Thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in History at Massey University
Thomas Warden Hastings Brooking
i .
PREFACE
Althoue;h two theses hr-.ve 0x2..L1inod John McKenzie's activities as Minist~r of LQnds in a f~irly detail ed way, they have virtually ignored his actions as Minister of Agriculture. This one-sided conccntrcJ.tion has r.ieo..nt th::i.t wo know very
l i t t le about McKenzie's achievenents c..s Minister of Agriculture, oven though they wor2 of equal importance i n tho short tcrr:1 and have provon to be acre important in the long term. Agricultur::i.l lcci slation passed by J ohn McKenzie was ::i.s creative as his land laws and nndc
~r
of many c0ro statutes. This prolifcr.::ction of lnws rcl,:,_ting t o agriculturo.l matters wo.s lureoly explained by th~ fact thc..t major probl ems werecovered by scvarntc statutes, wherc2s McKenzie fond ~cts and W.P. Reeves' labour lo.ws wore concontrnted in one or two massive .'..1.Cts, rrhich wore cxtro.ordinSlrily coc,prohensi vo. Nevertheless, the agricultural laws passed by John McKenzie were on a siailar scale to his l.'..1.nd acts c..nd to the labour legi slation of Reeves, in t erms of lccislo.tivc output, logis -lc. ti vc ener;:_;y c.ncl :i.J0,':1c-rs cr-.,::i.t1)d for tho governr.:cnt. Furtho r-aore, the ~dministration of tho Departaont of Acriculturc affected nearly us 2any poopl o as did the running of the
Dcpnrtnont of Lands and Survey. Today, auch of tho agricultural legislation introduced .:,.nd po.ssod by John McKenzie still has a direct offe~t on our lives , both in tho city and on the farr:1. Town milk supply continues t o bo exnr:1ined by employees of the Department of Acriculture; cowsheds arc still regularly inspected by governnent offi cio.ls ; sheep nrc dipped.within certain time limits, ns t hey were in tho 1890's; and
slaughterini; he>.s been carried out in licensed abb.::i.toirs
of Agriculture is l ong overdue. The urgent need for such an investigation anc1. the stringe:".lt word l i;:li ts pl.:1.ccd upon the exercise 1 has i::cn.n.t t hD. t the tho sis is alnost exclu3i vcly concerned wi th John McKunzic ns Minister of Agriculture. It only looks at his work ~s Mi~istcr of Lands in a general wny in nn attc::ipt to cxplc:in the fcr:~rnlati on cf his agricultural policies nnd th~ develop~cnt of his ~istinctivc rainistorinl style:.
Tho thesis concentrates on tho period 1891-1900, when John McKon~io lcc:i.,1 ninistcrio.l office, but rusc.::trch was bc:::,-un fron ar,'."JUl'lcl 1878 ':;hem th0 first Slwcp Act to be r::i.sscd by tho centro.l govcrnncnt was introduced. This work Ou earlier davclop•ants ias Jrovan to be vcluablc, for it has clearly sho·im t hnt Jo:m McKenzie w:ts not an innovator but r:1ther ~ consolidator . The thesis ~lso moves into so~c tentative spoculo.ti::m ,:~ftr;r 1900, in .:,.r. ,ttonpt to ,'"'.sscss th.:.- political i• plico.tions of John Mc~1nzie's ng~iculturo.1 policies.
It :mst bo r,·:-.dc c::;_e,r th::1t the ncLtU.r( of this
r•-.,soarch cxu1~:~iGo h.~_.s li€:c'1 ccnr::icL "'.'ably si1.::i.pec1. by thr_) .sources ucod, or ~ere correctly ½y the l~ck of sou~co• ~vail.::i.blo. InvestiGction w~n oricin~lly carried out into the activities of the ~gricu~tur~l inspactor~t~, ~ut it was coon discovered that 3 virtual nrchiv~l v.::i.cuu• existed for the 1890's, us there: ~.re no knov,n file:; 0f tho e2.rly yer::-..'..~s e,f the De:nrt:.:,,nt of Agriculture in existence. A few files do survive for tho 1880's1 r::-..nd tiose have boen incorporated to indic~to tic lines of development before the department was set up in 1892.
To nake ~utters worse, tho Annual Rcpor~ of tho Department of Agricul turc wore nl1:10st totally
r:10.cu,
up of t ochnical detail. Th0ro w.::i.s no clearly dofinei bureaucratic philosophy expressed in them as there was in Tregcar's Department of Labouriii.
Minister of ;lgriG"i.1ltur0, John lkKcnzir: hj_oscl f.
Hdro furth~r r roblc~E uore 0ncountor od. No personnl coll0ction of pup~rs or Llanuscripts rol atod to John McKenzie survivo. An opua l t:ttcr tc th;: Oto.go .Do.i::...y Tir::es requesting information, drcu ::i. r 1ply vhi ~~ revo~led t hQt McKenzie's house nt He::i.thfiolc., includinr; '1i s ~ibrnr:r, ·,7.:1.s burnt down i n 1967 nn:i :i.lnost totc1.lly do-:;truycc'.. Furthorf,'lore:, Joh1'" r'.icKonzio did not sc~1:1 to v1rit c. .1.:my .Letter s t1.::1.t ha.vo b.::on pr eserved.
ThJro is cot o~c pioco of corresponacnco to er fro• hin in the B3ll~nco coll, ction of 0ver 700 letters , only two letters concornin0 tecr.n:i.c.:1J. C::.ot::i.il2 •)f McKc:1zio' :~ nortg,:cge arc found in tho 8Gssivc Rober t Stout collection of letters ~n~ there ura a neacr~ tqu l ,tters written to Janas Wilson of Bull s, in 1892, regardin~ J. visit tho~e ~r~ the ~1cstion sf the fl::i.x j0nus , in the Fisher F,uily Pnpcrs.
I
t
i s net ro'.'.llysurprisinr, th·,rafcr,), t j ,t rc3carch0rs h::i.va lnr~ely isnorod t his e:::t:coL'1.ely i::rcrt.:-.nt ~,cliticn.l fir-::-o.r0 c.nr.1 h:;.v,:) conc-.:mtrc.1.tod ore his ,c:tions [\S 1,inist · r of l_,rncls r.7.J;hcr t:1, n 7.s John l1cKe:n~ic
~he rn1n.
N cvcrt '.1 .. JcGs , inf or1:1ettiei:1 ca ·1. be oztrc..p,-:il:-.ted fro!n ochc,,.- 1Jlnccs. 1''.10 P::,,_rli:.:·.!:le:nt:1ry Dcbat(:;s '1:1vc r evu::i.lcd who:~c prcssur,..,s for cri:1n0; ' ) c:cY,r:. fru:: ~::1d whc,t V.'.l.rious int,'Jrest f;r ::::u1 s thous ht :-,oou t McT:en.zic 's policies , nhi:i.e providinc c: consi1ernblo asount of ad•inistr~t~vo det:iil through ::i.nswers given to questions Qsk0d in t ~o 3ouso. They ~lso contain •uch inforc.:1.tion on McKon~ie's official atti tudes ::'..nd to a l esser extent his porson'l.l views o.nd ch-..ng;:;,3 i n t ho@, over tho yours. Other official pcl.blico.tions like Bills Thrown Out nnd New Zealand Statutes canto.in detnils of legislative and adminis -trative precedent and practice. Year books hnve provided some infor mation on administrative struct~ros and functions, as have the Appendices to the Journals of tho House of
l ight o. l i t t le infor•2tion o~ tho inploscnt~tion of laws.
