title: Diversity or Perversity? Investigating Queer Narratives, Resistance, and Representation in Aotearoa / New Zealand, 1948-2000

authors: Burke, Christopher J. F.

subjects: queer

abstract: This thesis contributes to the burgeoning field of the history of sexuality in New Zealand and seeks to distill the more theorised and reflexive understanding of the subjectively understood queer male identity since 1948. 

Emerging from the disciplines of History and English, this project draws from a range of narratological materials: parliamentary debates contained in Hansard, and novels and short stories written by men with publicly avowed queer identities. 

This thesis explores how both 'normative' identity and the category of 'the homosexual' were constructed and mobilised in the public domain, in this case, the House of Representatives. It shows that members of the House have engaged with an extensive tradition of defining and excluding; a process by which state and public discourses have constructed largely unified, negative and othering narratives of 'the homosexual'. This constitutes an overarching narrative of queer experience which, until the mid-1990s, excluded queer subjects from its construction. 

At the same time, fictional narratives offer an adjacent body of knowledge and thought for queer men and women. This thesis posits literature's position as an important and productive space for queer resistance and critique. Such texts typically engage with and subvert 'dominant' or 'normative' understandings of sexuality and disturb efforts to apprehend precise or linear histories of 'gay liberation' and 'gay consciousness'. 

Drawing from the works of Frank Sargeson, James Courage, Bill Pearson, Noel Virtue, Stevan Eldred-Grigg, and Peter Wells, this thesis argues for a revaluing of fictional narratives as active texts from which historians can construct a matrix of cultural experience, while allowing for, and explaining, the determining role such narratives play in the discursively constructed understandings of gender and sexuality in New Zealand.

text: Diversity or Perversity? Investigating Queer Narratives, Resistance, and Representation in Aotearoa / New Zealand, 1948-2000 This thesis contributes to the burgeoning field of the history of sexuality in New Zealand and seeks to distill the more theorised and reflexive understanding of the subjectively understood queer male identity since 1948. 

Emerging from the disciplines of History and English, this project draws from a range of narratological materials: parliamentary debates contained in Hansard, and novels and short stories written by men with publicly avowed queer identities. 

This thesis explores how both 'normative' identity and the category of 'the homosexual' were constructed and mobilised in the public domain, in this case, the House of Representatives. It shows that members of the House have engaged with an extensive tradition of defining and excluding; a process by which state and public discourses have constructed largely unified, negative and othering narratives of 'the homosexual'. This constitutes an overarching narrative of queer experience which, until the mid-1990s, excluded queer subjects from its construction. 

At the same time, fictional narratives offer an adjacent body of knowledge and thought for queer men and women. This thesis posits literature's position as an important and productive space for queer resistance and critique. Such texts typically engage with and subvert 'dominant' or 'normative' understandings of sexuality and disturb efforts to apprehend precise or linear histories of 'gay liberation' and 'gay consciousness'. 

Drawing from the works of Frank Sargeson, James Courage, Bill Pearson, Noel Virtue, Stevan Eldred-Grigg, and Peter Wells, this thesis argues for a revaluing of fictional narratives as active texts from which historians can construct a matrix of cultural experience, while allowing for, and explaining, the determining role such narratives play in the discursively constructed understandings of gender and sexuality in New Zealand.

