Anticorruptionnz's Blog


Secret trusts and Auckland council

Filed under: Uncategorized — anticorruptionnz @ 3:32 pm

shhhHot topic of the week    .. secret trusts.

One such trust   is the New Auckland council  Trust   the other   the Animal Welfare institute of New Zealand  ( AWINZ )

These both have a lot in common .. they are totally invisible . All it takes  for one to exist  is for someone to  say it exists …no evidence required and that’s it  trust exists. It also  helps to have a lawyer  confirm  it  as we all know that  a law degree makes  any  one honest.

the Lack of evidence  is a difficult concept  for a Private Investigator   such as  myself to grasp  as we look  for evidence  and  these secret trusts provide no evidence at all , they are nothing but hot  air .

If some one  said they received a donation from  molly the cat   we   would  say  sure   pull the other one   but if they say  got the money   from a  trust  we all   say    that’s OK  wont pry any further  . the reality is that the cat is  more real   than the trust    but what they both have in common is  the need for a human interface to be able to make transactions.

Molly the cat cant buy her own cat food   and an trust cant   function without humans. Molly has the advantage of being able to get out and catch her own food  but a trust  cant even exist until it is created by  people.  The reality is  that these secret trusts are noting more than an invisibility cloak .

I  relate back to a  story which goes back to the time of Plato  , it about a shepherd who  after adverse  weather conditions  finds that  the land has collapsed in one of the fields where he grazed his  flock and there is now  a cave. He enters it  and sees the skeleton of  a man beside  a  skeleton of a horse.  He notices that the man has a ring on his finger.  Figuring that the man has no further use of it  the shepherd helps himself to the deceased’s ring and  slips it on his finger .

He returns  to his shepherdly duties  and that evening as usual joins the other shepherds around the fire.   He  notices that they are talking about  him as though he was not there  . He soon discovers that the ring  gives him the power of invisibility .   To cut a long story short ( and depending on the version of the story )    the shepherd   uses the powers of the ring  to  seduce the queen  and kill the  King  there by   getting great powers.

the moral of the story is .. who when given the power of invisibility  will not use it for a corrupt purpose ?

I guess  that question remains     so give   people the power of invisibility   e.g. a secret trust   and  what can you expect.

AWINZ was so secret  that even Maf ( Now MPI )   who gave it  coercive law enforcement powers  didn’t even know   who  it was.  The trustees who were supposed to be  the law enforcement authority    didn’t   know either  and   not one of them had signed a document  stating that they were a trustee of a secret trust which was seeking law enforcement powers.   Through the magic of these secret trust  this trust  formed 1.3.2000  was able to make an application on 22 November 1999 .

But for  7 1/2 years  on the say so of a lawyer ( for that is all it takes ) AWINZ has been able  to  carry out  feats which  would be impossible and illogical for   any legal person  to perform. Because when you are invisible   you can move through time frames  forward and back ward and materialize as what ever you need to be at any given time. We accept such bullshit in our courts  and that is why  we have no corruption in New Zealand. Evidence is immaterial  all you need  is a lawyer with a good reputation  and an invisible trust and this will outweigh  thousands of pages of government  business records.

And so we come to the New Auckland council  Trust, you will not find  it on any register,  no one has seen a trust deed, we do not know who the trustees are , who the beneficiaries are   or what the purpose of  the trust is, its purpose may as well  state  to pervert the course of justice,  but   we will never  know  and if the document  has to be produced  we  simply draft a new one and  back date it  to what ever date required.

All we know  is that the New Auckland council  Trust appears on  Len Browns election return and according to  news paper reports in 2010 it also appeared on his return in 2010 and that it has  money  lots of  it  as its given away 3/4/ million  dollars to Len alone.

Such  secret trusts are a great vehicle  for  tax evasion and money laundering  but that is  another story.

To find all the council  candidate   returns   use this link    this is the link to Len Brown’s return 

I was at the meeting yesterday and heard that  Len Brown had had  input  into  the   Ernst and young   “independent review commissioned by the Auckland Council   “ Brown was able to set the parameters of the investigation  and also had a chance to see  what was going to be in the report   before it was released.  In the meeting   it came through that there  were portions withheld  due to the treat of  legal action .

If only  every criminal  or person   involved in   any employment  matter had such luxury    then we would seldom have convictions.

Now  a few observations about the report.

Ernst and young are not  investigators  and are not legally able to investigate  into the actions or background of a person without breaching the  Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Act 2010.

They are auditors.They can go  through all the information given to them  by  Auckland council  but they have no legal ability to go to the various hotels and inquire as to Mr Browns actions  in his own time, they can however make inquiries  with regards to  particular positions  in council .

I also notice that Ernst and Young  ( a global company )  does not  divulge which   of   its many thousands of  employees were involved in the  investigation.   We do know that Ernst and young work closely with the Mayor  having only just completed a  review for  him on public private relationships.Public-private partnerships an option for Auckland

Now  when it comes to public private relationships, which the mayor favours,  who would   be the ones closes to the trough, could it be  those in the committee for Auckland   who according to a recent LGOIMA    represent a significant number of  the contractors to the council.  Amongst the  list of members there is  Simon O’Connor Managing Partner Ernst & Young.

One of the concerns I have   is that when a company derives  an income  from the  person  they have to investigate, then there is a vested interest to preserve the future relationship   and  they will not be  impartial in  a report  and as such are not a good choice for an independent review  as a bad  ” independent review ” would  affect  their  future  cash flow.

I also note  that the EY report   is not signed , signatures seal documents, once upon a time a company  seal was used   now  we simply do nothing.  lawyers like  it that way  does  away with liability   and you can always claim that this is the version that was not supposed to be released as it was not signed off.

Without a signature any   unsigned  document is but a  piece of paper, unless there is a chain of evidence  which  connects it to the creator.  I will accept in this instance that the council  accept tha this is the report that they   have paid $100,000  for.

I am astounded that a 19 page report  of which 6 are appendixes , one is a self promoting cover  and one page  is a pre amble    should cost   $100,000 , that is  almost 10,000  per page .

A proper impartial investigation  would have looked at    the  mayor conduct in terms of the United nations convention against corruption  which we as a nation  have signed  but not ratified.

The fact that Len Brown has failed to declare  that he is a  the beneficiary of a trust  in his Declaration of Interest Summary   it  is significant.  No one gets 3/4 Million from a trust  just for the hell of it.

It comes as no surprise to me  that  Len Brown  categorically refused to Investigate  the fictional AWINZ  he  knew that an investigation and exposure of AWINZ would ultimately  lead to   the uncovering of his own  secret trust  the new Auckland  Council trust . The parallel is too close     and corruption is therefore condoned.

I can only  conclude that in my opinion Len has   sold his  soul,  he is not  independent   and neither was the   EY report .

I was pleased to see that we have Councillors who are prepared to live up to the name  of the  governing body  and  call the shots  but  we have not  got enough of  those with a spine, there are the fence sitters    who may also  have   ethical issues   on a smaller scale  to  Mr Brown.

The past council concealed and condone  corruption , its good to see the stand this early into the term,  I can only hope that we can clean up the act  because there is a lot to clean up.  with  Doug MC Kay ( who I believe is a committee for Auckland plant  ) going and  Wendy Brandon  .. ( labour  wench supporting the corrupt use of council  resources by her fellow Labout members  ) gone  perhaps there is a chance  to move forward and have a city which considers people  and living  conditions  before it  dishes funds out to big corporates.

Its time for  dismissals with confidentiality clauses   to cease,  I  do not believe that I have had an accurate account of  why 55 million dollars  was spent on extra employee expenses in the 2012, I suspect  that  part of this sum  probably $15,000  ( that  is  what I  have heard the  going pay off is ) went to the  security officer  who knows very well that he will have to pay  back his windfall  if he utters one word of what he saw.  .. cant believe that council records cant find him,  the  CCTV cameras in  libraries  reveal  visits  from   months back.

when we buy silence   we    subscribe to corruption .. its time for change.

I fully support  the  few  Councillors  who   stood up agaisnt corruption yesterday

to the others..  its time to look at who you are serving.



AWINZ new evidence

Open letter to the minister of Primary Industries and  Minister for Local  Government.


AWINZ  operated from the premises of Waitakere city council in a manner where it appeared to be a CCO , it used council databases, vehicles , infrastructure, plant and  personnel for private pecuniary gain. It also attained  approved status under the  animal welfare act in a situation which was considered by MAF  at the time to be ultra-virus  and in a manner where council  officers were cut out of the loop.  While council denied that  it existed on its premises MAF were of the belief that the Council premises had been leased for $1 per year.

With the on-going saga of Animal welfare institute of New Zealand (AWINZ )  I have been  putting together a chronology of documents which I have obtained under LGOIMA and OIA over the years  and in reading each in detail  I  have found  more documents   which shed  light on the issue.

Both MAF and  Council have not acted responsibly in investigating this matter properly .

Since these documents  came from your own  department MAF and from a local body ( Waitakere council ) it will not be difficult to  verify  everything I claim.

First of all it appears that Mr Wells was able to meet with ministers and high ranking MAF officials on a regular and  “ off the record” basis. I on the other hand can’t even get near my local MP and when I do  he  totally ignores the issues I have raised. He also had undue influence within  council and circumvented the  normal processes.

I have had 6 years of being fobbed off  but have a ton of evidence which supports my allegations but no one is prepared to look  at them.

To that end I respectfully request that I could meet with you or an investigator / lawyer appointed   by you  and  detail the  evidence which I have collated which  shows that the Minister  at the time and therefore the crown  was deceived  in the application for approved status for AWINZ.

To  help you make the decision to appoint an investigator / solicitor   it may be  appropriate for you to  look  at the  attached documents.

The document 13 nov 2008.pdf  was  written by MAF solicitor joseph Montgomery  , it is in response to a question raised by Neil wells as to  whether or not Waitakere animal welfare can be an approved organisation. The reply is that Animal  welfare Waitakere  cannot be   an approved organisation as it is not an “ organisation “  as intended by the act.

Since Mr Wells could put such questions to MAFs solicitors for  a legal opinion I request that   I may have the same privilege extended to me.

I f the following could be put to  either crown law or to   the MAF solicitor it may  help you see this matter   clearly.

