Rodney Hide turned the first sod yesterday on Dave Henderson’s development “5 Mile“, which coincidentally is five miles from the centre of Queenstown.

A few years ago, novice ACT MP, Rodney Hide met Dave Henderson and offered to help him get justice and a $65,000 GST refund from the Inland Revenue Department.

Dave was driven into bankruptcy after IRD furnished him with a bogus bill for nearly a million dollars after he had applied for his legitimate refund.

Rodney and Dave working together, turned a hopeless situation around, got the $65,000 plus an enquiry into the IRD.

Now Dave Henderson is about to build a whole new town in the most creative development this country has ever seen.

Now ACT leader, Rodney Hide is using his political skills so New Zealand can become a place where more of us can do what Dave Henderson has done. Turn our dreams into realities.

A great partnership and a truly inspirational story.


Author: Admin

Related Articles

17 thoughts on “Inspirational

  1. Good point anon. I think South africa is doomed as far as maintaining a stable and prosperous society is concerned. New Zealand should try to gain as many SA immigrants as possible.

  2. SA will be the next Zim. There will be a forced exodus of non-black Africans from SA. Most of those people will end up in Australasia as they won’t be allowed into teh US, and won’t be able to afford Europe. Western Australia has the capacity to accommodate the whole 3-4 million, and so NZ’s opportunity exists to actively encourage them here. With the help of those we have resettled already, we should be able to lure 250-500k of them here, which will obviuosly cause some infrastructural problems, none of which cannot be overcome. NZ will be a richer society for the policy changes required to entice these immigrants. It can be argued these immigrants have more to offer NZ than some of the immigrants we are currently accepting, with a lot less of the social consequences.

  3. I doubt any but the extreme left, will share your views on Mugabe anon. Shows your callous side I think.

    Time will tell on SA anon. I’ll be posting a bit on the SA revolution as it unfolds-I’m profiling Ronnie Kasrils next-he’s a real sweetheart.

    Let’s just see who’s right in the end eh? For the sake of South Africa, I hope its not me.

  4. I think anything, even Mugabe, is preferable to what Smith represented. Mussollini gave the people bread and made the trains run on time too. I recall that even under Smith large numbers of people suffered hunger, because Smith used famine as a weapon against areas which supported the opposition to white rule.

    But you continue to use the word ‘democratic’ in apostrophes when you discuss South Africa. Do you not accept that South Africa is today a democratic society? It has been more than a decade since the end of apartheid and there is no sign of gulags or the like. By contrast, Mugabe was wiping out hundreds if not thousands of his opponents – supporters of Nkomo – within a couple of years of coming to power. How long will it take for you to accept that you and other supporters of apartheid as a bulwark against communism were wrong, and that the ANC is not about to create a one part state? Another decade? Obviously dogma dies hard.

  5. Anon, while non white South Africans do enjoy the vote and freedom of movement etc (which is a good thing), in economic terms the majority are worse off now. John Minto has made this assertion on several occasions

    Had the ANC/SACP not come to power, Apartheid would probably be long gone by now anyway. Its peak was in the’60s (it was only introduced in the ’40s, largely at the behest of the white unions) By the ’70s it was starting to crumble. Had the ANC/SACP not intervened with their violence and terror, SA would today be a much freer and more prosperous place for all races.

    The analogy I draw here is with Zimbabwe. Rhodesia was in many ways similar to SA. After Marxist-Leninist Mugabe first came to power he was comparitively moderate for some years.

    Then eventually things deterioriated and the thuggery escalated.

    Answer my question for a change anon. Would you say that blacks (who still have a near meaningless vote in Zimbabwe) are better off under Ian Smith or Robert Mugabe?
    Had Mugabe not come to power, might they not still be living in the “bread basket” of Africa.

    My point is that South Africa under the ANC/SACP is on the Zimbabwe road, where any “democratic” gains will be wiped out by the coming dictatorship. What do you think anon?

  6. You’re still dodging the question, Trevor: do you think South Africans are better off now, with the right to vote and other basic human rights, than they were under apartheid, which even you have characterised as fascism? Your obsession with opposing the left stops you from appreciating what the vast majority of South Africans experience as a daily reality. I think many Act members will be disconcerted by your inability to appreciate that South Africa is far better off under the ANC than it was under apartheid.

  7. As I said anon, if you have some beef with Dave H, take it up with him. I have no problem with him, or anything I know of his past political activities.

    Re me and Don Franks. ‘It should have been very clear at the time [ie in 1981] however that the ANC and consequently the SACP would be the only force likely to replace an Apartheid government.

    The context here made it clear that we were talking about “left wing” alternatives.

    Don was actually absolving himself of responsibility for the poor state South African blacks now live in, because he had backed the heroic Maoists, not the dirty sellout ANC/SACP.

