It’s not often that you cheer and laugh out loud whilst reading a letter sent to someone else. But that is exactly what I did last week when I received the letter below.

It’s a copy of a letter sent to Greg Hamilton, the General Manager of the National Party, by one of our members, Mr John Bell. Mr Bell was sent a Membership Renewal reminder by the National Party, and the letter below was his response to them:

John Bell Letter Scan2

This party has been established by a small group of enthusiastic people who are deeply concerned about the way this country is going. We have all worked many many hours over many months on all the intricacies of getting the proper form of organisation established with which to make a stand at this coming election. When you receive something like this in the mail – suddenly you feel as though it’s all worth while.

Thank you Mr Bell, for your support and for this morale boost.

Comments are now closed

229 thoughts on “…and suddenly, it’s all worth while.

  1. Good one – i too will use that when i get my next request to renew membership.
    The last words i heard, face to face with my local National MP, was – and i quote ” Collin, National have done so many good things you might just have to put up with one thing you don’t like”

    Well no – i don’t have to put up with anything i don’t like especially, politicians.

    1. Yes, I noticed all these anti-apartheid statements from National but I also remembered they were more in favour of apartheid than Labour when they ruled the roost last time.

      What a track record over this and their last term; Foreshore and seabed signed away; oh so many new giveaways thought up; Whanau Ora means others health is less important, apartheid in employment prospects; Constitutional Advisory Panel telling us “Maori did not relinquish sovereignty”; “Maori are the people of the land”, without being able to provide any hard evidence in support of their statements and now National are smothering Auckland in 8 acre purple dots that force landowners to go cap in hand to Maoris for a Building permit on their freehold land. Unlike the Queen’s law which provides for appeal there is no appeal under Maori law, Maori law is law, full stop.

      If Dame Claudia Orange (Knighted for her work on the Treaty) was unable to prove as little as one Maori exclusive right in the Treaty within, how come Aucklanders have to crawl for a building consent?

      Point of fact of English law:- Queen Victoria did not have the right to allow special privilege to Maoris that would not be available to her own British subjects!

  2. Great to hear “…We have all worked many many hours over many months on all the intricacies of getting the proper form of organisation established with which to make a stand at this coming election.” Is there any timeline established for public meetings in the provincial and major centres?

      1. Hi Mike, we’ve had several meetings here in Hawke’s Bay and Bay of Plenty, and at least one in Wanganui. None in Wellington as yet because we don’t have many members from there yet.
        We’re currently organising the AGM which will be held in Napier and to which all members are invited/welcome and that will include at least one guest speaker. Details will be sent to members in the next newsletter which is due out shortly 🙂

        1. ..different persons have been mentioned as a possible party/individual to possible work with. I read all the blogs with great interest and I put another name to consider: Bob Jones….; yes, I am serious. He has a profile and not scared of stating his opinions openly. What say you all?

          1. I did hear that Sir Bob had been approached but declined. But that was at least second-hand information.

  3. It’s really gratifying to read this. I’ve been thinking that John Key is so keen inn continuing to cosy up with the Maori party that he’ll do and say anything to continue the bribes!

    Now if only they can take some decisive action to support these words!

  4. Forgive him, Gerry has been a bit busy with the earthquake and other stuff. Maybe during the next period in Government these things will be addressed??

    1. and pigs might fly? Not without someone there to prod them along – which is what we are aiming for.

  5. Thanks John Bell, and come on the rest of you. It’s not that hard to write to these people. I sent the following back in December. The reply I got, from a minion, was that it was being forwarded on to Bill English. I never heard back from him though. It is only if enough of us write that theses people will get the message. Don’t sit back and leave it to others. Sit up and write.

    Dear Mr Key,
    Thank you for inviting me, via todays email, to contact you. In return I wish you seasonal greetings.
    As a long term supporter I wish to congratulate you, and The Government, on your performance in navigating our nation through a very difficult period of world economic affairs. We have plenty to be thankful for in that regard.
    I am very worried about the prospect of a Labour/Greens coalition, and the economic damage that would probably inflict, but having been around enough years to have seen past Labour Governments I know that The Nation can recover from governmental mismanagement of an economic nature.
    However, I and a growing number of my friends and neighbours, who generally form the traditional National support base, are very troubled at the present time. We are increasingly drawn to the conclusion that we must withdraw our support in the 2014 elections. We do not believe that our nation can recover from the continual yielding to the wishes of a few people, based along the lines of racial preference and discrimination, which appears to be fostered by you and your government. Whilst it is understandable, in some respects,for you to have headed down this road to gain power in the first place I think you would be well advised to consider that you may be heading too far down it.
    The recent release by the Constitutional Advisory Panel (after a somewhat dubious “conversation” with the people of New Zealand) recommending that the “The Conversation” should continue, without the release to the public of any submissions backing that stance up, is very concerning. It smacks of the desired result not having been achieved and further opportunity to “lead” the people in the direction you and your political allies desire is the agenda.
    I hope you will take the time to reply to this email and advise whether you expect to continue in the same manner, during the next political term if you are re-elected, or whether you are perhaps beginning to notice there may be a growing awareness and anger towards this part of your policy?
    Many of us are finally coming to the conclusion that we need to use the MMP process and so change our habits in voting for your party. Instead perhaps we need to support a minor party that is prepared to support you in most matters – but not in the continuation of policy that can only further divide New Zealand along racial lines. I believe it is the MMP process that has been successfully used by vested interests to bring about this situation while we have been supporting the National Party in the past.
    Many of us await your reply as to whether you plan to continue full steam ahead, or will you consider moderating your stance on The Constitution issue?

    Yours faithfully,
    Kevin Campbell.

    1. That’s a great letter Kevin! Letter writing is good, and important. We’ve been told that MPs do not take any notice of the odd individual letter, but if they start getting letters about an issue in large enough numbers, then they do start to pay attention. You know what they say about the squeaky wheel getting the oil – we need to make our voices, (squeaky wheels), heard.

    2. Keith Campbells letter is so true, I hope it gets to John Key,There are many people out there that I talk to who belive the govement should Act but they wont unless there is a change with in the Govement.

  6. Mr Bell’s loyalty is to be commended but seriously misdirected.1LAW4ALL is not a political party,it is just the dream of a small group of people looking to establish true equality in New Zealand, and sadly that is all it is! A small group of people with a passion and a desire. It is not a political party, nor is it likely to be a political party at this moment in time. Less than 6 months from a General Election it is not registered, has no leader and no candidates. It generally has little or nil media support. John Ansell achieved more on his private campaign than 1LAW4ALL has achieved to date. I know this sounds defeatist however it is a reality and we need to accept the best we can achieve is to use any influence we have to support one of the other parties, likely to make Parliament, that can and will support our policies. I would gladly love to be proven wrong however I think we all know 1LAW4ALL is not going to happen this election.

    1. Mr Barry, I’d like to point out that – 1) We are in the process of registering as we speak. However, you CAN stand for election without registering as a party in New Zealand if you desire. You miss out on the party vote if you do, but it is an option. 2) No, we don’t have a leader yet – but neither does the Internet Party. Are you saying they are not a party either? 3) We do have a few people who have put their names forward as candidates and we are calling for more applications in the upcoming newsletter. 4) Our AGM is planned for next month, guest speaker and all, please come along and see what we are all about. Maybe it will show you how serious we are.
      Most of all, please keep your negative thoughts to yourself, as what we need, what all of New Zealand needs, are positive thoughts and actions. Not defeatism.

      1. Good points but obviously, we weren’t aware of this. I have no idea of the process of registering a political party but if a ragtag bunch of people like Harawira and others like him can do it, how hard can it be?

      2. Dear Admin,

        Clearly my so called negative thoughts have hit a nerve. Perhaps this is because there is truth in what I say? The website clearly advises that a Party Leader and candidates will be announced in the first quarter of 2014. FACT: It is now the second quarter of 2014 and 1LAW4ALL have no leader or candidates announced. Right or wrong? Please answer! It’s a simple question.
        Yes! The Internet Party have not announced a leader at this point but they didn’t say when they would! 1LAW4ALL announced they would provide this info in the 1st quarter of 2014. Also, the Internet Party is funded, is in the media constantly and doing deals to ensure they succeed in their endeavours. To date 1LAW4ALL has achieved none of these things and time marches on. Wow! you are going to have an AGM in Napier with a Guest Speaker! Big deal. In my communication I merely suggested 1LAW4ALL should be talking to other parties who may have a better chance to take it’s voice and policies to the benches.

        I am also now confused by your opening sentence in your rebuttal to me. Are you saying the 1LAW4LL party is considering standing candidates only and not looking to the party vote? Me thinks that would be political suicide…

        Lastly, please don’t wave your big stick and tell me what I can and can’t express online in an open forum. At least I have identified who I am and what my concerns are. You, whoever you are, hide under the guise of ‘Admin’. A faceless and nameless person with no mandate to tell people how they must think or behave when making comment. Do you call that ‘Free Speech’? Especially in a party the professes equal rights. Think I’ll go back to the National Party… Well done you! You just lost an avid supporter and several votes because I will take my friends with me.

        1. Mr Barry
          I am not hiding behind anything. My name is Brenda Spiller and I live in Hastings. I’m not afraid to have my name out there. The website is designed to show posters as admin.
          We have decided not to join forces with any other party for the same reasons I gave about compromise.
          Also, I was not ‘telling’ you that you could not speak, I respectfully asked you to not express negative thoughts here. Free speech is one thing, going onto the website of a party and exhorting it’s members to vote for a different party is a different thing and is hardly constructive or helpful. We are working extremely hard to give the people a party worth voting for and you are working against us. How exactly would you have had me respond to that?
          No, we are not considering standing candidates without a party.

          1. Thanks Brenda for clarifying your position. I have no desire to cause the party any further concern so shall keep my thoughts to myself. I wish you and the party well with your endeavours. Peter Barry

          2. Thank you Mr Barry. I hope you continue to follow the blog and contribute to the discussions. Brenda

          3. Peter, I respect your opinion and hope that you won’t take umbrage and go away and continue to try to change NZ

    2. Peter Barry has had some clever things to say about ONELAW but that is often a substitute for any real intellectual comment. I put it to him that The basic principle of the Rule of Law and Equality of all citizens which is the Cornerstone of all the Major Democracies is being subverted in this country by giving one small section of the Population special treatment and Privileges in Law many of which have adverse effects on the rest of the Population.
      In anticipation of his challenge I cite the Resource Management Act and the Local Government Act. Both these Acts confer on this Small Group of the population certain rights and privileges for no rational reasons just some creative mysticism and which adversely affect the rest of the population in their every day lives often causing great hardship and expense.
      So my question to him is does he agree with the special treatment identified in the above paragraph and if so for what reasons. If he does not agree with that special treatment could he explain what he would propose be done about it because if something is not done NOW the problem will GROW and SPREAD and get harder to eradicate

      1. John! My great, great, great, great Grandmother was Princess Tiraha. Niece of Tamati Whaka Nene.I live in the north and interact with Maori on a daily basis. Whilst the brown has been washed out over the generations I am still Maori but more importantly I am a New Zealander. I am not special and I do not deserve special treatment. I make my position very clear to fellow Maori and will do so till the day I die. We are NOT helping Maori by continuing the grieving gravy train which has now been underway for far too long. We are building generation after generation that only knows how to hold its hand out. It is not entirely their fault because it is all many have ever known. Don’t start me on the injustices of this, or the damage it is in fact doing to Maori, because I could write a book. There is only one way this country will ever move forward and that is equality for all New Zealanders no matter their race, colour, religion or sexual orientation. We cannot allow one minority group to continue to hold an entire country to ransom on a litany of lies. Especially when it is causing more pain for that minority group than good. They just don’t know it because it is continually endorsed by academia they have a special right. Bullshit! Tell the Portuguese who had left 200 years before the Maori got here. Or maybe the Celts who had settled in the south now known as Wellington. Maori hadn’t got that far because they were still struggling to find their way across the Hokianga Bar in their canoes. Indigenous my arse!
        I know what is best for this country, and ALL it’s citizens, and that is ‘one law for all’. How we achieve this is a whole different debate. 1LAW4ALL, as a political organisation, has had a very long lead in time to sort themselves out and get their act together. They have as a group been around for two years. To be 6 months out from an election with an unregistered party and no leader does not instil confidence. I truly hope I am wrong but experience tells me I am not. Please prove me wrong!

