to the affluence of their parentsí and their own teenage generation, and partly due to awareness of and opposition to the technocracy 9 and the political complacency to then emerging global problems. But not only were these problems global, the reaction to those problems was also global through the medium of satellite TV, the nightly news bulletins of the war in Vietnam, pictures of riots in Paris, Prague and elsewhere, and above all, the pervasiveness of rock music and culture. Woodstock was the protest event of the era and when Jimi Hendrix played the "Star-spangled Banner" through waves of guitar distortion, it was in anger and sorrow, not as a patriotic homage.
The young left home in droves, travelled in minibuses to "happening places" such as Haight-Ashbury in San Francisco ,Greenwich Village in New York, and Carnaby Street in Soho, London and taking the advice of Professor Timothy Leary "turned on, tuned in and dropped out."
Some sought enlightment on journeys to the East and then returned disssatisfied with the materialistic culture they saw around them. From the end of the "Summer of Love" (1967), young Americans took to the hills in "a spontaneous, simultaneous movement" to create their own societies in rural communes.(Houriet 1971 p.xii)
Although it is difficult to characterise all the aspects of the youth revolution of the 1960s and early 1970s, some common themes can be discerned. These were;
This was manifested by mass civil disobedience, particularly anti-war and civil rights demonstrations; by withdrawl from conventional jobs; by unconventional dress and music; by rejection of some aspects of materialism such as attitudes to possessions and housing ("squats" and "crash pads" being very popular); and by advocation of political and human rights, particularly by and for women and Afro-Americans.
This was manifested in the ideal of direct face to face relationships instead of hierachies; and for cutting down on the conspicious material consumption of their parentsí generation.
This could be either spiritually-based on Eastern religions, or on some adaptation of an indigenous religion e.g. shamanism.
This attitude was manifested in sexual and social relationships; in fashion, art and dress; in music and in altered states of consciousness through drugs or meditation.
Partly this was due to living in the shadow of the atomic bomb; and for young men, the possibility of conscription and death in an unnecessary colonial war in South East Asia. Partly this was the attitude that one
could always move on "like a rolling stone", from bad experiences or "trips" to better "spaces".
Most of these aspects could also be found in New Zealand youth culture during the period -although somewhat later. For example the celebrated Blerta bus tours of New Zealand, bringing unconventional music, dress and behaviour into rural New Zealand didnít happen until 1971. and New Zealandís equivalent of Woodstock - the Sweetwaters and Nambassa Festivals, didnít occur until 1975 onwards.
Most young New Zealanders under 25 were affected in some way by the youth revolution during this period -through the media, music and from personal experience via the "OE" (overseas experience) phenomenon. Consequently a number of them brought back ideas of establishing new forms of communitarian living away from the materialism of the cities. This trend was also aided by young migrants from Europe and America who wanted to get away from it all -New Zealand being the furtherest they could go.
During the early 1970s a number of rural commune were established in New Zealand (Jones 1975). Most were of the subsistence variety and were transitory in their membership. Being young and idealistic, the harsh reality of erecting oneís own shelter, growing food and bringing up children on little income, without the convenience of electric power and running water was too much for most would-be communitarians.(Delahunty,1974)
Ohu fell into the same category. As Jones remarked," Ohu were not distinguisable in any major way from private communes, except the land was leased from the Government and there were no urban ohu." (Jones 1975 p.120) Areas allocated by the Department of Lands and Survey were remote and without formed access. At AhuAhu Community there was a forty minute walk from the road and a wade across the river to reach their land. Carrying supplies in during mid-winter was a major ordeal.
Paradoxically, it was not those who actually settled on the land who failed in attempting to realise the utopian vision.(see table 1.) Despite the difficulties, those who settled made a determined effort to realise their dreams. The following description of the Sunburst Community in the Coromandel gives some idea of the tenacity of ohu members.
"They arrived in darkest August night (NZ winter), the green truck full of 11 or so adults and 3 or 4 kids, to a fiercely flooded river. Using ropes and a people-chain they somehow crossed. Next day a flying fox was rigged and supplies ferried across. The first ohu was in action with no material assistance from the government beyond the land being made available." [2nd NZ Whole Earth Catalogue p29]
4.0 Ohus as pioneering settlement.
The Government had initially established assisted settlement in rural areas for returned soldiers after World War 1. This programme lasted until 1953. Returned servicemen were assisted at little or no cost unto their own leasehold farms, located in various land districts in New Zealand. One group settlement scheme in a remote valley located in the Wanganui district lasted from 1923 to1942 when a flood swept the remaining settlers off their land.