t!Lcttcrs fron tho ~-t.J·.1 of i-;arkt1 wr i t ten t o Willic,D Pe:~bor Ro(;vos, hol d in tho Alox~Ldor 1urn~~l l Li~r~ry, succostcd that John ~cKonzio's rol ~~ionship to S0d~cn, WGrJ ~n~ Ro~vas w::i.s ~ore
int-.;rviun wit!. J·ohn McKonzia's niece, j\!rs. H.M.n. Do.·.ric, nnrl 'J. v:urkin:.:; thr0ur:1 ·.f hi.~ r;i ll , hcl :Jod to fi ll out bi"blio -gro.phic::'.l dotui l. N8w~pa~or oditor ic..ls ~nd c~rtoons g:J.vo c..n inc~ic::i.~j_o,1 ··f tho ·,, ·ty i n ·-;1hich John McKenzi e, t'.10 r.nn, th-::: pcl i ticio.:1 :,nd tho :'.lklin::.st rt'. to1', vns v·i.0wod ·by tho pub lie. 1'r: .. ::s:)et-;_Jcr8 c..lRo ;_,ro,·i:J.0rl soL!O ovidc-nco Oi1 the recept i on of his ~cricultur::i.l ::.·-olicio.:;, but t iuc, w'>.s not nva.il::cblo for tho
c::L.,r::,th t :i.sk of pr•:)pcrly v:crkinc ov..__r n:,wsi1~1~,0r responses t o t :1,.:: inr,J.c,;ento.tion of r-~cJ~on~i o' s .:i..r.;ricul turo.l lcci sli-1.tion; ::i.
t .:J.sl· n,-1.de cv1.:n ,!'.:'r -.:: difficult 1:Jy tho 1~1ck cf survivinr; Sfflll t own
~ r s l"c.r th'" 139G' s nnJ t L..- c:.:,cer::cl c1i sint -.:;::.~c st of city 1~0.sod p3pers i n such usscnti~l ly rural Jnttcrs which lnckcd o..11y c--.. ) r ... o..t ni,r;s v:-.lue:.
jig-s.21:r puzzle v1i th i t.:: i:1c..11y rJiss-i_n~j ): .... :ccs ~
Fin:i.l ly, i t ::iUst ";:)o r'o.)c clc~.r th:-\t :::s t b.is i s very ouch o. pi oneer ~i~c~ cf rcucarch, :i.s ~ol l ~s b0i nc et
~ini-thcsis, ~i~~ aev~ro tiLo ':1.nd NOr 1 l ini ts, it ~oscs • or e questions th.::,.n i t :>.rJ.Sn1.,rs. Tho only cluin ~:::do i s th:::t i t i s
o. pi ,mcor ex::1.nin,.,_t i on, with t ho :n:.J.ny ino.doq1 , ':1.Ci cs 'Jf sue h 'now'
r cso::i.rch, of tho cth:.;r si de of John i1cKonzio tho politicio.n,
l ogislo.tor/.:"tdni ni :=,tro.tor : t1
·1c'.l.t i s 2.s Mi nister cf .\c~riculturo :>::'CLt hor th:rn as I'ti.nistc-r of Lands. !~ny c'.l.ttm-:ipt to 2sse.ss tho l arrsr political and ndminist ro.tivc implications of his
acti ons ns Ninistor of Aericulturo nust only be tPcc'.l.ted as sugcostion, not as wel l t ast ed fo.ct . But surel y tbo job of t he hi st orical roeeo.r chor is t o open up new o.venucs of
V
Acknowledgements
I would like to t h1.nk tbe st, ffs t'f tho following
institutions for their , ssist::i.nc2:
tho General ~ssorbly Libr~ry, Wallington; tho
Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington; N~tional
ArchivcJs , ':follint, · 'ten· ' M,sscy Univursity Library,
Palmerston North; and the Aucklnnd Museum
Institu~o Library, Auckland; ,ncl especially Miss Judit t Hornabrook of N~tional Archives.
My gr, ~ituda is ~lso axtondoJ t o ~11 those pooplo
who offered their prof ossion~l 3Qvico, particularly
Professor D.~. Hucar ~nd Miss Moriarty of Victoria Univorsity; Mr. B3sil Poff , Mr . Grah1.rn Butterworth ,nd Dr. B1.rrie · M3cDon~ld
of rv:assey Ur..ivor si-ty; and Professor Angus Ross of Ot~co
University. I wc,uli:l :_"".lso lik ) to ths::i.n.k ::i.11 thosu people who r epli8d tc, my let tor roqt:esting infc· rrl'J. tion on J c·hn McK;;nzi o
which vns publish8d in th..; Ct-:c:;c D-ilyTL:183 ::i.r..'.i cspociaily Mrs - H.M.M. D,viet McK~nzie'c niece, for ccns0nting to ::i.n interview. My th,nks go tc Mrs. Phil J0nkins for typing the dr, fts , nd for offering 0nc0ur1.0er.:.nt ,nc tc, Mrs. Tot I-~:i.yw1.r d for ty~ing t ho fin~l copy. I nm indGbtad t0 Mr. P.J. Gib½~ns
of Waik3tc Univer sity fer his criticisms nnd knowledge of f,,otnctinc t0chnique:s and t o l·lr. Chris Rcwe ,nd Miss Patrici.::, C1.dig1.n for su6gesti0nE 1.nd proof-re3Qing. I ewe a groat deal
t o LlY supervisor , Professor N.H. Oliver of ~nssey University,
for the car e with which he ·batkdd dtaft ver si ons, for naking
himself so r ea~ily avni l~ble for di scussi 0n and for the gre~t
Abbreviati ons
AJHR
'Letters from Mon cf Mark '
ODT
PD
Yo::tr :Sook
Appendices to the Journal s of tho
House of Representatives
Letters frora Mon cf Mark in New Zealand to the Hon. W.P. Roovos, British Library of Political and Scono•ical SciGnco, London School of Economics.
Ot~~o Daily TimoG
Now Zealand Parlin•ontary Deb~tos
C O i[ T E l'i T S
PREFACE
LIST
OF
FIGURZS
MID
TABLES
ABBREVIATI
ON
S
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
INTRODUCTI
ON
CHAPTER
I
Sir John McKenzie
-The Ma.n and the Myth.
CHAPTE
R
II
John McKenzie's Ministari~l Style
CHAPTER
III
Tho Minister of Acriculturc
in Political Perspective
CONCLU
SI
ON
BIBLIOGRAPH
Y
vii
i
viii
vi
V
I Photo of Sir John McKenzie 2
II Cartoon of the defence of Ward 10
III Cartoon of the Liberal "angelic host" 11
IV Cartoon of a domesti c qua~rel between Richard Seddon
and John McKenzie 12
V Cartoon of McKenzie's ministerial school 13
VI Diagram of Legislation Consolidated by McKenzie's Laws 27
VII Diagram of Administrative Developments which preceded
the establishment of the Department of Agriculture 28
VIII Photo of butter grading
35
IX Photo of the Staff of the Central Office 1909 44
X Graph of the growth in numbers of Departmental employees
45
XI Diagram of the changing structure of the Department of
Agriculture 46
XII Diagram of the changing functions of the Department of
Agriculture
48
XIII Photo of J .D. Ritchie 49
XIV Diagram of the concensus of agricultural producers 52
XV Cartoon of John McKenzie crushing the smal l butcher
63
XVI Photo of T.Y. Duncan
69
XVII Photo of R. McNab 70
INTRODUCTION
This thesis is essentially concerned with the 1e xnnin-ation of an exceptional minister in action; a man who wanted
t o keep power to hi·:,solf and who, bcc:rnso of his nationwide
identity, achieved through his nctivitios as Minist er of Lands , woul d have found i t im~oscible t o h~vc 0v0n nttenpt ed to hide
behind u complex of dopart•ontal oachinery. Tho paternal istic,
qu9si - feudal ministvri al style of John McKenzi e stood in •arkcd
contrast to the 3ccept~d pattorn of pol itical l ife in the 1890's whi ch saw a massive tr~nsfcr of ?Ower t o burco.ucratic processes.