year: 2007

title: Financing companies in general and at Te Aroha in particular

authors: Hart, Philip

abstract: Those investing in mining companies were, wisely, warned to tread warily to avoid being duped by ‘wild cat’ promotions, for many companies were blatant speculations and most would fail. The three main causes of failures were misrepresentation of the value of the ore, over-capitalization combined with insufficient working capital, and mismanagement. Mining investment was a form of gambling, with professional speculators seeking quick profits not long-term rewards. Companies were floated on the basis of inadequate prospecting, and some flotations were unquestionably fraudulent. 
Laws creating no or limited liability companies were designed to protect investors, but they encouraged floating companies with inadequate capital. Issuing partly paid-up shares required shareholders to pay calls, but often they preferred to forfeit their interests; and sometimes dummies were used to avoid payment. 
Despite claims of having found good ore, much unproven ground was floated, and share prices fluctuated depending on the latest reports of ore values. Fraudulent or at best exaggerated assay results were produced, for often samples did not reflect the general values. Examples are cited of how to salt mines or provide misleading assays and of companies shepherding their properties in the hope of nearby companies making good discoveries and enabling them to sell their ground for an unearned profit. 
Management was an expensive cost, especially in overseas companies, but insufficient money was provided to prospect and develop ground. Press ‘puffery’ was condemned, but newspapers relied on information provided by mine managers. Surveyors sometimes produced plans showing reefs that did not exist, and many ‘experts’ imported from overseas were selected to produce the optimistic reports that company promoters required. Examples are cited of deliberately false reports and dubious prospectuses listing carefully selected shareholders’ names to attract investors. And in some cases companies even had either no title or an insecure one to the ground being floated.
As stockbrokers could not be trusted, there was opposition to brokers being directors. Nor could miners always be trusted, as they played the market also. Overselling and forward selling of shares were problems, but the main ones were that under-capitalized companies had insufficient working capital: several examples are cited. Some companies were over-capitalized, and it was common to erect expensive plants prematurely. Because only a small percentage of the nominal capital was paid up, companies had to rely on calls to increase their capital. And vendors and company promoters made excessive profits from floating mines.
In short, company flotation was more a form of gambling than a way of enabling honest mining.

text: Financing companies in general and at Te Aroha in particular Those investing in mining companies were, wisely, warned to tread warily to avoid being duped by ‘wild cat’ promotions, for many companies were blatant speculations and most would fail. The three main causes of failures were misrepresentation of the value of the ore, over-capitalization combined with insufficient working capital, and mismanagement. Mining investment was a form of gambling, with professional speculators seeking quick profits not long-term rewards. Companies were floated on the basis of inadequate prospecting, and some flotations were unquestionably fraudulent. 
Laws creating no or limited liability companies were designed to protect investors, but they encouraged floating companies with inadequate capital. Issuing partly paid-up shares required shareholders to pay calls, but often they preferred to forfeit their interests; and sometimes dummies were used to avoid payment. 
Despite claims of having found good ore, much unproven ground was floated, and share prices fluctuated depending on the latest reports of ore values. Fraudulent or at best exaggerated assay results were produced, for often samples did not reflect the general values. Examples are cited of how to salt mines or provide misleading assays and of companies shepherding their properties in the hope of nearby companies making good discoveries and enabling them to sell their ground for an unearned profit. 
Management was an expensive cost, especially in overseas companies, but insufficient money was provided to prospect and develop ground. Press ‘puffery’ was condemned, but newspapers relied on information provided by mine managers. Surveyors sometimes produced plans showing reefs that did not exist, and many ‘experts’ imported from overseas were selected to produce the optimistic reports that company promoters required. Examples are cited of deliberately false reports and dubious prospectuses listing carefully selected shareholders’ names to attract investors. And in some cases companies even had either no title or an insecure one to the ground being floated.
As stockbrokers could not be trusted, there was opposition to brokers being directors. Nor could miners always be trusted, as they played the market also. Overselling and forward selling of shares were problems, but the main ones were that under-capitalized companies had insufficient working capital: several examples are cited. Some companies were over-capitalized, and it was common to erect expensive plants prematurely. Because only a small percentage of the nominal capital was paid up, companies had to rely on calls to increase their capital. And vendors and company promoters made excessive profits from floating mines.
In short, company flotation was more a form of gambling than a way of enabling honest mining.

year: 2016

title: Ko Te Ika-a-Māui rānei?

authors: Takurua, Nātana

abstract: Tēnei au te noho nei me te kōroiroi o whakaaro i roto i a Hinengaro. He aha rā te take kāore i mau mai ai ngā ingoa Māori tūturu, whai mana nei i te taenga mai o te Pākehā ki Aotearoa nei? Nā wai i kī ka hurihia ngā ingoa kua tapaina noatia e ngā mātua tīpuna kia noho ko te North me te South
Island?

text: Ko Te Ika-a-Māui rānei? Tēnei au te noho nei me te kōroiroi o whakaaro i roto i a Hinengaro. He aha rā te take kāore i mau mai ai ngā ingoa Māori tūturu, whai mana nei i te taenga mai o te Pākehā ki Aotearoa nei? Nā wai i kī ka hurihia ngā ingoa kua tapaina noatia e ngā mātua tīpuna kia noho ko te North me te South
Island?

year: 2009