My question is  In view of the following evidence   is “ could  AWINZ have been an approved organisation? “

On 22 November 1999 an application for approved status  was made   as attached. You will note  that this is the “ application”  which was relied upon by the minister at the time  which subsequently led to  AWINZ becoming an approved organisation under the act. See paragraph 3 18 december 2000.pdf

  •  This application  contains a blank trust deed.
  • The application is made in the name of an alleged  trust  but  the application itself has not been signed by any person .
  • Evidence obtained at a later time  proves that  no trust deed existed on  22.11.1999 and the statements  contained in the application were false  . trust deed.pdf
  • The  name of the applicant   could not   have been  the animal welfare institute of New Zealand  as  this name was not defined and no legal person  using the name other than as a trading name existed.  No person using the name as a trading name was identified.
  • No subsequent applications were received and Mr  Wells gave a number of assurances  that the trust existed but avoided providing a deed.
  • Since the very nature of an  unincorporated trust means that the trust is only represented through its trustees,  there would have had to have been applications made which show that each and every trustee consented to the application for approved status and accepted  responsibility in their personal capacity.
  • Mr Wells was the only person involved in the application, He did not even sign the application but signed the  covering letter  claiming that he was a trustee.  Significantly I have located a  business plan which Mr Wells  drafted in  1996 (Territorial authority Animal welfare services.pdf) and shows the format which eventually  became AWINZ  and that this was about personal profit. The business plan  applies to AWINZ if the name  territorial  authority animal welfare services is substituted. And shows mr wells propensity to using trading names
  • Individuals could not be an approved organisation , It is therefore a reasonable assumption that  he wished the  minister to  believe that an organisation existed as individuals could not  be an approved organisation.
  • No verification of the existence of AWINZ was ever carried out  by MAF or the minister  and in  the audit in 2008 it was noted that AWINZ  operated seamlessly with Waitakere city council ( page 2 )
  • A lawyer versed  in company or trust law will be able to advise that  an entity which  has no independent legal existence cannot enter into contracts  , only real or legal persons can enter into contracts  and as such the MOU entered into    between MAF and  AWINZ was not worth the paper it was written on
  • Throughout  the application process MAF expressed their concern that the council becoming involved in animal welfare work was  not lawful , I was given documents which were edited BY MAF , I was fortunate enough to   find documents   at Waitakere city  which  had not been edited and from these documents the  edited comments  were  shown to be   as follows.
  • Crown Law has advised MAF that the Local Government Act does not allow a territorial authority to fund an animal welfare organisation or employ animal welfare inspectors.
  •  A territorial authority may employ staff only to perform its functions as set out in that Act and may only spend money on matters expressly or impliedly authorised by statute.
  • Crown Law considers that if Parliament had intended a territorial authority to have an animal welfare role then the power could be expected to be found in the Local Government Act or other legislation.
  • I believe that the opinion given by Crown Council is detailed and persuasive and raises an  important matter of public policy.
  •  I would need to consider whether I should approve a proposal given that I am advised that to do so would be contrary to the law.
  • Whether or not we approve AWINZ should stand on Its own merits ie I am not keen on the Government entering into an agreement under S37T to legitimise something that is not a l ready legit “
  • If the  crown were  to enter into an agreement with TA and with AWINZ that  would be recognition  that work was being undertaken on behalf of the crown  should it  come to pass that the TA was held not able to undertake the activity from its funds  the crown would be left with a potential claim against it.
  • etc
  • The crown law office gave a legal opinion  saying that AWINZ could not have law enforcement authority and Mr Wells obtained an opinion through  the council dog control manager ( who is not a trustee f the cover up trust ) Wells told MAF   at the time  that he felt  that he could have gone to the council lawyers  but  chose to  go to Kensington Swann, this stamen makes me suspect that  the council  lawyers were deliberately  circumvented  . It also appears from the  documents I obtained that  that  Mr Wells   probably influenced  the  Kensington Swan legal opinion  as significant changes were made to the draft sent back to  Tom Didovich   manager Waitakere   dog and stock control  who routinely   consulted Mr Wells.
  • Maf  when facing the conflicting  legal opinions stated  “A definitive resolution of these conflicting legal opinions should be decided in court”

The conflicting legal opinions were never tested, Mr wells at this time  met  with the president of the  Labour party  Bob Harvey and from  that point on  the   approval for AWINZ to become a law enforcement authority went before caucus and was approved by the minister  despite opposition by treasury and  MAF  .

AWINZ  was  not an organisation   and never functioned as an organisation . When I  asked questions as to its lack of existence  in 2006 Mr Wells called a meeting  the    meeting  notes  came to light in 2011 , despite an audit report   by MAF in 2009 recording that all governance documents had been destroyed in a computer crash .1.6  page 7  & (4.1.3 Record keeping)

The meeting minutes AWINZ MEETING MINUTES  10-05-06   show  that in 2006  the  deed which MAF had never received a copy of  was again missing.

It a had been  missing  on   25  march 2000.    When Mr Wells reported that he could not send a  copy of it to the minister as it had been sent off  for registration bottom of page 6 ( also note that  the deed  does not have a section 20(a) in it and  originals are never sent. )

However  when the matter came to court in 2008 there were two trust deeds  this happened after a judge had shown disgust in a copy which had been presented to the court but which looked nothing like the  copy  which I had been sent by  the alleged trusts  lawyers  trust deed.pdf   , and indeed there are now two trust deeds  the copy which MAF has  is different to the copy which I was supplied with. trust deed MAF  version

I have been conveniently made out to be the villain in the piece ,  I did not mean to question corruption but  I  asked simple questions as to why council  dog control officers were volunteering their time to  an organisation which was so indistinguishable from council that it looked like it  was one and the same.   I note that MAF made the same observation in the audit in 2008. Had either MAF or council  done the proper thing  and investigated it , this would have been resolved many years ago.

Instead it is apparent that  when I asked OIA questions that MAF consulted none other  than Mr Wells for responses  , thereby  giving him control over the concealment of  facts.

I believe that times have   changed and hope  that   a proper investigation can be conducted into  this matter  and that  a crown  solicitor  can look over this  email and properly advise you to the    legal issues involved.

In short AWINZ with its structure could not have obtained a $5 loan  from a bank but it could obtain law enforcement ability from the  government.


Brookfileds Lawyers what are their obligations?

Filed under: AWINZ,corruption — anticorruptionnz @ 1:11 pm

The big question is  what are lawyers obligations to   corruption and fraud.  I   have always believed that is is spelled out in  the rules.


But  who will hold  them accountable to the rules. ?

the ongoing  saga of how to  deal with whistle-blowers  is   on



Mixed Ownership Model Bill submission

Filed under: Uncategorized — anticorruptionnz @ 10:55 am

The following is the  submission which I have made with regards to the Mixed Ownership Model Bill .

The  fact that  our government  even considering such a move  without consideration to ant  corruption measures shows that  there is a  need for  an   independent commission against corruption  hence my petition.

The Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee

I am a licenced Private Investigator   , former Police Sergeant and an anti-corruption specialist.

New Zealand was amongst the first to sign the United Nations convention against corruption in 2003 and since that date we have done little to honour the treaty.

Here we are again poised to transform a bill into legislation and I have to ask what anti-corruption measures have been considered in writing the bill.

Caution has to be taken in creating legislation from the moment the first bill is drafted.   I have documentary evidence of persons with vested interest writing legislation for their own business plan and their own   financial growth.  In that particular case the person became an employee and advisor of the select committee through the transition of the bill. Yes it happened in New Zealand but we prefer to keep this quite.

It is therefore important for the select committee  in the interest of  corruption known as state capture to consider

  1. Who wrote the bill
  2.  what  interest have they declared
  3. What prompted the need for the bill in the first place.
  4. is the  writer of the bill involved in  its transition stages
  5.  What purpose does this person have for the bill/ resulting legislation ?

Ideally the bill’s author should be truly independent and have no future aspirations as to the fruits of the bill or the legislation arising from it.

The party  the  author of the bill is connected to  also warrants  consideration , what is his/ her connection to the party  . In the instance I use as an example the   writer/ advisor   utilized  the legislation for self-enrichment  and to facilitate it  this person   had the opportunity to  heavily edit  the caucus papers of the  minister whose portfolio  the  legislation directly related to.   Whilst treasury and ministry opposed the approval for  the establishments  of a  law enforcement authority  under that legislation,  approval was given   by caucus on the strength of the caucus papers   .

My next issue is with the definition of person   referred to in the   interpretation act and relied on for this  bill.

Person includes unincorporated groups.   This is a very loose term and gives provisions for person and persons unknown to become involved in the ownership model. see Anthony Molloys QC article on trust busting

When we allow for   invisibility we open the door to corruption.   The persons need to be   real and legally definable. Unincorporated trusts  are a vehicle for of corruption , the deeds are not  visible and  not recorded.  No unincorporated body  which does not have   true   transparency should be considered.

This  also implicates companies  , as we often don’t know who the owners of New Zealand companies are , due to our very loose processes with the company registrations and before we   even  consider sharing public assets with  third parties we have to be certain that we know  who they are.

Currently a New Zealand company can  be owned  by   foreigners  but because  the company is   registered in NZ we consider it a legal  NZ person even if we cant see beyond some names which  could very well be fictional directors  and a  overseas registered company of which we have no proof of registration or control of continued registration. .

Further there are the provisions of the United Nations Convention against Corruption itself.  What considerations have been given to the terms and expectations of  this   treaty ,which we signed  and then relegated to the bottom draw?    What articles of this treaty have been considered in the drafting of this legislation and what consideration has been given to transparency and   the right to access information from the third parties who   through this legislation could become part owners of our national assets?

And what of the power companies themselves, will we still be able to seek accountability under the state sector act?  Or any other provision? Or will the companies be deemed private and  the  information they hold will no longer be available under the official information act and will they still come under the  jurisdiction of  our public watchdogs  such as the Ombudsmen and auditor general?

Power is already a monopoly. The definition for corruption is monopoly & discretion – accountability.

I fear that this bill will diminish the   accountability of the power companies further, giving greater scope   for discretion in already well-established monopolies what this bill is  doing is opening the door to corruption even further, the only people who stand to lose are the New Zealand citizens who currently own the assets through the crown.

