title: Te Arawa – Kaitiaki of the Rotorua Te Arawa Lakes

authors: Curtis, Sir Toby

abstract: I start this morning by reciting what we call a patere talking about Te Arawa's interest and relationship to the lakes and the water. Matawhaura is our mountain on Lake Rotoiti. When I went to school in Auckland we travelled on the New Zealand Road Service
transport bus, returning for the holidays along the Mamaku ranges. Those that came from Lake Rotoiti always looked out to see the lake and the mountain Matawhaura. As soon as we saw it a little touch of emotion welled up in our hearts. Mataatua people living in Whakatane felt the same thing when they travelled back home, descending the Rotoma hill, they looked out for Putauaki (Mt Edgecumbe). It gave them the same feeling of emotion.

text: Te Arawa – Kaitiaki of the Rotorua Te Arawa Lakes I start this morning by reciting what we call a patere talking about Te Arawa's interest and relationship to the lakes and the water. Matawhaura is our mountain on Lake Rotoiti. When I went to school in Auckland we travelled on the New Zealand Road Service
transport bus, returning for the holidays along the Mamaku ranges. Those that came from Lake Rotoiti always looked out to see the lake and the mountain Matawhaura. As soon as we saw it a little touch of emotion welled up in our hearts. Mataatua people living in Whakatane felt the same thing when they travelled back home, descending the Rotoma hill, they looked out for Putauaki (Mt Edgecumbe). It gave them the same feeling of emotion.

year: 2017

title: Recognition and indigenizing official statistics: Reflections from Aotearoa New Zealand and Australia

authors: Kukutai, Tahu

subjects: Indigenou

abstract: In First World colonised nations such as Aotearoa New Zealand and Australia, population statistics form the evidentiary base for how Indigenous peoples are known and `managed' through state policy approaches. Yet, population statistics are not a neutral counting. Decisions of what and how to count reflect particular assumptions about Indigenous identity, ways of life and wellbeing. More often than not, the requirements and priorities of government take precedence over the informational needs and priorities of Indigenous communities. Whereas National Statistics Offices (NSOs) once rendered Indigenous peoples invisible in official statistics through non-recognition, the more pressing problem in the 21st century is that of misrecognition. In seeking to move beyond statistical misrecognition, we propose a set of guiding principles for bringing government reporting frameworks and Indigenous concepts of identity and wellbeing into closer proximity. We argue that a principled approach to collecting, disseminating and analysing Indigenous data not only avoids misrecognising Indigenous peoples but enhances the functionality of official statistics for Indigenous peoples and NSOs alike.

text: Recognition and indigenizing official statistics: Reflections from Aotearoa New Zealand and Australia In First World colonised nations such as Aotearoa New Zealand and Australia, population statistics form the evidentiary base for how Indigenous peoples are known and `managed' through state policy approaches. Yet, population statistics are not a neutral counting. Decisions of what and how to count reflect particular assumptions about Indigenous identity, ways of life and wellbeing. More often than not, the requirements and priorities of government take precedence over the informational needs and priorities of Indigenous communities. Whereas National Statistics Offices (NSOs) once rendered Indigenous peoples invisible in official statistics through non-recognition, the more pressing problem in the 21st century is that of misrecognition. In seeking to move beyond statistical misrecognition, we propose a set of guiding principles for bringing government reporting frameworks and Indigenous concepts of identity and wellbeing into closer proximity. We argue that a principled approach to collecting, disseminating and analysing Indigenous data not only avoids misrecognising Indigenous peoples but enhances the functionality of official statistics for Indigenous peoples and NSOs alike.

year: 2015

title: Leaching and uptake of nitrogen, and pasture production, associated with irrigation of treated wastewater, Taupō, New Zealand

