Hikoi of Hope: the Encounter at Parliament

Hikoi of Hope: the Encounter at Parliament

By Hikoi of Hope /

On the 1st October 1998, the Hikoi reached Wellington and presented itself to Parliament…

The Church’s Letter as Presented to Parliament (and accompanied by the Stories gathered on the Hikoi):

An open letter to all Members of Parliament.

We, the members of the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia having made our Hikoi to our Parliament in Wellington, present the attached concerns and supporting stories for your consideration and response. We have been supported on the Hikoi of Hope by representatives and members of many churches and community organisations and have been accompanied on the road and in towns by a wide spectrum of New Zealanders.

Many thousands of New Zealanders have participated in the Hikoi of Hope: Te Hikoi mo te Tumanako mo te Rawakore. Those who have taken part have urged us to carry to Parliament the same message: that the level of poverty in New Zealand is intolerable and urgent solutions must be found.

We believe the Church is called by God to demonstrate concern for the disadvantaged and we do not intend to neglect this calling. Our social service agencies and those of our ecumenical partners are responding to an increased demand for services. The 53rd General Synod/te Hinota Whanui of the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia initiated the Hikoi of Hope in response to the deep concern expressed by Anglican Social Services to the General Synod. These concerns have been confirmed by personal stories recounted on the Hikoi journey. We have heard how New Zealand’s recent programme of economic and social reform has impacted harshly on many of the most vulnerable in our society.

The Anglican Church, alongside our ecumenical partners, has a huge involvement in and commitment to, the delivery of social services. We speak from experience. However our role is not just to deliver charity but to be a voice alongside the disadvantaged. In this capacity we are calling for new solutions to address the causes of poverty in our midst.

It is our considered observation that widespread hardship extends far beyond pockets of social disparity and that poverty is now structured deeply and despairingly into our society.

It is of concern to Church members that current policy makers seriously underestimate the extent of poverty in New Zealand. Public reporting and monitoring responsibilities in relation to social policy outcome is inadequate. Competent research and systematic monitoring of past and future policies is required to provide a more robust basis for policy debate and decision making.

Furthermore, the experience of those who are hurting and agencies offering them support, is not taken sufficiently into account in the development of policy. The independent social policy research carried out by our own and other non-governmental organisations is similarly marginalised. We recommend a formal structure be set up to ensure the facilitation of information from the community and non-government sector in the development and assessment of social and economic policy.

We are also alarmed by the trend to suggest that poverty is due primarily to a lack of individual responsibility. The systemic nature of poverty must be acknowledged if solutions are to be found.
The Hikoi has identified five broad areas that require the development of new policy initiatives.
 

• * The need for real jobs that produce incomes sufficient for people to support themselves and their families.
  * The need for income and benefit levels that move people out of poverty.
  * The need for a public health system that New Zealanders can trust.
  * The need for affordable housing.
  * The need for high quality, affordable and accessible education.

While we acknowledge that developing sound solutions in these key areas is no easy task we believe these are the issues the New Zealand public wishes to see addressed by our elected representatives. We observe that in recent policy development, a fair process has at times been mistaken for a fair outcome. For example, in the area of housing, current housing policies are failing to solve a major crisis in housing affordability, overcrowding and lack of supply. In making your response to the Hikoi we request specific and detailed policy that has adequate and affordable housing for all citizens as the outcome.

While all citizens can contribute ideas and experiences to the development process, it is our elected representatives who are given the mandate, the responsibility and the resources to develop options for change.

We invite all Members of the House to place before the public a detailed programme to address these five issues before December 1998. At the conclusion of the Hikoi, the Churches will host a series of hui when all Members of the House will be invited to outline specifically to the New Zealand public their proposed solutions to address these five key areas. Your contributions will then form the basis of an open and honest debate by political and community leaders as to how to address the critical social issues the Hikoi has highlighted.

The Hikoi has been a journey of hope. It has already given hope to many who feel their cry of pain has not been heeded. But the primary hope of those taking part in this Hikoi of Hope, is that as our elected representatives you will hear this cry and ensure change occurs.

Yours sincerely,
+ John Paterson
Presiding Bishop/Primate and Bishop of Auckland

The Liturgy in Parliament Grounds

This is included for two reasons:
* to give those people who could not be there on the day a record of the basic service, the framework for what is coming to be seen as a momentous day;
* to form a basis for discussion.

Some discussion questions:

• 1. What strikes you most about the liturgy at first reading ?
• 2. How should we as a Church and as a people go about addressing Parliament ? What did this service make possible which a written petition tabled in Parliament would not have ? (Note: the Speaker was unwilling to receive the kete as Parliament’s single representative)
• 3. Do you agree with the rationale for the Hikoi as set out in section (9) ? In particular, do you agree with those paragraphs given to Bishop Muru Walters to speak ?
• (“We believe that it is central to the mission of Christ….to just and compassionate community.”
• What implications does this have for the ongoing life of the Church ? of your parish ? of your own discipleship ?
• 4. Put yourselves in the place of those Hikoi walkers who led the final prayers. What would you have felt then ? Share your own experience of the Hikoi.