This bill has not considered corruption, it is a vehicle to asset strip the county.

We appear to be hell bent on profit, what is wrong with a model where by the people are the owners and shareholders and the benefits of their shareholding  is that in return they   receive economical   gas and  electricity bills .

The profits for that third party shareholders will seek, has to be paid by someone . The people who will pay for this initiative are the   consumers, the people of New Zealand.

Have we not learnt from the sale of telecom, the sale  of the rail ways,  the rich get richer  the poor are left to foot the bill we should be looking at closing the gap not  continue to increase it.

Where there are shareholders there is an expectation of profit . There is a radical notion one which we adopted in the past and one we have lost sight of, and that is service .

We could have a power service but only if the assets remain those of the people and the profits are fed back into the asset.

Lastly where is the cost benefit analysis in this?  Where is the need to consider partial privatisation what studies are there to show what serves our country and our people best.

It appears to me that this bill is not one that will serve in the interest of the   country, it will serve well for a small group of people  who are already  anticipating personal wealth creation   as a result of this   bill passing into law.

We should be legislating for accountability and transparency   not be creating laws  that will allow  our assets to  pass into unseen and unaccountable hands.

Yours sincerely

Grace Haden

Licenced Private Investigator


will you support the petition for an independent commission against corruption?

Filed under: AWINZ,corruption — anticorruptionnz @ 2:44 pm

Please down load a copy of the petition

and  support the call for an independent commission against corruption

You  can print the petition double sided  , then  fold it , stick a stamp on and send it  back to me

Or  you  can print it single sided  and   pop it in  a stamped  envelope and send it to

Grace Haden   PO Box 17463    Greenlane    Auckland

Click here  for the Petition for an independent commission against corruption

A great equation  for corruption is

Corruption = Monopoly + Discretion – Accountability

This equation  when applied to any situation  will give indicators as to the risk of corruption.

read more

to see why I am calling  for an independent commission against corruption please see my anti corruption blog


The hobbit animal welfare monitoring

Filed under: Uncategorized — anticorruptionnz @ 10:06 am

The hobbit is  currently being filmed in New Zealand  and we have to wonder who is doing the animal welfare monitoring.

When the lord of the rings  was completed it bore  the end title  to the effect that no animal was hurt or injured in the making of the movie .. the monitoring had been done by  AWINZ  the  fictional organization  which as in reality a pseudonym for Neil Wells  now of Animal law matters

AHA (American humane society) wrote a scathing report   and the matter was reported on  a web site which Mr Wells took a lot of effort to  get taken  down

AWINZ  and animal  monitoring in the movies

the reference given on this web site was

if you Google it you will get this response  but  the page wont open

Movie Review – Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, the

AHA had requested information and informed production of AHA’s process for AHA’s Film and Television Unit during the first year of principle photography. ble rating

fortunately we have been able to recovered this information for  you   and this is copied below.


While no animals were intentionally harmed in the making of the film, some questionable practices were used.

 lord of the rings  read the scathing  reports from the AHA  

Movie Review – Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, the

AHA had requested information and informed production of AHA’s process for AHA’s Film and Television Unit during the first year of principle photography.

Extracts Highlighted below

Per existing documentation, the Lord Of The Rings trilogy, filmed in New Zealand, began purchasing animals for the films in early1999. Production made contact with a newly formed local New Zealand humane organization, AWINZ, to supervise animal action from August 30, 2000 

see extracts

also read the following sites  ..  extracts shown below the  links

it states
There was no recorded animal welfare agency on set, according to many eye witness reports, for most of the production, despite claims by one organization who according to the AHA’s website, listed a false credit at the end of the film.

Ms. Wilding first contacted Mr. Ordesky in Los Angeles, California after she was contacted directly with numerous complaints from crew, and some cast members when in NZ. Ms. Wilding researched, took statements and investigated, and experienced first hand the lack of cooperation, faced by cast and crew as they tried to get matters resolved through the production, NZ Safety and Occupational groups, animal welfare groups, including RSPCA and many other agencies and outlets in New Zealand at the time.

Ms. Wilding experiencing also, and witnessing a lack of cooperation, and with injuries and animal issues still occurring on the production, decided finally to take the matter, anonymously at first, to the American Humane Association (AHA) Film and Television Unit in Hollywood. Wilding continued stealthily in the same manner as she had started, over a period of many months, working in New Zealand, further investigating and reporting in detail to the American Humane Association at their request. The AHA was unable to award the film trilogy its official end credit “stating no animals were harmed or injured” on all three films, as it was simply, not true. The AHA Film & Television Unit is designated by the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) as the only animal welfare organization with on-set jurisdiction and is considered to be the only legitimate ruling body worldwide, in regards to animal safety on films.


Dear ANNA,
It was interesting to note that the AHA was approached by someone representing
themselves as head of the Animal Welfare institute of New Zealand, (*NB, a newly formed organization)
. They wanted to be endorsed by the AHA …we rejected this……. It is a pity a production this size did not at least call the AHA to discuss oversight of filming. We would have arranged oversight if the company was willing to cooperate. This did not happen”
TWO TOWERS has also been given a Questionable rating by the AHA.This rating also includes Fellowship of the Ring. Anna said she responded as any ethical experienced industry person would have or should have.

Ms. Wilding researched, took statements and investigated, and experienced first hand the lack of cooperation, faced by cast and crew as they tried to get matters resolved through the production, safety and occupational groups, animal welfare groups and other agencies and outlets. Ms. Wilding then took the matter to the American Humane Association where for many months she continued to work on resolving matters. Some crew were injured during the making of the films, says Wilding, in which many horses were injured and several horses died.

An eye opening book on Lord of the Rings movies a possibilty

 Read other publications

Copy of content from American Humane society web site

AHA Rating of the Film
We appreciate that production has been cooperative in answering many of AHA’s questions and providing documentation regarding the animal action in the film. However,
AHA still has a few concerns regarding the care given the animals during production based on information we have received. The information provided indicates that some animal activity and training methods although meeting local animal welfare standards, did not meet AHA’s high standards regarding the use of animals in entertainment. We are therefore rating the film Questionable.

Investigation into Controversial Allegations
AHA endeavors to meet the public’s demand for AHA to know and/or to investigate the use of animals in all filmed media. Since AHA is internationally known for its oversight of animals in filmed media, both the public and other animal welfare organizations contacted AHA near the end of filming when questions regarding the treatment of the animal actors remained unanswered.

AHA compiled a list of concerns and requested and received an investigative report from theAnimal Welfare Institute of New Zealand (AWINZ) and the New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF).Although the investigative report was helpful, in that it concluded there was no intentional animal cruelty, it contained information that was inconsistent with standards set forth in AHA’s Guidelines.

Questions and Concerns
There are a few areas in which questions remain about the level of care the animals received. In addition, some training techniques reportedly used during production are opposed by AHA.

  • Horse sent to slaughter – A horse named Mooney was sent to slaughter after it was determined that the horse had a non-specified problem with its front legs that made it unfit to be trained for the film. According to Production the horse had been lame, and they were waiting for its condition to improve before working it. Although the horse was purchased for the film, it was never used in it since its condition did not improve. AHA does not condone Production sending an animal to the slaughterhouse because it is not fit for work required by film production. AHA would recommend that the horse be returned to its owner, be adopted out as a pet or, if the condition proved to be critical, that the horse be humanely euthanized. Production was not able to provide veterinary records or other documentation as to the horse’s condition or specific reasons why the horse was determined to be unfit.
  • Stampede at Mt. Potts – While shooting at the Mt. Potts location a stampede occurred during the onset of a snowstorm. Neither Production nor AWINZ documented the incident at the time it occurred, nor formally evaluated whether adequate safety precautions were in place. Allegedly, one of the horses kicked through a fence, approximately 15-35 horses got loose and ran onto the road through an opened gate and across several cattle guards. It is unclear as to what caused the horses to spook and run an unusually long distance. Although the horses were retrieved by the following day, many of the horses sustained minor injuries and 4-5 horses sustained serious injuries. Reports indicate that one horse that sustained a serious injury was later euthanized. Since this incident was unanticipated and it was not formally documented and evaluated, it is unclear as to whether proper safety precautions and adequate fencing were in place that would have prevented the incident.
  • Electric Shock Collars for Liberty Training– Reports indicate that electric shock collars were used for at liberty training of at least two horses. Although used by some liberty trainers and it is not against the law or local NZ animal welfare regulations, AHA opposes the use of electric shock collars for training. During filming production has indicated that the use of the device was infrequent and monitored by production veterinarians. When production learned of AHA’s objection to the device, they prohibited further use.AHA’s position is supported by the fact that there are well-known and highly skilled liberty trainers that do not use electric shock for training. Research indicates that horses are more susceptible to electric shock than other animals, and that a sensation that is barely noticeable by a human, is easily noticeable by a horse. As published in AHA’s Humane Dog Training Guidelines, the use of electric shock collars for training is not recommended. AHA joins with other credible animal welfare groups in advocating an end to the use of this device. Production was unable to provide documentation that supports appropriate supervision in the use of such a powerful device, pursuant to AHA standards.

Although the above issues indicate that the high standards set forth by AHA’s Guidelines were not always adhered to, the AWINZ report indicates there was no intentional cruelty. AHA recognizes that Production made an effort to have veterinarians available during the course of production, and eventually contracted with AWINZ to assist with animal welfare issues.

Unfortunate Circumstances and Natural Deaths
When high profile films use large numbers of animals, it is not unusual for questions and rumors to surface. AHA has investigated allegations and incidents that have been brought to our attention. Many of the issues raised regarding mistreatment could not be substantiated and are considered closed at this time. Some of the issues raised can be explained by unfortunate circumstances and natural deaths.