In 1948 the Government passed the Land Act and consituted a Land Settlement Board to administer land policy and settlement of Crown land through the Department of Lands and Survey. The Land Settlement Board administered the Farm Settlement scheme in which young farmers were balloted to take up land -either on a renewable lease; for cash or on deferred payments. The renewable lease was for 33 years with perpetual rights of renewal, and right to acquire the freehold. Rent was reviewed every 11 years.
From the time of the settlement scheme in 1941 up to 1983 the Government had settled 4,736 ex-servicemen and civilian settlers on farms of their own, totalling 806,204 hectares. (NZ Official Yearbook 1983 p337)
The terms of the ohu settlement scheme were different. Groups had to be first constituted and then apply to the Department with a proposal for an ohu settlement. This proposal was vetted by the Ohu Advisory Group for practicality before being passed onto the Minister of Lands. The Minister then sought advice from the Department and its District offices as to whether there was any suitable Crown land available for ohu establishment. After some initial difficulties in locating unalientated Crown land, the Department came up with a list of some 264 sites (pers comm K. Francis). This was later narrowed down and as at October 1976 there were 27 sites of vacant crown land that approved ohu groups could inspect (Hansard Vol 407 p3714; 27 Oct 1976).
Once the ohu group had inspected the available land, it could put in an offer to the Department to take up a special lease on its preferred site. This lease consisted of a one year temporary lease during which they had to demonstrate satisfactory progress; followed by a ten year renewable perpetual lease, with no right to freehold and no right of transfer. This condition was in marked contrast to the Departmentís other lease arrangements (excepting the pastoral high country leases.)
The Land Settlement Board considered the applications from ohu groups and then made a recommendation to the Minister of Lands on issuing of the required licence to occupy. Upon the Ministerís approval, the Commissioner of Crown Lands, the ohu group, the local authority and any other people directly involved were notified.
By 1976, representations from farmer constituents, particularly in Taranaki and King Country had resulted in changes to the approval process for allocation of land 10. The Ohu Advisory Board, consisting of departmental officials and ohu representatives was disbanded; the Land Settlement Board now made the final decision on allocation, requiring them to take into account the acceptability of the ohu groupsí proposals to the local community; and the land to be used for ohu sites was to be publically advertised.
By the end of 1975, eight groups had been approved and seven allocated land. Four ohu settled on land of their choosing. One ohu group was allocated land but disbanded after a year.
The ohu settlements had great difficulty in complying with local authority bylaws and planning regulations which restricted their ability to erect a number of dwellings on one economic unit.
Compliance with health and safety standards for rural housing could also be a problem, particularly in the early phases. They also came in for critical attention by neighbouring residents, local and national politicians and the media. (see Hansard Vols 387 1973;Vol 415 1977) There were a number of uniformed criticisms of ohu members as "welfare bludgers". (Jones 1975 p129; Hansard Vol 387 p4427-28 17 Oct 1973; Vol 339 p2408-9 25 June 1975)
A major problem mentioned by the Commissioner for Crown Lands Office ( letter15 May 1998) was the quality of the land allocated to ohu. Most areas allocated were remote and difficult of access. They were also areas classified as uneconomic for the Department to develop further- consisting mostly of unimproved or reverted land. Land allocated in the Farm Settlement scheme by contrast was land improved and made ready for occupation by young farmers and their families.
In many ways the ohu replicated the experience of rural backblocks settlers of last century. (Sinclair & Harrex 1978; also see illustration below). Poor access, no power, no phone and remoteness from other settlement contributed to rural isolation. But it also contributed to a pioneer spirit of "making do" and of being self-sufficient; of living within the all pervasive bush. For example , flying high over Taranaki province on a clear day (area of an number of allocated ohu sites), one can imagine how the early European pioneers hacked and burnt clearings, then established their forty acre farms in the wilderness. Maori settlers did likewise but lived closer to the ohu model in terms of their communal villages within smaller clearings and their subsistence economies.
There are unfortunately no figures on how much land was "broken in" and which then reverted back to scrubland in the North Island of New Zealand, but the ecological effects of such changes in land use are still marked today (Park 1996). Ohu participants were more aware of environmental impacts of clearance of native bush, the grazing of cattle and the draining of swamps and wetlands on native habitats. The land which they were allocated was mostly reverted farmland with 80-90% native bush cover. Except for clearing of house sites and for small orchards and gardens, the land was not cleared for pasture in the same manner as the pioneer settlers (Country Calender, April 1998; pers comm. K. Francis). In at least two of the ohu, the decision to leave the land largely in native cover was controversial and resulted in a number of ohu members leaving.
