28 July 2014

Dear Tom,

Generally, I agree in principle with the Board that the best chance of success is to have every I dotted and every T crossed. But, if that’s taken as the only option, we will never get this Party onto the ballot paper.

I remind members that their election to the Board was to advance the prospects of the Party as per the Rules and the thousands of brochures printed and distributed.

Due to your Board’s decision to not stand candidates you will be aware of a memo sent to all members by McLean and myself, expressing our disagreement. After spending considerable time speaking with over 100 members, I absolutely declare that at least 95% of them were adamant that the Board’s decision to not stand candidates must be rescinded. In addition, those same members agree with me: by 2017 it will be too late!

Furthermore, for the Board to decide to not stand candidates without any reference to members appears to me to be contrary to the Party’s Constitution. Without spending thousands of dollars to have some lawyer interpret the rules, Rule 9 (1) (b) does seem to require the Board to consult members before making such a major decision. None of the members I spoke to were aware of that potential decision and its consequences for the Party.

Rule 9 (1) (b) [The Board shall] determine and approve finally all Party policy, having first taken into account such views of members as have been made known to it but which are not inconsistent with its Principle and Object.

The board was elected to serve members and – according to the Minutes – the decision to not stand candidates was not discussed by members at the 2014 AGM.

I’m deeply disappointed that – after assisting in the original formation of the party and putting in a lot of effort to signing up members from across New Zealand – that the Board’s decision will do nothing for my credibility and is destroying yours.

I can tell the Board, from personal experience, that having every I dotted and every T crossed, doesn’t guarantee success. Sometimes you have to be prepared to take a punt!

It’s my understanding that there are people who have made themselves available as Party List candidates: David Round being one. And I’ve heard that there are others who are willing to stand.

It’s time for the Board to show some courage and guts and rescind their decision and stand some candidates, and thus regain our party’s credibility, by giving the opportunity for all to exercise their Party vote. And don’t forget the many thousands of the NZ public who have read the brochure, but not yet joined.

No matter how ill-prepared they were, Dad’s Army was prepared to stand in defence of their country. Are you not willing to do the same?

Bill Matches
cc To members of the Board


31 July 2014

Dear Bill

The Rules of 1Law4all define the Party’s Objective as being “to make New Zealand a colour-blind state where there shall be no national or territorial legal or preferential treatment or regulatory privilege, special funding or other advantages or disadvantages for any particular race.”

Rule 4 states that, in pursuit of this objective, the party may “put up candidates to the New Zealand House of Representatives.”

Standing candidates in pursuit of the party’s objective is an option, not a requirement.

The present Board of the party has decided not to promote further the brochure circulated in 2013, but is aware that the brochure referred to: “Our Aim: to win enough seats in the 2014 election to win the balance of power.” The party’s intention, in 2013, was to pursue its goal by trying to capture the balance of power. At no point did the party ever commit to standing candidates as an end in itself.

The present Board, elected at the party’s 2014 Annual General Meeting, has had to face the reality that the party does not currently have the resources in terms of personnel, infrastructure or funding to make winning the balance of power even the remotest possibility and has communicated this reality to members along with advice that the Board is now engaged on developing alternative strategy options.

The Board does not, nevertheless, wish to stand in the way of any member or members who still feel that winning the balance of power in the 2014 parliamentary election remains a realistic option for our party. If that is your view, may I, on behalf of the Board, invite you to convene a sub-committee tasked with reporting to the Board your plans for achieving this objective. A planning check-list is provided below to assist in your work.

We look forward to advice of progress in this matter.

Yours sincerely
Tom Johnson


5 August 2014

Tom

I am really disappointed with your reply to my e-mail of the 28th of July. It doesn’t resonate with me as having been written by the Tom Johnson that I have come to know and respect.

You made no reference to the points which I presented:

1) Rule 9 (1) (b)

2) No reference about the fact that the AGM Minutes do not reflect any discussion about not standing any candidates for the party list

3) No reference whatsoever to the 100 members I have spoken to as if they don’t bloody count!!

They all appreciate the lack of funds to stand candidates. All they want is the opportunity to be able to record their vote on the Party list and thus put a peg in the sand. At the same time we’d establish what the public think and how much support we have, knowing what’s been spent on promotion etc. No one is suggesting that we are likely to have any balance of power.

After watching the NATION on Sunday TV, I have come to the conclusion your e-mail could well have been written by the arrogant Minister Joyce.

Bill