  • Horse with Melanomas – Demero, the light grey Andalusian horse that plays Shadowfax, was purchased with a known diagnosis of melanoma. This is not uncommon in pale gray and white horses. The horse’s condition worsened toward the end of the shooting schedule. While the Production veterinarian was determining the appropriate treatment, a veterinarian from the New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) examined the horse. MAF issued an “Instruction to Mitigate Suffering” and stated a recommended course of treatment. The Production veterinarian followed the recommendation. In May 2002, AHA arranged for an independent veterinarian to examine Demero. At that time, Production indicated that they had no intention of working Demero in the future due to the melanomas. The findings by the independent veterinarian were “generally consistent with the history and previous management of the case…The lack of pain or signs of irritation and general condition of Demero indicate that there is no welfare issue at present. Regular monitoring that Production has instituted is appropriate and should continue.”Upon completion of filming, the production company arranged for Demero to be retired where he will continue to receive the prescribed, on-going care. The horse will not be used in any additional filming for the completion of subsequent sequels. Demero has been confirmed to be alive and well cared for as of the date of this review.
  • Four Horses Died due to Illnesses– A large number of horses were being used over several years. There were a number of unfortunate deaths due to illnesses or other medical conditions. Although the horses were examined before purchase and production employed a veterinarian to look after the horses, there was very little known about the history of each horse. Following is an explanation of the circumstances.
    • The horse Jimmy Dash was euthanized due to equine torsion. The Production veterinarian attended to the horse, was unsuccessful at treating it, and then made the decision to euthanize him.
    • The horse Big Dan was euthanized due to a cracked pelvis. The condition was determined upon a veterinary examination and a decision was made to euthanize him.
    • The horse Everon died of an internal hemorrhage due to a massive rupture of the mesenteric artery leading to the small intestine. After a session of desensitization work (getting familiar with other horses, riders, swords and costumes), when the horses were walking out, Everon collapsed and died. The Production veterinarian was present during the training session and ran to the horse, but it was already dead. The post mortem also revealed evidence of extensive worm damage.
    • The horse named Boy died when the major artery leading away from the heart ruptured due to a weakness in the wall. Production supplied a report from the veterinarian who performed a necropsy. An AWINZ representative also supplied a report that indicated the horse was not under any obvious stress. The horse was engaged in moderate training activity and was walking back to the trainer when the horse collapsed.
  • Rabbit Holes on South Island – Most of the set locations in the South Island had rabbit holes. Production required staff to walk the area and employed greenspeople to fill in the holes. After each ride across the area, riders and staff walked back, calling to the greenspeople to fill in any holes that had caved in. Upon discussion with the Production veterinarian, there were no injuries caused by the rabbit holes. Since Production filmed for several days at this location, some horses were pulled because they became tired, ill or were not prepared for the level of work.

AHA and International Productions
When production travels outside the U.S., the standard of care for animal actors varies greatly due to local animal welfare regulations, cultural differences and a lack of certified animal safety representatives specifically trained for film oversight. AHA’s extensive experience in protecting animal actors since 1940 is unique in the animal welfare community.

Animal welfare organizations and workers typically suffer from lack of funding and overwhelming tasks to combat animal cruelty and pet overpopulation issues. Most often their resources are stretched to provide services that are responsive to critical community animal welfare needs. AHA’s mission in the Film and Television Unit is unique. It focuses on the safety of the animal actor, preventative procedures and provides a standard of care that is much higher than that required by law.

As the film industry becomes more global, many international communities are embracing the opportunity to protect animal actors, but many local animal welfare organizations are not resourced to meet the demands of burgeoning film production. AHA seeks to work with other international organizations and animal welfare professionals to enhance their understanding of the risks involved when animals are used in film production and to help train and encourage professional documentation and a high standard of animal care.

AHA has often traveled to foreign locations to oversee the use of animals in films for productions that seek the high standard of care established by AHA. AHA has an International Film Monitoring Program to benefit productions in other countries by certifying local animal welfare organizations and individuals to monitor animal action per AHA’s Guidelines for the Safe Use of Animals in Filmed Media.

In 2002, American Humane expanded its international monitoring capabilities by appointing an International Animal Welfare Manager in New Zealand and Australia. Based in Taupo, New Zealand, AHA is now able to coordinate film projects, and trains and assigns animal welfare monitors to supervise the animal action for U.S. films produced in the Asia/Pacific region. AHA is working with the RNZSPCA, the Film Commission, and other organizations involved with animals and the film industry to develop an international awareness for animal welfare in films.

The public perceives a film as being a U.S. entity when it stars SAG actors, is being produced/financed by a U.S. company and slated for release to U.S. audiences. In this case, the production was the vision of a New Zealand director, presented as a New Zealand project and consequently filmed in New Zealand. The high profile of the film, its wide release in the U.S. market and the nature of the controversy surrounding the treatment of animal actors, impelled AHA to contact production.

extracts from

Lord Of The Rings is one of the most anticipated and costly films ever produced. AHA had requested information and informed production of AHA’s process for protecting animals in filmed media. However, because the production was filmed outside the US, it fell outside of AHA’s jurisdiction and although production has since cooperated in responding to AHA requests for information, production did not work with AHA’s Film and Television Unit during production. For this reason, AHA cannot attest that the Guidelines for the Safe Use of Animals in Filmed Media were followed. The first cinematic installment of J.R.R. Tolkien’s literary trilogy, Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring, carries an end credit that AHA has not authorized which states, “No animal was abused, ill treated or neglected in the making of the movie. Animal action was monitored by the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand (AWINZ).”

AHA wants to clarify that AHA did not issue this statement, AWINZ is not an AHA-approved Humane Partner and AHA does not have information that can support that the disclaimer is correct or incorrect. To earn an AHA end credit, Production must demonstrate a level of humane treatment that is far stricter than all US federal, state and local animal welfare laws and regulations. Based on the review of various documents and reports, AHA does not believe any intentional cruelty occurred, however, we have a few questions about the level of care and some training techniques used during production.

Per existing documentation, the Lord Of The Rings trilogy, filmed in New Zealand, began purchasing animals for the films in early1999. Production made contact with a newly formed local New Zealand humane organization, AWINZ, to supervise animal action from August 30, 2000. AHA understands that AWINZ supervised some of the animal action, however, AHA does not have sufficient documentation to meet the required standards for AHA to endorse the validity of the end credit. Although AHA guidelines are readily available, it takes significant training and expertise to implement them.

When large numbers of animals are used by a production, it is not unusual for questions and rumors to surface. AHA requested and received an investigative report from AWINZ and the New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF). Although the report was helpful, AHA still lacked sufficient information to support the use of an end credit on the film. On set supervision appears to have been conducted primarily by wranglers and veterinarians contracted by production and sufficient documentation is lacking to attest to the humane or inhumane treatment of animals throughout the entire production. The investigation into the allegations did not satisfy the requirements necessary for an AHA assurance that “no animal was harmed”. For this reason, AHA cannot support the end credit on the film.

Horse Killers

There were over forty Clydesdales,
held by a piece of string.
No one saw the blizzard comin’,
that happened that early spring.
Reports of how it started
are few and far between,
but things got pretty crazy, mate,
it must have been an awful scene!

A couple may have started fighting,
and that was all she wrote;
on that station down near Geraldine,
that day somebody got my goat.

They thundered ‘round in a mighty swarm
of flesh and electric fence,
before smashing down a ten inch post,
the barbed wire was no defense;

then over several cattle stops,
the stampede had begun;
down the road towards Geraldine,
did those mighty horses run!
Horse killers, and big box thrillers,
don’t they just go hand in hand!
Spin doctors, and their helicopters,
don’t they make it all look so grand!

But, dead ponies and media cronies,
did nobody see the blood?
I shouted out loudly, but I can stand proudly,
there’s a story buried deep in the mud.

Those horses kept on running,
till they had had enough.
Some went lame, and what a cryin’ shame,
two went off the bluff.

The company started moving,
in all directions, or so I’m told.
Some headed off towards Geraldine,
others towards damage control.
“Don’t ever let this story out,”
that’s what they told the worried crew.
“The potential repercussions…
if the world finds out, we’re screwed!”

But those renegade cabayos,
got collected in due time;
and of the twenty odd that escaped that terrible day,
thank God, none of them was mine.

My boys had gone to higher ground
to escape from all the fuss;
others weren’t so lucky,
you could hear those cowboys cuss.

The horse killers showed no sympathy,
they preferred to pass the buck;
besides they had a pile of cash,
just in case things came unstuck.
Word is they shelled out twenty grand,
to some girl who’d lost her pet.
All in all it was a very busy day,
for the accountant and the vet.

For me, it was a lifetime,
of waiting just to see
Just how the Mt. Potts studio
would handle this tragedy.
There were no words of sorrow,
no expressions of regret;
just a tricky situation,
that the world would soon forget.

We wonder if the above verse relates to  the filming of the Lord of the Rings, it fits a scenario that has been described to us   .. we don’t know  what it relates to  but its a good verse.. food for thought.

It has to be noted that  the animal welfare institute of New Zealand which  is Operated by Neil Wells is not   incorporated and is not a body corporate  it is  now being passed off as  an unincorporated  trust  although the trust deed is   of dubious origins  and the persons on the trust were not involved in the movie industry .

AWINZ or rather Mr wells and his wife Christine  went on to monitor other movies    namely


Representatives of the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand were present on the film sets and locations to monitor animal action during the making of this production. No animal was abused, ill-treated or neglected during the making of this production.

Notice that it does not say  ” no animals were harmed”  that is because it is a registered trade mark of the American humane society they do not list the  movie as one approved by them.

searched the credits for

The lion the witch and the wardrobe and  The water horse but have found no reference to   the animal welfare institute being involved.

HOWEVER The water horse  ..

 Chris WELLS  who is Neil Wells‘s wife  has been supervising the  animal activity  on the  set of this movie. We  know that  she is not an  animal welfare inspector .



Filed under: Uncategorized — anticorruptionnz @ 6:13 pm

In the King Country  opposite the Te Kuiti  airport  at 1308 state highway 3  lives  a barrister  who knows a great deal about animal  law matters.

He appropriately calls his business Animal law matters and will no doubt  be opening for   business in  the king county area soon.

The reason Mr Neil Wells  of Animal law matters is so well versed on animal law  is because he  played a very large role in the  current animal welfare  act. He wrote the no 1 bill  and was independent adviser to the select committee.he has even published a book entitled ANIMAL LAW IN NEW ZEALAND

Mr Wells a former  RNZSPCA president  left the  SPCA in the late  1970′s in circumstances  detailed in  the press  , his  current wife   and then Christine   was with him at the time .read article  dec78,

In 1979 there was a split of the SPCA  following the  decision to have  the societies paid officers supervise work by the  animal action group which  Mr Wells Headed.. split in SPCA .  Mr Wells at the time was also the  president of the Royal  federation of new Zealand societies  for the protection of cruelty to animals.   this federation was to   eventually fold on 7 December 2000.