The Entry to Parliament
(with church bells and drums and conch shells)

The Welcome
(from tangata whenua)
Waiata: “Guide me O thou great Jehovah” (verses 1 & 2) (in English then Maori).

The Invocation
* in three languages
* three voices (co-presiding bishops)
Voice 1: “In the name of God our Creator, in whose image we are all made”;
Voice 2: “In the name of God the Redeemer, whose will it is that we should be freed from all that enslaves us”;
Voice 3: “In the name of God the Giver of Life, whose loving power pervades and shapes creation.”
Bishop Viliami Hala’api’api: brief note about what is happening in Polynesia.

Introduction
(Ian Johnstone)

Bishop Ben Te Haara (pictured above):
“We remember in silence those who died in defence of this country and of a free and just society;
we remember those who died in defence of the Four Freedoms:

• freedom of speech;
• freedom of worship;
• freedom from want
• freedom from fear.”

SILENCE

Greeting to the living (by the Primate)

Prayers for the people and of the people:
(Stephanie McIntyre – Social Justice Commissioner): “Kia inoi tatou. Let us pray.
We thank you, our loving Creator,
for all who have gathered here,
for the tens of thousands who have walked with and
served the Hikoi but are not here today, and
for the hundreds of thousands who are here in spirit.
Be present with us now as we pray.”

(Trish Malcolm – Wellington Archdeacon for Youth): “We think of all those who apply for job after job, but only experience rejection. We think especially of those young people who leave school and can’t find work, and for those in middle age who can’t get back into the workforce.
Please help all the unemployed, who experience the damaging consequences of continuous rejection, and the insecurity of very low incomes. For these we pray,”
People: “O God hear us”

(Christina Tapu – Tikanga Polynesia): “We remember all those who can’t afford to pay their rent and are forced to live in overcrowded houses or in inadequate conditions.
We also think of those, who pay their rent, but don’t have enough money left over to buy all the food their households need.

We remember the children who can’t study, because they are hungry, or because they don’t have enough space in their house to concentrate.
We remember all those people who get sick as a result of dampness, coldness or their inability to afford power and gas. For these we pray,”
People: “O God hear us.”
(Bruce Hansen – Moderator of the Presbyterian Church): “We think of all those whom our health services have failed.
We remember particularly the families who cannot afford a visit to a doctor and the cost of the prescriptions afterwards.
We pray for the thousands of children who have become unnecessarily sick, for the adults too,
and especially for all those who have died, whose deaths could have been avoided. For these we pray,”
People: “O God hear us”.
(Flora Tuhaka – Tikanga Maori & Anglican Family Centre): “He inoi Maori (- a prayer in Maori)”
(Campbell Roberts of the Salvation Army): “We think of all those people in Aotearoa New Zealand who live in poverty, and don’t have enough money to meet their basic needs for food, shelter and other crucial costs.
We know how unfair it is that people have to live this way in a country with the resources we have.
We think of the fear and anxiety that poverty breeds, and the sense of hopelessness that follows.
We remember the children growing up in poverty and the parents managing their families in poverty. For these we pray,”
People: “O God hear us”.
(Julian Wilcox – Tikanga Maori): “We think of all the young people who begin their adult life owing large debts to the Government, to pay for their right to study,
We think also of those who want a higher education but are denied it because they don’t want to run up a large debt,
We remember all those who are not able to access the education they want, because they or their families cannot afford it. For these we pray,”
People: “O God, hear us.”
(The Revd Elder Risatisoni Ete): A prayer in Samoan
(Bonnie Robinson – Christian Social Services Council):
“We pray especially for all those who make decisions that affect the lives of people with all these problems,
and we plead for social policies and planning that will ensure every New Zealander can live decently, out of poverty and with dignity.
Please help all the members of our Parliament, and all the political parties, to recognise that too many new Zealanders are suffering unnecessarily,
and that as a nation we need a greater sense of political compassion and justice.
We pray for the creation of real jobs, affordable housing, a public health system that people can trust, benefit and wage levels that move people out of poverty, and affordable and accessible education, to give our people hope. For all these we pray.”
People: “O God hear us.”
Sung response: “Kumbaya”

Two Scripture readings
Isaiah 58:6-11 (read by Rabbi Michael Abraham – Liberal Jewish Synagogue)
Luke 6:20-21, 24-26 (read by Cardinal Tom Williams – Roman Catholic Church)

The rationale for the Hikoi and its central demands:
(Bishop Muru Walters – Tikanga Maori): “We believe that it is central to the mission of Christ
to participate, by word and action, in the struggles of
the poor for justice.
We believe that our allegiance, and the rightful
allegiance of this land, is not to Money but to God,
our calling is not to greed but to sharing,
our dignity is found not in possessions
but in service to others,
and our duty is not to any ideology of self
but to just and compassionate community.”
(Bishop Penny Jamieson – Tikanga Pakeha): “We therefore come to this Parliament
with our hearts touched by the pain of the growing poverty in this nation,
with our minds full of the stories of this pain, yet with our spirits full of hope in the faithfulness of the God of justice.”
(Winston Halapua – Tikanga Polynesia): “We bring the cry of people for real jobs, affordable housing, a health system we can trust, income and benefit levels that move people out of poverty, and high quality affordable and accessible education.
We bring that cry to this place of power where decisions are made that touch us all, and policies from which so many of us feel excluded.”