authors: Telfer, Erin Isobel Charlotte

subjects: Wastewater

abstract: Secondary-treated wastewater from Taupō Township is irrigated onto perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) which is harvested and removed from the View Road wastewater treatment site. To determine the fate of the applied wastewater nitrogen, 48 undisturbed barrel lysimeters (30 cm diameter x 43 cm depth) were installed throughout 29 hectares. Centre pivot travelling irrigators were programmed to vary in speed to provide target wastewater application rates of about 0, 450, 550 and 650 kg N ha⁻¹yr⁻¹.
The targeted application treatments were not achieved, with the achieved nitrogen loading rates grouped into a low treatment (286 - 380 kg N ha⁻¹yr⁻¹), a medium treatment (380 - 445 kg N ha⁻¹yr⁻¹), and a high treatment (445 - 567 kg N ha⁻¹yr⁻¹). Nitrogen input in control sectors was assumed to be 5 kg N/ha/yr from atmospheric nitrogen deposition.
A mean of 4 to 6% of the applied nitrogen was leached. The mean amount of nitrogen leached from the high treatment (28.6 ± 10.1 kg N ha⁻¹yr⁻¹) was higher (P < 0.05) than from the low treatment (12.7 ± 4.2 kg N ha⁻¹yr⁻¹). The medium treatment (16.0 ± 7.2 kg N ha⁻¹yr⁻¹) was not significantly different than the low treatment or the high treatment. The mean amount of nitrogen leached from the control treatment was 2.8 ± 0.6 kg N ha⁻¹yr⁻¹. Nitrogen leaching that occurred in the high application treatment was below the consented limit of 30 kg N ha⁻¹yr⁻¹.
A mean of 79 to 100% of the applied nitrogen was removed by pasture. There were no significant differences in pasture dry matter production, or nitrogen removal, between the low treatment (13 922 ± 1196 kg DM ha⁻¹yr⁻¹and 341 ± 25 kg N ha⁻¹yr⁻¹), the medium treatment (13 543 ± 1475 kg DM ha⁻¹yr⁻¹ and 360 ± 51 kg N ha⁻¹yr⁻¹), and the high treatment (15 285 ± 1919 kg DM ha⁻¹yr⁻¹ and 385 ± 43 kg N ha⁻¹yr⁻¹). Pasture production was higher (P < 0.001) in irrigated pastures (mean of all irrigated treatments, 14 250 ± 349 kg DM ha⁻¹yr⁻¹) than unirrigated controls (5300 ± 839 kg DM ha⁻¹yr⁻¹).
A mean of -4 to 16% of the applied wastewater nitrogen was unaccounted for. The majority of unrecovered nitrogen was presumed to be volatilised with lower potential for denitrification and soil storage.
A second experiment was undertaken to determine whether a five week or a ten week harvesting frequency would result in greater pasture production and nitrogen removal. During the ten month trial, 265 kg N ha⁻¹ of wastewater nitrogen was irrigated and pasture plots (1 m x 1 m) were cut with a mower. Nitrogen removal and pasture production were higher (P < 0.05) with a five week harvesting interval (8231 ± 186 kg DM ha⁻¹ and 250 ± 5 kg N ha⁻¹) than a ten week harvesting interval (7354 ± 67 kg DM ha⁻¹ and 191 ± 3 kg N ha⁻¹). Harvesting at five week intervals during late-November to May (late-spring to late-autumn) and ten week intervals from May until early-November (late-autumn to mid-spring) is recommended to maximise both pasture production and nitrogen removal, while minimising harvesting costs.

text: Leaching and uptake of nitrogen, and pasture production, associated with irrigation of treated wastewater, Taupō, New Zealand Secondary-treated wastewater from Taupō Township is irrigated onto perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) which is harvested and removed from the View Road wastewater treatment site. To determine the fate of the applied wastewater nitrogen, 48 undisturbed barrel lysimeters (30 cm diameter x 43 cm depth) were installed throughout 29 hectares. Centre pivot travelling irrigators were programmed to vary in speed to provide target wastewater application rates of about 0, 450, 550 and 650 kg N ha⁻¹yr⁻¹.
The targeted application treatments were not achieved, with the achieved nitrogen loading rates grouped into a low treatment (286 - 380 kg N ha⁻¹yr⁻¹), a medium treatment (380 - 445 kg N ha⁻¹yr⁻¹), and a high treatment (445 - 567 kg N ha⁻¹yr⁻¹). Nitrogen input in control sectors was assumed to be 5 kg N/ha/yr from atmospheric nitrogen deposition.
A mean of 4 to 6% of the applied nitrogen was leached. The mean amount of nitrogen leached from the high treatment (28.6 ± 10.1 kg N ha⁻¹yr⁻¹) was higher (P < 0.05) than from the low treatment (12.7 ± 4.2 kg N ha⁻¹yr⁻¹). The medium treatment (16.0 ± 7.2 kg N ha⁻¹yr⁻¹) was not significantly different than the low treatment or the high treatment. The mean amount of nitrogen leached from the control treatment was 2.8 ± 0.6 kg N ha⁻¹yr⁻¹. Nitrogen leaching that occurred in the high application treatment was below the consented limit of 30 kg N ha⁻¹yr⁻¹.
A mean of 79 to 100% of the applied nitrogen was removed by pasture. There were no significant differences in pasture dry matter production, or nitrogen removal, between the low treatment (13 922 ± 1196 kg DM ha⁻¹yr⁻¹and 341 ± 25 kg N ha⁻¹yr⁻¹), the medium treatment (13 543 ± 1475 kg DM ha⁻¹yr⁻¹ and 360 ± 51 kg N ha⁻¹yr⁻¹), and the high treatment (15 285 ± 1919 kg DM ha⁻¹yr⁻¹ and 385 ± 43 kg N ha⁻¹yr⁻¹). Pasture production was higher (P < 0.001) in irrigated pastures (mean of all irrigated treatments, 14 250 ± 349 kg DM ha⁻¹yr⁻¹) than unirrigated controls (5300 ± 839 kg DM ha⁻¹yr⁻¹).
A mean of -4 to 16% of the applied wastewater nitrogen was unaccounted for. The majority of unrecovered nitrogen was presumed to be volatilised with lower potential for denitrification and soil storage.
A second experiment was undertaken to determine whether a five week or a ten week harvesting frequency would result in greater pasture production and nitrogen removal. During the ten month trial, 265 kg N ha⁻¹ of wastewater nitrogen was irrigated and pasture plots (1 m x 1 m) were cut with a mower. Nitrogen removal and pasture production were higher (P < 0.05) with a five week harvesting interval (8231 ± 186 kg DM ha⁻¹ and 250 ± 5 kg N ha⁻¹) than a ten week harvesting interval (7354 ± 67 kg DM ha⁻¹ and 191 ± 3 kg N ha⁻¹). Harvesting at five week intervals during late-November to May (late-spring to late-autumn) and ten week intervals from May until early-November (late-autumn to mid-spring) is recommended to maximise both pasture production and nitrogen removal, while minimising harvesting costs.

year: 2013