In 1989 Neil Wells was   the director  of world society  for protection of animals see  9 apr 89 wspc

It is believed that the RNZSPCA paid for his law degree  and in 1993   he was a legal consultant to the RNZSPCA   when he  quit  over an issue with  the Kaimanawa wild horses .

Mr Wells had been a close friend of Bob Harvey and together had worked in advertising   and saw the kirk government into power in 1974. . In 1994  this relationship was to  reformed  when Mr Wells became an animal welfare consultant to Waitakere city council ne wells 27 july 1994.

He worked with  the manager  dog and stock control   at the council Tom Didovich    who is now a piano player in Henderson .

In January 1996 Neil Wells shared his  business plan for a Teritorial authority Animal welfare services   with Tom  as can be seen the    trading name  was  a division of the trading name which Mr Wells was using at the time  and the charge out rates  clearly show  that this was a money making venture.This was  to form the basis of the new legislation and the  concept for Mr Wells perfect fraud.

Mr Wells produced a poster  stating there is profit in animals … indeed there was.

With the good people of Waitakere  paying for their dog control officers to be trained by Mr Wells to be animal welfare officers  , Mr Wells sets up a pilot program    which is entirely his own initiative. The complication is that there was no legislation in place   so  he volunteers to write it.  see article  how to write legislation for your own business plan .

Not only did Mr Wells write the No 1 bill he was also independent  advisor to the select committee,  with no record of  his declaration of conflict of interest to  found.

What was significant about the legislation which came out , was that it provided for approved organizations , the  criteria are set out in section 122   and MAF had their own selection criteria for approved organisationson top of this as well .This enables the setting up of organizations other then the SPCA to be  animal welfare law enforcement  authorities

Stringent selection processes were  required as the approved organization  was  able to make  money from fines  due to  section 171 of the act  which returns  all proceeds of prosecution back to the   approved organization wiht fines up to $250,000 this   is   what was going to make Mr Wells Rich .  IT was a license to print money.

As soon as the  act became law Mr Wells made an application to the minister for approved organization status using  a pseudonym  Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand .( AWINZ) he claimed the organization  existed  when  in reality it did not and had never existed except in his mind.

Mr Wells is well known and trusted by MAF  and  despite being asked a number of times to produce a trust deed, Mr Wells avoids this but gives MAF and the minister  assurances that  the trust exists and  will be registered.  However no one else is ever  seen to be involved with the approved organsiation.  Open letter to MAF

The ” organization ” was to run from  Waitakere city council premises  for  $1 per year using the council staff resources and infrastructure  all “ volunteered to  the Fictional AWINZ  which was  even to  use the council logos as its own .In all it was so seamless that no one knew if AWINZ was part of local government , part of government   or a private enterprise.   It was a private enterprise  a trading name for Neil Wells  who acted in circumstances  which internationally recognized as corruption  being State capture  and the use of public office  for private gain.

When a diligent MAF officer  seeks to  oppose the  application Mr Wells writes to  his mates in MAF 18 aug 2000  and generally  tells him what he wants, then after a brief meeting with his mate Bob Harvey the  then president of the labour party   the AWINZ application  goes to the newly elected labour  party minister  and is approved.

AWINZ a non existent  organization   became a private law enforcement authority .. and no one    at Waitakere city council  or in Maf ever   had  communications or sought confirmation from any of the other alleged trustees … but it gets better…

In 2005  Tom Didovich  who had written to the minister  on behalf of not one but two councils Didovich for waitakere  and Didovich for north shore had to leave  Waitakere dog control  due to a personal relationship issue , Neil Wells applied for and got the job.

The game plan was simple   and I  have documentary evidence for every  step

  • Neil Wells manager  dog and stock control   and  CEO of the mythical  AWINZ ( which is actually no more than a trading name for himself)  uses the Waitakere and north shore dog and stock control officers to prioritize  animal welfare work over   council work.
  • when an animal welfare incident is reported   to  Mr wells council manager by the  dog control officer  he passed it to
  • Mr Wells CEO of AWINZ    who approved it for prosecution  and passed this to AWINZ barrister  Mr wells  who offered Diversion .
  • the funds are paid into  bank account  to  which only Mr Wells had   access, the account   was in the name  of AWINZ when no such organization existed.The national bank where the account was held  had no  trust deeds associated with the  account

In 2006  was approached by a dog control officer  who  thought things were  quite wrong, with  two others we proved that   the animal welfare institute of New Zealand had no  legal existence by incorporating a identically named trust incorporated trust on 27 April 2006.

Once Mr Wells became aware of this  he   had a need to   create an organization   and got his mate Wyn Hoadley , former mayor of North shore and  fellow animal welfare worker  to become a trustee. At a meeting on 10 may 2006  Wyn Hoadley was appointed trustee pursuant to a section which was not present in the deed  and  a deed which was missing on that occasion  , there is no written record of her becoming a trustee apart from a manufactured  document.

To prove the existence of an organization   a trust deed materialized  in June 2006, this deed was dated 1.3.2000, the trustees  had never met or adhered to the   deed of trust, the  deedby its own terms had expired.

Even more incredibly the minutes which showed ms Hoadleys appointment  was missing in 2008 when  AWINZ was audited by MAF but some how a fresh copy re appeared for the law society in 2011 ,( open the document  and right click on  it and select properties  you can see when  this document was created.)

The  three alleged  trustees,   without any evidence of being trustees filed a Statement of Claim , the objective was to  force us to give up the name and the web site which drew attention to the short comings of AWINZ.  Mr Wells threw in  defamation  as a good measure, we have yet to see any evidence of the allegation he  made ( no evidence was ever produced )  and interestingly enough what was attributed to me was proved to be  true by the audit report which Mr Wells then fought long and hard for to have withheld.

In the mean time AWINZ commenced fund raising   using the logo  which was emblazoned on the  council premises suitably adapted to  create confusion


   see  the    donation request

the funds raised were banked in to the bank account which Mr Wells was the sole   signatory of  .

In December  2006  a new trust deed was signed  this  one included the litigants and Tom Didovich the former manager  who had had a finger in the pie. The purpose was to obtain charitable status    which was attained so that  the charitable funds of this new trust could be used to pay  for the litigation, see How to get your litigation funded through the public purse . while public  funds were used to pursue them  Mr Wells is now claiming  the   money as his own  through a statutory demand  served on my company.  ( isn’t that money laundering???)

As a  side line Mr Wells used the mythical AWINZ  to monitor animals in the movies such as Lord of the rings  and saw to  it that a false end title was attributed  to the movie   documents   are  as follows AHA  6 dec 2000 lotr others who tried to speak up were silenced . His wife Christine  has been performing these duties through the charity.. what a great way to  avoid tax !

In the mean time I have had a  six year battle through court, I  have been denied  my defense of truth and honest opinion  because Mr Wells saw to it that my defense was   struck out all   because I could not find $20,000 in  two weeks.

Mr Wells is good,  he never lets lack of evidence stand in his  way  in fact he won the case against me through manipulating the court ,telling lies   and  not producing any evidence,  the   most spectacular bit is that he even managed to  avoid the  trial all together and we jumped straight to sentencing without  me ever having been found guilty of defamation. In the end we had  about 5  separate  AWINZ groups being represented to the court  as if they were  the one and the same and a legal entity. Only one was the approved organization  and it was never definded   who  comprised that.

Wells committed what I believe  was perjury  and I have the evidence to prove it  but he persuade the court that the new evidence I had was not relevant and denied me the right to appeal. It transpires the law is  not about evidence  and truth at all   as a former  Police prosecutor   I still cannot believe  that the civil jurisdiction can operate without  facts.

In October I filed new   evidence before the court , being the audit    and  the  documents  which  Wells sent to the law society  attempting to prove that  Hoadley was a trustee . What is significant is that  Hoadley ,Wells and Coutts  claimed that  the  legal entity AWINZ which I was part of  had passed themselves off as them and had breached  the fair trading act , with our organization coming into leal existence on 27 th  April  2006  how can three people  who rely on  retrospectively created documents  claim   passing off and breach of fair trade when they claim that they  became  an organization  three weeks later ?

It was the costs  for these claims which struck out my defense of truth and honest opinion. Defamation has NEVER been proved  and everything  attributed to being statements by me have been proved True. Truth is never defamatory.

Wells has  now   had the  judgements sealed  and has  gone straight for  the jugular   serving a statutory demand on my business and I expect that  bankruptcy proceedings will be served any day. Even in  serving the statutory  demand  he could not get his facts straight.. if near enough is good enough   for a lawyer  then Mr Wells and Mr Neutze of brookfields  are  your men.   Open letter to David Neutze of Brookfields

So if you think animal law matters  you need   to read my other  blogs    you will find the searching the key words Neil Wells, AWINZ . I  am of the belief  that this was to have been the perfect fraud  using   council premises to run a private law enforcement authority, mr wells was on a winner  he could not lose until I asked a few  questions  and unsuspectingly became a whistleblower.

I expect  the new evidence   to change things this year, whistle blowers  should never be punished like I have been , My crime  was to say  excuse me  but why does this law enforcement authority not exist.

Beware farmers  and  pet owners of the King country  Mr Wells is out to make  money  should  you   be prosecuted by  him  please contact me  and  I will  happily assist you  and guide you through the   tactics which I have experienced at his hand.

Grace Haden  Verisure Investigations Ltd


Apparently it is OK to tell lies to MAF biosecurity

Filed under: Uncategorized — anticorruptionnz @ 2:58 pm

Open letter to MAF

To Mr Mc Nee official information act request and Privacy act request.                                  15/12/2011

Thank you for your letter dated 29th November ,It has become apparent to me that  Mr Wells   who  was accountable to MAF  has been  calling the shots  all along  and hence the need for  secrecy.  I would have thought that  an organisation accountable to MAF   would be directed by MAF and not vice versa.

My OIA requests have been  with regards to AWINZ and  how AWINZ received approved status, the fact that   you constantly communicate with   Mr Wells  seeking his approval leaves me wondering if in fact the tail is wagging the dog.