Presentation of the Kete
(Introduction by Ian Johnstone)
Co-Presiding Bishop Whakahuihui Vercoe says:
“We, the Presiding Bishops of the three tikanga Church of Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia, present these kete on behalf of the many thousands of New Zealanders who have walked this Hikoi of Hope with us. These baskets carry within them the tears, pain and hopelessness that we encountered so widely on this walk. They also carry the hopes for a new society, where everyone is valued and has the means to participate fully in the life of our country.”
Bishop Viliami Hala’api’api says:
“In these kete are some of the stories we gathered during the Hikoi from Cape Reinga and from Stewart Island to this city. We commend them and the cry that comes from them, to you. Inside the kete there is also a letter outlining the deep concerns of this Hikoi, and our invitation to you, as our politicians, to achieve the great Hope of all who have walked for a just and inclusive Aotearoa New Zealand.”
Primate John Paterson says:
“On behalf of the people of this land, we seek for all New Zealanders * real jobs
* affordable housing
* a health service people can trust
* benefits and wage levels that move
people out of poverty
* affordable and accessible education.”
Sir Paul Reeves says: “The pain and dislocation have gone too far. Enough is enough.”
Seven groups of three Hikoi people walk across the forecourt to the lower steps of Parliament where the Political Party representatives and a representative of the Independent MPs are standing with members of the other tikanga in their Parties. Each representative is presented with a kete which has within it a sample of the stories gathered during the Hikoi from throughout New Zealand, and a letter outlining the concerns of the Hikoi and the Five Demands.
There is a brief response, one each from both sides of the House
Samoan choirs sing: “Faafetai i le Atua”

Closing prayers:
* The Lord’s Prayer (in one’s own language).
* (Five people who have walked the Hikoi from North or South: Nikora Nitro, Dayanna Ropata, Heather Flavell,& Here Williams, & a Polynesian walker):
“Voice 1: O Christ of the road of the wounded,
O Christ of the tears of the broken,
We give you thanks that in us and with us have
journeyed your hopes for your people;
Voice 2: We give you thanks that in our walking and talking and listening you have granted us your love and your strength;
Voice 3: We give you thanks for the generosity of spirit we have encountered in the people of this land;
Voice 4: We give you thanks for the richness of what we have shared together: faith, vulnerability, courage,
hospitality, and renewed vision and hope for the future.
Voice 5: We now commit ourselves to serve that vision and live in that hope, in the power of your suffering love. Amen.”

Blessing in three languages
Co-Presiding Bishops and Presiding Bishop
Hymn: “Whakaaria mai”

Margaret Bazely's report into the conduct of the NZ Police:

The Bazely report into the conduct of the New Zealand Police is embedded below, and can also be viewed at this link.
 



Here is the report into the shooting of Stephen Wallace, which also be viewed at this link 
The recommendations, on page 44 have been ignored.
 

Police affidavit used to obtain Urewera warrants - view the original affidavit:

This is a scanned copy of the police affidavit used to corruptly obtain the search warrants used to justify the police terrorist unit raids on the Urewera accused:


New Zealand Police Urewera terrorism affidavit File

Better Work Stories - Glen Taplin explains everything

The latest installment of the indisputable documented evidence of the large scale tax payer funded corruption evidence in Carterton and the wider Wairarapa.  It is in the public interest to publish this evidence and in the interests of justice:

Lo and behold - the latest orchestrated litany of lies from the corrupt Wairarapa Police!

- Sgt Taplin refers to letters from well respected lawyer Ken Daniels which are at this link,  which include the following:

From: Ken Daniels, Lawyer, Chapel St, Masterton

To: The Area Commander, New Zealand Police, P O Box 443, Masterton

26 August 2004     

Dear Sir
    Re: Katherine Raue 

    There have been numerous items of correspondence written between Kate Raue and yourself and correspondence with the Police Complaints Authority over a number of issues that she has raised in recent times.

    I must confess that I have not given what I believe was sufficient attention to some of the matters that Kate Raue had raised with me in the past mainly I suspect because the matters appeared to be far too complex and involved and I tended not to see any relevance in some of the complaints that she was making.

    On a recent visit to me however and after spending some time looking at documentary evidence that she showed me, I largely changed my view and believe that there genuinely are matters of concern that do need to be investigated.

    I have not got to the bottom of all the matters Kate Raue complains about but there is one instance that does seem to suggest that there has been fraud at the Carterton Community Centre which has diverted funds designed for one purpose deliberately to another.

    I enclose with this letter a copy of the accounts which appear to represent income and expenditure from the Carterton Community Centre for the financial year 01 April 2000 to 31 March 2001 as they related to the Community Gardens. You will notice how in the income received, there was a sum of $9,000 received from the Tindall Foundation. It is assumed that this money was received following an application for a grant from that Charitable Foundation. The monies would have been requested and received for purposes relating to the Community Gardens in Carterton. The sum of $9,000 was received in April of 2000.