        1. Mr Barry, I like what you have written here very much. I admire you for being able to see through the BS that is endangering not only Maori, but all of New Zealand. As a group we’ve only actually been around almost one year. Before that some of us were supporting John Ansell, but grew disheartened when we found it was going no where.
          We had very good reasons for not rushing in to registering before now, and they were to do with the rules imposed on registered parties and donations.
          We will be doing everything possible to prove you wrong, you can be sure of that 🙂

          1. Excellent! I would be ever so pleased to be proven wrong. I look forward to your email saying “I told you so”. Good luck and please keep us notified of progress. PB

  7. I heard a woman say on the radio that “National has been good for Maori”. She obviously misunderstands the situation. National has been brilliant in strengthening self-interested, greedy power groups who want to milk the taxpayer – all in the name of Maori. These well-funded political forces (i.e. feudal lords) need to keep the majority of Maori poor, uneducated and belligerent in order to justify their fat pay packets and the ever-growing claims on other New Zealanders.
    National, ACT, Labour and the Greens’ racist policies will destroy New Zealand and Maori people with it. Winston doesn’t count because he’s all talk and no action.

  8. I have to agree with Peter Barry. Although the intentions are commendable, it has been left far too late for the next election. May I encourage anybody who supports the aims of law4all to give their votes to the only party which has announced a policy to eliminate all reference to race in all legislation. With one or two seats, they could well hold the balance of power, and with the ethical stance of their leader, this could be the break through which so many of us are looking for.

    1. Actually, the Conservatives are not the only party, besides us, who have said they have the same or similar policies to us. Winston Peters, NZ First, has repeated our policies, almost word for word. In fact both of those parties came out with their latter day policies on racial privileges AFTER they became aware of 1Law4All. Funny that.
      I don’t believe either of them will actually follow through. Why? Because with MMP in a coalition government you always have to make compromises. You always have to give in on some things you want in order to get others. And it’s easy to give on any policies that are likely to be unpopular or that they see as less important than policies on say, the environment or economics etc. However, with a one issue party, we have nothing to give in, no other policies to compromise for, only one focus and that is equality for all under the law and government.

    1. I know Murray. Hopefully the registration process and the necessary publication of our application in the press will force them, (the media), to finally recognize us. They have been desperately ignoring us so far.
      The media have made a circus out of the Internet Party and that brief flash in the pan – the Pakeha Party, so the only reason I can think of for them to ignore us is that we are no joke. That we are serious and that we are about an issue that is very serious for NZ, but one that the media don’t want to touch with a barge pole.

      1. So right Brenda and the reason for that is they are scared of being labelled racist. I need BOP contact details please.

        1. I would like the BOP details as well. why not just publish all of the available details. Will this party ever get off the ground if the masses are uninformed. If this party means to be a force to be reckoned with it needs to be getting off the ground sooner not later. Even Mr.Dot Com is getting TV air time where is 1LAW4ALL’s TV presence?

          1. Mr Dot Com was a ‘personality’ with the media before he decided to start a political party. He is also a very flamboyant character who has plenty of money to throw around. We don’t. His policies are also safer, less controversial than ours and therefore are not likely to cause any problems. You will notice that the media are not particularly kind to him, however.

  9. An excellent letter to Greg Hamilton. However, many more need to do the same if any attention is to be given to it by National. I’m sure they dismiss the odd letter here and there as one-offs. Frankly I often wonder if the politicians ever get to read these letters, fearing that the bureaucrats gather them up and give the standard reply that they are passing them on. For me, pigs might as well fly!! I very much doubt they ever do that.

    1. Helen have you ever written to an MP and had a reply.?? you are right these letters never make it to the intended recipient. They are intercepted by minions is some back office that generated their income (from the tax take) sending out condescending replies to people who are silly enough to write to their MP thinking that their MP will get to see the letter in the first place. I have written to Simon Bridges on a number of occasions (silly me) on various issues with regard to the Age care Industries disgusting attitude toward the wonderful people that work for peanuts looking after our aging population.
      All I got back was a reply cranked out by some underling which said nothing in true Political speak, contained no substance and just blew me off.
      The only paper the MP’s listen to is the ballot paper after that it’s up you Mr and Mrs, New Zealand voter we are going to ignore you with contempt and do what we want.

      1. I feel a revolution coming on. I have done the same thing with Simon Bridges and Finlayson, I wont repeat what was in Finlaysons reply, or should I say what his underling said

      2. You are right Stuart but that should not be a cop out reason for not bothering to write at all. If enough letters are sent then those minions will perhaps give their bosses a “heads up” if there is a obvious groundswell developing. If we sit back and do nothing then we are guaranteed to get nothing in return.

  10. I am in the middle of reading the book “Twisting The Treaty” It is a collaborative work by 6 very good and well informed people. If everyone in New Zealand read this book the political face of this little country would change forever.

    1. Yes, Murray, you are so right. Everyone in this country should read Twisting the Treaty and preferably before the election. It is meticulously researched with references given everywhere.

  11. Do you suppose that Greg Hamilton will by-pass the paper-shuffling minions and mention John Bell’s letter to someone who counts?

  12. Team! With the greatest respect to you all, and your contributions, you are wasting your time writing to sitting MP’s. You are just one lone cry in the night to them. They will not respond unless you bang on their doors. To do that all you need to do is formally register your party and find a leader.Put your efforts here and you will succeed. When you have done this the media will pay attention. The key is selecting the right leader because if he or she is not strong the party will fail. Again I wish you all the very best of luck with your endeavours. Peter B

    1. Hey Peter, seems to me that you might be a suitable candidate to be up there or at least in a spokesman position?

      1. Not my cuppa tea Ray. Whoever is selected needs to be fast on their feet, quick in response and politically savvy or they will get chewed up and spat out. Politicians are a very special breed and we need someone who is sympathetic to our cause and who can deliver through the media. They also need to know their subject back to front.The closest we got was John Ansell.

  13. It is an unfortunate fact of politics that all politicians are populists. They will say what ever is necessary to get elected and then, after the election is over, will forget all the promises that were made. This particularly applies to tough decisions. It was that little weasel Michael Cullen who made the statement that” the first duty of a politician is to get re-elected.”

    When that is the prevailing attitude of the political class (and I am sure it is) then what chance under the present system do we really have?

    The only way to stop the polys is for the public to get directly involved and the only way to accomplish that is to do what the Swiss have done so successfully for over 150 years. Direct Democracy or Binding Referenda.

    When Binding Referenda becomes the law of the country we can hold the polys from all parties to account. Binding Referenda takes the task of making the difficult decisions away from them and gives it to the people. Various polls show consistently that some 70-80% of the population are opposed to all the rorts being imposed on us by Iwi and compliant (scared) politicians.

    Lets help give the polys some backbone.
    With Binding Referenda the law of the country then everything that 1LawForAll stands for becomes possible. But, we must not fragment the vote on this vitally important issue otherwise, it will go nowhere. We must stick together.

    And don’t forget, that with Binding Referenda as the law, all the kooky stuff coming from the Greens, Labour, Mana/Internet Party etc, can be cut off at the knees by a population that suddenly realises they have a real say in the future of this country. It sure works well for the Swiss, the most successful and real Democracy on the Planet.

    1. Your comments really inspire me Ron. I agree that we MUST have binding referenda if we are ever to reclaim our country back. We MUST have a say in how it is run. Leaving it to the politicians is a complete waste of time, if not downright dangerous.

  14. Sounds good to me! I was so annoyed at that referendum on reducing the number of MP’s where the result was ovcerwhelming in favour of this but of course, the MP’s didn;t like it as they don;t want to lose their little sinecures!

  15. Please everyone, while we do believe in the freedom of speech, that does not include coming onto our website to promote other political parties.
    You may not have noticed, but you cannot go onto the Conservatives website and promote 1Law4All. They do not have a blog, and they do not allow comments. The same applies to the National and Labour parties.
    So please do not abuse the privilege you have here to comment and discuss issues by promoting other political parties.
    Would you go into McDonalds and loudly tell everyone to leave and go to BurgerKing? Would you go into Halensteins and tell everyone to leave and go down to Farmers? Of course not, and if you did, you’d probably be asked to leave.
    I will be deleting all promotions of other parties made on this website. Not as a restriction to free speech, but as a reminder that we prefer our visitors to promote 1Law4All, especially while on the 1Law4All website.

  16. Interesting reading the comments but concerning writing to MPs etc I honestly believe it is a waste of time. An avalanche of letters would hardly make them take notice. How many referenda have been ignored? Politicians today are cynical to the extreme. Binding referenda are the only way to control these people and the only way I see to achieve that is elect a party that will have a chance to install it. Diluting the vote is just playing into the major parties hands.

  17. I have just read the above post I am a member of 1 law 4 all and believe in its principles but without registration and leader and candidates etc as promised
    Then it is going nowhere This issue is too important to let an election be wasted
    Delete my comments as you wish but I believe them

  18. While I agree with everything that you are saying I do think it is sad that small groups such as this are splitting support for the “return to democracy” cause. You can forget Winston – he had a real chance to change things for the better when he was deputy PM but his promises turned out to be more empty words. Binding referendums will give people the power to veto unpopular political ploys and counter our burgeoning dictatorship. If we all pull together we can make it. To those who wish to support smaller groups with similar ideals, I can only wish you the very best luck and hope that by some miracle you can achieve sufficient support to make a difference in our racially divided country.

  19. Hi Brenda/admin,
    I can understand you not wanting to advertise other parties here. I believe strongly(absolutely strongly)that we must have binding referenda and citizen’s initiatives plus recall of politicians at national and local level.

    However I doubt that the 1Law4All cause is damaged if perhaps the suggestion is allowed by commentators for people to check other parties policy/policies on the Treaty/apartheid issue. Once the 1Law4All members become a registered party, even if too late for this election then I believe you will see some traction.

    Best wishes to you and Peter,
    Don Mac

  20. Should electors not go and check other options, themselves? I think admin has it right. Offer constructive comment and critique of 1Law4All, but let the other parties speak for themselves, at their own web sites.

    Can’t help but wonder why they don’t have a blog with comments allowed. Perhaps they are not interested in the views of NZ constituents, despite what they say?

  21. I can see that I have been soundly put in my place for mentioning another party. But surely we all believe that this matter must be settled at the next election – another delay will be fatal. So, let’s see some IMMEDIATE action to register this party, and the IMMEDIATE announcement of the critical items of policy. Without that IMMEDIATE action, this group will be wasting its time and only another party could possibly bring about the essential changes. NOW OR NEVER, folks!

    1. Mike, the policies are on the website and the registration process is underway. The Electoral Commission have a bunch of requirements we have to meet and we are progressing those poste haste.

  22. It is glaringly obvious what needs to be done
    The large german realises he has to coattail now
    Six months is not a long time

  23. It has been interesting to read some of the views expressed within these blogs, but I must take issue with a statement which was made by Brenda Spiller.
    Some of you – including Brenda – will be aware that I was heavily involved in the Foreshore and Seabed fiasco and I am well attuned to all that is disgustingly being played out by this corrupt and arrogant government.
    However, my near neighbour Brenda’s disingenuous comment on New Zealand First . . . ‘picking up on 1Law4all policy’ is completely wrong.
    Equality and the use of binding referenda has been the mainstay of NZF constitution and manifesto since its inception. This alone was why I became a candidate for selection at that time.
    New Zealand First has been THE ONLY PARTY to have had enough guts to say that the Maori Party was racist and that they and the current government was essentially validating apartheid! I think that this is what the majority of us here agree on. Winston can say this and get away with it, but 1law4all cannot! CHECKMATE!!
    Perhaps the smart thing would be for 1Law4All to make some accommodation with Winston, offering their support in return for national exposure, rather than trying to stand alone at this ridiculously late juncture. To do so half cocked would be committing political suicide!!

    1. Really? Winston has had those specific policies all along? Then why hasn’t he actually done anything yet? He’s been around for a long time now and all I’ve heard from him on this issue is talk. Talk is cheap. When I see him actually do or achieve something I might agree with you. In the mean time I’m still sticking with 1Law4All.

    2. NZ First is a deceptive misnomer. The old axiom applies: “When all is done and said there’s more that’s said than done.”

      It’s often wailed that the wider NZ electorate’s apathy is exceeded only by it’s ultra short-term memory problem. Seven Winston First Party List MPs for the last two and a bit years and what have they done to fix the racial rip-off & privilege problem? Nothing. Zilch. Nix. Now, with an election looming, nothing but brave talk about it. And that will be all that happens with them, next term, too. Talk, bluff, bluster and hot air.