  1. Why that MAF is communicates with Mr Wells   with regards to OIA requests made to MAF?   And why the privacy commissioner has had to be involved. AWINZ has no legal existence it therefore is not a person natural or other wise and is not subject to the privacy act. Please provide me  pursuant to the OIA , with any policy , agreement    or legislation which   require you to advise Mr Wells  when  I make enquiries with regards AWINZ.

This is about transparency   but you appear to defend your right to   secrecy   yet the documents you sent me contained the following picture  .

It indicates to me that MAF does not understand what transparency is about and the right of the public to access information. The information I have sought is with regards to a public private relationship one where the person who made the application  had significant input into writing the legislation    which facilitated his own business plan.

The application  was then made in circumstances where  like our peacocks the cards were not on the  table  and  Mr Wells was making statements which were not true and not verified by MAF in any way.

If things are being done honestly and with integrity then there is nothing to hide, but because of the manner this application preceded there has to be secrecy as by exposing the cards the truth will be revealed.  What is occurring now is that I am exposing the cards and MAF   is simply denying that they are there, this  is another concealment tactic frequently practiced.   By example:- referring to the picture above I say look at the peacocks   and MAF says no they are ducks you are nothing but a troublesome person go away and allow us to be in denial so that  those of our staff who  have had close involvement and have been negligent  can  retire with dignity.

You also provided me with documents on conflict of interest,   and it would appear that you totally ignore the fact that someone who is not employed by MAF   but is accountable to the minister through MAF could actually be in a situation of conflict of interest and if you were to apply the principals contained in that document you would see that he was in a situation of conflict of interest.

Yet MAF facilitated this conflict of interest  your  officers being  referees for Mr Wells in his application for the position which placed him in conflict of interest.

Your audit showed that there was nepotism, lack of governance, lack of accountability conflict of interest  yet Mr Wells was able to write a letter  much like the one he had written years earlier( 18 aug 2000 ) so that   MAF jumped to attention and compiled with his demands.

Mr Wells is apparently so powerful that  he managed to  meet with ministers and persuade them to change the LAW ,  ( see letter he wrote to  Sutton, this  letter saw the law changed. ) what is  incredible about this  is that the council was not involved and AWINZ was a pseudonym  for Mr Wells  and had no proven existence or track record.

I realise that  this whole thing is an embarrassment to MAF  and its  almost part of NZ culture to stand  staunch and continue to  deny the obvious ,  after all it is better for my integrity to be in question than that of MAF- Public confidence  has to be considered after all.

That is why I am publishing everything. (   Transparency is what we are assured  and you have  shown  that  MAF  does  not want a bar of it.

MAF needs to act according to the law not just pretend. Corruption is real and to rely on a perception that there is no corruption by hiding and denying it does not serve the country as this will allow corruption to flourish.

Where has the transparency been in the public private relationship of MAF with AWINZ?  Mr Wells had good reason for   secrecy because   his operation in the false name of AWINZ relied on it. He was running an operation using premises, staff, vehicles and infrastructure which were owned by the public to  derive an income for himself through his pseudonym  AWINZ. He sought law change to accommodate it..

I am a  Whistle-blower, I did not mean to be  one , had MAF done its job properly  I would never have asked the question “ why does AWINZ not exist’   Instead I would have found it on  some register  and/or your documents  would have defined  AWINZ as being  a particular legal entity or  groups of entities/Legal persons .

Instead AWINZ was undefined and had no legal existence    and because of that   I walked into a trap.  Mr Wells has been able to assassinate my character and having  done so with  his lies  and perjury  no one has looked further than the   perception he has created.

No one has taken time to look at the real evidence, that is the proof that AWINZ the “organisation “  which  applied for  and obtained  approved status .was a fiction.

This issue has nothing to do with my character or perceived character it has everything to do with an organisation which had no real existence apart from being Mr Wells acting as if he was an “organisation” – the clue would have been that he was the only visible person the only one who signed anything  and the person   covering up.  He had to  cover up  it  as after all the  perfect fraud  one that could  have  made him significant sums of money had it not been for my   questions.

It has long been known that attack is the best form of defence and attacking me has been what has protected AWINZ from a proper investigation .

This has gone on for 6 years, I have played this game of official information act requests for far too long, It has cost me personally and my business, I want this to end and have my reputation restored and I want accountability of MAF  for the  corruption  that they have ,apparently , condoned.

I have asked MAF previously if they will refer this to the serious fraud office or the police- nothing appears to have happened, I can only suspect that this is  because it is not MAF but Mr Wells  who has been calling the shots  as proved  by the  communications with him  with regard to   the release of official documents. (See the documents here communications with Wells re the release of information )

Mr Wells’s long term relationship with MAF and the personal interaction of many  high ranking MAF officials  appear to have served him well.

Privacy act request  With regards to your oia reply 29 November ,I request for the  information mentioned in item  1 of your letter ,  which has been  refused under the official information act  to be released to me under the privacy act  so that  if an opinion was  formed on information which  was inaccurate I can advise MAF  and through the correction you can re consider your opinions

But as I have said  before ,  this is not about me it is about AWINZ   so  the following official information act request therefore focuses on process rules and   legislation applicable to AWINZ.

In going through you letter dated  29 November  I note that you state “It is essential that the chief executive of MAF be confident that the advice received for decision-making is unimpeded by the threat of it being released under the Official Information Act and published on the web to the world at large” Would it not be true that if the decisions are made according to rules regulations and in a sound manner there would be nothing to hide? (Refer back to the picture of the peacocks above.)

The reality in this situation is that had procedures and policy been followed AWINZ would never have become and approved organisation, on top of tis Mr Wells has been able to dictate

I refer to the following documents   which for convenience I have attached

  1. 22/08/1999                          notice of intent
  2. 18 /10/1999                        criteria for considering applications for approved organisations
  3. 21/11/1999                        application for approved status AWINZ
  4. 5 /1/ 2000                            5 jan 2000 Wells email MAF with fictitious financials
  5. 1/03/2000                           trust deed (NB this document was not seen by MAF until June 2006)

Requests for information pursuant to OIA

  1. You advise that  there is no information with regards to anti-corruption policies in investigations and audits and I therefore have to question if corruption issues and fraud were ever considered, I hope that with  the production of the following documents someone may just  say  hang on something is not right here. I will   indicate  in each what I have already got and    if there are further  documents  which put a different view on what I  have ,   I  would  like to have them supplied.
    1. please provide   all documents  which   show that  your investigations  and Audits  considered fraud and corruption  issues  with regards to  AWINZ  , the application for approved status  and   the  manner in which  AWINZ  operated.

i.      I already have the 2008  audit report

  1. You also advise that there is no process adopted for verification  and I  have to  question that  if there are no processes for verification how  did MAF  confirmed  the  requirements  of the  criteria for considering applications to be an approved organisation.  And to that end I seek information as follows based on that document. ( doc 2)
    1. Please provide any documentation which over rides   the intent of this document (as stated on page 1 )  and   any correspondence which provides for exception to this document  for any  application.
    2. On page 2 it states “although the term “organisation” is not defined in the Bill, an individual cannot be approved as an organisation” Given that no other persons were involved in the application (document 3) and no trust  with the name  animal welfare institute of New Zealand  existed at the time of the application 22 November 1999  (see trust deed dated  2.3.2000  document 5)   Please provide documents or evidence of any the exemption which allowed Mr Wells to make an application for approved status in a pseudonym or for and behalf  of any other persons without their  knowledge or consent.

i.      If it is not accepted by MAF that the application was made in a pseudonym please provide evidence of all entities/real persons which applied including evidence of their existence on the date of application.

ii.      If MAF believes that the application was made by a trust could they please provide documents which consider how people who have not met together   or have formed a common purpose together can have an application made on their behalf and without their knowledge?

iii.      I wish to refer   MAF to document 1 attached.    In this document Mr Wells states as he later  also did in the application  “A charitable trust has been formed by Deed of Trust as the “Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand” (AWINZ). It is being registered under Part II of the Charitable Trusts Act 1957”.  This document is dated 20 August 1999. It is  obvious from the  evidence  and from later admissions in court By Mr Wells  that a trust did not exist at this time .   Please provide   MAFS policies  with regards to people making  false statements   and  what  would  be the expected action of MAF .

  1. The question has to be   is it Ok to tell lies to MAF and  the minister is this condoned. It would be good for the public in New Zealand and  the tourists who arrive here to know  how MAF views  lies   and if all lies are treated  the same.
  2. If telling lies  is not condoned why is this false statement ( lie )   being  condoned. ( and the rest of the document  which is an notice of intent from a trust which  did not exist.

Definition “A lie (also called prevarication, falsehood) is a type of deception in the form of an untruthful statement, especially with the intention to deceive others”

iv.      Please also provide copies of all correspondence relation to the supply of the trust deed in 2006.

  1. On page 3  document 2  it states “Section 121 of Animal Welfare Act 1999 provides that the Minister may, after receiving an application from any organisation, declare that organisation, by notice in the Gazette, to be an approved organisation for the purposes of this legislation”

We have already covered in our previous correspondence that no applications, approval or correspondence was received from the persons Mr Wells alleged to have been “trustees” of AWINZ namely Graeme Coutts, Nuala Grove and Sarah Giltrap.

Please provide documents or evidence to show that MAF knew that

1.            These persons   existed,

2.            were aware of the application in their name,

3.            Consented to the application and

4.            Were aware of the responsibility they were taking on.

5.            Documents which consider how the alleged trustees could have become

accountable to  the approved status .

  1. On page 3  under the heading Monitoring-  “The ministry ( MAF ) intends to formally review and monitor all approved to ensure that required standards are being maintained… 122(l)(b)”

i.      Please provide copies of all annual reports  provided by AWINZ  since  obtaining its approved status  which address the issues  set out in “A “ of this section namely  “an annual report from the approved organisation  commenting on how the criteria in appendix 1 and conditions imposed under section 122(2) have been met, with supporting information.”

ii.      Please provide a copy of appendix 1 referred to as I have not received a copy of this.

iii.      Please provide copies of any other final and draft audit reports which MAF has on AWINZ. ( please note I  already have the  2008 audit which was released to me recently despite Mr Wells objections )

  1. On page 5 under the heading REQUIRED INFORMATI0N please provided  all documents correspondence which verified these   details and show how they were accepted as being true.

i.      (a)  Full name of applicant: Please provide any correspondence, notes discussion papers which consider who or what the applicant Animal welfare institute of New Zealand is .