In view of this prelmrv::i.ucro.tic oinistori::cl style i t was not surprising that John McKenzi e considerably sho.ped adninistr
a-tivc and legislative dovolo~uonts rcl~ted to acriculture up t i l l his retirement in 1900. Y0t even he w~s only abl e t o
sl ow down the transfer of re~l power ~nd ccntr0l of organis::t
-t ional 1etai l to th~ bur oaucr~cy; thnt is fro• thd man t o tho
instituticn itself. After hi s rctirc~ent the considerable
powers and responsibi l it i es th~t h~ h~C crc~tc~ for thG Minister hicself were t~kan over by tho bur~~ucr~tic machine i n the for• of t h0 Dap~rt~~nt of Agriculture. This develcp
-raent w~s accompnnic~ by 0xtraocly r~ri d ad~inistr ~tivo growth and a considerable rise i n the i~~ort3nc~ and pcwLr of the
U.ndcr-sccr0t :1ry. .\p:::.rt fron D.nyt hinc: el se tho huge volw:1e of paper work t hat McKenzi e ½r0ught upon th~ Minister meant that the continuation of such 3 hichly pcrson'.lliscd style would be
impossibl e.
The argument is developed in three chapters, e first rief
b1ogr;
ph
y
of John McKenziewi thin the fra~awork of the 'man' and the 'myth'. It attempts t o show that John McKenzie's person3l characteristics inter -acted with forces outside his control in l~adinc hin t o adopt
been introduced i n nn attempt t o show that his pol i t ical
iraportance was great er than hns formerly been supposed. It appears that he was a kind of rural advocat e nnd an excepti o n-al ly l oyal party man who strongly supported Seddon and that hi s name stood as a syabcl of integrity, at n ti oa when the Liberals were badly i n need of such~symbol ic counter t o opp o-siti on accusati ons of corruption. Tho chapt er concludes by
suggesti ng that John McKenzie t ook the r esponsibi l it ies of t he portfol io of agriculture as seriously as those of lands,
because ho r eal ised that l and set t lc•ent w,s not enough in
itsel f. Nati~nal prosperity coul d only cone frorn kecpin~ up
wi th wcrld deoands and co•peti t ion through tho stricter rogulation and stan~ardis~t~_on of production and narkating practices and an incraasinc usa of scientifi c farming •ethcds.
The s0cond cha~t0r •akes up the bulk of tho thesi s as it is c0ncerned with an examinati on of John McKenzi e's ninistcrinl style as such. Particular o~Jhasis is plnc0d on the cxtrenely porson,liscd nature of this ~inist crial styl e, and the way in which he ccnsol idatc1 earl ier laws, central ised t ho Oi:")Cr'.l.ti ons of adDJ/\(Str,tion and i ncrco.s1.-d tho comrr ohens -ivcness and cccrcivcnoss of ragul 3tions. Tho charter on1s by comparing ndainist r..._tivo crowth under John McKanzia's tutsl o.go
t o that im~8di 3toly fol lowing his rctiremant. A definite pattern soons to amorg-c: nn.• cly th,t extr emely r:i.pid dep::i.rt -montal growth o.nd ch::tnges of function carnC: i rinodi o.t oly etftor J ohn McKenzie's rct ir onent. This sugir,ests th-3.t John Douglas Ritchie mny ho.vo pl ayed tho rol 0 of n kind of unsung Trcgear
within tho ngriculturnl sector, and that tho pr ocesses set in moti on by John McKenzie could not be contai ned by a minister
l acking his quasi--charisnatic pol i t ic,:i.l appeal and o.bi l i ty t o handle massea of administrative deto.i l . As long as J ohn
McKenzie was in command he attenpt cd to shape part of the
Ministor
L
:
Agriculture 's 2ctions in pol itic"J.1 porspoctivc.This third chapter sugscsts th2t John McKenzie was workins within n kind of conccnsus of ~gricultural ~ro~ucers. The existence of such 1 ccnccnsu"J.l crou~in~ • o~nt th~t ~griculturul r12gulati cns v,cr ::: trontcd '"'.S conccnsus rnthor th:-cn cris<ts issues, while idoologi co.l difforcncos within this context were al•ost
totally a~scnt. As a result cress-voting in the lious0 on
agriculturo.l bills was relativel y co~•on an~ divisi ons t~ndcd
to centre Cl.round the Munouo~ras of loc'.7.1 und •ore col ony-wide comucrcio.l intarost grout's, r :1th0r thnn ::i.rcun"l politic:? .. l
parties. John McKenzi a then w~s not only nblc to pnss so D'"'.ny
a.gricultur'.7.l l ':'.v1s nithout :J.li c111.tine, ::;r c'."'..t nuubors of rur"J.l
voters because of hi s quasi-ch2risn2tic qualities ~n1 his di stinctive mi~ist~rial style, but b0c3us~ ho w2s ~bla to
and to act upon th0ir
:a
• ~n~s.In conclutio~ two ~a.jcr suggcsticrs ar 0 cndo. The first i s thut John McKenzie's ninistorial ~ci ·cns in the fial d
of 3Cricultur2l policy f ·,rnulation Gnd laGiDl~tiva and adn
in-istrativa tlcvclo;n0nt wura in actuality no~rly ~s i c~ort~nt :-cs as his activiti~s carriof out un1ar the r ortfolia cf 13nds.
Scconily, the susgusti cn i s , ffcrcd for future rcsu3rchcr s to refute, confirm or uoro prob~bly qualify, thnt John McKenzie was a kind of rural vote mnsnat within tho Liberal pa.rty and that tho acricultural policies of his successors, T.Y. Duncan and
R
.
McNab - nan who la.eked his symbolic rural f~r•arass0ciation, intense personal involvement in tha portfolio of
agriculture and appa.r ently high-mi~dcd concern for iaproved
production practices - possibJ~ came to ta.kc the votes of •any
rural dwellers away froa the Liberal party. In other words,
4
simply r elated t o the l oasohold/froohol d and rends and bridges
issues, but also concarne~ other govcrnriont prncticas which
directly affected the day t:i day l i fe of the farmer. Rabbi t
dostru~tion ~nd COTT shad inspecti on, as wel l ~s the personality
~nd uvpr oach af th(l Minister hicsolf, woru other factors which
raust be tak0n into considor·tt ion if wa aro to understand tho
increasing organis~ti on and rel evance of the opposition of
agricultur~l producers t o tho Liberal govornrnont that cccurred
between 1900 and 1912.
John McKenzie's years as Ministor of Agriculture saw
important and cra~tivo loci sl ative 2n1 adninistrative devel cp
-• cntG, which wore on a sirnil~r scnl 2 t o his more w0l l known
l and l aws or tho l abour acts of W.P. Reeves. Iot tis ninis
-t orial style w~s di stinctly rrc-1Juroaucr~tic at a t i8e when
• assivo buroaucr~tic gr owth sccos t o have boon cnnsidorod as a
general soluti on fGr the n~tion's poli t ical , administrative,
CHAPTER 1
John McKenzie the Man and the Myth
- -
-
-
·
-
,
-
~,_
~,..-,.-
.... ·-~·-' ,., ....---
.. , -~··~ , ... ,.,. . ..., .,: •...~
-
-,
A quick rcsun6 of the life and poli tical career of
John McKenzie! tho •an, and tho dcvelop• ent of the poli tic~l
myth which currounded hie naDc, i ~ essent ial to un understnnding
of his actions as Mi nister of Agriculture
(1
89
1-
99
)
in theBallance and Seddon nd!::inistr,tions.
Standar d accounts alwayc onphasize t he i mportant
effect the racmory of crofter evictions in Scotland had on the
young John McKenzie, especi al ly in ~xplaining hi s hatred of
land monopol y and abser:tec ownershi p. This juveni le influence
wo..s undoubtedly i1:11:iorte:.nt, but J0hn was not the son of nan . t d l . hl d ~' ..
1
..
,
T - 07 • 7 . -, . f ' lcvic e 1ig an cror-cer", 2.s ;~.11 • .LlVer c_:J.ir.·s. hJ.S ai.:;1er was, rather, n rel atively successful tenant farmer who ran
2 between 1,500 nnd 2,000 sheep and 40 to 50 head of cattle.
Such n farD c~n hardly be C'?.lled a croft. Probably as a
r esult of this misconception the ~victions have been e•phnsi sed
at the ,2xpense of the type of society into r;hich John 1;10.,s born
~n
1
838.