    The following month in May there was a payment of $6,000.00 paid from the Community Gardens account for a personal grievance payment. The information that apparently exists although I have not personally seen it is that there were insufficient funds to pay a personal grievance from the Community Gardens and the funding that was obtained from the Tindall Foundation was immediately paid out as at least part payment on that personal grievance. The payment apparently could not be made at an earlier stage and the fundng received from Tindall Foundation was a necessary receipt to enable the payment to be made to settle the personal grievance.

    If the above set of circumstances is accurate then there is no doubt whatsoever that there was a fraudulent use of the monies received from the Tindall Foundation. There had been no budgeted allowance made for personal grievances. This can be seen from the budget column in the expenditure part of the accounts where an amount of only $220 was allowed for the twelve months involved. A payment of $6000 was needed and this was paid directly from the charitable donation.

    I believe that the affairs of the Carterton Community Centre are in disarray. There is currently an application before the High Court to have them wound up because of insufficient numbers. There are numerous other complaints as well about the way in which members of the public including members were excluded from meetings etc. This letter does not purport to address all those issues but I am deeply concerned after having seen the information supplied to me by Kate Raue that monies received for one purpose be used for an incorrect purpose.

    I have been advised that a similar improper payment may have been made in respect of the account that was run for the disadvantaged members of the community. This apparently exists under the copy of the account also enclosed which is headed up VOSP 2000 – 2001. You will see also that there is a “miscellaneous” payment of $1,000.00 made in September of 2000 following receipt of a substantial amount fromWINZ funding. It is understood that this also was a payment to an individual who claimed to have a personal grievance.

    I am not an accountant (as will be obvious) but I believe there are sufficient genuine concerns raised here to warrant some investigation. These are community funds which were largely received from charitable donations which appear to have been siphoned off improperly.
    I should add that according to Kate Raue there was possibly legal advice given to the people running the Carterton Community Centre that they should not make personal greivance payments in the way that they did. This is another matter that may need to be looked into because it would make the payments even less appropriate if they were done contrary to legal advice.

    I appreciate the fact that earlier complaints may have been thought to be ill-founded or frivolous or for whatever reason were not properly investigated but I believe that there actually does exist hard evidence to suggest that a reopening of the investigation should be made with urgency. As I have said the Community Centre and its funds are currently subject to a High Court Application.

    If it is more convenient for you to do so I would be happy to act as a go-between between yourselves and Kate Raue so that I can request further details from her.
    Are you able to assist with what I believe is now a genuine complaint?
    Yours faithfully
    Ken Daniels

And:

There are also a number of other formal complaints regarding these matters, such as the letters to the Police and IPCA from Michael Appleby.

The only response from the Police has been a contemptuous insult to the intelligence!

Kate for Carterton

I'm Kate Raue and I am running for mayor of Carterton. Feel free to check this blog regularly to be updated on events in Carterton. At the end of each text there is a small section were you to can have your say by leaving a comment.

---------------------------------------

CANDIDATE PROFILE

CARTERTON MAYORALTY

KATE RAUE


I’m standing for Mayor because I see an opportunity to positively influence the future direction of our community.

I’ll work to facilitate business growth, social and economic development in Carterton, and work with the other Wairarapa Councils to implement a regional strategy to this effect. Clearly, an efficient and well-run Council will result in rates being utilised much more prudently and effectively.

There will be inquiries into the Carterton District Council’s involvement with the former Community Centre, Facility Focus Group, and information provided to the Council by individual members and employees of the Council.

I will ensure that we get an economically and socially sustainable Community Resource Centre.

For more information please contact me to arrange a meeting, I hold information that every voter should see, but unfortunately lack resources at the moment to make it widely available. I can fax documents to anyone who is interested. Phone 379 6894.

COURT ORDER SILENCES CORONER AND CONCEALS FARDELL SUICIDE FROM PUBLIC - Kiwisfirst exclusive:

27 August 2007 - Kiwisfirst.com
Late in July 2007 it was revealed that Auckland High Court Justice Paul Heath ruled last December - more than a year after Robert Fardell QC (right) fell to his death from the 15 metre high Takapuna Head cliffs into the rocky surf at high tide - that the Auckland Coroner's findings and the evidence into the bizarre circumstances of Fardell's death would be largely suppressed. This Court ruling by Heath J followed prominent barrister Harry Waalken QC obtaining a restraining order in July 2006 preventing the Coroner from releasing his written report while the family sought a judicial review designed to censure and obscure the Coroner's findings. Unfortunately for Waalken, the cat had already been let out of the bag at a special inquest conducted at the Auckland Coroner's Court in June 2006. This was when Auckland Coroner Dr. Murray Jamieson issued an oral report stating Mr. Fardell died from drowning, with the post-mortem examination revealing drowning was precipitated by massive injuries consistent with a fall immediately prior.