  1. To be fair  we know  now this was a pseudonym , no organisation existed by that name  an no other person  made  the application or consented to it.  Please accept or deny the fact that this was a pseudonym, if you deny  it was a pseudonym please provide  evidence to   support your reply.

ii.      The application states that AWINZ has been formed by way of trust deed and is in the process of being incorporated under the charitable trust act. Please provide all documents which show when and how MAF became aware that this statement was false and   provide documents to show how this was mitigated (other than by cover up) .

  1. I believe that you will find that  this   came to your attention in 2006  when I raised  questions about the existence of  AWINZ , it was subsequent to  this that you received a trust deed as you had advised me that prior to this you have never had a copy of the deed.

iii.      Provide all documentation discussion papers which considered the implications of   the  statement with regards to   formation of a trust and incorporation ,  being false and the consideration of trading with an unincorporated trust.

iv.      (b) contact address:  the  contact address was given as a Registered office , Given that  we have established that no “organisation” existed at the time   Please advise  under which provision was this presumed to be a “registered office”  and what consideration  MAF gave to   the fact that this is also Mr Wells home address and that the registered office was not registered where. ( please note this is not a preformatted form this is a document   Mr Wells created and provided heading for   the various categories, there was no requirement for a registered office  and  to call his own home the registered office is   deceitful in view of the lack of registration   and or existence of the alleged “ organisation “ )

v.      (c) the area in which the applicant proposes to operate, this was stated as nationally , Considering the fact that the staff involved were those of Waitakere city council  Please provide all documents which considered the ability of   the  applicant  Mr Wells  to operate   nationally .

vi.      (d)  Sets out the information that will enable the Minister to assess whether the organisation meets the criteria   . It would appear   that with the lack of existence of an organisation named AWINZ and the lack of provision of a trust deed that this criterion was not met. Please provide documentation    which outlines any process or any law which permitted MAF to  allow this   matter to go  before the minister  without advising him that   the criteria had not been met.

vii.      The approval   of AWINZ came through cabinet  after Mr Wells   had involved the labour party via their president Bob Harvey ;  the application  went to cabinet against treasury advice and when the document  went to cabinet, somehow the words INC had been introduced, portraying AWINZ as an incorporated society .

Please provide   any   documentation which shows how and when  the  words INC were introduced and why  the  minister was led to believe that AWINZ had been  verified as an incorporated society when it  had no such existence . Please also provide documents which show that MAF recommended   the application  for consideration  by  the minister.

  1. Please also provide documents which show that MAF recommended   the application for   consideration  by  the minister and had confirmed that the criteria  had been  met.
    1. Copies of all documents which MAF relied on to satisfy themselves that AWINZ was an unincorporated trust and the trustees named   had accountability to the approved status. In particular I would like to know  how MAF would have  held Wyn Hoadley , Graeme Coutts and  Tom Didovich accountable to their role  as alleged trustees of the approved organisation awinz . I believe that the revocation letter is the only document  you have  which they all  signed  together ( notably in the absence of the author  Mr Wells  who did not sign it  )

i.      As an aside it should be noted that Tom Didovich  who  called himself a trustee was also  the person who wrote to  the minister for and on behalf of two  councils   didovich to maf north shore   and didovich to maf waitakere .

  1. Please provide details ( notes, interview  jottings ) of any   enquiries  which  MAF has undertaken  with the  alleged trustees  of AWINZ  namely Graeme Coutts, Nuala Grove and Sarah Giltrap.
  2. Documentary Evidence other than an assumption, that the trust AWINZ was one  and the same as the approved organisation  AWINZ.
  3. The minister was to rely on information that MAF  provided  “to assess whether the organisation meets the  criteria set out in section 121” Your document states “  It must be possible to  verify the legal status of the organisation, including a clear statement  that its principal purpose is to promote  the welfare of animals.”  Please provide documentation to support as to how  in the absence of a trust deed , the Legal status was verified.
  4. Mr Wells wrote  documents  alleging  a quality management system, however your audit in 2008   raised questions of  governance ,  please provide all documents which showed that consideration had been given to the criteria  which required  AWINZ to  have management , associated policies and procedures and  documents  or notes which show  that the existence of these  were verified.
  5. With regards to the provision  for a Copy of the employment contract or other written agreement or arrangement between  the organisation  and  inspectors and auxiliary officers, Please provide documentation which considers the  ability of a council  manager (didovich to maf north shore   and didovich to maf waitakere ) to be able to  authorise the  contracting out for no remuneration the staff paid  by the council he is employed  by and also   provide  documentation which  explains  why  MAF sought approval from a council manager  rather than dealing with  the council itself.
  6. Please advise what consideration  MAF gave to the  conflict of interest when Tom Didovich  who had authorised  the use of the council  facilities and resources including staff allegedly  became a trustee of a trust with the same name as the  approved organisation  .
  7. “All information should be clearly written, be comprehensive and credible.” It would appear that 2 out of three is all MAF  went for   why was credibility not an issue and  please provide all documents which prove that  there was independent verifications to  show that the  information was credible and did not  rely on  long standing relationships of trust.
  8. On page 6 The evidence must show that “‘the principal purpose of the organisation is to promote the welfare of animals”. What documentation is there that  show that consideration was given to AWINZ history , Please provide the documentation provided  with regards to AWINZ  history , given that  it did not even exist at the time of  making  the application as proved by the  trust deed  belatedly supplied  in 2006 .
  9. Page 7  “The accountability arrangements, financial arrangements and management of an organisation must be such that having regard to the interests of the public, the organisation is suitable to be declared an Approved Organisation.” Please provide all documentation    which considered the interest of the public in giving approved status to  AWINZ. e.g. how  were people going to be able to  identify who or what AWINZ was?  Who comprised it and  how to locate it?
  10. Management of the organisation:  why as there not a management structure and why was  Neil Wells allowed to be the only person speaking on behalf of  others who  had no proven involvement ?  Please provide any documents which consider this.
  11. Page 9 Conflict of interest .Please provide all documentation which  considers the  conflict of interest  of Mr Wells in making the application using a pseudonym and being the only person involved in the running of  AWINZ   in conjunction with his council work  and  using the councils premises, resources and  staff. The evidence we now have is that Mr Wells  was the only person who ran the bank account he  had opened in the name of AWINZ  into which he banked the proceeds of prosecutions returned to him by virtue of section 171.
  12. Inspectors properly answerable   Please provide any documents which consider how an inspector can be properly answerable to an organisation which has no existence or definition and which did not identify its members  and/or where  the alleged members  did not know they were an approved organisation.
  13. Please provide evidence of the legal   composition of AWINZ ( who it as comprised of  and when they resigned )  from the time of the application  to the time it  was  Gazetted as  being  removed as an approved organisation. Pease rely on the best evidence , that is    documents signed by those persons and not  just   documents forwarded by Mr Wells.
  14. Please provide   documents which considered the ability of Hoadley, Coutts and Didovich to revoke the approved status  when they were not part of  the application and had never signed anything which  gave them any responsibility to the  approved status

I am certain that MAF will struggle with many of these questions and it will become clear that AWINZ would never have attained approved status if the  simple policy you had   had ben adhered to  and  the  act had been adhered to . The reality is that there was significant political intervention combined with   MAF turning a blind eye to mater which would normally be considered serious.

I Hope that MAF  sees that   transparency is about doing the right thing  and   about owning up and saying we stuffed up   when things have gone wrong.

I have been made the  sacrificial lamb on this matter   , It is time  MAF    acknowledged the fact that they got it very wrong.   What can be worse than  giving law enforcement authority to  a non-existent   organisation..   It is allowing one man to write legislation for his own use and then tell lies to   conceal the truth.

Internationally this is serious corruption  called state capture .. in New Zealand  we condone it

Yours sincerely

Grace Haden


Will the State Servces commisson act on corruption ?

Filed under: Uncategorized — anticorruptionnz @ 6:01 pm

Integrity and conduct

State Services commission                                                                                                           1/11/2011

I hereby wish to make a complaint for investigation by the state services commission under section 8 (2) of the state services commission.

I am a licenced Private Investigator   (former Police sergeant.)