      Do none of you Winston First supporters recall the “baubles and trinkets of power” hollow denials rhetoric? And how Winnie nearly fell flat on his face as he lunged greedily, when they were dangled in front of him, along with the newly-created title role of Treasurer?

      “All talk and no do” is another aphorism that comes to mind.

      How many times will you let Winnie cry defiant before you heed the lessons of his history?

      1. There are many knockers of NZ First, including some malevolent personal attacks toward the only one with a pair big enough to broach the subject of racial disharmony and as we continue to whine, “Captain John Key” and his ship of fools have driven a huge wedge of division into the flimsy fabric of our already splintering society.
        Yes, the general voting public do have short memories. Politicians rely on it and and we will all forget soon enough the carve up of our foreshore and seabed and the outrageous lack of response to the Pike River and the Rena foundering. not to mention the 600 million lost in financial guarantees, disastrous education policies/pay etc . . . and yet many subscribe to the myth that this “Rock star” economy has been driven by this government when we all know that it took an earthquake for this to happen.
        In this instance, it is paramount to our cause to find answers instead of point scoring. Given the brevity of the time remaining to election day,’1law4all’ needs to ally itself to an existing entity which can promote the aspirations and equality we seek. I am not convinced that Act is the way to go however, as it just plays into the hands of those who have massively exacerbated racial disharmony.

        1. How’s about we just stick to Winston First’s historical record, Ken? What are your answers to these questions:

          1) What’s the record of the present Winston First MPs with fixing the racial rip-off & privilege problem? Any evidence at all of them railing against it while in parliament?

          2) Do you remember that Winnie campaigned on ending the Treaty Greivance Industry in 2002? Winston First got 13 seats. How did they do back then, with fixing the racial rip-off & privilege problem, especially after campaigning on it? (Deja moo in 2014?)

          3) What about Winston’s grab for the “baubles and trinkets of power,” after saying he would not? He snagged Minister of Racing and Foreign Affairs, didn’t he?

          Maybe that’s another fault of the NZ consituency? Too much faith in too many words, even after too many lies.

          Can a leopard change his spots? No. Winnie will say what he thinks the electorate wants to hear, hoping they’ve forgotten all his past broken platitudes and promises. They probably have/will. There’s one born every minute.

          1. Well Simon, I think that applies to all politicians . . . you know when they are lying because their lips move.
            However, you have to be in a position of some strength in order to exert power over the main parties and in spite of being a whipping boy, he is cunning and the elderly voters – who constitute a very large block of voters – love him.
            They are the ones who are most likely to back the aspirations of 1law. 1law needs to be just as cunning and use any means to get the message across.

          2. I concur that there’s likely a voter demographic similarity. But, from what little I’ve heard, Winnie is top dog and somewhat averse to anyone encroaching on what he sees as his patch. (Although I’m unsure of its veracity, I’ve also heard that Winston First has no other spokespeople on anything. Winnie is the spokesman on everything.)

            My perspective is that he’s had time enough and then some, to do something positive about reversing rabid racial privilege in NZ. Yet another axiom applies: don’t tell me what you said, show me what you did.

            I suspect that 1Law4All was born out of pent-up frustration with all those who have said much and done little, whether that’s Winston First or any of the others.

            And yes, they’ll need a lot of luck, but let’s give ’em a chance, at least.

          3. Simple Simon, I’ve just received a newsletter from Winston and on it are items from other people and this has always been the case, so others in his Party do speak.

          4. When did you last see / hear any of them in any other media? An internal newsletter would very likely only be released after being thoroughly vetted by Winnie.

            I had a look at their web site, particularly this page: . None of the MPs listed there were shown as Winston First’s spokesperson on anything. For all general purposes, the other Winston First MPs might just as well not exist. They get about as much publicity as 1Law4All!

            I see Ken’s perspective that Winnie has the testicular fortitude to talk about the racial privilege problem. But that’s all it is: TALK! He’s also fortunate that he can get away with saying things that most anyone else would be branded as a racists, by Sharpie et al, because he has a smidgeon of Maori blood in him.

            The irony of all this is that I could vote for Winnie, based on WHAT HE SAYS. But I’ve come to appreciate that it’s just a facade he presents to NZ, based on what he thinks the public wants to hear.

            Fool me once: shame on you;
            Fool me twice: shame on me.

          5. I totally agree with you, Simple Simon, but somehow we have to neutralise Key who is ruining this country. We virtually have apartheid now with all the racial divisions and special treatment given out based on race. So, we need another Party/Parties to at least try and stop him in his tracks.

            Binding referenda will go a long way towards bringing equality under the law into legislation.

            I’m well aware that Winston ‘talks’ but doesn’t ‘do’ but who knows he may finally realise that he has to ‘do’ something. This is probably his last election and he even might want to ‘go out’ with the kudos that he has actually been responsible for unifying our country racially. Under the law anyway. The next few months will be crucial for me.

          6. Hi Simple Simon,

            We have this luck, we have it in the form of the Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter of 16-11-1840 but 1law4all remain silent on this, our founding document that split us from Australian rule and handed us our own constitution.

            If readers come to the Party and managed to have 1law4all recognise it I’m sure votes would roll in, otherwise this Party will be no more than a puff of steam on the horizon.

          7. Hi Kenneth,
            You wrote “1law4all needs to use any method to get the message across”.

            For the last 38 years, since the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, people have been trying without success to expose Treaty corruption and the harder they try the more corrupted it becomes. This is because it’s written Maori and as Pita Sharples said, “it’s in our language and if it’s in our language we can make it mean anything we want it to”. Meaning, the Maori language cannot be translated.

            As all further opposition to the treaty would likewise be fruitless I have been trying to have 1law4all recognise Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter of 16-11-1840, our true founding document that split us from New South Wales and gave us our first constitution, but cannot raise a reply from them.

            This Charter gave exactly as was found in and relegated the Treaty to Archives NZ as it had done it’s job, over and out.

            Fact! Queen Victoria did not have the power nor authority to grant any exclusive privilege to Maoris that was not available to her own people under English law and the Royal Charter (which is in English) proves none were given.

            I believe if the readers of this web site could raise enough people to write in asking for 1law4all to recognise the Royal Charter it would do so, if it doesn’t it would be wasting its time and you your vote.

          8. George, I absolutely agree with you. Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter is our founding document. It gave us our own country (or British colony) and released us from NSW (Australia) control. The Treaty was only to bring the Maori people under the same laws as the rest of us giving us equality under the law.

            It’s quite beyond me why people try to suppress/ignore this very important document.

          9. Would readers please note it was Helen who replied to my comment on recognition of the Royal Charter and not 1law4all.

            With a proven record of 38 years failure in opposing the Treaty 1law4all has a fool proof alternative which could absolutely demolish all Treaty propaganda yet remain silent on the issue.

            C’mon 1law4all, you will need to both admit recognition of this Royal Charter and also bring it out into the public arena before you will win my vote, otherwise your promise of One Law For All is no more than hot air.

            Stop remaining silent on the issue, show us your intention of adherence to Treaty or Charter or you’re no more than another Party who mouths empty promise. Come clean!

        2. Agreed, ACT has done nothing to oppose racial disharmony.

          Don Brash did make the Orewa speech which gained massive publicity re. creating an equal society, but did you read it?

          This speech was 8 pages of racial harmony waffle with the last two pages promoting business as usual.

          John Banks is a non-starter.

      2. After asking Winston if he would recognise the Royal Charter and bring it to public attention he is yet to reply.

        Have sent him a reminder.

        May I enquire if 1law4all will draw Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter to public attention?

        This Charter is our true founding document that split us from New South Wales, gave us our first constitution and, therefore, is the most important document in New Zealand’s history.

  24. I believe the old very true statement of divide and conquer is very much being used by the National party. John has proved to us in his past decisions that he and no one else will decide what is to be done in the running of this country and while we are scrapping over racial issues he is free to carry out his and I mean HIS agenda. We have no other sane minded party to vote for so what you see is what you get.I am very dismayed as to the position taken by 1law4all’s failure to set up another Party we may vote for to show National our concern for what I call The turning over of our country to a minority group who are only interested in one thing and that is the control and power into their hands. God save New Zealand. We are heading for Civil War.
    Roger Murray.

      1. Civil war would be stupid! Nobody wins, everyone loses.

        Everyone loses not only in family fighting family or the war itself but in deprivation, starvation, sanctions imposed by overseas traders and maybe 2 decades before returning to normal after the warring parties have had enough.

        The older generation who fought to give us freedom are the ones who would suffer the most due to shortage of medical supplies and loss of power for heating.

        New Zealand being currently involved in a “Paper War for Sovereignty”, I suggest you pick up a pen and write on the understanding that Government panders to those numbers who correspond the most. You will be ignored, you will receive stupid answers but if this policy can work for Maoris it can work for others who can create the enough numbers to show the Government where the will of the majority lies at the poll station.

        1. Personally I believe the only way our politicians are going to take notice of our deep dissatisfaction with the way we are being run racially, would be for masses to march in the streets of many towns and cities. They only listen when the numbers are visible.

          Writing and talking to them is a complete waste of time as I have found out after many years of doing so. I firmly believe that in most cases, the letter/email doesn’t even get to the person it is addressed to but is gathered up by the minions who possibly have their own agendas.

          1. An Official Information Act letter is by law to be answered by the Minister or Councillor responsible and must be replied to truthfully.

            If anyone answers on behalf of the Minister responsible they are not restricted to the confines of the Act and can say what they like, usually evasive. In other words, you are being taken for a clown if you accept an answer from a third party who interfered with your mail.

        2. Sure of course civil war is stupid the problem is in convincing the masses to vote those governments out that keep paying taxpayers money to the Maori and who want to write the treaty into a constitution. And with that good luck. But I and a lot of other people wont be caught with our heads in the sand

          1. No need to be caught with your heads in the sand Murray, push for recognition of the Royal Charter.

            Immediately after Lieutenant Governor Hobson of New South Wales witnessed the last signature to the Treaty his superior, Governor Hobbs, extended the borders of N.S.W. to enclose all of the islands of New Zealand in the same manner as Van Damien’s Land (Tasmania) and there we would have remained if it were not for the Charter; our true founding document and first constitution which underlined the same law for all New Zealanders regardless of race, colour or creed.

            This charter makes it impossible to continue the support of apartheid, now well established in New Zealand.

            At present 1law4all remain silent on this most important document in our history, it’s the only reason you can call yourself a New Zealander.

            C’mon readers, show your support towards this Charter.

  25. Disappointing reply! I am not suggesting that we drop everything to join another party. I am merely suggesting that 1law4all should use like thinking party politics in order to get what you want. Hell! Even the Maori party and Hone Harawera has shown us that it works!! So has Winston!!
    You have to be inside in order to exert any influence, which at the moment 1law4all seems to lack.
    I would love to see something positive result from this forum of like minded people, but then, that is what I had hoped for when I joined the fight to stop the Foreshore and Seabed fraud and why I joined the Centre for Political Research, but it seems to me that unless you are prepared to take to the streets and make a lot of noise, you will be consigned to merely nuisance value.

  26. The promises made by Gerry Brownlee stated in the beginning of this thread were also made by John Key and Bill English
    and is the reason I voted for them when they defeated Helen Clarks Govt It wasnt long before I saw how I had been duped along with all the rest of the voters yet again
    Winston has done a lot of talking over the years along similar lines but has never followed through and will not ever in my opinion

  27. I have just read all the posted comments.
    There have been some excellent points made. The bulk of NZers are satisfied with the status quo, whether it is Labor or National. There is only a small minority who question just where NZ has been led over the past decade by specific political leaders’s own particular agendas, supported at the ballot box.
    The challenge to any minority party (and there are dozens it seems)is four fold
    1. A simple focused message OneLaw4All has this.
    2. To reach sufficient thinking voters to become a
    “king maker” A policy decision of how to do it.
    3. To encourage (or beg) supporters to contribute funds.
    4. To afford a sympathetic expert in the art of political

    I congratulate the dedication of people behind One4All. I believe the remaining time factor IS critical. There may well be benefit in seeking out a compatible established
    entity ( perhaps the Act Party) and establishing some commonality for a united campaign in September 2014.

