(From previous page)

• they would "not have time to read them all;
• there would be "insufficient room at a subsequent Hearing to accommodate those wishing to attend";
• the Submissions "would all be repetitive".

These comments are frivolous and too flimsy to be taken seriously for they indicate that Petitions of less magnitude and signature content would qualify for the calling and hearing of Submissions.

For the information of those to whom this letter will be copied I outline the following extract from The Guidelines for Chairmen of Select Committees 1987: -

"It is usual practice for Select Committees to call for public Submissions in issues being considered but this practice is not mandatory, Committees decide whether they wish to seek Submissions, and if so, whether comprehensively, by advertising, selectively, by invitation or by a combination of methods.

"It is also usual practice for Witnesses to present Submissions or other evidence in written form and to indicate whether they wish to present their case to the Committee in person. Committees may, however, decide what evidence they want to hear: For example, they could hear: -

• all the witnesses wishing to present oral evidence;
• some of the witnesses wishing to present oral evidence;
• any of the witnesses who have presented written evidence only;
• witnesses who have not submitted any evidence."

This is spinechilling reading for those who still cling to the belief that democracy exists in New Zealand for it illuminates how issues can be manipulated against Petitioners. Further, it will be the deathknell of the illusion held by many trusting citizens who have prepared their Submissions in good faith in the belief that justice and impartiality exists.

(Continued next page)