5.0 Ohu as utopian settlements
From the previous history, one can see that ohu had links with both the pioneer and rural commune experience. But was it more than just a land settlement scheme of the type which the Department of Lands and Survey had been involved in for over 50 years? Was it more than just a rural crash pad for counter culture rebels to escape to?
Prime Minister Kirk certainly envisaged a utopian purpose for ohu - he saw it as a means of revitalisation of society and particularly of its young through being close to and working on the land. Matiu Rata also stressed its role in overcoming social alienation-particularly for Maori. So was it a real attempt at radical reform by example, or was it a sectarian response 11 to the ills of society by some of those alienated young radicals?
Perhaps it was neither. Ohu were established for all sorts of reasons -as many as there were groups. Some such as Sunburst Community (see article in 2nd NZ Whole Earth Catalogue p29) were motivated by a religious based philosophy, others by the desire to make a particular lifestyle choice to move to a rural setting but essentially not to give up contacts with urban living, nor to reject societal values wholesale(e.g. Earth Extract Ltd.) If the original motivation for the ohu scheme by the politicians and the ohu advisory group was utopian, the reality was less so. Survival rather than leadership by example became the guiding principle as the years passed.
6.0 Were Ohu sustainable and what do they have to teach us?
Judging by the survival rate (see Table 1), ohu were markedly less successful in both survival and in transforming society than their international model -that of the kibbutz. As such they were unsustainable as a political and social experiment. But on another level they may have much to teach us about the nature of small scale communitarian experiments.
Sustainability has been defined as "the ability to satisfy our present social and economic needs without compromising the needs of future generations." (adapted from the RMA 1991). However this definition is somewhat unclear. The Strategy for Sustainable Living (WWF,UNEP,IUCN 1991) clarifies it as meaning "improving the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of supporting ecosystems.."(p10)
It further gives nine principles for realising a sustainable society. These are:
Many of these principles later found their way into the documents prepared for the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janiero in 1992; and into the Earth Charter and international agreements on Biodiversity, and Global Climate Change.
Other guiding principles have been added since. These include
"the realisation that all things have environmental effects; the promotion of economic justice and assisting people to be secure especially their safety and well-being; the meeting of basic needs -such as food, shelter, health, and the enjoyment of culture; participatory governance and peaceful relations; and the development of intrinsic responsibility as a personal ethic." (Pritchard 1998)
All of these principles have the common goals of meeting basic needs and minimising human demands upon the Earthís ecosystems.
Ohu potentially could meet such principles through their small scale organisation - by their participatory structure and by adoption of an environmental ethic to govern their impacts upon the land where they work and live. From an ohu brochure of 1975 the intentions of ohu participants were revealed as..
"- wanting an alternative , largely self reliant lifestyle on the land
- ecologically aware..concerned about conserving flora and fauna..interested in organic agriculture methods and recycling of materials and in alternative technology -decentralised genereation of power by non-pollutive methods
- interested in a greater degree of communal sharing of amenities and equipment, and more co-operation...
- concerned with the education of children and the need to provide more enlightened alternatives
- interested in alternative forms of architecture, materials, forms of construction and methods of design
- interested in making group decisions in a democratic way either through unamimity or consensus with voting either not used or used as a last resort." (quoted in Jones 1975, p122)
That they were unable to fully realise these goals was due to the lack of support that they received from central and local government. After 1978 the ohu scheme withered away due to lack of involvement by the Department, indifference by the Minister and difficulties from local authorities. The remaining ohu settlement, in the AhuAhu valley (Wanganui) has a lease from Landcorp Investments Ltd (a successor to the Department of Lands) which expires in 1999. (letter,Commissioner of Crown Lands 15 May 1998)
In the end ohu had to carry a much heavier load that their fragile organisation was up to. It is possible that given more support that ohu could have acted as one of the many ways towards a sustainable future -particularly as a form of rural settlement suitable for those with little capital. But whether they could have acted as a catalyst towards sustainable living may never be known 12.
Perhaps an economist familar with small scale enterprise- E.F. Schumacher, should have the last word on such ventures.
"Can we rely on it that a turning around will be accomplished by enough people quickly enough to save the modern world? This question is often asked, but whatever answer given to it will mislead. The answer "Yes" would lead to complacency; the answer "No" to despair. It is desirable to leave these perplexities behind us and get down to work." [A Guide for the Perplexed.1978 p.180]
The people involved in the ohu experiment rolled up their sleeves and did just that.
1. Jerusalem was the site of a Roman Catholic Mission run by Sister Marie Aubert for over 40 years. Local Maori had retained their whaungatanga and attachment to the mauri of the River because of the isolation of the Wanganui River communities. Baxter (1926-74) was adopted by the local iwi Ngati Hau under the name Hemi and was buried amongst them in Jerusalem.