Althoush dct~iled personal paper s are not nv~i labl c,went least know th~t life in early nineteenth century highland
Scot land was lived within the restricted confi nes of a facc-t
o-face society; a situ3tion ~here members of the community were
well known to one another and had dealings on n personal and
direct level. John McKenzi e's sarked preference i n later life
for face-to-face negoti ati ons and hi s •istruJt of impersonal,
bureaucratic o.dministr~tion throughout his years in mini st erial
office, suggests that his upbringing in this type of society
had important long-tern consequences.
1 W.H. Oliver, The Story of New Zealand, p. 141.
6.,
Sinclair's claim that John McKenzie "left a small
farm in Scotland for another in Otago113 ctl so needs qualification.
On his arrival in New Zealand in 1860, ho first found work as a
4
shepherd for tho Otago run holder, Johnny Jones. He had to
wait until 1865 before he moved on to a smal l farm of eighty
acres. 5 From there he moved t o a rough bush-clad farm of 1,000
acr es at Dunback in 1874.
6
His final move, in 1886, was to asuperior 800 acre farn known as "Heathfield11 ,
7
near Shag Poi nt.8
In 1892, on this property, he ran a rnaximu~ of 1,700 sheep.
He seems to have been financially comfortable when he died in
1901 for he bequeathed gifts of £500 each to his two married
daughters.
9
Clearly then by the tir.le John McKenzie became Minister
of Agriculture he was neither a small nor a pioneer farmer. He
belonged rather to the category of the relatively successful,
well established, medium-sized farmer. Beari ng this in mind,
i t i s easi er to understand why his agricultural legislation was
geared more to the needs of the farmer who was already
established, and in a position to help himself to a certain
extent - at the least able to afford expenses associated with
shed inspection and adequat e fencing - rather than the pi oneer~
3 K. Sinclair, ~ Historv of New Zealand, p. 174.
4 R.M. Burdon, New Zealand Notables, p. 69~
5 ibid., P• 72.
6 ibid., P• 75.
7 ibid., p. 103.
8 AJHR, 1892, H-30, "Annual Sheep Returns",
p
.83
9 Official Will of John McKenzie, paragraph 14, Supreme Court, 9 pages.
.
John McKenzie began his political caroor in
1871,
when h e Jain. . e d th Ot c ago P rovincia . . 1 C ounci . 1 1•°
F ram th e verybeginning ha became interested in the land question advocating th0 11doforred po.yr:wnt systom11 nnd stricter occupancy nnd
i•pr ovcoent clauses on lands hold under pastoral lease,
including periodic inspecti on. Between
1875
and1
88
1
ho gained experience in l ocal c..d11inistr::ction on the Vfaikouniti County Council. In188
1
he wns elected to tho House of Representativesas a ue•bcr for Mooraki and first drew attention to himself ½y introducinc tho McKenzie clause, limiting the size of pastoral l ease lands, into William Rollcston's Land Act A•end~ont Act of
18
82.
11
During the fcl lowin~ yo3r ho carried out an enquiry into ::i.nd proved tho existence of 11dun ... "l1yism11 , or the: holdin[;of land under fJ.lsc title, within tho Oto.Ge province.
12
From1884
onward ho cai nad v~luablc cxJcriancc in tho intricaciesof pD.rl i?,ncnt::ffy politics as opposi:!ion ,'!hip. In tho S-:'-nc yoo.r
ho also dornonstr~tod his interest in thu dovolop•ont of core scientific f~r~ing •cthcds by travcllinB ~s official Now Zealand dol cc~to to tho Sydney Stock Conferencc.
13
Duringthose years in o, position McKenzie dovclo~cd o. •istrust cf
reliance en other ~corl ~, 2s his continuing efforts tc prevent land agcrocation wore frustr2t0J by tho inability of tho
govcrn•ont t o do ~nythinc rositivc ~bout the probl~2.
14
In1890
he led nnothe:r enquiry into ndur.'.lr.,yi snn o.nd in1
89
1
vms appointed to tho posi tion of Minister of Lands, Agriculture andIr:inigra tion.
10
Vot es and Proceedings of tho Otago Provincial Council,1875, 34,
p.53.
11 PD,
1
88
2,
43,
p.599.
12
C.D.R. Downes, 11L.:rnds for the Pco;ile The Life and Yfork ofSir John McKcnzie11, unpublished l'i.A. Thesis, Oto.go
Univc·rsity,
195
4,
p.i4.
r13 ibid., p. ,·11 O. I 'l '
8
From
1891
until his resignation in1900,
John McKenzie achieved mythological stature mainly through thG p3ssing of hisLand ~\ct of
1
89
2,
which introduced the new tenure "lease in pcrpctuity11 and tho Land for Settlcr,,cnts Act of1
89
4
,
whichgave the St~te the right of co~pulsory re-purchase. .,,, -,
combination of the fano ~chi eved through tho passi ng of these
two acts and the departure of Reeves in
1
896
,
led McKenzie toassume the nunbor trio position withL1 the Liberal Ministry
until his health rendered hi• virtu~lly usel ess as a minister
in
1
900
.
John McKenzie's importance within the Liberal ministry
both in t ert:1s of tho evcrydo.y workings of gove:rnr:1ent .J.nd of
pol iti cal syrnbolisn, was aJso linked to four other factors which
hav,) bc:en underatet L:d or ov2rlookerl. by the ,·_r rite rs of general hi storic• and by the uore specialist studios of B.J. ~'Brien
15
and C.D.R. Downes. Thesa factors wero: the assueption of the rcle cf 2 type of rural advoc~te by John McKenzie; McKenzie's
l oyalty to the Liberal p.::.i.rty; the closeness of his personal
and political rcl~tionship ~ith Ward, and to a lesser extant
wi th Seddon nnd Racves; and finally the n3tional (colony-wid~)
identity that we_.s cre:1t,:;,d for 11Jock" IicKonzi a by ri81:1spnper
editorials nnd cartconG.
During his ye,rs 2..s c1 Minister of the Crovrn, McKenzie
wa.s a kind of 11rur.::-.l advocatc•1 i;1 th·,_t ho r.::.i.rcly spoke: on
natters other th~n thoa0 directly affecting the rural popul~co.
A qui ck brGakclo·0;_~ of i tc!:is on v1hich Joh.11 McKenzie spoke in the
House b2tween
1
89
1
::i.nd1
8
99,
shows thnt approxinately51
per centof his indexed speeches were concerned directly with land
matters,
2
9
per cent wi tl1 ngricul ture nnd forestry,13
per cent with roads and bridges, and only6
per cent with 11other11 issues. Many of these 11othern i sc-rnes simply involved points of procedureand those speeches relci.ted to questions like educo.tion, evidenced
that John McKenzie was almost solely concerned with advocating
the rurnl viewpoint. During the debate on the Middle Districts
15
B. J.0'
Brien, tlThe Land Policy of John McKenzie11,New Zealand University College Bill of 1894, for example, he
-'!• ,,§nt;
'U"
f.:i. ~~ s-q "" h.::i.t ri11;ireY, ,ou <l ~ gpc, ,.Qn .-...:._,dairy factories rather than on higher education, and that the
professional men of the city should endow the College themselves.~6
This persi stent advocQcy of rural interest s suggests that
McKenzie'3 re3l politic~! inportuncc lay in his ability to
draw rural vot es to the Liber3l party. He had to bo careful
therefore, as Minister of agriculture, not to alienat e country
voters either t hrough impl ementing unpopular r8guL:ttions on the
one hand, or t hro~gh nini sterial inacti on on the ether, as he
was one of the few Liberal lenders with both the sy~bolic and
the practical rural ascociati on required to attract the votes
of this political s0ctor.
Johr. McKenzi e wets .:il so 'J.11 extr'°'mel y ::'.-::;;)'.'.",l pnrty m:1n
1'7 who apparently ~lw~ys voted ~ith the Liberal govern~cnt. '
Writ ing t o Re2ves i n London in 1897; he; complC1i ned th.::-.t nit
would be nothing if we had only to fight our opponents but we
have occasionally a number of our friends to fight. For
i nstance, durinc ln•t sessi on and durin: the pr esent el ection
1
8
there h::::s been 3. great want of unity in the porty."