With foul play and suicide the likely scenarios facing police officers responding to report of a lifeless body on the rocks, foul play must reasonably be ruled out simply on the response of police that day finding a middle-age man unexpectedly dead. What is known is that the police and ambulance response to the call of a body found 6:30 pm 11 December 2005 as the tide receded was unusually brief for an untimely and, presumably, uncertain cause of death. Although Mr. Fardell was 52 years old and in good health at the time he died, neither cordoning of the scene nor forensic analysis in-situ was apparently conducted. The ambulance crew left shortly after inspecting the top of the cliff above where the body was found. Moreover, as Fardell was an extremely heavy-set man who additionally had to breach a fence to reach the edge of the cliff, it is highly unlikely that his fall could have been an accident or murder in this area active with people enjoying the early summer weekend.

Nonetheless, Barrister Waalken vehemently pressed the Coroner that suicide was not a finding the Coroner could legally make - or even mention. While the Coroner seemed ultimately prepared to delicately acquiesce to Waalken's demands, Waalken's subsequent legal motions that the Coroner permanently seal the evidence and his finding were rejected outright by the Coroner as incompatible with the fundamental precept of transparent proceedings and justice. It is this ruling by the Coroner that has now been overturned by Auckland High Court Justice Heath.

There has been some speculation, unproven, that Mr. Fardell had a life insurance policy, the death benefit from which may have been lost if the Coroner's findings indicated suicide. However, it is more likely for reasons that will become apparent deeper in this story that, given the tremendous media exposure to the death, concerns were heightened within the judiciary that allowing the circumstances of the death to be made public would only increase the public's curiosity as to what drove Fardell to such self-destruction. It was anticipated that attention into the deceased's sordid personal and professional life would then raise legitimate and troubling questions as to how such a person could reach the pinnacle of the legal profession and be next in line for a judicial appointment while those in authority had turned a blind eye to numerous disturbing complaints concerning his professional conduct for several years leading up to his death.

In the days immediately following his death, the New Zealand Herald ran front page stories claiming that Mr. Fardell died of a heart attack while swimming - irresponsible news reporting easily dispelled by facts that were immediately available to any reporter interested in accuracy. Other than the location of the body on rocks hundreds of meters from the nearest beach, Mr. Fardell was not dressed for a swim as he walked away from his house for the last time. The inquest officer assigned to the case said the body was found with shorts and no shoes but that his experience was "articles of clothing quickly get separated from the body in the water". And as any viewer of CSI can tell you, there are definitive forensic tests to quickly determine whether someone has suffered a fatal heart attack.

The inquest officer, Paul Herman of the Takapuna Police, immediately realized that he was in over his head on this investigation. The last person to talk to the deceased was Chris Morris, son of (now retired) High Court judge David Morris. Chris Morris admitted to Herman that he had come to Fardell's home this Sunday afternoon to discuss pending legal matters with the deceased but declined to grant a formal interview or provide further detail. Same with the widow. Also, as the press was widely reporting that ten High Court judges had attended the funeral, the estate hired Barrister Harry Waalken QC, widely regarded as a legal Houdini on medical cases, to advance the family's position on the death - and stymie the investigation. Faced with such powerful stonewalling Mr. Herman did not need to be a genius to identify that careers are made or lost on how someone might handle himself in an investigation where a litany of prominent lawyers and judges were not only expressing a keen interest in his approach to the investigation but were simultaneously speaking out effusively in the press about what a great man of integrity Mr. Fardell was.

Mr. Fardell undoubtedly had many fine qualities, but integrity was not one of them. It didn't help that Mr. Herman quite quickly uncovered this darker side to the man. Herman casually revealed to a private investigator early in his investigation that an Asian gang Fardell had a falling out with were phoning him in an attempt to gain information. Within a month Herman was also informed that Fardell was being sued in the Auckland High Court for deceptive practices by former clients Paragon Oil Systems Limited and Vince and Jane Siemer, and that an application detailing allegations that Fardell three times perjured himself had been filed and served less than two weeks before his death. Adding insult to a potentially career-killing injury for Fardell was the fact that Hugh Williams, a judge whom Fardell considered dim-witted and vain and, hence, was an irresistible butt of his jokes, was, as judge in the case, going out of his way to unduly protect Fardell. Fardell was a proud man whose career and legitimate standing among his peers meant everything to him. This graft from an unlikely ally whom he had been all too quick to dismiss as unprofessional was a tremendous blow to his ego as much as an inescapable symbol of poetic justice.

Yet another former client, New Zealand inventor Hugh Price, was also embroiled in a legal battle against Fardell before he died. Mr. Price had years earlier obtained a ruling from the Lay Observer that overruled the Law Society's dismissal of a formal complaint he had lodged against Mr. Fardell for deceptive practices and seeming incompetence. Despite this ruling of the Lay Observer, the Law Society refused to act on the complaint. Now, in December 2005, Mr. Price was again challenging Fardell in a current case for acting in a conflict of interest capacity.