    I was taking him to task because any “revolutionary” change in SA at would only have been achieved by the much more powerful ANC/SACP.
    A fact he should have understood.

    You seen to be unable to grasp anon, that support for pro freedom forces in SA against the ANC/SACP does not equate to support for Apartheid.

    I have no difficulty with this concept.

    Perhaps you shoud think about it for a bit.

  8. Dave Henderson was involved in a number of solidarity exercises with the apartheid regime in the 1980s. For instance, he organised letters of support to the country’s nearest embassy in an effort to show not all New Zealanders were anti-apartheid. This is a matter of record – see for instance Paul Spoonley’s book on the far right in this country.

    Trevor has answered ‘So what?’ to the claim that Henderson showed this sort of solidarity, adding ‘I supported South Africa in the 80s’. In the context of the discussion this sounds like a statement of support for the apartheid regime as a lesser evil than an ANC government. It sounds like Trevor would go for apartheid if it came down to a choice – and in his reply to Don Franks he did suggest that the choice was that simple:

    ‘It should have been very clear at the time [ie in 1981] however that the ANC and consequently the SACP would be the only force likely to replace an Apartheid government.

    If Don and the WCL did not understand this, I would question his/their judgement and political nous.’

    Well, Trevor, seeing as you presumably regard yourself as a person of nous, which side would you choose? Where did your sympathies lie in 1981? Would you rather see the ANC-SACP government we have today, or apartheid?

    It’d be reassuring if Trevor could confirm that he thinks that the achievement of democracy and human rights after the transition from apartheid to majority rule in South Africa was a massive step forward, and that the non-white majority is much better off today than it was under apartheid, whatever Trevor’s fears for the future are. The simple fact that is in the here and now most South Africans have rights they would never have dreamed of under apartheid. The difference is one of night and day. Surely the Act Party, which purports to stand for democratic liberties and against the police state, can appreciate the importance of the rights South Africans have won?

    What do you say, Trevor?

  9. Are you a bit slow anon-did i not say i did not support the Apartheid regime.

    South Africa is on the way down the Zimbabwe Road. It’s future is not pleasant.

    I have said this about 15 times now, but I’ll say it again for the benefit of not too bright anonymous posters.

    South Africa had many options in the ’80s Apartheid socialism, ANC/SACP socialism, limited constitutional non racial government to name three. I supported the latter option and still do.

    South Africa under the ANC/SACP is headed for disaster. Those socialists, here and abroad who helped bring this about should hang their empty heads in shame.

  10. Ah, I see, Botha was, like Pinochet and Somoza presumably, ‘our bastard’ and had to be supported as a bulwark against communism, ie majority rule.

    Now that South Africa has become a multiracial democracy, do you not accept you were wrong to support the apartheid government as preferable to the ANC? Do you not think most South Africans are better off now that they have human rights apartheid denied them, like the right to vote and the right to move freely about their own country?

  11. Anon I supported South Africa in the 80s. I did it because I opposed the ANC/SACP, not because I had any sympathy for Apartheid.

    I hoped Buthelezi of the Inkatha freedom Party would become South Africa’s leader.

    I have known Dave for 30 years. He was a libertarian when I met him and helped turn me from a conservative into a libertarian in the mid ’90s.

    Maybe Dave supported South Africa, but even if he did, so what.

    No libertarian I’ve ever met supported Apartheid. people supported South Africa at that time for many reasons. I’m proud i did and would do so again.

    If Dave did so (and I have no knowledge on the subject) maybe you should ask him yourself about his motives, because I certainly have no right to speak on his behalf.

    It’s a bit poor for someone hiding behind anonymity to attempt to slander a good man based solely on your interpretations of his motives.

    Post your name my brave man and stand by your accusations

  12. Why the obsessive interest in the past enthusiasms of your opponents on the left, in the effort to find unsavoury associations like support for authoritarian regimes, but the lack of interest in the readily accessible evidence for Dave Henderson’s active support for a regime which you yourself have characterised as fascist?

  13. I’m denying nothing anon. I never speak for other people. Dave’s a big enough boy to look after himself.

    Don’t put words in my mouth anon. You’ve equated Stalinism and Apartheid, not me.

    If everybody’s past is open to scrutiny anon, why are you posting anonymously?

  14. So you’re denying that Dave Henderson was involved in solidarity campaigns with South Africa in the early 1980s?

    You have characterised apartheid South Africa as fascist, and therefore in your book as bad as Stalin’s Soviet Union. You regularly castigate leftists who allegedly have a history of apologising for Stalin; why is Dave Henderson’s past not afforded the same scrutiny?

  15. Pity about Dave Henderson’s record as a supporter of the South African regime in
    1981 and numerous other loony causes like the neo-fascist League of Rights, as documented in Paul Spoonley’s book on the far right. Not quite in line with the battling underdog image, is it?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *