Failed property developer Dave Henderson describes himself as a ‘libertarian’ but even his fellow libertarians are against the property deal he made with Mayor Sideshow Bob Parker and his council lackeys.

Mark Hubbard, a Christchurch accountant, writes on Lindsay Perigo’s Solo passion website:

‘Mayor Parker, once again you have allowed my money to go to your head…It is not the business of Christchurch City Council to use ratepayer money for private sector property development, and certainly not to bail out private sector developers. You had no mandate to purchase buildings from Dave Henderson.‘

He goes on to say:

“Rates money is other people’s money, not your own. Christchurch is not your fiefdom. If you want to set up Empire Parker, then do it in the private sector on the risk of your own capital, not on mine.’

Hubbard also makes the point that the council paid too much for the properties and that Henderson’s claim that he sold the properties for ‘less than book value’ means nothing in a depressed property market.

Mark Hubbard concludes:

“Flower shows, commercial property development — what next? Tell you what, why doesn't the Council buy my house, for a ridiculous price?’


  1. Please note my beef is with the CCC, which is out of control. I 'surmised' this was a too high a price, otherwise if such a bargain, then a private enterprise firm would have purchased for the price? But my point was always the principle: Council should not be using my rate money for activities that should fall only within the purview of the private sector.

    The publishing of my comments alongside the picture of Parker, here, with the girl is a misrepresentation: I don't care what Parker does in his private life (and my understanding is this picture is a beat up by bigoted conservatives): I just am sick of Local and Central governments taking my money and using it toward aims and goals that are philosophically anathema to me. End.

  2. Conspicuously, but for obvious reasons, Mark Hubbard (above) does not wish to be drawn into the topic of what he thinks of Dave Henderson's behaviour here. Is it consistent with his and Henderson's espoused libertarian beliefs?

  3. Apt that the Merriam-Webster's definition of 'nefarious' is simply stated: 'evil'.

    I have never met Dave Henderson, nor do I know him in any capacity other than what I have read in the media. What he 'labels' himself as is of no consequence to me, just as he is of no consequence to me. Rightly, I leave him to argue his own case, and conscience, I only seek to argue mine - where either of us conduct such arguments publicly, we can then be judged according to our own words. Words you have no right nor authority to be 'putting up' as if from my mouth, according to whatever conspiracy fed paranoia you are afflicted with.

    My argument is that the CCC has taken my rates money, and applied it towards ends I am philosophically, implacably opposed to, and have given no mandate for. I fail to see how this is anything other than theft. Further, there is only the single party which has a policy of taking the teeth from a Local Government sector that has grown such a voracious appetite for other people's money, and then mis-using same: Libertarianz.

  4. Mark, somehow I knew that "end" would not really mean just that, from you. I note you have not used it this time. ;) Take it from me, Henderson very much regards himself as being of the same beliefs as you, and has spent many years establishing that image for himself (when it suits).

    As to "conspiracy theories", isn't it funny how the biggest examples of corruption and graft usually start out being disregarded as "paranoia".

    (btw: I have not "quoted you" - take that up with the owner of this blog)

  5. Now that I have Council's internal report in my hands (prepared by CEO Marryatt), I find this very telling paragraph:

    12. Discussions have been undertaken with Mr Henderson on how Council could:
    (i) purchase all or some of the property that is offered for sale.
    (ii) obtain all the intellectual property (concepts, plans, consents) contained for each of the sites.
    (iii) keep Mr Henderson involved in the revitalisation of the Central City. This was felt as being important because Mr Henderson shares Council’s commitment to the establishment of quality, high density urban residential development.

    Dave Henderson is motivated by one thing, and all the spin in the world will never change that. He is motivated by making money.

    As can be see, this is 100% a bail-out, just to keep him in business, and in bed with Parker et al.

  6. Again, whether Henderson believes the same as me is not something I cannot comment on: I don't know the man, nor have I taken the time to read his words.

    But can we agree then, regarding your comments on 'graft and corruption', that Libertarianz is the only party that can offer a solution for that, namely by taking politicians out of positions where they have the ability to interfere with business and the private sector, such as evidenced by this debacle? And, looking at your post directly above, by giving Local and Central Government no access to ill-begotten funds.

    And I have to point out Mr Evil, no problem with 'making money', just with 'taking money'. My standard of living is dependent on the former, as is your own, but destroyed by the latter.

    Um ... yes, if those are the terms, then a bail out, consistent with my original release.

  7. Typo: Again, whether Henderson believes the same as me is something I cannot comment on ...

  8. we can certainly agree that it's a good idea to be "taking politicians out of positions where they have the ability to interfere with business and the private sector, such as evidenced by this debacle"

    that's as good as it gets ;)

  9. Dave Henderson is not a Libertarian, even though he does try to convince us (and, to please poor old Rodney Hide) that he is. He is (or was) a member of ZAP, which is quite different and not something you would want to consider, being a caring member of society . A Libertarian would not have gone along with the Council in this corrupt scheme. He has had more failed companies than most of us have had "hot dinners", and yet he still continues popping up, as bright as ever. Hanover, obviously, did not look into his past before they risked their investors funds with him. They should be prosecuted for being so lax. He got a lot of sympathy from the public with regards to fighting the IRD, but the public wouldn't have been so thrilled if they were aware of the true story and not the fabrication of lies that he wrote in his book. He ripped off the taxpayer for hundreds of thousands that never came to light. He will do the same again, if he gets the chance, when he sells these properties to the Council, and all into his own pocket. There will be many losers, the creditors, the ratepayers and the taxpayers. Guess who will still be leading the highlife ??…..AND HE WILL BE BACK, like he always has in the past 20+ years. Wish I could say more, but I am governed by the Official Secrecy Act, and I am treading on thin ice now. Chancery Lane is still on the Agenda. As for Bob Parker, words fail me, and if I could come up with some they would be unpublishable.

  10. Um, Morse.... I realise that you are trying to portray yourself as 'someone on the inside' or 'someone who really knows the full story', but you lose a little credibility when you say that you can't say more because you are governed by the "Official Secrecy Act". This makes you sound a bit like a wingnut - The 'Official Secrets Act' hasn't existed since the early 80's.

  11. "Mr", I think it is obvious that the poster "Morse" does have rather a lot more information than Jo-Average, so, rather than attack him on what is very likely a typo, let's just assume that he means the Privacy Act, and move on.

    I've made worse inadvertant errors in life, and I'm sure that you have too.

  12. "(iii) keep Mr Henderson involved in the revitalisation of the Central City. This was felt as being important because Mr Henderson shares Council’s commitment to the establishment of quality, high density urban residential development."

    What role Mr Henderson: what of the architects and other professionals?

  13. In reply to “Mr” I do apologise. When I first joined the Public Service in the 1980’s, it was called the “ Official Information Act 1982”. Yes, Nefarious 2000, (many thanks) it was a typo………. in the heat of the moment I mistakenly used “Secrecy” (been watching too many James Bond movies, I think!!), instead of “Information“ .. must have got a bit carried away. O.K., I agree that it has been superceded. I think the “Privacy Act” came into force in 1993, so perhaps “Mr” is wrong on that score of stating 1980's, but WHO CAN KEEP UP WITH GOVERNMENT LEGISTLATION? But, I do stand to be corrected, if wrong. No bullshit here mate !!

  14. "I think the “Privacy Act” came into force in 1993, so perhaps “Mr” is wrong on that score of stating 1980's"

    Nope. I said that the Official Secrets Act hasn't existed since the early 80's. The Official Information Act 1982 repealed the Official Secrets Act 1951.

    You'll excuse me if I don't take you to be the powerhouse of inside knowledge that Nefarious takes you for.

    I'm also against people putting the boot into private citizens anonomously saying things along the lines of "XYZ is a scumbag, I know the inside story, nudge nudge, can't say too much on account of my inside government knowledge".

  15. im amazed with hubbards rational. Surely if you want to criticise the council then you shuold also discuss the behavior of a so called fellow libertarian. You should see the larger picture as henderson has behaved dispicably but i didnt really expect you to criticise him because he is considered a businessman and until now has gained fund only from the private sector. The problem with you libertarians is that your political theory is rubbish and wil never work. I am under the impression the only role of government is to protect life and property and that is the basis for your theory. There are some fundamental problems in that we need rules as and regulations to make society work. One obvios problem with your theory is that we need rules to govern which side of the road to drive on otherwise we will have anarchy. i had this conversation with trevor loudon and he believed we dont need rules that in his libertarian world people are rational. This is garbage and thats why we have a police force and i dont believe you in every circumstance act as a proper libertarian does because it is not possible and that is why you are no different than a communist and you espouse a theory that is a load of nonsense and that is why you cant bring yourself to criticise henderson. You wont criticise him because he is not part of a bureaucracy and people of your ilk prefer to criticise bureauracies and ignore human failings. This also is the rational behind you not caring what parker does in his private life. You only criticise the part associated with his bureaucratic life. People need to be accountable for their actions at all times and this is another failing of so called libertarians. I agree with yor comment about the parker picture but think you should stick to discussing the topic and not descend into comments about what nefarious means, as this is irrelevant and is only a name. We dont live in a society where you have a vote towards every decision the city council or government make and to do such would be impractiicle and that is why we have representative democracy. In order for you to have such a society would in itself create more bureauracracy and this is another example of how libertarainism as a theory wont work because we live in a society which is complicated and needs private and public to function. Your libertarian theory would only work in a simple society.


Comments are moderated.