Topping off all this was Fardell's close personal and business relationship with powerful Auckland insolvency practitioner Michael Stiassny, a relationship he would come to ruefully regret in the weeks before his death This was due in large part to (what Fardell was obviously convinced to be) an intentional release of information by his former friend that helped expose Fardell's legal scams. This information put Fardell's career at risk in addition to severely undermining his credibility. Whether this was the straw in the mountain of straw that broke the camel's back is difficult to say. However, given the significant betrayal by someone he had put so much trust in, it is not difficult to surmise this weighed heavily on Fardell as he solemnly walked to the precipice this otherwise sunny Sunday. Ironically, as Stiassny was trustee of the Fardell family trust (Delfar Holdings Limited) at the time of his death Fardell could not escape his clutches even in death.

In this pressure cooker where the powerful legal community's obituary contrasted so sharply with the unfolding facts of the man's real life, Officer Herman did the only thing he considered safe under the circumstances - he went to ground. As the Coroner's representative, Officer Herman was responsible for publicizing the public inquest. Despite the tremendous number of contacts he had received from media and financially interested parties, Officer Herman informed only the widow and Harry Waalken QC of the public inquest that he had hastily convened barely 2 months after the death.

Officer Herman would arrogantly respond later to those who felt slighted by his subterfuge regarding the public inquest that he was under no obligation to inform interested parties of the date or setting. This was simply untrue. The Coroner's Act 1988 specifically required him to notify in advance parties who may have an interest in the inquest. In the winter of 2006 Judge Borrin issued a ruling on behalf of the Police Complaints Authority of New Zealand stating Herman was derelict in his obligations under the Act. The Coroner had earlier been compelled to conduct a special inquest due to Herman's railroading of the public one.

The year 2006 saw significant changes in law for the Coroner's Office. The 1988 Act was repealed in favour of the Coroner's Act 2006, which was passed into law in August 2006, and the establishment of the Coronial Services of New Zealand was formed on 1 July 2007. Perhaps this chaos explains why the Coroner - having a year earlier been ready to issue his written inquest findings before a cease and desist order of the Court prevented him from doing so - released his report on 20 July 2007, seven months after Judge Heath finally gave him the approval to do so - sans the evidence and guts of the report. Perhaps the Coroner's delay was a demonstration of conscious indignation at the Court imposed coverup.

So it was that what started as a whitewash intended to be quickly disposed of in record time was eventually whitewashed by judicial order more than a year and a half after the fact. And when one reads the Coroner's brief final report, it is obvious that Mr. Waalken earned his substantial fees on this one. In legal speak, lawyers deceive by omission. This is obvious in this case when one reads the Coroner's two page report. This reporter's favorite line from that report is "No evidence was located to suggest that Mr. Fardell harboured any intention to commit suicide. Indeed, his work on forthcoming cases suggested to the contrary". It is as perverse as it is ironic that the Coroner could not write massive injuries from a fall directly contributed to the drowning but was encouraged to get into the highly speculative (let alone non-medical) realm of saying busy people do not have time to commit suicide. Read Coroner's censured report.

In obvious double-talk the new Coronial Services website states on its' front page, "The (new) Act was designed to enhance public confidence in the integrity and independence of the coronial system." All too sadly, the net result has proven the opposite true.

Corruption at the Community Law Centre:

The following are true copies of two documents which were signed, witnessed and sworn and submitted to Police and the Community Law Centre administrative committee as formal complaints following further corrupt bullying from the manager of the Masterton Community Law Centre, an ex Police officer named Murray Henderson.

Murray Henderson had an extraordinary 'meltdown' a few days ago in response to a simple request that he hand over some Police Disclosure which had been faxed to the Law Centre by the Police for a defendant to collect.

Here is a copy of the signed, sworn statement of Angus James Lennox Lindsay, the defendant refered to:

To Whom It May Concern:           

My name is Angus James Lennox Lindsay, of 59 Trelissick Crescent Ngaio.  My date of birth is 14.3.60.

I hereby swear that:

1.    I made an arrangement today with the Wellington Police Prosecutor’s office which involved the Police faxing disclosure of documents regarding the Court case I am involved in to the Wairarapa Community Law Centre in Masterton for me to uplift from there.

2.    I went into the Wairarapa Community Law Centre today to collect the documents and obtain other information, with my drivers license for identification, as arranged with the Police and the Law Centre beforehand.

3.    I explained my request to the receptionist and sat and waited as she requested me to.

4.    The manager of the Wairarapa Community Law Centre, Murray Henderson, then came and stood over me while I sat in the chair, jabbing his finger in my face.  He was rude, intimidating and abusive to me in response to my request, he demanded to know details of my involvement with Katherine Raue, and refused to hand over my documents.

5.    His manner was bullying, obstructive, angry and unreasonable.

6.     After 25 minutes, Kate Raue came into the Law Centre.  She walked through the front door and over to the wall facing the door and looked at the pamphlets there.

7.    Murray Henderson continued to question me about my business and Katherine Raue’s business, and intimidate me until I called out “Hi Kate” to Katherine Raue, and he turned around and realised it was her who was looking at the pamphlets.

8.    He then began to question and bully her instead of me, asking her “Who do you think you are, advocating for people?” “How dare you make arrangements to have those documents faxed here without my permission?” “What has his business got to do with you?” (indicating myself), etc.