McKenzi e clearly dc~onstrated his person~l l cy~lty by
falling into l ine ui th tho Liberal s 1 advocacy of borrowing,
t3.riffs 2nd a stite bnnk, oven though he was opposed t o al l
three policies ~hon he joi ned Bal lance' s ministry i n 1891~ He
oven ·went as far as l eading the defcnco of the Bank of New
16 PD, 1894, 84, p. 115.
17 This stateraent has not been absolutely tested but
B.J. O'Brien,
C
.
D
.
R
.
Downe;s and myself have been unnbleto discover any instance where McKenzie voted against
the party.
18 'Let ters from Men of Mark', McKenzie t o Reeves ,
PARLIAMENT PROCEEDS TO THE BUBINEBB OF THE BESSION.
,,.. Ho~fUhL~ ,1, • :-.:ow thu. ,,. s •• ..,pr,ct,,._ opco the door aud let oor hM'ad 'll'ard ia. or, by \be lh&dn of m7 B'i.,blud fonfalht.._ cue aod Dick s.ddo11 will pull tbe l:fouoe dowo about 7011r nr•
I
;:;
Jock's defence of Ward. The caption reads:
"The Honorable Jock: Now, then, ye Sassenachs, open the
door and let our ftiend Ward in, or, by the shades of my Highland forefathers, me and Dick Seddon will pull the House down about your ears."
Seddon Papers,
3/61,
National Archives.Zealand a-ainst severe opposition attacks in
1895
and1896, 1
9
and speaking in favour of the tariff
20
and the Customs andExcise Duii es Bi l l i n
1
895
.
21
In the sen•c of being a ' loyalparty man122 McKenzie was a modern politi cian who expected his
Liberal colleagues to vot e unanimously on every measure that
tho government brought forward.
Certain correspondence in the, 11LettcrG from Men of
Mark" collection suggo sts t ln t McKenzi e' 3 rcl:::i.tionship to t he
other thr oe members of th2 Liberal big four - Seddon, Ward and
Reeves - was nwre i nportant :i.nd co::1plox than h:1d formerly been aupposcd.
It seems th2t XcKenzi~ and Joseph ~~rd were close friends and tho.t McICen:::.ic eve:n cci'l-:;idorcd W·,rd t o oe somet hing
,,
of 3 prot ege. Evid?nce for ttis unlikely rel ~ti onship was
first hi nted at by a r 8port on ~cKonzio's opur~tion in England
i n
1
899
.
Evident ly McKenzie ce1.lled \7.:.:i.r<l to thv operating theatre itsel f , but loft Pember Reeves anxiously hovering on27
t he edges of London. -~
This sl icht suegcstion 0f a close r~lationship
between th• t wo men wac subst~atiated by~ letter from Patrick
Mawhinney, John McKonzie1s pri v~tc sccrct~ry, to Reeves,
19
PD,1
896
,
92,
PP•467-469.
20
PD,1
895
,
90
,
p.256.
21
PD,1
89
5
,
90
,
p.492
.
22
'Letters fror.i Men of Mark", McKenzi e t o Reeves,22
Nov.1
1
89
7,
p.1
8
3.
EYE TO EYE AND HAND IN HAND.
The two Liberal "giants" in harmonious accord.
The caption reads:
"Premier Dick (to his Heilan' Lieutenant): Eh, mon Jock, the wish is father to the thought with them when they say there's dissension in the Cabinet. We're as happy as a pair of turtle doves or a
couple of winged angels - ain't we Jock?"
Seddon Papers,
3/61,
National Archives.concerning the funeral of Sir John. Mawhinney noted "Of o.11 his fri ends here Sir Joseph was the one he clung to , and
Mr. Ward very often went out of hi s way t o stop at Heathfield
::t night to cheer the sick man u:p. 11 24 This fricrnd.ship between
two ,such entirel y di f ferent individuD.l G begins t c make uorc
sense on cl oser considerati on. After ~11, McKenzie's l and
l egislation coul d not h3vc been really effect ive without ~ard's Government ~dvcnces to Sct t lor G ~ct , 1894, ~nd the flo~ting of
l oans in London for land devel opacnt. As XcKenzie did not speak once duri ng the debat es on t he ~dvancec to Set t lers Bi l l,
i t seens t lvt t he: i nplici tly tru,::;t ed ·::varcl. Furthermore, NcKenzi e
resol utely ckf::mdccl the, rw,1rur of Vbrd during the Bank of New Zo~lnnd controver sy. OpJosition mornbars in tie House tried to
make: great play of ·;hrd' ,; b'J.nl~ruptcy but :';cK(;nzic would not
al low the~ to drag privat& affairs into public vicw.25
It :0.lso 3c,0•;1s l ike:l:r t\u t I1cKonzi.::, w~s r.mch cl oser
on the personal l evel tc
A
,
P
.
Reeves than has formerly beensupposed. Reeves' son wa~ McKenzi e's godson,26 sugges t ing that
t hey were f2r ncrc thnn poli t ic~l acqu~int uncas. Thr~u:·hout
tho l et tors McKenzie ~l so l ~oonted the f~ct th~t Mrs. Reeves
di d not writo oor~ fr0qu0ntly and cxpress3d t h~ view t h~t both
he .-:c1icl Sc:ddon r.iisso,'. the-· cmppcrt of Reevoc; and ·;Jard durinz the
1 f t I . f 1 Q 0" 27 wrnng ea o ~c sessi on o J ~ (
-24 'Let ters from Mon of Mark', Mawhi nney t o Reeves,
12 Aug.J 1901, p~. 221-222.
25 PD, 1896, 92, p. 49.
26 'Let ters fron Mon of Mark', McKenzi e t o Reeves ,
22Nov. >1897, p. 18L~.
27 'Let ters from Men of Mark' , McKenzie t o Reeves,
A DOMESTIC QUARRELL.
'So, \b,I Hoe. WcKtn&le and I - -,1urnl ODIJ &I IIMUI &Dd ..-:if• do.._,,_,... s,,.ldo,1 ;,. ,,.. H .. rnuw ... B,/1 ,M .. ,1,.
Seddon and McKenzie's disagreement over the Horowhenua Bill is nothing more than a marital tiff. The caption reads:
"No, the Hon. McKenzie and I never quarrel only as husband and wife do." -Premier Seddon in the Horowhenua Bill debate.
(Seddon's words echo McKenzie's).
Seddon Papers,
3
/6
1,
National Archives.; The letters to Roeves are also interesting in showing
that McK&nzie had c~me to fully accapt Seddon as leader by
1
89
7,
even tho gh he h3d initially supported Sir Robert Stout's clain
fer the premi er shi p i n
1
89
3
,
He wrot e nseddon is a wonderful28
man and can get t hroue;h 3. tremendous anount of work." So by this t ime i t sec.:r:i::: th:,. t t h,: two men had becoe1e a t e::-..n1 who
seldom interfered with ~~ch . other 's policy. Perhaps the r elationship was best summed up by I-1cKenzie himsel f in answer to a charge in the House that a split had occurred between
Seddcn and the Minister of Lands. McKenzie countered the
accusation by pointing out that Mr . Seddon and he were like a good husband and wife who had differences of opinion but remained loyal t o
~~c.A
·other.2
9
This rel at ionship further h8lps t o explain how t hese two giant r::1en havc:? come to beaccepted as the pi l lars of the e~rly Liberal government in both nat ional myths and hist ory bookG. It al so shows that once 3gai n
John McKenzie t he onn w~s very ouch a poli t ic~l realist who
t hrew his full wei ght behi nd tho pol i ti c.:-._1 lo.J.dcr who was .r;icst
successful in get tinc bi l ls rcl 2ted to l~nd ~nd agricultur.J.l
~.J.t ters passed i nto law.