    John C Mathews

    1. Good points John. While we all agree with the basic principles of 1Law4All the practical side of MMP must be considered.
      The Harawera/Dotcom proposed alliance demonstrates the ultimate in manipulating the system – two complete opposites aligning for a common cause, both thinking that they are using the other. Realistically 1Law4All has only the very remotest chance of either winning an electorate seat or exceeding the 5% criteria, so the idea of aligning with another party should not be lightly dismissed. Do you want to win or be just another also-ran?
      When Winston came on the scene he got my vote because of his anti-racist promises, but that was a long time ago and things have got progressively worse. Colin Craig may have stolen his thunder and rattled his complacency but the thought lingers that NZ First is really Winston First. The Conservative’s bottom line non-negotiable condition for any alliance is the acceptance of binding referendums on contentious issues – just think about that. If the polls reflected the views of the people then binding referenda would have rejected asset sales, giving away our foreshores, anti-smacking legislation, Maori seats in parliament and probably gay marriage.
      I would like to know where different parties stand on unshakeable conditions for any coalition :
      What is 1Law4All’s bottom line? What is Winston’s bottom line?
      We already know the Conservative’s stance.
      Is Winston going to dodge making any commitments until he sees how far he can play one party against another (again)?
      And is 1Law4All willing to get real?

      1. Thinking about it, Mitch – who will decide what is ‘contentious’ and what’s not? I doubt that it’ll be the NZ constituency.

        From what I’ve read and heard, 1Law4All wont go into coalition with any other party. Too many compromises needed, I suppose. Like the Nats giving the fingers to voters over abolishing the Maori seats in order to cosy up to Sharpie et al.

        Cross-benches is where 1Law4All will put themselves, they say. If they get a chance, of course.

        1. Your last sentence says it all, Simple Simon
          “If they get a chance, of course.”
          Idealism can only get you just so far, then reality prevails.

  28. In reply to G Graham; Yes, I am well aware of the way in which Maori switch the meanings of their language, just as I am also aware that they alter history with impunity to suit their causes and agenda’s.
    Let me please explain that I am apolitical, preferring to vote for the party/list member I consider to be the movers and shakers and also conversely, not to put my vote where it can do the most harm.
    Being cynical and negative however will not change anything and if the main premise is to get the message of equality out in the shortest term, then 1law4all must be tactical about it and stop point scoring by personal assassinations.
    Like him or not, Winston Peters holds some very strong cards as his main support – the elderly – are a burgeoning political block and by 2050, will represent more than 50% of the total population! Go figure . . . do the maths!

    1. Point-scoring? Try answering these points, made earlier, Ken:

      1) What’s the record of the present Winston First MPs with fixing the racial rip-off & privilege problem? Any evidence at all of them railing against it while in parliament?

      2) Do you remember that Winnie campaigned on ending the Treaty Grievance Industry in 2002? Winston First got 13 seats. How did they do back then, with fixing the racial rip-off & privilege problem, especially after campaigning on it? (Deja moo in 2014?)

      3) What about Winston’s grab for the “baubles and trinkets of power,” after saying he would not? He snagged Minister of Racing and Foreign Affairs, in one government and Treasurer and deputy PM in another, didn’t he?

      Where’s the record of Winston First actually DOING something about ending racial privilege? Please be specific, in answering.

      1. You ask for a specific answer Simple Simon.

        For 39 years failure to stop the gravy train by exposure of the truth behind the treaty has been the norm.

        To continue on the same path will fail!!!!

        1law4all has so far kept quiet on Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter of 16-11-1840, our true founding document that split us from New South Wales rule and gave us our first constitution.

        As it is 1law4all has remained quiet on the above Charter, the most important document in New Zealand’s history, leaving questions like; would you offer them financial assistance or vote for them if they are setting themselves up to fail?

        1. Well, have you considered that you’re the only one hereabouts who thinks your thingamewhatsit is “the most important document in NZ’s history?” I dimly recall David Round saying (somewhere, in another discussion) that it was not what you claim it to be, despite his added comment that it was indeed one of a number of important documents in NZ’s constitutional history. But he averred that it was not paramount, as you assert.

          1. Well, Simple Simon, I’m not sure whether it is or isn’t but I’m willing to give it the benefit of doubt and will try anything to get rid of this gravy train that the Waitangi scrap of paper has born! I don’t see the point in arguing over whether it is or isn’t? Do you want to stop this country continuing to head into the abyss as it has been or do you want to just continuing arguing the semantics of it?

          2. Ken likely has it right – it’s a waste of time and effort. It’ll be covered up and/or discredited by bent historians and university professors, along with venal politicians, just like what happened to the Littlewood draft.

            If G Graham really believed in it, he’d been DOING something about it, rather than banging on at everyone. He just has a bee in his bonnet. Go raise it with your MP, G Graham. Mount a legal challenge. DO something other than rail against others who don’t share your perspective.

          3. Simple Simon says he does not share my perspective re. Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter.

            I’ve explained why it is the most important document in NZ’s history, you tell me why it is less important than the Treaty because this is what it’s all about.

          4. Yes Simple Simon, I did assert Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter is New Zealand’s most important document.

            Noticing you offered no alternative, you assert I must be right.

          5. Ray Chung askes, “What do the movers and shakers of 1law4all think of Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter”.

            So far, as with other politicians who are faced with a sticky challenge to Treaty corruption 1law4all stand silent.

            I’m given the impression they are happy with the status quo, “Don’t rock the boat”.

          6. I think Admin explained it was simply not a part of 1Law4All policy. But that’s not good enough, it seems, so aspersions get cast by the unqualified.

          7. If New Zealand’s founding document, Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter of 16-11-1840, that split us from New South Wales and established us as a separate colony is not part of 1law4all policy; what reason could 1law4all give for taking funding or expecting votes when all other avenues have been tried and failed to prove Maoris have no exclusive rights?

            The above is a direct challenge to Admin.

            Readers please note that the only, and I mean only, reason 1law4all can attempt to form a New Zealand political Party rests solely with the above Royal Charter.

            Prove me wrong 1law4all?

          8. You wrote David Round’s opinion was that the Royal Charter is not paramount as I declared.

            I will floor all of his opinions with the following simple question. Why can Dr. David Round call himself a New Zealander?

            Then you tell me why the Charter is N.Z’s most important document?

          9. In your opinion, “you will floor . . . . ”

            Well, well, well, G Graham, I did a google search. It took me to this web site:
            . . . where I found David Round’s CV. It said:

            LLB (Hons) (Canterbury), Barrister and Solicitor of the High Court of New Zealand


            David Round’s interests lie in the fields of Legal History, Constitutional Law, Jurisprudence, Environmental Law. He is intrigued by the common underlying ideas and connexions between seemingly very different fields of thought and activity. He was prompted to write Truth or Treaty? Commonsense Questions about the Treaty of Waitangi (Canterbury University Press, 1998) by concerns about the effect of Treaty claims on the conservation estate, and, observing environmental problems in their wider social and constitutional setting, often perceives conflicting attitudes and aspirations which make their resolution a complicated matter.

            He continues to write regularly on Treaty and racial and cultural conflicts, both in academic articles and (mostly) in more accessible media.

            I then did a google search for G Graham . . . no result seemed relevant.

            Perhaps you’ll be kind enough to post a link to your CV., experience, publications and qualifications so we can see how they equip you to trump (floor?!) those of David Round?

            That way, we can make a fair and reasonable comparison, based on expertise, rather than your bald assertion.

            (The formal appellation is because I have no idea if G Graham is male or female)

          10. Awe c’mon, stooping to gender slur will only lower your status.

            All of my information comes from the person whom the co-authors of “Twisting the Treaty” looked up to for information, Ross Baker,

            If any of these authors are as brilliant as you believe them to be, why is there no mention of Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter of 16-11-1840 within their book but can be found on Ross’ web site.

          11. Question avoided by distraction and evasion, G Graham. So you have no qualification to “floor” David Round, as I suspected. Just repeated assertions. Nuff said.

          12. More than likely Dr. David Round is reading my opinions here.

            If he is I challenge him, any other lawyer, academic or yourself (who could be trying to use this alternative to evade the spotlight) to prove me, an admitted unqualified man, to come up with another document more important that Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter of 16-11-1840 in establishing New Zealand as separate colony with its own “one law for all” constitution!

          13. Unqualified? Maybe not – G Graham. I think you are well qualified for the expression ‘troll.’ Not only do you expect others to do things on the basis of what you assert as ‘facts,’ but, well, your credibility is rather tattered.

            I notice you refer to David Round as Dr. David Round. Go have a wee look at this web site: (The academic staff at Canterbury University).

            Look slowly and carefully down the list and you’ll see Doctor this, Professor that, Associate Professor her, Lecturer him, and so on. Keep going until you get to David Round. You may notice he’s listed as David Round – Lecturer.

            I don’t think that detracts at all from his curriculum vitae, and he may well be flattered by the unintended compliment. But, based on the information on the University web site, your ‘Dr’ assertion is wrong.

            Just as you ascribe a doctorate to someone that the University doesn’t attribute such a title to, so you may well erroneously ascribe importance to a document that doesn’t deserve it.

            But, as the saying goes: never let the facts get in the way of a great tale.

            Go peddle your snake oil elsewhere, please.

          14. Derision doesn’t suit you Simple Simon. Surely we can have an adult conversation on this site even if we disagree.

            I happen to agree with G Graham on Queen Vic’s Royal Charter and can’t understand why it is ridiculed by some. Surely something that actually separated us from Australia and gave us our own country is not to be scoffed at and is really of huge significance.

            However, I’ve written to two knowledgeable people for their views so will wait and see what they have to say on this subject.

          15. Thank you for your informed support Helen, but where is Admin?

            Do Admin want to play politics or work politics?

            Admin, what is more important in New Zealand’s history than Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter of 16-11-1840, our true founding document and first constitution?

          16. Simple Simon, wow you can sure give a strong personal attack.

            I have no intention of being diverted into personal attacks, readers wouldn’t want to be involved with this and must be considered.

            This discussion involves Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter of 16-11-1840, our true founding document and first constitution.

            This is the document which split us from being a dependency of New South Wales in the same manner as Van Diemen’s Land (Tasmania), where the Treaty of Waitangi put us, and is the sole document allowing 1law4all or any other Party the opportunity to govern New Zealand.

            You consider the above to be incorrect and readers are interested in your alternative. Would you please state what your alternative is?

          17. Part of this meandering discussion involves your assertion to ‘floor’ David Round over his contrary view to yours. Have you forgotten that, already?

            You have subsequently admitted to being without any qualification appropriate to the subject. You have also erroneously asserted that David Round, someone who is appropriately qualified nonetheless, has a doctorate. (I note you avoided responding to being told that information.)

            You just keep repeating, ad nauseam, the same carping cant, no matter that someone (several, I believe) more qualified than you has (elsewhere) proffered a different opinion. I.e. you have no locus standi to support your assertions. That’s what makes you an Internet troll.

            And the site admin is unsurprisingly, likely to be a 1Law4All supporter who administers this site. Not someone who wants to get drawn into your trolling rants. I suspect that she has other more important responsibilities to attend to.

            Don’t just keep bleating at 1Law4All (or the site admin) – go and do something about what you assert, yourself. That’s if you truly believe what you say, of course. I.e. put your money where your mouth is and stop expecting another entity to do what you wont or can’t do.

            The reality of what you call “this discussion” is that it’s about 1Law4All getting a rousing letter of support from someone. The discussion is not about your hobbyhorse.

            So, mea culpa – I abetted you in diverting the actual reason for the discussion. I shall do so, no more.

          18. Well readers it looks like Simple Simon has no alternative claim to beat Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter of 16-11-1840 as our true founding document and first constitution so has decided to drop out.

            How about Admin? What alternative do you have to qualify my money, and others money, being donated to you?

  29. Exactly. And what about a debate between Finlayson, Key, Hariwira, Sharples, and Dame Claudia Orange and in the other team the authors of the book Twisting the treaty. Maybe we would hear some more screaming from Finlayson

  30. My response to your request Simon is that perhaps you should direct these questions to New Zealand First.
    Perhaps you are missing the point, that we are now deeply entrenched into the system of MMP – like it or not, which means that you have to be a strategist and try to forget the bigoted dyed in the wool party lines.
    Screaming about referenda will also fail, as did our Coastal Coalition attempt to force a citizens initiated referenda, falling about 45.000 votes short of the figure set by the Electoral Commission. Even after submissions were 77% against repealing the Foreshore and Seabed Act, Key and Finlayson overuled it! The same applies to the sale of assets, which polled almost 70% opposed, Key once more overules! During the run up to the election John Key imposed a black-out of media interviews with National MP’s and candidates. One could reasonably expect this to be called the Key First Party. This is a further indication of how dirty and cynical politics has become and so I reiterate my earlier position – like NZF / Winston or not – tactically, I see no other course for 1law4all.
    Forcing Winston to honour his pledge to enshrine binding referenda into law as well as equal rights for all New Zealanders is a prerequisite for negotiation. But how strong are 1law4all? Do we have the numbers because it requires a lot of work to organize and promote an ideal.
    Lobbying, door knocking, flyers to deliver, media to cover, posters and hoardings to erect, election of a competent spokesperson, organizing and holding meetings all over the country and not forgetting the massive task of raising lots of money. You can forget family life if you really expect to make even a dent into the league of politics.
    Just try to be realistic for goodness sake!