9.    Kate said that she had just come in to collect a pamphlet regarding the Ombudsmen’s office, not to discuss my affairs.  She referred to me as Mr Lindsay, and under continued questioning and bullying from Mr Henderson she said that as she understood it “Mr Lindsay has made an arrangement with the Wellington police prosecution section to have his documents faxed here for him to collect,” and apart from helping him to write the letter, and driving him to the Law Centre, Mr Lindsay’s business was nothing to do with her which was why it was inappropriate for Mr Henderson to be discussing it with her, and that she had only come in to get a copy of the pamphlet regarding the Ombudsmen’s office, and asked him if he could give her the pamphlet because it did not appear to be included in the myriad of pamphlets available on display.

10.    Mr Henderson became extremely angry and intimidating, demanding she sit down and answer his questions regarding the matter of my information.  Katherine Raue sat down as ordered by Mr Henderson, she remained calm, polite and pleasant while Mr Henderson displayed rude and aggressive behaviour bordering on hysteria.

11.    He continued to rant and rave and went and got a piece of paper and wrote on it, then he came back and thrust the paper into Mrs Raue’s lap saying “This is all you’re going to get from me, now get out and take your mate with you because I am calling the police.” 

12.    I began to protest at this outrageous and unjust treatment, and ask for my documents, but Kate gently took my arm and steered me out the door.  I looked at the paper, it was a trespass notice.  We then went to the Masterton police station where we spoke to Sergeant Rix.

13.    He basically refused to do anything about Mr Henderson’s refusal to hand over my documents, and instead arranged for the Wellington police to fax them again, this time to the Masterton police station. 

14.    I said that I was not satisfied with this arrangement because for one thing it was a serious breach of Mr Henderson’s duties and a serious abuse of his position, and for another thing, the documents had been sent there for me to collect and were now in the unauthorised possession of Mr Henderson, and I wanted them handed over immediately.  I was becoming very upset and so was Mrs Raue.  Mrs Raue and I had to waste over three hours because of Mr Henderson’s outrageous behaviour.

15.    Sgt Rix said that Kate Raue would be arrested if she returned to the Law Centre because of the trespass notice, and that I should not go there either or I might be issued with a trespass notice too.

16.    Katherine Raue told Sgt Rix that Mr Henderson’s behaviour was an attempt to pervert the course of justice and that he had no right to possession of my documents, and if the police tried to arrest me for attempting to collect them as arranged it would be further perverting the course of justice and we would complain to the police complaints authority. 

17.    Mrs Raue told Sgt Rix that I intended to return to the Law Centre immediately and collect the documents I was entitled to while Mrs Raue waited in the foyer of the police station, and that if I did not return with them in ten minutes she and I would lay formal complaints of theft and threatening behaviour against Murray Henderson.

18.    She asked Sgt Rix to ring Mr Henderson immediately and make sure that he understood that he was not entitled to possession of my documents, he was withholding them unlawfully, and he was to hand them to me immediately.

19.    I then returned to the Law Centre to collect my documents.  Murray Henderson gave me the attached page and ordered me to sign it.  I refused to sign it as it contained an incorrect statement.

20.    The documents were faxed to the Law Centre at my request not at the request of Katherine Raue, as Mrs Raue and I had already told him repeatedly. 

21.    Mr Henderson refused to amend the document and again refused to give me my documents.

22.    I told him to give me my documents or I would call the police and charge him with theft and perverting the course of justice.

23.    He eventually handed my documents over and then I returned to the police station to collect Mrs Raue.

24.    I wish to make a formal complaint against Murray Henderson regarding this matter, and hereby authorise Katherine Raue to act as my agent regarding this formal complaint.

Signed: _______________________

Angus James Lennox Lindsay                17 May 2007

__________________________________________________

And here is a copy of the second signed sworn document handed to Police and Mr Southey of the Law Centre administrative committee:

Moreton Road

R D 2

Carterton

17 May 2007

To Whom It May Concern:

Mr Angus James Lennox Lindsay and I wish to lodge a formal complaint regarding the ‘service’ received at the Wairarapa Community Law Centre today, from Murray Henderson the manager.

Mr Lindsay approached me for some assistance with obtaining information from the Police disclosed with regard to some charges Mr Lindsay is facing in Court. Evidently he has appeared twice already and is expected to plead at his next appearance in about two weeks time, but he has not seen a summary of facts or anything, and cannot find the summons.

Mr Lindsay does not have a solicitor acting for him as yet, he is concerned at the potential cost of legal representation and he says he is unsure of the exact nature of the charges. Mr Lindsay has an illness which affects his ability to communicate with people sometimes, which he finds stressful, which can sometimes exacerbate this condition. Mr Lindsay asked me to help him write a letter to the Prosecution Section of the Wellington Police requesting that information such as that normally disclosed and a copy of the summons be provided to him, that letter is attached “A”.

We rang the Prosecution Section to confirm that they had received the fax, they were very helpful and co-operative and agreed to fax the material to the Wairarapa Community Law Centre according to Mr Lindsay’s request, and promptly did so, on the understanding that Mr Lindsay would collect it from the Community Law Centre, producing his drivers license as confirmation of his identity.