Const ant and wi despr c2d ncwsp~por coverage of
Johh McKchzie 's ~ctiviti~s as ~iLi~t~r of L~nds ensured that he soon gai n d a col ony--wi :h: id(:nti ty. Edi tori.::!.l s continually
debat ed ~he usefulness or ot herwise of his land policies.
Cartoons of McKenzie in papers like the New Zealand Observer and
Freelance, which claime·a t o be "11Sr.1art, but not vulgar .. ; fearless
but not offensiv2; i ndependent but not neutral; unsectarian
28 ;:Lctt.0rs frori Men of Mark", McKenzie to Reoves, 16 Feb.,
18
98
,
p.1
91
•
THE MINISTERIAL BOHOOL.-HON. JOCK AB DOMINIE.
Tbe HWtpaper ~ . : "lb.I.WU-ibea:.11~~u!:
= .':..
~ °'1eu;~r.:.•~Stddoa ill •-.7 UI Hollan.The number two man left in charge of lesser ministers. The caption reads:
"The newspaper correspondents wire that the Hon. John McKenzie will boss the work of the Cabinet while Premier Seddon is away in Hobart. Also that the Hon. Hall-Jones is the Minister whose work is giving least satisfaction."
but not irreligious';, 30 rnade considerable play of his huge frame a~d b~ocd r~ce and usually pictured hin in kilt and tarn o'shantor. Alli~ all, it w~s impossible for McKenzie to be ~ l i t t lo-known rniaiGte~ 7irtually hidden by depnrtracntal Lncl~inery, f,yc th,:) c.ix .. foo·c four-inches tall, oighteen-stona .Scot was a giant in both the physicnl nnd symbolic sense. If
et fnrri.er o:.· pr0duccr of c..g:i:icultu:ral goods found the government's agricultural policies to be beneficial he know exactly where to direct his praise and if ho found then repressive or irrit~ting, he knew whon to blame.
l~.:;,1.stJ:Ype::.·s L:. gci'l(n·ql and particularly the pro-Liberal
papo-rs -_-1_l
.
, .i'i:C tho ~ow ZGal~~d_Time~ for exanplo, nlso helped todevelop jho u~·tb of 1honast Joc~1
• Tho Liberal party made
gre~t uce cf this •; •~clic ~ssocintion of John McKenzie with uprightnes~, ocpocially during the previously neutioned defence
of tl-:.c, :S,'l:1'c of New Z•.:.:al -?,i.'ld v,hcr: 11cKenzic successfully shielded
His syrab~lic h~l 0 pro~ably b~~ase ev0n no~e importa~t after
1SS•6, with :;hr; dc:~n:;,~,;ur-:: oi :?ilJ.:'.ru.: ?enbc!.' Reeves, for by this
;J;:_r) :: '.1c1' l-'i·:~::~() ,:z~.c ',c s ~~,3 sc r~pt'.l 011,s be hind the scenes,
Acc'..lsC1.·c~.o,1s that John McKenzie was guilty of sor::c
dubious actions in tho case of the Pomohaka estate purchase of 189': .1 had some justificatio01. The price paid of two pounds ten
shillings per ncro was excessive, as tho l~nd had originally been purchased for ten shillings per acre back in 1869. ~orse still, the Waote Land Co;;'L.-nission t lnt investigated the purchase
vr:J.s lit tle mere than a face•·· Sil vi.ng dcvi cc, as its ranks
included six ministerial partisans. J.D. Ritchie, Secretary of" the -Department of ;tgricul turc and nephew of the vendor, had
14
also acted in a dubious fashion by destroying al l correspondence
with his uncle and the Minister that w~s related to the matter.
31
Both McKenzie and Ritchie wore vindicated but the controversy
over the purchase reveal ed th~t the actions of 'Honest Jock'
were net always beyond reproach.
George Hutchison also reve8led in the debate on the
1
898
Dairy Industry Bill th~t John McKenzie was a ~ernber of theddvisory Bo~rrt of the Coloni3l Consignment ~nd Distribution
Company, an organisati on based in England which made its profits
frori.1 tho marketing of colonial prir.nry produce.
32
The Ministerwas quick to rer:iove any suggestion of corruption by pointing
out th,,t tho Co1·,pany rrJferred t o w::i..s concerned solely with the d:i.stribution of d::tiry produc.:: in Eni;land, not ·.srith the ret;ulation
. ; 7
of dairy production inside New Zc~l:'..nd.JJ The link with such a
non-state profit making org~nisation i s intQresting, for
John McKenzie 1,s n:c::e -L,s not usually associc.t,)d vii th such
cori:par:ies.
John VicK.2nzi.8 w7.:.., :clso ct touf;h, politic-3.1 prctr;rr,.':2tist
who was pr epared to co~pr omiso to get lcgisl~tion through.
The chang2 fro~ par,ctu,l lcnsc in th0
1
39
1 L
~ni
3ill to t hele~se in pcrp0tuity of tho
1892
Land Act , provid2d the bestknown cx~•plc of this characteristic. Hie understanding of
parliancnt~ry pr ocedure w~s nlso oor0 extensive thnn is
generally supposed, as ho demonstrated in
1
898
by assistingSeddon to suspend stnnding order
55
to ollow tho session to31
Christchurch Press,24
Oct. ,1
894
.
32 PD,
1
898
,
105
,
pp.60
-
61
.
continue t i l l Christmas-time. Thi s manoeuvre enabled him t o 34 introduce his three al l ied agricultural bills of that year.
But even i f McKonzie, like most successful politicians, was a
l i ttle unscrupulous i n reality, his name was associat ed
throughout t ho 1890's with a much higher degree of integrity than t]hq· petty patronage of l esser political figur es.
Probably a combinati on of this symbolic associati on with
scrupulous honesty and John McKenzi e's obvious sincerity and
careful personal supervision of adni aistr.3.tive det.3.il, enabled
him to maintain t he clean imRge of the Department of :i.gricul turc.
Try as they ni ght, anti-mi nisterial newspapers ~nd Qembers of the oppositi on were unable to blacken ei ther the name of the
Minister or the Department. Under his supervisi on i t remained
a "r.10dcl Departrnent1135 and this branch of the Liberal bureaucracy was kept free from the shadow of Tammany Hal l .
Even though John McKenzie gained Llost of hi s
r,1ythol ogic::i.l f2..ue and hi s hi gh ranking within the Liberal
ministry as a r esult of hi s actions as Mi~ister of Lands, he
t ook the responsibilities of the portfcl io of agriculture with
equal seriousness. l s ~.H. Oliver has suggested, the bringing of scientifi c advice to the farmer and "helpi ng him maintai n
standardsrr wns more charo.cteristic of John McKenzie than l and
nati onalis::1.t i on "or any other objective not connected wi th the i rnrncdi '.lt c a.ttninmcrnt of his goal11 ;36 lands for the peopl e.
34 PD, 1898, 105, p. 392.
35 Timaru Herald, 26 Aug.11893.
After all, the devel opment of highly productive and efficient farm units was un Gssential complement t o t he unlocking of the land. In his l et ter of resi gnati on to the Liberal caucus, John McKenzie stated t hat his nain aim during his political career had been t o assist in making New Zealand 11tho happiest
and most prospcr cus country under the sun."
37
McKenzieconsidered that New Zealand could only achieve such nation-wide prosperity by produci ng a much greater quantity of agricultural exports which were of 8Ufficiently high quality to answer the
needs of overseas buyer s. The stat G was the only enterprise
large enough t o bring about these improvements and the newly established Ministry atid Department of Agriculture, founded in
18
92
,
were the instruments through which these changes couldbe brought about. Furtharmare, as t he first functioning Minister of Agriculture,
3
8
McKenzie had t he speci al duty ofensuring that t ho al ~ost new portfol io would prove beneficinl
to the entire colony. If the pi oneer Minister of ~gricul turc set a good ex3upl c, hi s successors woul d be more likely t o do
their utmost to assist the nat ion's najor industry.
Consequently, i t waG not really surpri sing that John McKenzie was an extremel y active administr2t or and passed a mass of
l egi slation t ouching •any nspects of New Zealand' s agricultural industry.
37
0 DT,29
June,1900~
38 The portfol io of Agriculture was actually creat ed under Atkinson's l ast ministry, L.G. ~ild, The Life and Times of Sir Janes \lilson of Bulls, p.
98
and PD,1891,
70 &71; but G.F. Richardson was unabl e to do anything as Minister of Agriculture as the ministry to which he belonged lost power later in the same year and
CriAPI'ER II
John McKenzie's Ministerial Style.
John I'.icKonzio's concern t o assist Ifov, Zenlr.rnd's
ngriculturnl
ifld~sfry
t o thu utnost of his o.bility and hi::;fCrsonnl preference for direct f~cc to face ncgoti~tions,
int0rnctod r:ith his 2..ctunl ilncl synbolic inport::mcc within tho
Liberal cinistry t o give hi• a distinctive •inisteriC1.l style.
His ninist0r:L,l styl 0 wc1s distinctivo i n t hett i t wns highly
porsoa2l isc~ ~nd decidedly pr e-burcaucrntic. Tho intense
perscno.l rolnticnship between John McKenzi e nnd tho portfol io of Agricultur e ucnnt tln t h~, w-:cs di r ectly responsi bl e for shn1,inc a.dr.ii ni str-:1.tivc clnnr;cs in tho
1
89
0'
s o.,1cl f::-;r intro -ducinc the l:i.r:;c nm.1bcr of l 7.,'/S roL:1. t C;d to ·::gricul tur,1.l r:1:it t arsthnt wore 1ic,ssod 1)etw0011
1
89
1
c..nd1
900
.
The first :.:2joragricultur~l lnv t hat Has petssod under J~hn McKenzie's diroctic~
vns t ho Bi rds Nuisnnco Act of
1
89
1
,
wti ch brondcnod t he s copecf t ho Sr.ml l Jirds Nuisance Act 0f
1
88
2
,
i n :rn ,, tt 0r,.pt to ridt h..:: col ony of ,:,,11 bi r d i~c,sts thr ough nssistin0 tho offorts of l oc::-..1 ~)odi cs to ov,,::.~co;:'c the: rrobl o,:,.
3
9
Hi s 1.:0..jor l o6isl:itivcachi ovcc~nts cf
1
89
2
wore t he Mnaur a A~ul tornti cns Act andt ho Do..iry Industry Act . The forLlcr act set cut t o prevent t he
so.l e of frauful ont G::tnures t o faraors by ~eking~ vendor's
+ - ' . L
~
14
0
1 - ' 11 l h ' ll;UD.r D.nvUO [1. i:r Cr ·.3'(1Ul S l1,e Ci:!. Sc. C ., W,1lCn COl: C. ~e 8 CCKCC
cut by a cov(!rl'E.,ont ::.n-::tlyst on roquo~,t of tho buyer. Tho
D
airyI
nduatry Act41
was csoenti ally a new piece of l egislo. -tion nhi ch nincd to stnnd:-trc:iso dairy production nnd netrketingpr,::tctices, through C0!.11ml scry o.nd uniforn GO.vcrnuent grading,
branding and ins?cction of dni r ies. It wus fol lowed up by
nets of
1
894
o..nd1
8
98
.
The Dairy Industry Act of1
8
94
added39 N.Z.
Statut es,18
9
1,
No.37,
PP•293-294.
4o
N.Z.
Statut•os,1
8
9
2
,
No.38
,
pp.27
6-280.
18
inspection of cnttlo and •ilkinc practices , in nu attempt to
i• provc hygiene standards nnd roculntc tho industry inn acre
s:::i.tisfnctory ao.nncr.
42
Tho1
898
Act c::crricd things ev0nfurther by ,nssinc control of town ailk sup)ly over to the
Dcpartncnt of Acriculturc, while introducing tests for
tuberculosis in cons nne,:. rnkinr-; ::1.id avo.il::c::ilc for tho erecticn
of do.iry f,::i.ctorios.
43
McKenzie's n:1.j or ngricul turnl lmv of1
893
wns the Glssivc Stock Act, ,;,hi.ch of scvornl earlier nnd separate ::i.cts,brought the o~erations
44
under the one st::i.tuto.It VJG.s followo,l by nno11dJ:10nts of
1
S95
nnd1
'.J
96,
whichrespectivel y prevented tho night driving of stock
45
and46
provided coapcns::i.tion for destroyed boasts. The Agricultural
nnd Pnstornl Sto.tistics Act of
1895
g:w c tho uinist,:;r thepower to collect infor• ation on nn extreaoly wirlc ranso of
topics~? whilo the FencinG Act of tho sane year consolidated
earlier lo.ws related t o this question nnd extended its regula
-tions to apply to Maori lands,
48
Thu only really iaportantact relo.tcd to D.Gr:'_culturnl natters th:it wo.s 1nssed in
18
96
was Li.cthe Orchc:.rd c1nd G:1.rclon Pests Act. ,--;; It \l:,s designed t o r;rcvont
the introduction of such ovcrse~s postc into Now Zealand,
thrcuch strict inspocti0~ of fruit and plant i•ports at ports
of entry. This Act IT~s also ai~od ut stoppinc tho sprc~d of
42
N
.
Z
.
Stntutos,18
9
4
,
No .•Li-
o
,
~iJ.373
-
330
.
43
N.Z.
Statutes,1098
,
No.22
,
PP•72
-
78
.
44
N.Z. Statutes,1
893
,
No.5
1,
PP•2
3
5
-
2
:5
6
.
4
5
N.Z. Statutes,1895
,
No.38
,
pp.143
-1
46
.
46
ibid,, No.3
1,
pp.1
22
-
124
.
47
i bi d., No.43,
pp.t5
7-1
58
.
4
8
ibid., No.32
,
PP• 110-122,orchard 9.nd go.rden posts wit hin Now Zealo.nd by giving
government inspectors t he right to destroy diseased trees or
plants within orchards and to issue finos for lack of care in
the drossins of trues and the control of pests. Johh McKenzie
failed to got any bills passed into law in
1
89
7,
but passedthe Rabbit-proof ~ire Netting Fences Act in
18
98
,
whichprovided l oans for tho erection of such fences,
50
al ong withthe pr eviously QO~t ionod D~iry Industry let ~nd Stock Act
Amendr:10nt. Finally, bot l1 tho :Noxious Woods ~·,ct and tho
Sl aughtering and Inspection ~ct of
1
9
0
0
were first introducedas bills by Jchn McKenzi e. The former hct was introduced in
bill fern as o~rly as
1
89
3
51
~nd when i t was finally passed i tset out to prevent tho car0l css fnruor ; rowing weeds t o t he
detrisont of hi s nci chbaur , throu~h the inspecti on of both
seeds for s~l o ~nd of f~r~ l and i tself. Govcrn~ent i nspectors
vrnre giv(:m tho rig-ht to i ssue heavy fi nes to farr.:ers or seed
52
firms 111ho cncc.ur,,,_ged tho sproo.d cf such '.'tGodG. Tho lattG>r Act was first introduced as a bi l l i n
1
897
5
3
and ~hen passedwns l i t t lo di fferent i n essence fro~ the original bi l l.
3ricfly i t l ai d down that al l neut for consu~~ti on in t owns of
ov~r
2
,
000
popul~ti on shoul d be carri0J out in licensedabbatoirs ,nd th2t ~11 such 00Qt h~d t o be first i nspected by
govern~ent offici al s , before i t could be rcl e~sed on to t he
open nnrket .
5~-50
N.Z. Stntute;s,1
8
9
8
,
No.29,
pp.112-11
8
.
51
Bills Thrown Out,'¥893'
')No.4o
.
52
N.Z. Statutes,1
900
,
No.10,
PP
·
20
-
26
.
53
Bills ThroDn Ou~,1
897
,
No.75.
-20
Moat of the legislation passed between John McKenzie's r ctire•ent i n 1900 2nd the co~ing to paver of Massey's
2dninistrntion in 1912, was c0nccrnod with aoendnents and
r ofincoents tc McKenzie's laws r~ther th~n with the introduction
of new or more conprohensive laws. The only ro~l exception was the Api~rics Act of 1906, ~hi ch g::i.ve inspoctors thu right to destroy diseased becs.
55
John IicKcnzio w:,s tl,e;:e.:fcire.. d-1;.,e,c.tl.y ::-e.spo.l\·Sible for an
extruorclinary bun,t of lcgisL::.tive cro'J.tivity ::i.nd ::tccoc-1pnnying
l egisl::i.tivc energy. ilut i t must be nade cle~r that both his
l egislntivc effort and hi s ~dninistr2tive ::tctivitios wer e
concerned with the ccnsolid::i.tion of earlier l ~ws ~nd adninis
-tr2tivc dcvol oJ• ~nts , r::i.thur thnn with innov~tion. Nost of his l::i.ws were net now ~nrt uven the setting up of tho Dep3rtmont
of ~griculturo in 1892 was closely rolnted to c~rlior ::i.dsinis
-tr~tivo dovelop~onts. ConGolid, ti on vrrn :t cc o,_:-:_ianie: d by centr'.)_l is::i.tion of tha ~d•inistration ~nd inJlo~cntJ.tion of
l nws regulating acricultur~l Jr~ctic_. Yet this consolid~tion
d.id not i.12:,..11 th:J.t l l.)_:;i sl 1.tivo ::i.nd 2.d:11i~:i .str~_ti ·v~:: rrocosscs
wc:re halted. On t'.:e: contr:try, Je;hn r-icKonzio -:;.ccolur::..ted
oo_rli cr elev Jlo1x1onts :10 t only through th,:: sin.010 ,::i,ct of
consolido. tion, :)ut ;Jy
:~1nl
tii1J
g
l.:::vJS ;:,oro co:,:prohcnsi ve, there byincro::i.sine tho r::i.:1g0 011 stc•tG 's recul-:iti on of J.r_;ricultur::i.l
pro_ctice. In i1is efforts to ::1c:kc the con-:rol of 2busos more
offedtivc, John !icKonzic also made his regulations increasingly
coercive. This intensification of coercive regulation meant
that the activities of stock inspectors were widened to cover
a great number of duties, that the powers delegated to them
were stepped up and that the governr:1ent' s war on pests like
the rabbit and the small bird was escalated. Indeed, the
inspectors of tho Department of Agriculture had such wide
ranging powers that the Departoent could have become a
tyrannical organisati on, but John McKenzie overcame the
danger through the directness and openness of his ministerial
actions. His ability to answer problems with direct action,
in a manner that was above suspicion of ulter~or motives,
meant that the farner w~s generally aware of tho minister's
high-minded concern for their welfnrc. Though he may have
been soQething of~ despot, he was at l enst a benevolent one.
Finally, Johh McKenzie's highly personali sed, pro-bureaucratic
ministerial style •eant th~t rapid administrative growth came
only after his r2tiremcnt, evon though tho n~ss of laws bhat
he introduc&d nnd the adninistrative changes thnt ho raadc,
brought into existence tho latent forces that made nassivc
adrainistrative expansion possibl e.
(i) John McKenzie's Person~l ised Mi nisterial Style
something of
John McKenzie wo .. s/a bureaucratic prinitivc, in that
the
ho tended to regard/ port folio of li.gricul turo as n virtunl
extension of his own personality. Consequently, he personally
shaped government agricultur~l policies while in office and
took an enormous work l o~d on himself; a practice which helps
to account for his i l l health. His reluctance to delegate
t o under-secretaries and unwillingness to make use of
'sophisticated' bureaucratic machinery, is clearly shown by a
speech in the House, by his l etter of resignati on to the
Liberal caucuo, and by the fact that he personally answered
nearly every question in the House relat ed t o agriculture up
In tho Ministerial Salaries and Allow~nccs Bill of
1
895
,
John McKenzie ,.:ade it clear tho.t hu wc-ts very rmch ther..1inistor in ch2..r2;•2, t he 11rc-:tl hc2..d of his Dcr;:,.rtr.wntn.
56
He snin
:-it is t '.10 duty cf th,, Iiiaistc::r tc, l ook pcrscnully iato papers , especially certain pnpors of ir::::_)ortancc, -::..n.l sec what they cnn do in tho int erests of the country to snvo
•ency or devise batter things than the
Undar-Sccrct~ry rccon•cnds ••• I can assur ~
the House that there has not boon a year
I have been in office t hat I have not snvcd
scvcrnl thousands cf pounds to the colony by lookinc ~ftcr the interests of tho
dc~~~.rtnont. I do not 1;L7.n(; tho Sccrcto.ri e:s
for any neglect of duty, but t h~y hnvG not ·t1-·--- .,,r,..,cti'c"l k··-o •",c,clr?,; i'01 clp--ili'··•• \'r1·'l,·1·t
... , .... lJ t..L (.A -.LL \M-'-.... av J.
-:>
7
J..lt._, ·- ..Lo.ttars which Ministers have,
Sinilctr scnti,:,cnts wore cc:10cd in Joh:1 HcKcnzio' s
l cttJr of resignation of
27
Jun0,1
900
1 to t he Libar~l caucus.He nctod that o~poncnts of th~ Libor,1.s criticise~ 5inistcrs for
spcnclins too nuc!, tir::: on c'.l:~)D.rtncntc,l nc,ttor.s ~ncl tl:'.lt these dut~ils should ~o left ta undcr-s~crctD.ri as.
this criticis~ hs s~i J: ;;csnsicLri n:::, th,:, Jnoruous nunbar of questions ~ncl dcb~tcs in Parli~acnt o~ tnttcrs of purely dopo.rtr.1-:,nt,,l :J.,·,t~'.i l, i t s:!or:lcc. t c 1.,s
[t
h
e
Li1Jc.r.1.l t11ii1ist0r f:J t o be ~oth pru~ant to try ~nJ c~stcr then our selves, 2.nd to dor.8 i t i::cant J.onr_; ho1.:.rs c.,f v1cary work. n
---56
Ticaru IlcrD.l d,0
Aus,,1901
.
57
PD,1
39
5
,
9
1
,
p.8
33
.
Whether this claim is true for all Liberal ministers
is perhap3 a l i t t le doubtful, but i t certainly is true for
John McKenzie as Minister of Agriculture. A careful working
over of questions
59
in the House related to agriculture showsthat McKenzi e personally answered raost of them. Whether questions were relat ed to rabbits, flax-working machinery, dairying, outbreaks of plant or stock diseases, handling of
New Zeal and produce in London, or empl oyees of the Department
of agriculture, John McKenzi e seemed to have an answer at his fingertips. I f he did not have the answer he made i t clear that the matter v10ul d be investi gated. For cxair.ple, Mr. Joyce
(Member for Lyttleton) asked for Mr. Flat rnan (Member for
Geraldine) i f North Island raut ton .ms being branded "Cnnterbury;'.
John McKenzie repl ied, possibly with tongue i n cheek, that he
did not think: that this mm so, but th,3.t the matter would be
immediat ely invcstigated.
60
Or again, Mr. Buchanan questionedthe Minister of Acriculturo nbout some cat t le killed at
Sunnyside in
1
898
because they were suspected carriers oftuberculosis. Jchn McKenzie raplietl i mmcdi~t el y thnt
19
of6
3
animals hnd shown a positive test. So~c hnd been ki l led but
no authority had been civen to di spose of them. All of which
wont to prove that l agisl3tion wns ne0dod on th8 topic.
61
When Mr. Tanner asked i f the government ' s attenti on had been
drawn to t ho success of nn obscure East Asian fodder plant
(sacaline) in iustrnlia, John McKenzie replied that he was
aware of i t and that soi:1e had been purchased for research
62
purposes. His repl ies then reveal ed a considerable coramand of
59
A thorough working through of these questions revealed aconsiderable amount of administrative detai l that would probably be contained in tho missing files of the
Department of Agriculture for the