7. A Country Calender documentary on the AhuAhu Community describes some development of specialisation after the initial period where one or two members would take responsibility for community enterprises such as bee-keeping and cattle fattening.
9. Roszak defines the technocracy as a society " in which those who govern justify themselves by appeal to technical experts who, in turn, justify themselves by appeal to scientific forms of knowledge." p8 "The Making of a Counter Culture."
10. A petition by N.C.Wilton and 281 others seeking assurances that land in Manganui Riding of Waimarino County would not be used for proposed ohu. The petition was presented on 17 Sept 1974 to the House, referred to the Lands And Agriculture select committee and reported back on 26 March 1975 with no recommendation.
11. Ernest Troeltsch defined a sect as a group were one's personal salvation was to be acheived through collecive living in a community based on fellowship. Many sects had a millenenarian philosophy of rejection of the secular world and hope of exclusive salvation cf Harmony under George Rapp; Mormons under Brigham Young. [Spiro 1972]
Chaverim PI of chaver ; a comrade, companion, member of a kibbutz
Kibbutz pl kibbutzim literally gathering a company. Term used in Israel to describe a collective settlement where land, buildings and income is shared.
Mauri n. life principle, the animating force within all things
Whanaungatanga n. kinship. Describes not only kinship with blood relatives but also with tribal group, the departed ancestors and the spirits of the surrounding environment.
[Sources; Melford E. Spiro "Venture in Utopia "Schocken Books New York 1972 : "The Reed Dictionary of Modern Maori" Reed Books in association with TVNZ ,1995]
Part One: The beginnings
Government Whips Office 1974 "Norman Kirk: His Life, Ideas and Achievements", Wellington.
Michael Bassett 1976 "The Third Labour Government" Dunmore Press Palmerston North.
Margaret Hayward 1981 "Diary of the Kirk Years" Cape Catley Reed, Wellington
Ohu Settlement Scheme 1974 -brochure produced by Office of the Minister of Lands, Wellington.
The Second NZ Whole Earth Catalogue 1975 , Alister Taylor Publishers, Martinborough pp29-31
James K. Baxter 1972 "Autumn Testament" Price Milburn , Wellington
Values Party 1978 "Values Party Manual" Auckland.(Sept 1978)
Part Two: Kibbutz
Melford E. Spiro 1972 "Venture in Utopia" (new edition), Schocken Books New York
Henry Near 1992 "The Kibbutz Movement: A History", Voll: Origins and Growth 1909-1939, Oxford University press/Littman Library, Oxford, UK.
Hansard Parliamentary debates -Vols 387, 17 Oct 1973;Vo1390 22March 1974;Vo1393 27 Aug 1974; Vo1393, 28 August 1974 :Vo1393 6 Augus~ 1974;Vo1394 25 Sept 1974; Vol399 25 June 1975; Vol40117 Sept 1975;Vo1405 25 Aug 1976; Vol407 27 Oct 1976;Vo1415 1 Nov 1977.
K. Francis 1998 Personal communication Thursday 21/5/98
Theodore Roszak 1970 " The Making of a Counter Culture" Faber & Faber ,London
Robert Houriet 1971 "Getting Back Together" Carvel, McCann & Geoghegan Inc New York.
Tim Jones 1975 "A Hard Won Freedom"
Hodder & Staughton, Auckland
Catherine Delahunty 1975 in "The 2nd NZ Whole Earth Catalogue", Alister Taylor Publishers, Martinborough.p.32
Part Four: Pioneers
Dept of Statistics 1983 "New Zealand Official Yearbook" Wellington
Commissioner of Crown Lands Office, Communication on ohu scheme dated 15 May. 1998
Keith Sinclair & Wendy Harex 1978 "Looking Back: a photographic history of New Zealand." Oxford University Press, Wellington.
Country Calender A TV documentary series on rural life in NZ: programme on AhuAhu Community first shown on TVNZ early April 1998
Part Five: Utopian Communities?
"The 2nd NZ Whole Earth Catalogue", Alister Taylor Publishers, Martinborough
Part Six: Sustainable Communities?
NZ Government 1991 "Resource Management Act 1921" NZ Govt Print, Wellington.
M.Ritchard 1998 Notes taken in "Futures in the Context of Sustainability" lecture 28/4/98
E.F.Schumacher 1978 "A Guide for the Perplexed" Abacus Books, London
David A. Munro & Martin W. Holdgate 1991 "Caring for the Earth: a strategy for sustainable (eds) living.", UNEP/IUCN/WWF , Gland, Switzerland