  1. In March 2006 I was approached by a Waitakere  council dog control officer  who was concerned that she was required to volunteer her  council paid  time  to Animal welfare institute of New Zealand .( AWINZ)
  2. She had no idea who or what AWINZ was but   knew that it was associated with her boss Neil Wells who was manager of  the council dog and stock control unit  whose resources, logos   and infrastructure  was being used for the operation  of AWINZ .
  3. Investigations revealed that  Mr Wells, a former RNZSPCA director and a  barrister  , had commenced a Pilot programme in 1995  with Waitakere City and  MAF to trial his business plan for a Territorial animal welfare authority which was to be like an SPCA but using council  Dog and stock control officers  , I have a copy of this  business plan which involved personal  gain  for facilitating this venture.
  4. After creating the business plan , Mr Wells had written  the   first bill for  the new  animal welfare act and was employed as  an  independent  advisor to the select committee   during the  period leading up to the passing of the legislation . He was also an advisor for MAF at this time.
  5. The act  itself as a consequence has  little accountability for  Approved Organisation  while having  huge potential for financial gain by virtue of section  171   which allows fines , which are  to a maximum of  $250,000 to be returned to the  “approved organisations“
  6. Mr Wells has a very long history with MAF and has firm political ties with the labour government dating back to 1974 when he and former mayor Bob Harvey   ran a successful advertising campaign for the Kirk government.
  7. When the legislation was about to become law , Mr Wells made an application to MAF in the name of AWINZ to acquire approved organisation status.
  8. This application was made in the name of Animal welfare institute of New Zealand which Mr Wells claimed was a trust which had been established and was in the process of being registered under the charitable trust act 1957.  In reality no trust or deed existed and it could therefore not be registered.
  9. Without confirming the existence of a trust or an organisation   the application passed from MAF to caucus and   the undefined   name AWINZ became an approved organisation   using the pseudonym to hide the true identity of  its operator.  This occurred without going through the proper channels and with apparent political interference.
  10. The only other approved Organisation the RNZSPCA which is an incorporated society.
  11. Mr Wells was the only person to make an application or be part of any application process. By virtue of the lack of an application by any other person AWINZ can only be a pseudonym for Wells.
  12. Up until 2006 MAF did not have a Trust deed, MAF did not obtain evidence of the existence of AWINZ and has never sought to verify the existence of AWINZ either before or after that date, It has simply accepted a document   as evidence from Mr Wells who  had already  misled MAF a number of times.
  13.  MAF has never queried why the  that deed   post-dates the application or examined how these persons could possibly be involved with the Approved Organisation.
  14. As a result of  raising questions about the non-existent law enforcement authority AWINZ , I was sued  , this legal action has taken 5 ½ years , Mr Wells a barrister supported By Wyn Hoadley another barrister  and a person who has also had  very close connections with MAF.
  15. They  have used  the charitable  dollar to fund their  attack on me ,  and have won in court  by  making false claims  and  withdrawing them after they had incurred costs which  saw my defence struck out  , then by  skipping  the  bit in the process whereby a decision was made as to whether or not Mr Wells had been defamed they secured their victory by going straight to Quantum  where Mr Wells re wrote history   and used the resulting judgement  to persuade MAF   of the legitimacy of AWINZ.
  16. I have since made a  complaint to the law society  and evidence has now come out to prove that their claims  against me  were malicious  and had no chance of  success    and that Mr Wells  retrospectively created a trust in 2006 .
  17. I brought the issues to the notice of MAF and made requests per OIA. MAF   did not investigate, when it did supply information to me it was censored to such an extent that only a few lines appeared on otherwise blank bits of paper.
  18. Several years later I was able to get the full versions of the documents and had these been made available to me  in their   full form  from the start  it would have precluded many years of litigation, its associated stress and costs.
  19. In a parallel move  at about the same time  as Mr Wells  taking legal action against me I was also sued by  white collar criminals  for harassments, a man who I had never seen spoken to  or investigated   took action   against me  to  stop me from looking for  a director and liquidator of a company he was involved in.  The MED became involved and it transpired that both the director and Liquidator were fictional and had been created to defeat creditors. links Charges over alleged fake liquidator  and Boss invents accountant to escape $60k debt.
  20. Mr Wells was  aware of this action  and  I   quickly found that I was being investigated by MAF  for an allegation of having passed myself off as a MAF officer.  I had been at the premises   of the company which the fictional director owned and had noticed a MAF transitional certificate on the wall, I had mentioned that MAF would be interested in knowing that the  company had  morphed not another company.  On the basis of this I was investigated and    when one lady said  that  she could not remember who I was  but remember  that I was  a MAF officer, it was sufficient for MAF biosecurity to   issue me with a warning.
  21. It appears disproportionate that I should be investigated in those circumstances and that MAF  has not treated the lack of existence of an approved Organisation with  the same degree of importance especially when they had been lied to and I had at all times been truthful.
  22. It is also  strange that Mr wells  has had so much influence in MAF that he has been able to prevent them  from   conducting an  impartial investigation  into AWINZ and that his  revocation letter  of 2009  had the effect of  having MAF withhold  an audit report from me for nearly 2 years.
  23. I note   from Correspondence which I have obtained by  way of OIA that Mr Wells   has  had a relationship with  many of the  high ranking public servants in MAF  and that repeatedly the same names  come up. These people were charged with the over sight of Approved Organisation and the release of information  .
  24. I am happy to assist your investigators in providing    key documents  in investigating the breach of  the standards of  Integrity and conduct.   I  believe that  what has occurred here is   gross corruption and fraud   both of which have been facilitated by MAFs recklessness  and  lack of   integrity.  The  following links on my blog may assist you in your assessment

a)      Corruption In MAF.. will they hide it or expose it

b)      MAF continues to conceal corruption and so does our government.

c)       request for urgent ministerial enquiry

  1. I believe that the code has been breached as follows


a)      Treat everyone fairly and with respect I do not believe that I have been treated fairly or respectfully Mr Wells has much to hide and he has been able to us the trust which MAF has had in him to persuade them not to deal with me in a fair and transparent manner which is evident in the withholding of information.

b)      Be professional and responsive MAF have not been professional in the dealing of the complaint and in 5 1/2 years have not investigated the lack of existence of other persons involved with the so called organisation AWINZ.

c)       Work to make government services accessible and effective there is no accessibility when information is withheld   and there can be no effectiveness when private enterprise can be set up through a non-existent organisation. Additional there appears to be little or no monitoring of approved organisations and the documents which should be supplied according to the MOU are not provided or called for.

d)      Strive to make a difference to the well-being of New Zealand and all its people the difference has been, to condone corruption, this can only be to the detriment of New Zealand and compromises the  essential biosecurity services.  I am one of the people in New Zealand and MAF’s lack of action has not been for my well-being. Whistle blowers  should not  be   treated the way MAF has treated me, not once has some one come  to interview me or ask me  to go through my complaint re AWINZ.  MAF has not reported the Matter to the police or to the SFO both of which will not act without a complaint from MAF.


e)      Maintain the political neutrality required to enable us to work with current and future governments –there appears to have been political interference in the approval of AWINZ, which was given approved status despite not existing and against the recommendation of MAF and treasury.

f)       Carry out the functions of our organisation, unaffected by our personal beliefsKey persons in  MAf appear to have  had  personal relationships  with Mr Wells which have affected their  judgement.  The same people were involved in  1999 as are involved in 2011 – Dr O’Neil became MAF’s chief veterinary officer in 1994 and was appointed to head the MAF Biosecurity Authority when it was formed in 1999. The Biosecurity Authority was the forerunner of Biosecurity New Zealand, established in 2004, which Dr O’Neil now heads.  Mr Bayvel is also a name which has been a constant  he was a  referee for Mr Wells when he moved into a situation of  conflict of interest  as was Mr Mellor.

i.      Questions with regards to conflict of interest  by Both Mr Mellor and Mr Bayvel have been asked in parliament.

g)      support our organisation to provide robust and unbiased advice The personal relationships with Mr Wells have led to Bias to the detriment of MAF and the public.


h)      Act lawfully and objectively  How can it be lawful to allow a non-existent organisation to  continue to enforce the law.? What is   objective about not following policies and guide lines  for approval of approved organisations which state that the   application is made in the applicants name.. a non-existent entity  cannot have a name.  It is a nothing!

i)        use our organisation’s resources carefully and only for intended purposes  the  costs of AWINZ have been huge , all of this  could have been prevented by simply asking for  proof of existence and verifying it from the appropriate register.  Why has no one ever contacted the so called original trustees?

j)        Treat information with care and use it only for proper purposes The information I have provided them   with has been totally ignored and they have been unnecessarily obstructive in releasing information which should have been released. It must be obvious to MAF that they have slipped up badly; it appears that they are taking action to   cover up their negligence.

k)      Work to improve the performance and efficiency of our organisation. How can providing legal authority to   non-existent “organisations’ be effective, there has been a total lack of verification and investigation, the only audit which was done was done   in such a way that the corruption and fraud fell outside the parameters of the audit.  This is worse than   Davey , Thompson and Wilce  put together , this is not just negligence  this is  concealment of corruption .


l)        be honest MAF has not been honest with itself in looking at this matter in an un bias manner, You  only need to look at the letter from Mr wells  Dated  7 October 2009  to see that Mr Wells can  reprimand MAF and  MAF has then complied with his demands  only to be over ridden by the ombudsmen 2 years later when  Mr wells has  finished beating me up in court. .

m)    Work to the best of our abilities Not verifying facts and not investigating something which is untoward is not   working to the best abilities it is beyond reckless.

n)      ensure our actions are not affected by our personal interests or relationships There is   much evidence that the personal relationship of Mr wells   with the high ranking MAF officers has  advantaged him   , he managed to get MAF to investigate me  while preventing MAF from investigating him.

  • o)      never misuse our position for personal gain I  know that   several of the  top person  in MAF hold positions of conflict of interest and questions have been raised in parliament, However I  do not know  if any of those person have gained from  this incident  but hey have allowed Mr Wells to set up a private  enterprise   using the resources of   a local council     which was  a situation of  public office  for private gain, MAF there by became a party to the offence by their negligence.  What is significant is that Mr Wells had the web site  while Mr Mellor and Bayvel  had
  1. We must act with a spirit of service to the community and meet the same high standards of integrity and conduct in everything we do.  MAF  has not shown any integrity in this matter at all  even to the very last letter I received from Mr Mc Nee where he states that  he does not intend to take this matter any further.
  2. As part of complying with this code, our organisations must maintain policies and procedures that are consistent with it. I have  further asked MAF what policies they have with regards to corruption and whistle blowers,, if they have such policies it would appear that they have been totally ignored.   If these    rules had been followed since their inception  MAF

a)      Maf is not alone, The police have failed to act because the matter   was before the  court  , then  they failed to act on perjury.

b)      The  SFO  failed to act because I could not show a  $ value of missing money

c)       Audit NZ, I spoke to one  person who said he saw my emails come in  but  didn’t do anything because he was close to retirement  and did not wish to rock the boat.

d)      Every Government department I have dealt with   has  shown me that the code is there to be ignored.

  1. The  code is the closest thing which we have to an anti-corruption policy  , if it is not enforced or  adhered to   corruption will rise, it appears that currently we    do not have corruption because we  have not defined it and we give those  reporting incidents such as this a brick wall to bang their heads against.
  2. All I ask for is an independent investigation into  AWINZ  how it came to be, its legal existence  and   MAFs role   in allowing  this  fictional organisation to  exist and to continue to exist even after   a most revealing audit which confirmed    my claims and should have  set off alarm bells.
  3. I do not hold out much hope   the mere fact that ringing the state services commission and no one knowing who to report this to   does not inspire me.   I can only guess that the state services commission too will simply ignore this. That is why I will in the interest of transparency post this on my blog site.

Yours sincerely


Does MAF condone corruption?

Filed under: Uncategorized — anticorruptionnz @ 5:42 pm

Two new  posts with regards to AWINZ  have been posted on   they are

Corruption In MAF.. will they hide it or expose it

MAF continues to conceal corruption and so does our government.

Next Page »

Blog at