page 2

Statement for the Defence

Tenant's Protection Member Presents his Case

Since our arrest, what we, the six members of TPA and Colleen Andrews together have done, has received much attention in the media. Much of this attention, however, has centred on the public criticisms of our actions levelled by the highest of government officials, the Prime Minister himself, and our own reactions to them.

The Prime Minister in statements shrouded with innuendo has attempted to discredit what we did, and to impugn our motives. In a statement published by The Dominion, on the morning of June 18, he characterised our activities in Woburn as "illegal", and "busybody"; he has openly and cynically suggested that our motives were self-seeking, that the whole affair was arranged and staged — in short a publicity stunt. One week later he said:

"Wellington Tenants Protection Association does not have as its prime purpose the protection of tenants. Instead it has as its purpose the exploitation of the tenants needs for the publicity purposes of the Wellington Tenants Association."

We have been tried publically and out of Court by the Prime Minister; he declared us guilty even before our pleas were entered.

The problem of contempt of Court notwithstanding, Mr Kirk also claimed in his earlier statement that he had "made immediate and searching enquiries to establish the facts," which were, according to the Prime Minister the following:

"The flat concerned was not unlet on Friday of last week. The new tenant had paid the rent and had taken up the tenancy. He was to move in at the first opportunity, which was Monday morning. The tenant was a married man, with two children, a fact I believe the TPA should have known. The tenant went to the flat and found his home in the illegal possession of the busybody TPA. He went at once to State Advances who advised him, since he was legally the occupant, and the occupation by the squatters was illegal, to refer the matter to the Police. The rest of course, we have seen on the TV screen."

But frankly, Mr Kirk's version of the truth confuses us. Never during our occupation of the flat were we approached by anyone claiming to be "the rightful tenant" — a fact now confirmed by the new tenants. In fact it was State Advances who called the Police and pressed the charges, as stated in the Police report. Furthermore, it was only in the few minutes preceding our arrest that we were officially informed for the first time that the flat concerned had been let, and then, according to the Constable, to a solo mother with two children. It was never our intention to deny this parent and her children a home.

As it was, as often as TPA and Colleen had spoken to SAC regarding this particular property, the answer had been either that it was unsuitable for human habitation or that it did not exist. Even then, we were perfectly willing to leave. Our only request was that State Advances provide an assurance that they would rehouse Colleen. We informed the constable of this. His response — "This is none of our concern".

Let us repeat, we had no desire to deny this flat to its rightful tenant. We just were not prepared to forsake Colleen and the justice of her cause. These are the facts as we know them, which differ somewhat from Kirk's prejudicial and incomplete version.

Colleen Andrews acted out of desperation; the rest of out of conscience and moral conviction, concern and anguish over the needless human suffering of Colleen and others like her — a direct result of the inept, callous, bureaucratic ways in which State Advances sometimes handles their applicants. As recently as yesterday — June 27 — Basil Rowe of SAC has given us to understand that:

"Mrs Andrews is not regarded by the Allocation Committee to be so urgent a case as a lot of others...Her case is quite a way off the top of the list."

Norman Kirk in a warning to Denis O'Reilly and TPA has cautioned:

"The law required everyone to respect property..."

Our response is, Why does not the Law Require us to Value Human Beings Over Property?

Mr Walding, Associate Minister of Foreign Affairs has been posing similar questions of late. In Palmerston North last Saturday night, after describing the harsh and painful facts of life for two thirds of human kind, he remarked;

"These are figures we can all understand, our consciences should not be confined to the geographical boundaries of the country we live in."

He was asking New Zealanders to act responsibly and morally, with some sense of conscience and compassion towards the masses of humanity who do not have. Who do not have homes, enough food or clothing, medicine or jobs we say Morality and Conscience not only Abroad but Also at Home.

We question the moral consistency of a government which on the one hand, preaches the importance of acting on moral convictions and conscience, while on the other hand as we have seen in our own case denies its need at the local level. We question the honesty of a government which commend to its citizens a certain standard of behaviour, but which publicly condemns and punishes them when they so act.