    1. Ken: “Just try to be realistic for goodness sake!”

      I thought I was. I pointed out specific, pertinent items that Winston First had campaigned on. And, almost like Key First and the abolish the Maori Seats promise, Winnie did nothing, based on his pre-election policy of ending the gravy train rorts. Absolutely nothing.

      Do you agree with that?

      If so, why would you or anyone else trust that this time would be any different?

      As for: “My response to your request Simon is that perhaps you should direct these questions to New Zealand First.”

      . . . that sounds suspiciously like political double speak – avoiding the questions.

      Again, do you agree that – despite campaigning on ending it – Winston First did nothing and has done nothing about ending the treaty gravy train industry?

      We all know about the asset sales and Marine and Coastal Area Act rip-off, so that’s not an answer. Why vote for either Shonkey or Winnie? Their records indicate that would be profoundly stupid. I don’t want to pick a fight with you – just be realistic based on past experience of Winston First.

    2. I’ll be realistic Kenneth Taylor,

      As long as the Treaty rules no law will be passed that “might” be detrimental to Maori aspirations.

      For anyone to believe any Party, old or new, could achieve Binding Referendum while the Treaty lives, this individual would be as well to retire to a rest home.

      As readers should now be aware it is the Treaty which aught to be in its rest home, Archives N.Z., and this could be done by use of Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter of 16-11-1840.

  31. Hi Simon! It really doesn’t matter what I or anyone else thinks about what Winston has or has not done. It is irrelevant in this case and I am at a loss as to your fixation on this subject, because it has nothing to do with the job in hand.
    Political naivety is to be expected from those who have never been “Inside” and witnessed the sometimes inane behaviour within caucus as well as the back stabbing lobbying, but that is politics. In order for any politician who sets out his/her aims, they must first be in a position to be able to enact and enforce them, which you cannot do outside of the ruling front benches and even then, you have to obtain complete consensus. Don’t get confused with aims and promises Simon. I think you will often find that the former is the term most quoted rather than the latter by cunning operators like Winston.

    1. Aims? Promises? Aspirations? Good intentions?

      I don’t care what they’re called. If they’re used to persuade constituents to vote for a person/party and they don’t happen, as aspired/promised/aimed for/intended/whatever, then I’m fixated on not letting Winston First sucker me a second time. If you want to be suckered again, that’s your judgement call. Just don’t expect me to emulate, or avoid pointing out past hypocrisy to others.

        1. How the hell would I know? Their P O Box is in Auckland and the Electoral Commission web site says an application to register must be signed off by the secretary or president.

          Working from memory there – the web site wasn’t working when I checked, Sunday morning.

          According to this site, the 1Law4All AGM is a month away. If you’re a member, get right along there and see for yourself. Perhaps even offer to help?!

          I’m inclined to Collin’s view: it’s the political arrangements which are terminally broken and it desperately needs fixing. Nothing much that the wider NZ electorate sees as being of importance has been heeded by the Sharpie-Shonkey-Whinlayson-Blenglish cartel that’s running NZ, that’s for sure.

  32. Reply to Kenneth Taylor: You are missing the point with “Screaming about referenda will also fail…..”. The current parties have completely ignored referendums simply because the results were not binding upon the government.
    You mention Winston championing this cause but that is news to me. How long ago was that? The only party recently to demand binding referendums as a non-negotiable condition for any coalition is the Conservatives – and that is the only way to stop the apartheid dictatorship that is destroying our country.
    Winston waffles, but doesn’t follow through. Vote for someone who will.

    1. I agree with you, Mitch. I really feel Colin Craig is a genuine basically non-political person who will do exactly what he has said he will do and binding referenda are non-negotiable for him and his Party. If we get that, then everything else should fall into place for dismantling the apartheid that is permeating our society at the moment. I believe Colin Craig is entering politics because he is fed up with the direction this country is taking, with the pace speeding up under Shonkey’s rule.

  33. The Queen Victoria Charter precedes the treaty and is therefore NZ’s founding document.
    However, there is a far more important document that now languishes unrecognised somewhere in our archives, and that is the final English draft of the Treaty of Waitangi, known as the “Littlewood Treaty”.
    Efforts to disprove it’s authenticity have failed, merely attempts to discredit it for the rather naïve reason that it wasn’t signed. Who the hell signs drafts?
    If such a vital document can be concealed from the public then what show is there that Queen Victoria’s Charter will ever see the light of day.
    I still assert that the only way to cleanse our country of the vile racist legislation that is destroying us is to vote for the party that insists upon referenda that are binding upon the government. Then the people’s voice must be heard.

    1. We’re heard a lot about this “Founding document” and I’m all for bringing this to the attention of the public as a platform. But what do the administrators and other influencers in 1law4all think of it?

      1. Just to add to Ray Chung’s comment; All these various charters and historic facts have been exposed and virtually rammed down the throats of many politicians by Ross Baker of the ‘One New Zealand Foundation Inc for years. No one on this planet is more knowledgeable on New Zealand early history than Ross. He is to be much admired for his tenacity and sheer doggedness, but I am afraid that even after One NZ Foundation, Coastal Coalition, NZ Centre for Political Research, John Ansell and now 1law4all, the Maori juggernaut not only still prevails but continues to flourish!
        No one it seems has been able to deliver the catalyst which will expose and break the Maori hold over this country. Make no mistake, they will play the racist card and run to the UN, Human Rights etc every time you try to open your mouth in dissension. Personally, I think it can only be achieved outside of New Zealand possibly in book form, or by some other high profile media, but there has to be an initial shock tactic in order to attract attention.
        I also think that there are sections withing the United Nations Human Rights and other charters which mention any race forcing their laws,beliefs and or culture onto other fellow citizens. ie; Maori immersion schools, kindergartens even for non Maori . . this according to some sections is wrong! So what I am saying, is that you have to beat them at their own game.

        1. One law for all could only be achieved in Parliament but 1law4all are evading the only means to block the Gravy Train, Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter of 16-11-184o, the document that split us from New South Wales and gave us our first constitution.

          1. Once More Simple Simon has not come up with an alternative, proving I am correct in saying Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter of 16-11-1840 is New Zealand’s most important document.

            Until he does he cannot change the situation.

    2. At the risk of repeating myself I will say it again that I absolutely agree with you, Mitch. Binding (and they must be binding!!) referenda are the only way to bring democracy back to this country. It would give the people a voice which is currently being denied and ridden roughshod over.

      Only the Maori version of the Treaty was signed. The so-called Littlewood Treaty was the final draft from which the Maori version was translated. They mirror each other all the way, unlike the earlier draft that is currently in legislation. It just so fraudulent and anyway, the Maori version is the only one that matters but for those who don’t speak Maori, the Littlewood one is the one to go by. It mentions ‘and all New Zealanders’ unlike the earlier draft in legislation and doesn’t mention Forests and Fisheries which the earlier draft does but the Littlewood one doesn’t. So, read the Littlewood version if you want to know what the Maori one says. They both vary in several very important issues to the incorrect English earlier draft in legislation.

    3. As long as the Treaty reigns no law will be passed that interferes with Maori aspirations, so any attempt to introduce “Binding Referenda” will fail.

      As Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter relegated the Treaty to Archives N.Z., now it has again been exposed to daylight it is only a matter of time before the Treaty in back where it belongs, an historical document within the Archives.

    4. Treaty wise, the most important document is the Treaty itself and it’s in Maori. Being in Maori Pita Sharples has said Maori can make it mean anything they want it to. This is the state of the nation at present, end of story.

      If 1law4all came out brandishing the document which relegated the Treaty to Archives as an historical document, i.e. Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter of 16-11-1840, the Treatyist would be left without a flag to wave.

        1. Hi Simple Simon,

          You stated that Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter of 16-11-1840 is important in my opinion only.

          Fair enough, you explain to our readers what document has more importance in the history of New Zealand?

          If you do not answer you are thoroughly beaten.

  34. In reply to Mitch, It has always been within the NZF manifesto and the last time I looked it was still there within the 15 principles. Freedom, equality and the use of appropriate referenda has always been a NZF aim since its inception.
    As I said earlier,NZF holds strong sway with the elderly, who are and will remain a very large block of voters and who are largely untainted by the insidious daily Maori indoctrination and therefore more likely to be sympathetic.
    Colin Craig may well believe in Binding referenda, but he has first to make it a condition of his deal with Key and even if he manages that, Key will block any attempt to enact it.
    There is also something else no one has mentioned yet and that is the “Small matter” of the UN Charter of Indigenous People, who are 100% behind Maori aspirations.
    So, the story has to be unfolded to the world about how they are in fact not indigenous and that there are no such thing as a living Maori. The myth needs to be exposed, but how and by whom? This Queen Victoria Treaty will, like other evidence be covered up or discredited by corrupt historians and once more political correctness will prevail.

    1. Of course Maori aren’t indigenous, Kenneth. They came here in boats like the rest of our forebears. Also how can someone be considered a Maori when over 50% of their blood is of a different ancestry? ‘Maori’ are not 15% of the population if you take blood quantum into account. They would be lucky if they were 5%!! They are not Maori – they are part-Maori or of mixed race. We are totally duped over all this ‘Maori’ this and that especially special treatment for ‘Maori’ this and that. If the Maori side can’t cope with life, then surely their other ancestry should be able to. It’s just a great big con to get more and more money for fairy tales. We all have the same needs after all. How on earth do Asians and other races get on without special help? They do very nicely by all accounts and all by their own efforts without taxpayer money!! Many come here without a word of English, or very little, and often impoverished backgrounds, but they quickly climb up to be worthwhile citizens. Special treatment is actually holding too many people of Maori descent back. They have learned that ‘they need special help’ and it’s made them too lazy to achieve by their own efforts. It’s just got to stop and we have to elect whoever will exert their will over the weak (corrupt?) politicians more interested in their own re-election chances, to make it stop.

      1. Ross Baker, the outstanding researcher for wrote to Key & Sharples, the two who did the secret deal with the U.N. for indigenous rights, and asked them to produce hard evidence Maoris are indigenous. Both replied no such evidence exists.

        Finlayson also gave Ross the same answer.

        Write an Official Information Act request for hard evidence Maoris are indigenous and you will see for yourself.

    2. Replying to Kenneth: Just checked up on NZ First 15 principles.
      It just states that “appropriate referenda” will be held. Nothing about these referenda being binding on the government. As for Key blocking the application of Colin Craig’s condition of binding referenda, I think that if Key gets re-elected he won’t be there long. He seems to be waiting just long enough for a knighthood and a cushy job on the United Nations.

  35. Re Kenneth Taylor and “indigenous people”.
    Noel Hilliam has started a petition on Avaaz calling for a Royal Commission of Enquiry into NZ’s early history.
    (Noel was one of the original investigators of the pre-Maori stone village discovered in the Waipoua Forest, and co-author of “To The Ends Of The Earth”.)
    I have added my name and sent it to all contacts. Perhaps others on this site could do the same.
    We have to start somewhere.

    1. Mitch Morgan posted that below, why wait, sign it now.

      Noel Hilliam has started a petition on Avaaz calling for a Royal Commission of Enquiry into NZ’s early history.
      (Noel was one of the original investigators of the pre-Maori stone village discovered in the Waipoua Forest, and co-author of “To The Ends Of The Earth”.)
      I have added my name and sent it to all contacts. Perhaps others on this site could do the same.
      We have to start somewhere.

  36. Yes Helen, we are all in agreement there. Strange though isn’t it that all the thousands of so called Maori who crossed the ditch seem to get along just fine without “Work and Income’s’ crutch!
    The thing which makes me angrier that ever is when Tariana Turia rails against the system for letting Maori become disadvantaged. My God! They have access to everything I have access to and more! Being reduced to a bare pension is not easy to live on, but the difference is that I have good budgeting skills where I fear most Maori do not, But then who’s fault is that?

  37. Helen, if I may correct you slightly, the “Freeman Treaty,” the one chosen my Palmer to meet his agenda, was never a draft. It was written, by Freeman, after the signing of the of Te Tiriti and he took it on himself to write in the extra false parts.
    It was, however, signed by a few chiefs, at Port Waikato, when it was used as an explanation for those gathered there and Te Tiriti did arrive in time for signing. So it was never a draft, and as you say, Forest and Fisheries were never written in The Treaty anything before the signing of the real treaty.
    That all goes to make the spurious false treaty, enshrined by Palmer, as the troublesome false document responsible for so much of the national woe. Geoffrey should hang his head in shame, as a lawyer, to not see the legal issue here, but I think he knew full well what he was doing. I can only come to the conclusion he is knowingly dishonest.

    1. Pardon me Kevin if I may put you right on this point.

      The Official English Treaty was never signed!

      It states “Done at Waitangi on 06-02-1840, wasn’t written until march 1840 (causing it to be mythical) and was used, unauthorised, as a piece of paper on which to catch the overspill of signatures to the Maori Treaty in the Waikato during April of 1840.

      The signatures upon it pertain to the Maori text, not itself.

      Where is Dame Claudia Orange, the one who condemned the Littlewood treaty for not being signed??? Can she hold her head up? why does she not expose the Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter and give her Knighthood a polish?

  38. For those of you who are interested, Noel Hilliam,former curator of the Dargaville Maritime Museum, was part of the original archaeological team involved in the investigation of the Waipoua Forest stone village. He was present when the now-concealed carbon dating results were received. If you want to find out what that figure was then I would refer you to Noel’s website, “” . The site contains three brief talks by Noel about some of his discoveries and is a very interesting journey into pre-Maori history. The real story, not todays PC lies.
    Definitely worth a look for those who seek our true history.

  39. As you are all probably aware, Professor Paul Moon has regularly rubbished any suggestion of pre-Maori inhabitants and has been a crusader for the “Maori” interpretation of the Treaty. There appears to be some out-of-control disputes going on in this blog as to the importance of various documents in the history of this country. Prof. Moon has made some interesting observations that seem to belie his current stance, and I include quotes from a NZ Herald article, January 2013, about what he considers to be NZ’s founding document:

    “…. it might be helpful to clarify a few of the misunderstandings about the Treaty. Here are six common assertions about the agreement which are manifestly incorrect:

    1. The Treaty is the foundation of our system of government

    This surprising gem was proposed by some members of the Maori Party a few years ago. It is, of course, demonstrably wrong. The system of government ushered in by the Treaty was characterised by there being no elections, no political parties, with most of the government’s activities, policies and funding controlled by London, and with the Governor exercising near-dictatorial powers in the colony. The foundation for our current system of government was established with the passage of the 1852 New Zealand Constitution Act, which almost ignored the Treaty altogether.

    2. The Treaty was not signed in good faith / Maori were tricked into signing it.

    In the 1970s, the catch-cry of some Maori protest groups was that “the Treaty is a fraud.” And while the slogan was eventually abandoned, the sentiment that some deception was involved remained.

    Admittedly, there were occasions where Maori and the Crown had different understandings and expectations of the agreement.

    However, all the available evidence demonstrates that Sir James Stephen, who conceived the idea of a Treaty with the chiefs, and William Hobson, who executed the instructions, acted with the “utmost good faith.”

    He then goes on to rubbish the “Littlewood Treaty”, invalidating it “because a treaty has to be signed by both parties.” He completely ignores the fact that no sane person would consider it to be an actual treaty, but merely a draft of the official Treaty of Waitangi. And who signs drafts,anyway? Presumably the term “Littlewood Treaty” was an invention of the press.

    “5. The so-called “Littlewood Treaty” is the “correct” English version of the agreement.

    There are good historical, textual, and circumstantial reasons that undermine the arguments of the supporters of this document, but one argument alone clinches it conclusively: the so-called “Littlewood Treaty” is an unsigned document, so by definition, cannot be a treaty (which necessarily are agreements signed by parties to them). However, this inconvenient truth has not stopped its advocates claiming that there is a conspiracy to conceal this supposedly “real treaty.”

    So, all in all, there are four “founding documents”. They are, in chronological order, Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter, the Littlewood treaty draft, the Treaty itself, and the 1852 NZ Constitution Act.

    As to the above debate – it doesn’t matter which is the most important. What is important is that we all do our best to bring these to the public’s notice by writing letters to newspapers or magazines. If we don’t do it, no one else will.

    1. An interesting post, Mitch. Can I just say that the reason the (obvious) final draft is called ‘the Littlewood Treaty’ is to differentiate it from all the other drafts because it was found in 1989 amongst old papers which had belonged to the lawyer at the time whose surname was Littlewood. I’ve forgotten his first name. It is assumed that the draft was with his papers for safe keeping but many didn’t know this as it was declared ‘lost’ soon after the Maori version of the Treaty was signed.

      I say ‘obviously’ draft because it mirrors as exactly as two languages can, the final Maori version of the Treaty, unlike the English version currently in legislation which omits ‘and all the people of New Zealand’ and has the words ‘Forests and Fisheries’ in it which isn’t in either the Littlewood Treaty or the Maori version of the Treaty.

      As it was drafted by English people, it makes sense that it was first written in English, (the Littlewood Treaty) and then given to the Williams for translation into Maori (the Maori version which was then signed).

      As for the statement that Maori were ‘tricked into signing it’, this can’t be true because it was reaffirmed by virtually all as well as their allegiance to the Queen of England at the Kohimarama Conference 20 years later.

    2. Hi Mitch,

      You wrote incorrectly that the, “chronological order, Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter, the Littlewood treaty draft, the Treaty itself, and the 1852 NZ Constitution Act.

      The correct order is Littlewood Treaty, Treaty, Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter of 16-11-1840 then the 1852 NZ constitution act.

      The Treaty saw NZ made a dependency of New South Wales whose borders were extended to encompass “all of the islands of NZ”.

      Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter split NZ from N.S.W. into a separate British colony and but for this fact there could never have been an 1852 constitution.

      The above is an example of how strong a place this Royal Charter has in our history and it alarms me 1law4all Admin choose to ignore it, the coup de grace to Treaty corruption and to which Treatyists have no answer.

      The above must be obvious to the many readers of this generous, uncensored web site due to no alternative being proffered.

  40. Hi Helen
    You may have missed the drift of a couple of Paul Moon’s comments. The post was a bit confusing because his comments begin with a statement that he is refuting, followed by his reasoning. I posted these to show that although he seems to be an enemy of equal rights he nevertheless supports a couple of viewpoints shared by 1Law4All adherents.
    My comment about the Littlewood document being a draft was aimed at Moon’s statement that “It could not be a Treaty because it wasn’t signed.” He thus infers that we consider it to be a treaty (which I am sure none of us do) and he uses that (as did Claudia Orange) to ridicule the authenticity of the document – a pretty feeble effort from someone who obviously has more intelligence than that example of “logic” displays.
    He also rubbishes Maori claims of being tricked into signing.

    And one for G.Graham: Thanks for correcting my error. There is however another very important document that seems to be overlooked, and that is the translation back from Maori into English by T.E.Young of the Native Department in 1869.
    That back-translation mirrors almost exactly the wording of the Littlewood document and is being deliberately ignored by the powers that be.

    1. The Treaty translation by T.E. Young is the only “official translation” (Ross Baker, One NZ Foundation)

      The opinions (that’s all they are)of Kawharu and Mutu which are referred to as translations were never authorised and, like the Littlewood Treaty, never signed. This was never noted as a problem by Claudia Orange who listened attentively, in silence, to the “opinions” of Kawharu and Mutu during Constitutional Meetings I saw her attend.

      Orange has also ignored the fact that the false English Treaty was never signed, the signatures upon this clearly pertain to the Maori text and not itself (Ross Baker, One NZ Foundation).

      1. That depends on the definition of the word “official.” I imagine the version used by the the Kangaroo Kourt known as the Waitangi Tribunal would be treated or regarded as ‘official;’ by them, at least. See here:

        There’s some brief oversight on the Treaty rort to be found on this site:

        1. This rot is exactly what I’m driving at, the false English Treaty is the only Treaty supporting the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 and the Waitangi Tribunal, it is also amalgamated with the Maori Treaty to found the ToW Act 1985.

          Remove the false English Treaty and you destroy the Waitangi Tribunal findings and all Maori settlements & privileges established thereby.

          Why not relegate both Treaties to Archives NZ by exposing Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter of 16-11-1840, this is what the Royal Charter was designed to do but the Royal Charter was relegated there instead.

          Bring the Royal Charter out, let it see the light and make it as luminous as possible.

          1. common sense GG the littlewood version has been buried in the archives since last century, what dream state makes you believe the gravy trainers will allow anything to see the light of day, that will impinge on their income.
            It is the political system that is broke and not listening – getting any agreement on this forum will change nothing without changing the outlook and voting patterns of the myopic majority

          2. Your comment puzzles me as the fish and forests are still gone.

            Only Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter of 16-11-1840 has a chance of smoothing the waters as it clearly carries the message of 1law4all and, most importantly, it’s written in English.

  41. It seems on reading the various posts on this web site that many people are not familiar as to exactly how binding referenda actually work. If anyone would like a very good explanation of this system of true democracy, type Youtube Swiss Direct Democracy into Google and you will find a number of very good videos that will give detailed explanations.

    WE should not only have binding referenda in National Politics, they should also be incorporated into local body politics as well. This also works very well for the Swiss and would give poor old Kiwi ratepayers a powerful say in how their rates are spent.

    The way election 2014 is shaping up it looks like it will be a very close run thing. John Key has already shown that he will do whatever it takes to remain in power and that gives the only party with binding referenda as a non- negotiable policy the opportunity to make this a condition of any coalition agreement.

    Also, the average caring Kiwi would be very concerned if the election went the other way and Labour/Greens were in a position to form a government with a key minor party to give them a majority. That concern could be largely negated if that King Making minor party was the only one with the non-negotiable policy of binding referenda because with this as the law of the land the voters would be in a position to negate any particularly stupid legislation that Labour/Greens tried to put into place.

    Binding Referenda puts the power back into the hands of the people.

    1. As far as I’m aware, Territorial Authority referenda are binding, now. It’s only the national ones that are a charade.

    2. That’s certainly it in a nutshell Ron. I absolutely agree with everything you have said. Binding referenda is essential if we are ever to get our democracy back. We certainly don’t have one at the moment, apart from once every 3 years when we go to the polls. After that, the politicians do what they want and just thumb their noses at the people. They certainly don’t have our best interests at heart.

      Binding referenda is essential. From there maybe we can get rid of so much that is dragging this country down.

    3. I’d love to see binding referenda but as long as the Treaty reigns supreme this will never happen. First the Treaty needs to be placed in Archives as a static, historical document that had completed it’s job by granting British sovereignty to Maoris, no more, no less.

      39 Years of exposure of Treaty corruption has only seen the corruption grow to the point that no law might be passed that could be detrimental to Maori aspirations.

      It is therefore necessary to try another tack and Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter of 16-11-1840, our true founding document and first constitution, was specifically designed to take over from where the treaty left us hanging, a dependency of New South Wales, Australia.

      1law4all do not seem willing to recognise our true founding document, the Royal Charter, choosing to remain silent on this issue and I firmly believe its silence results from the fact that to challenge it they will have to yield.

        1. Maybe you’ve got some odd idea of what a web site Admin does?

          They run web sites for people/organisations. Other people/organisations, usually.

          Anyway, I very much doubt if Admin is a policy maker of 1Law4All. She doubtless has her own views and (she says) she runs this site for 1Law4All. Likely trading as “Black Cats Graphics,” going by the page footer.

          And that’s probably about all. So expecting policy announcements from her could mean you’re in for a long wait.

  42. All this discussion may be interesting to some, but it seems quite academic to me as there is obviously no chance whatever of 1Law4All being in a position to promote it’s policy at the next election. Some would argue that this is not so, but the practicality is that time marches on and still the party seems not to have been registered officially, no candidates advertised, no announcements in the press – might just have well never started down this road. What a shame, because the main policy on equality is desperately needed as we head towards full apartheid and civil unrest. With just a few months to go, isn’t it time we all faced facts and decided on another course of action?

    1. Despite a few of us soldiering on for the cause of 1Law4All, some variation might be helpful. Especially given G Graham’s one-track fetish, Ken’s persistent plugs for Winston First and a few others acting as Colin Craig’s cheerleaders. All the more the merrier. So, what’s your (alternative?) suggested “course of action?”

      1. I’d like to see them come up with their views on Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter of 16-11-1840, our true founding document and first constitution.

        After 39 years of failure to change apartheid by exposure of Treaty corruption, the situation has only worsened.

        If they don’t fly the Royal Charter I won’t waste my vote on them.

        One must take a realistic view of history past.

        1. G Graham: One must take a realistic view of history past.

          Indeed: all talk and no do by G Graham, just like Winnie-the-me-too.

          G Graham: If they don’t fly the Royal Charter I won’t waste my vote on them.

          Don’t just stop there! Please don’t waste your time on them here, either. I.e. At this – their web site discussion forum. You’ll thereby spare all the other contributors from wasting any more time on you and your fetish.

          Don’t go away mad – just go away. Please!

          Surely Ross/ONZF has a blog place that you can go and lurk at and talk to yourself?

          1. Simple Simon, if you or anyone for that matter, have a better solution to Treaty corruption than Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter of 16-11-1840 we would all love to hear it.

            If no one can’t, I’m not wasting my time.

          2. You can waste your time as you wish. That’s your prerogative. Just waste it somewhere else, please.

            Collin gave you an answer to your question, a few comments back. Viz:

            “What dream state makes you believe the gravy trainers will allow anything to see the light of day that will impinge on their income.”

            You need to pursue your chosen cause yourself, somewhere else. I imagine that endlessly repeating your cant here wont change 1Law4All’s policy position, at all.

            All it’s likely to do is drive people away from this blog.

            As you seem to have nothing else to contribute, perhaps it’s time Admin banned you for being a troll?
            troll (noun)
            One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.

          3. Simple Simon wrote,
            “troll (noun)
            One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.

            Simon, as yet I have argued or abused no one.

            But am sure that if you could offer a better solution to oppose the Gravy Train your abuse would cease.

    2. Couldn’t agree more Mike! 1LAW4ALL needs to start negotiating a deal with another party that will get into parliament. A deal which would, (A) Make 1LAW4ALL’s all policies non negotiable in any support deals and (B) a 1LAW4ALL candidate placed high on the chosen parties list therefore ensuring 1LAW4ALL’s policies are adhered to. Personally I would be banging on Colin Craig’s door because he is the one most likely to do such a deal.

      1. Colin Craig is a strong National Party supporter, who would vote Conservative in consideration of what Finlayson has given away on top of Key’s support of indigenous rights and constitutional change to Maori sovereignty.

  43. You are all correct with what you say, and I’m sure you will agree that most contributors to this site have a common goal.
    G Graham is correct that promoting the existence of the Charter would alter the public perception of “Maori rights”, but an even more potent document exists in the “Littlewood Treaty (which isn’t a treaty at all) – and look what has happened to that! A document that would alter the whole structure of NZ society is now buried in obscurity in government archives. What makes you think (G Graham) that exactly the same thing would not happen to the Charter?
    Successive governments have become increasingly dictatorial, shifting the goal posts to introduce whatever agenda they are pursuing and completely ignoring the wishes of the people.
    Winston had the opportunity as King-maker to make the abolition of Maori seats a non-negotiable condition of a previous coalition but instead achieved nothing.
    Other small groups have tried and failed because of the old boy network’s manipulation of the media to sway public opinion.
    Simple Simon may class me as a “Colin Craig cheerleader” but it is pretty obvious to me that the only way to stop political corruption, appeasement and bribery is by introducing binding referenda. All efforts by groups such as this one will be squashed, misrepresented and distorted in the public view.
    Binding referendums are the only way that you and I can have a say in deciding our country’s future.

    1. The Littlewood Treaty is an English draft in competition with a Treaty written in English.

      Sharples has said, “its (the Treaty) written in our language and if it’s in our language we can make it mean anything we want it to”. As things go he has been proven to be right.

      This Royal Charter split us from New South Wales, where the Treaty put us) is written in English and clearly carries the message of 1law4all right the way through.

  44. It’s all very obvious, G.G. Colin expects to get enough support to hold the balance of power, at which point he can insist on certain minimum non-negotiable conditions.
    Removal of all racism from all legislation, and binding referenda. That should be enough for anybody worried about our increasing apartheid. Personally, I’d tie it in with the compulsory removal of that bas—d Finlayson, as well!

    1. Colin Craig rolled me over and dodged me when I tried to go serious on Treaty matters.

      No one seems keen to “Rock the Boat”, same as Royal Charter dodgers.

  45. Agree with your comments, Mike. Specially the bit about the unelected Finlayson.
    However, Colin Craig’s bottom line non-negotiable condition for any coalition arrangement is that of binding referenda.
    Removal of all racism from legislation is a Conservative Party policy but is a longer term aim.
    You have to start somewhere, and referendums would give us all a chance to stop any further destruction of our rights.

  46. I dont believe any of the parties that hold seats at present will do anything to alter the status quo They make promises but they are empty ones If National had any integrity at all it would make a start on its promise to abolish maori seats when treaty negotiations are finished Ngai tahu treaty claims are settled so the southern maori seat should go too But it wont Not ever under this Government or a Labour led one either
    Binding referenda is the only way to force this issue and many others
    How does the country get that? Vote for a party that will introduce it and hope that it really means it
    What other choice is there? Any suggestions?

    1. I am a little worried that Collin Craig believes they are spraying us with chemicals from aircraft contrails

      1. Colin Craig comes across as a nice guy. But is that sufficient to equip him for politics?

        The chemtrails and man-on-the-moon faking were media set-ups. And that’s what any hopeful needs to be ready for. It seems Colin wasn’t. Nice, badly/not briefed, or just naive?

        Furthermore, what if there was a prospect of a National/Conservative coalition deal and Shonkey said that binding referenda were out-of-the-question? What happens, then?

        On the factual basis of past history, Winston First will not deliver on campaign promises to do with racial preference.

        Mr Nice Guy will struggle with the frenzied attacks of the media and the other [main] Party clobbering machines.

        Besides it’s the jockeying and compromises AFTER the election that can only be speculated on, at best, by us hapless voters.

        1Law4All surely needs to get its A into G and quickly, or else. As in, there’s only 19 or 20 weeks left to the election.

        Maybe 1Law4All’s redeeming feature is that it is a one-issue party? At least there’s no possibility for confusion about what they’re on about.

        And I recall they’ve said, somewhere, that they will not go into coalition with anyone, but sit on the cross benches.

        So that’s two 1Law4All ‘knowns,’ versus a slew of ‘unknowns’ with the rest of ’em.

        Decisions, decisions.

        1. I don’t believe Colin Craig was badly briefed or naive on the man on the moon beat-up. See, even his reaction is getting a ridiculous analysis. I feel it was more that he was totally amazed that anyone could dream up such nonsense. It was probably more disbelief that you were seeing. I know I felt exactly the same way when I heard it.

          It remains to be seen whether or not Colin Craig would be like John Key was for me (in 2008) if/when he is invited into coalition as to whether or not he would be adamant on BINDING referenda. My mention of Key is that in 2008 I was so hopeful, in fact virtually certain, that he was the person to lead us out of the racial mire we were in. Straight after the election when he went into discussions with the Maori Party, when he didn’t need to (at that election – 2011 was a different story), I knew immediately that my faith had been hugely misplaced.

          However, I too hope 1Law4All gets moving very soon.

        2. Re. 1law4all not wanting to go into coalition with another Party.

          Opposition Parties have no say in governance. Have they not heard of MMP (Mumbled Myths Pay-off)?

      2. What a load of rubbish Murray. Are you one of those trying to ridicule Colin Craig? As Mitch said he comes across as such a normal person. He’s only standing for election because he is very concerned at the direction this country is taking, as are many of us!!

        The Press and those who fear his Party gaining seats seem hell bent on denigrating him at every turn and inventing beliefs he may or may not have. He probably said in answer to a question, he has no idea about chemtrails so you, or the likes of you, have stated that he actually believes in them. Totally ridiculous.

        As Mitch suggested, go to one of his meetings and meet him personally. You will then be able to see for yourself that he is indistinguishable from most of us, especially his concern for our country which resonates with many.

        1. No not at all Hellen. I am unsure what I am going to do but until I get something better than 1law4all that is what I am sticking to. It is very unfortunate for Colin that he was portrayed as a conspiritory theorist and the media should be ashamed of themselves, they should report on what is said, not what they think the public wants to hear

    2. Graeme Faulkner wrote, “What other choice is there (than binding referenda)? Any suggestions?”

      Nothing will happen as long as Treaty corruption reigns supreme because, as it stands, nothing can be legislated that could be detrimental to Maori aspirations.

      This is why I try to raise awareness of 1law4all towards Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter of 16-11-1840, our true founding document and first constitution, but 1law4all choose to ignore this Charter which took over from where the Treaty left us, New South Wales, Australia, and is the sole reason we can call ourselves New Zealanders.

      Common sense will prevail in that to leave things as they are the Treaty situation will never change, the only way to progress is by trying a different tack and the Royal Charter offers this opportunity.

      If 1law4all ignores this gift, all their promises have a 39 year history of failure and this is where they are headed.

      What’s the point of promising to make change if they walk the tired and worn road to ruin, at the expense of others.

      I see David Round, law lecturer, is to give a talk on the “real Treaty” at 1law4all’s AGM. Who would bother to listen to one who’s been there, done that, done nothing? No point in chasing ones tail! Waste of time, waste of funding.

      The reason I joined 1law4all was a belief they meant what they said, but it seems that like the rest they speak lots but make no effort to change the status quo, failure.

      1. Hi Graeme, I think that David Round talking at the 1law4all is fine but isn’t that like preaching to the converted? How do we get this out to the uninformed?

        1. How can we be sure that it is simply the uninformed? Might it not be the woefully and willfully ignorant?

          That said, preaching to the converted may do little more than rouse the existing rabble. But even that might not be a bad thing! With no leader and no candidates, the rank-and-file may be in need of a fillip and/or morale boost.

          1. So simon, if I asked, “take me to your leader?” Who do you think I’d meet? By the way, going back a few hundred comments, was Bob Jones asked or was that purely supposition?

          2. I “asked around,” so it was not supposition, but it was hearsay.

            As for the other question, from what I can see, the answer is: “we can’t: we don’t have one.”

          3. Hearsay, supposition whatever, it’s all semantics to me! Brenda, could we get someone from 1law4all to talk to him?

        2. Hi Ray,

          I’m trying hard to have someone (anyone) realise the importance of Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter of 16-11-1840 as our true founding document, first constitution and answer to placing the Treaty back where it belongs in Archives N.Z..

          1law4all doesn’t care, otherwise it would, at the least, ask for further explanation.

          By ignoring it and kidding themselves on they will make a difference by following the Treaty trail, it does no more than chase its tail.

          They had David Round, law lecturer, speak at their AGM on Treaty issues. Why? This is a question 1law4all will likely never answer and the reason is me, because they know I know of the utter importance of the Royal Charter!

          1. Why is Brenda so conspicuously silent on this? I’m dying to know what the next action point is to making this party a reality?

          2. Ray, when you say “silent on this” are you referring to Mr Graham’s obsession with the Royal Charter? If you are, I made our position clear on that days, if not weeks, ago. As for the next action point of the party, well, I hope to have some very good news for you all in a few days, but I don’t want to jump the gun, so you will just have to be patient and wait till then 🙂
            As for my silence – we have a lot to do and very few people to do it. My husband and I have not been to bed before midnight this past week, with many nights stretching into the wee small hours and lights finally out at around 2am. Although we do have a small farm to run and other commitments, the rest of our time is spent on 1Law4All out of pure necessity.
            As for Bob Jones – John Ansell spoke with him and asked him if he was interested in getting back into politics. Not on our behalf you understand, on his own I think. Anyway, his response was that he feels he is too old now and doesn’t want to go down that track again.
            Feel free to volunteer to help any time you want.

          3. Hi Brenda, appreciate your reply thanks! I guess to echo other contributors, it seems as if we need to hurry to make an impact in this year’s election otherwise it’ll be another three years of same old, same old! I’ve been an ACT supporter for many years and I could never understand why there aren’t more like-minded people who want to stop all these Maori rorts! Following this blog, it seems to me that there are but we’re very fragmented with 1law4all, 5PM, ACT and perhaps to a lesser extent, the Conservative party. Like your husband and yourself, and probably most of us, I’m also very busy and generally working to midnight and beyond every night. Yes, I agree that Mr.Graham is continuing to push the Royal Charter but I think it’s worth a try to try to discedit the Waitangi Treaty into the archives? I also think that enthusiasm is good and like to encourage it! We all know that there are so many people who have tried making a change and just given up so I’m all for supporting him and any push on the Littlewood document. Cheers!