Out of courtesy I rang the Wairarapa Community Law Centre for Mr Lindsay as asked, to advise them of this arrangement. By the time I got through to their phone the fax from the police had already arrived. I recognised the voice of Murray Henderson, who has been obstructive and unco-operative to me in the past regarding other matters. He had seen my name on the letter from Mr Lindsay to the Wellington Police and immediately started asking questions about what Mr Lindsay’s business had to do with me, so I said it had nothing to do with me except that Mr Lindsay had asked me to call and advise the Wairarapa Community Law Centre of the arrangement out of courtesty, and that he was on his way to collect the documents. 

I was extremely courteous and polite to Mr Henderson, who then said that he would not be providing the material to Mr Lindsay, and when I asked him why not, he said “Because I’m sick of you giving people legal advice.” I said that I don’t and I never have, I just help them to access information, and facilitate communication to empower them to make up their own minds about things, and help themselves using public resources. 

Mr Henderson reiterated that “We won’t be giving Mr Lindsay his documents.” I asked why, Mr Henderson said “Because I’m sick of you using the Law Centre like this.” I said “Like what?” He replied “If you come in here I’ll give you a trespass notice.”

Mr Lindsay went alone to the Wairarapa Community Law Centre to collect the material, and produced his license and asked politely for the documents. Mr Henderson refused to give them to him, told him to sit down, and began questioning Mr Lindsay about who was representing him in Court, what my role in the matter was (“You tell me what this has got to do with Kate Raue” being one of several such comments we both heard), why Mr Lindsay wanted the disclosure material, why he didn’t have a lawyer, why he hadn’t made other arrangements regarding the disclosure (because Mr Lindsay wished to collect the information from the Law Centre so that he could collect or access other legal information regarding the charges from the same place), why Mr Lindsay hadn’t asked Mr Henderson’s permission before making arrangements with the Wellington Police, etc, etc. He demanded Mr Lindsay sit down (Mr Lindsay is rather imposing and Mr Henderson isn’t) then stood over him jabbing at him with his finger and interrogating him in a bullying, intimidating manner.
 
After I had done a few errands and Mr Lindsay had still not returned from the Community Law Centre 25 minutes later, I went into the Centre to collect some information regarding the Ombudsmen’s office.

Mr Lindsay was sitting in a chair with Mr Henderson standing over him, jabbing at him with his finger in an intimidating manner, shouting at him and asking him a whole lot of questions that I thought were none of his business, such as “You tell me what Kate Raue said to you!” I ignored this and began looking at the display of pamphlets. Mr Henderson had his back to the door and did not immediately see that I had walked in the door, until Mr Lindsay called out “Hi Kate” after a few more questions of this bullying interrogation from Mr Henderson.

Mr Henderson then turned on me with his jabbing finger and cross-examinations, demanding that I sit sown and answer similar questions to those he had apparently been asking Mr Lindsay for over 25 minutes.

I explained that I understood Mr Lindsay had come in to pick up some documents, faxed to the Law Centre by the Wellington Police, and that it really had nothing to do with me apart from helping to facilitate communication between Mr Lindsay and the Wellington Police by helping him type the letter, and that I had just come in to pick up some information regarding the Office of the Ombudsmen.

I offered to help facilitate communication between Mr Lindsay and the Community Law Centre if there was a problem, but it was quite clear, it was a simple straightforward matter of just giving Mr Lindsay his documents without harassing him any longer, as he was becoming quite upset and frustrated at this grossly unfair treatment, which had been going on for quite a long time by now and was completely unnecessary.

Mr Henderson served me with a trespass notice instead of providing me with the pamphlet about the Ombudsmen which I went into the Centre to get, and I would like the notice revoked please as it seriously limits my access to vital community resources. The notice is completely unwarranted, there has never been anything whatsoever wrong with my behaviour or manner when I have gone to the Wairarapa Community Law Centre. Mr Henderson’s attitude to the law, and his role in the administration of the law in the community was demonstrated by a letter he wrote to the editor of the local paper about his dog, which many people found quite disturbing.

When Mr Lindsay and I went to the Masterton Police Station we were told that Mr Henderson had told the Police that he had behaved in such a disgraceful manner because he thought I had told the Police that I worked for the Wairarapa Community Law Centre. This is utter rubbish. I told him the first time he made the accusation to me that I had certainly never said any such thing, it is a figment of his imagination.

Attached “B” is a letter which Mr Henderson tried to force Mr Lindsay to sign when he was finally given the material. I take strong exception to this statement and so does Mr Lindsay, who said so at the time he was forced to sign it in order to obtain his documents. The information was faxed to the Community Law Centre at Mr Lindsay’s request, the letter to the Police makes that quite clear, and Murray Henderson should apologise for this extraordinary letter.

I simply went to get a pamphlet about the Ombudsmen, Mr Lindsay went to pick up his papers, it is absolutely outrageous that we had to waste all afternoon because of Mr Henderson’s spiteful petty attitude and we would both like an apology as soon as possible and an urgent review of this matter and the tenure of Mr Henderson’s appointment.

Yours sincerely

Katherine Raue __________________

I have read the above account of the facts and swear this is a true and correct account of what happened.

Angus Lindsay _____________________