          4. Thank you Ray Chung,

            You would be correct in the Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter of 16-11-1840 would deliver a “full stop” to the Treaty as our founding document and all else it is mythically suppose to entail.

            I firmly believe that if 1law4all were sincere in their claim to engineer “one law for all NZers” it would have grasped the above Royal Charter in both hands.

            As it is they hunker down, not even showing their eyes above the fence dictating the boundary which beyond Treaty opponents fear to tread.

          5. At last a response from Admin.

            Admin wrote, “Ray, when you say “silent on this” are you referring to Mr Graham’s obsession with the Royal Charter? If you are, I made our position clear on that days, if not weeks, ago”.

            No you didn’t, Admin did not give a reason as to why following the Treaty was better than leading with Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter of 16-11-1840.

            If I am wrong, tell us where we may find it?

            If you can’t find it, what is your reason?

          6. A sincere thank you, Ray Chung, for being a thinking man and realising the importance of Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter.

            In consideration 1law4all had their main speaker, David Round, address the Treaty of Waitangi at their AGM is a most worrying factor.

            It prompts me to enquire, “Why are onelaw4all setting themselves up to fail”?

            Please respond 1law4all?

            Your readers are interested in your response to this valid question, valid due to 39 years of Treaty opposition failure.

  47. What a waste of a vote that would . . . voting for Colin Craig. Once into the deal making, he will roll over and acquiesce to john Key and to the very party which has been selling this country down the river!

    1. Why don’t you go to a Conservative Party public meeting and talk to Colin Craig?
      He’ll answer all your questions without polispeak.
      It may be a bit of a culture shock for you to discover that there is an honest politician in this country.

      1. Mitch Morgan wrote of Colin Craig, “He’ll answer all your questions without polispeak”.

        Well Mitch, why did he walk away from me?

          1. Mitch Morgan commented on …and suddenly, it’s all worth while..

            in response to G. Graham:

            Mitch Morgan wrote of Colin Craig, “He’ll answer all your questions without polispeak”. (G. Graham wrote) Well Mitch, why did he walk away from me?

            (Mitch answered)Perhaps it has something to do with your attitude?

            Thank you Mitch. I take that as a compliment, it is obvious that I genuinely want to see an end to racial division and those that are intent on mouthing it only run for cover when I speak.

    2. This is the real problem isn’t it? It seems to me that some people go into politics with noble aspirations and intentions but very swiftly lose these and get corrupted by the power and forget why they went there! I have high hopes for 1law4all but they seem dreadfully slow at getting off the starting block!

      1. In a Party with a name such as 1law4all one would expect to see moles working within to keep the present status of the Treaty nibbling away at what used to be “non-Maori rights” and these moles will stop at nothing to keep Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter of 16-11-1840 at bay for as long as possible.

        The difficulty lies in recognising them and dumping them, in order progress be made.

        Nothing ever improved anyone’s status in life but that first of all “change” was made.

  48. The more I look at our situation in this country the more I come to the conclusion that binding referenda are the only way to go. So Kenneth, no matter what you think of Colin Craig, if his is the only Party promoting binding referenda then that’s where we will have to go because there is no other hope. The other Parties will just continue down the same old road, ignoring the majority and just feathering their own nests while they do what’s best for them and to hell with the rest of us.

    That’s how I see it and how I will be basing my vote. So OneLaw4All, you MUST include binding referenda in your manifesto. The people have to take back control of their country and this would be the only way they could do it. Through binding referenda they would be able to get rid of all racial privilege and consequently the apartheid that is overtaking us all. Nothing will convince me otherwise.

    1. I can understand your frustration Helen, but it’s not what I think of Colin Craig rather where he is situated within the political spectrum. You must be very naive to think that he will be persuasive enough – together with the lack of numbers – to gain consent for his policies, which are just that! Just policies!
      There doesn’t appear to be a formal manifesto and his “Wish list” states that he will support many of them, but detail on enactment or bottom line agreements is conspicuous by their absence. In this regard he is no different to Winston Peters.

  49. I see that a few of you have been sucked in by the media set-up aimed at ridiculing Colin Craig.
    He was asked about his views on chem trails and whether man landed on the moon.
    His replies were actually a very good exercise in general semantics, stating that with (1) Chem trails: I don’t know enough about them to form an opinion (translated by the media into “Colin Craig doesn’t deny chem trails conspiracy”, and (2) I think it is highly likely that man landed on the moon but I don’t KNOW that man landed on the moon because I wasn’t there”, translated by the media into “Colin Craig doesn’t know if man landed on the moon.”
    The subtlety of his comments went completely over the heads of the media so they set out to make him appear as a fool – which is very far from the truth.
    Have you ever wondered why the media interviewers never asked any other politicians the same questions? Well, that is because it was an orchestrated set-up to discredit him in the public eye. And they did a pretty good job because a number of otherwise-intelligent people fell for it.
    Believe me, Colin Craig is no fool but is a very intelligent man – a self-made millionaire and a university lecturer as well.
    I wish I was that stupid.
    His only flaw for a politician is that he is honest.

    1. There’s little doubt it was a media ambush. And that’s what makes me say it would be difficult for a nice guy to say:

      “I’m not here to discuss that.”

      But that’s what needed to be said and only one who knew the ropes or had the benefit of a media manager briefing would know it was a set-up.

      Being nice is not enough.

      I suspect that the 1Law4All candidates, if/when they have some, could be in for the same sort of media BS. I hope they’re well briefed before the media pack is loosed on them. They’ll need to be!

  50. So for how long has it been a crime to be non media-savvy? Colin is just an honest man, stating the truth as he sees it. By now, of course, he is wiser about the tricks being used to discredit him in the press. I think it would be a shame if we voters presume that he will be as two-faced as Donkey proved to be. I am certain that he just wants to do what NZ so desperately needs, to overcome the racism. I recently attended a meeting when 2 candidates for Mangere were announced – both highly qualified Pacifika folk who will attract the P.I. vote. Then there is the Taiwanese candidate standing in Botany. Maybe some of these ethnicities hold the key to removing the Sharples racism?

    1. If not warned in advance, it’s no crime to fall into a trap set by someone else. As observed earlier, it can be taken as a consequence of being nice, or being caught unawares.

      “The media are bastards!” Proceeding on any other basis, such as the media is intent on truth, public good and fidelity IS naive. Winston First is quite good at dealing to them at their own game. Take heed, all ye wanna-be candidates.

      I’m not suggesting a “can’t beat ’em so join ’em” approach, either. No. I’m suggesting great caution in dealing with today’s sensationalist, bleeding heart, liberalist, gutter press media.

      And that 1Law4All better be mindful of the same crap that was dealt to Colin by said guttersnipes.

      What’s wrong with that suggested counsel?

  51. Hi Kenneth.
    I think you had better read up a bit more on Colin Craig’s policies.
    You say “Detail on enactment or bottom line agreements is conspicuous by their absence.”
    I believe that he is the only party leader to have outlined a non-negotiable condition for any coalition, that being, of course, the adoption of referenda binding upon the government.
    Winston’s past practice has been to “negotiate” whatever benefits Winston the most – no non-negotiable policy announcements will ever come from him.
    Like the rest of you I am sick and tired of political pre-election lies that are never followed through.
    At the initial stage Colin’s other policies are long-term aims; the one he will not abandon being that of binding referenda.
    I know that it’s hard to accept that there may be an honest man involved in politics, but I think that we have finally got one.

    1. Thank you Mitch. I have read all that there is to read on the Conservative site and I still say that it is merely a wish list. Am I given to understand that your assertion is that the only right wing parties likely to give Colin Craig any elbow room – National and Act who’s totalitarianism has been well demonstrated – will assent to such radical dogma?
      If you believe in that, you will also believe in the tooth fairy!

  52. I agree, Mitch. Colin is the only worthwhile one in sight and too late for any others to join the fray!

  53. Hi again Kenneth
    Is the idea of binding referenda really in the category of “radical dogma?”
    If ANY party needs Colin Craig’s support to get into power they will accept any condition that is thrown at them.
    Such is the lust for power.

  54. C’mon Over To The Dark Side (of a closet socialist)


    “Conservative Party leader Colin Craig says the compulsory acquisition of land would help solve Auckland’s housing problem.

    “Colin Craig told TVNZ’s Q+A programme that he would move ‘artificial boundaries’ and buy up land to address the supply issue.”

    Wonder what other odd-ball policies he has lurking in his closet? That the Council makes it so difficult to release said land at a reasonable cost, doesn’t rate a mention. Better to play with symptoms, it seems.

    Before anyone asks what that’s got to do with it, as least if I vote 1Law4All, I know what I’m voting for because I know exactly what it’s policy is.

  55. Discussion on this site seems to be going around in circles.
    We all have the common goal of one law for all NZ’ers, but with differing views on how to achieve it. It is pointless deriding other contributors just because we may consider our viewpoint to be of higher priority than theirs.
    Regarding Colin Craig: It is easy to pick out one particular policy to criticise, but we are surely all aware that he has literally no chance at this early stage of gaining majority approval for all of his agenda. Whether you agree or not with his financial, moral or defence policies is unimportant.
    The only crucial policy is that of public-initiated referenda that is binding upon whichever government is in power.
    This is the only way to stop further racially-divisive policies being introduced, asset sales that return less than the cost of a single Maori claim, and moral issues being enforced against the wishes of the majority.
    If Colin Craig can achieve just that one coalition condition of binding referenda then he will have achieved more for democracy than all of the other politicians put together.

    1. I couldn’t have expressed it better myself Mitch!

      Reminds me of an expression I heard some years ago, “too much hui and not enough “doey!”

    2. So many correspondents seem to believe Binding Referenda may be achieved without first removing the Treaty to where it belongs, Archives N.Z..

      When Lieu. Gvnr. Hobson of New South Wales witnessed the last signature the Treaty it was a done deal, over and out, British sovereignty was asserted, the borders of N.S.Wales. were extended to enclose all of the Islands of N.Z. with English law administered by Her Majesty’s Courts of N.S.w..

      At this point there was no more the Treaty could do, Archives was its bed as its promise had been fulfilled not just by the signatures upon it but by the pre-signing Chiefs speeches.

      All chiefs, whether they signed or did not sign, gave as reason the Queen’s sovereignty would reign supreme and this was achieved by making N.Z. a dependency of N.S.W., slating any possibility the Treaty may be presumed our founding document.

      Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter, our true founding document and first constitution, split N.Z. from N.S.W., established us an independent British Colony, gave us our first constitution, English law (only), our own Courts to administer this law, our own Legislative Council & Executive Council to Govern us and eventually our own flag.

      New Zealand was born on 16-11-1840 by this Royal Charter and this is the document that aught to be celebrated as our founding document.

      There is no racial preference in our Royal Charter for this simple reason, Queen Victoria did not have the power nor authority to grant any race superior privilege over her own British citizens according to English law and the Magna Carta.

      Until a Political party recognises the above facts and runs with them there will be no change to racial division established by Treaty myths; 39 years of history since the birth of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, founded solely upon the false English Treaty, has proven Treaty myths stand supreme and no law will be passed which may be determined harmful to Maori aspirations, i.e. Binding Referenda.

      Why do 1law4all choose to stay silent on this matter, are those with influence within this Party afraid of rocking the boat or damaging their careers?

      There are times silence speaks volumes!

      1law4all = Treaty Law or Royal Charter Law?

        1. It’s in the National Archives building, Ray. Our Museum doesn’t even have it – amazingly. I’ve written to them asking why and telling them it is imperative it is on display with all our other Constitutional history.

        2. Hi Ray Chung,

          Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter of 16-11-1840 is in National Archives N.Z. but difficult to obtain access to. As an example this is the link I was sent,

          You will find it takes you there only to find the information is restricted. Suggest you write to them direct at 10, Mulgrave St., Wellington, 6011.

          You, or anyone, may contact me at and I will send you a printed copy.

  56. Yes Simon but only on one issue
    Politics is always a moving target with no hard and fast rules
    Would you expect billionaires in communist China?
    Would you expect in the land of free speech the USA a man to be fined millions and forced to sell his business for uttering one word in a private telephone conversation?
    Would you expect to have race based laws in a so called democracy like N Z
    No political system that I know of is completely hard and fast

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: