Anticorruptionnz's Blog


Open letter to auditor general

First of all I would like you  to look  at this clip , I wonder if our “ watchdogs will get such a reprimand one day

Bear that  clip in mind  and then please  don’t ignore   my request or look for ways  to  “ write it off “

For convenience I have hyperlinked  documents  to show that I am not making this up

Please take it seriously  questioning this corruption has  come at a far too great a price   for me  and  no New Zealander should have to go through  what I have been through for asking simple  questions of corruption.

Both MAF and Waitakere city  contract to  ANIMAL welfare institute of new Zealand (AWINZ)  an unincorporated trust ( therefore just a trading name )  which  signed a MOU with MAF  to be an approved organisation under the  animal welfare act .

Both MAF and Waitakere city  have sunk public funds  into the setting up and facilitating this private  body  which  without proof of  independent existences  became an approved organisation under the  Animal welfare act and undertook law enforcement work, piggybacking its “charitable”  work off the back of council .

To clarify the situation AWINZ is  like a SPCA  , but instead of fund raising  and using the charitable funds to  employ staff,  pay for facilities and resources, AWINZ  ,run by the  manager animal welfare Waitakere  uses council staff, resources , facilities and vehicles to  carry out its  work , which is prioritised over council work  . The donations solicited from the public have been used to sue me to keep me quite.

AWINZ  obtained approved status  when  the man  who is now manager animal welfare Waitakere ,  made an application to the minister for approved status   under the animal welfare act 1999, this  act which  was written by that same man and had had clauses added to facilitate his  ambitions of setting up a territorial authority business akin to the SPCA but using council staff which he would train and be remunerated for  in various roles.

Both MAF and Waitakere city contracted to him , Waitakere using public funds to set up and pay for the recruitment of trustees and for legal opinions to facilitate this private  enterprise.

I have now been advised by the minister that the current trustees of AWINZ have asked to relinquish the approved  status section 121 Animal welfare act 1999

Everything  involving AWINZ is muddled, nothing is straight forward or transparent.

  1. The current trustees are not the ones who  signed the MOU with MAF or Waitakere and are  not the ones in whose name the application for approved status was made to the minister.
  2. The current trustees formed a trust in  December 2006 to obtain  charitable status for which  real evidence was required , the purpose  was changed, the name   had a The  added, the trustees were different. ( see earlier deed )
  3. No trust deed had been sighted  prior to 2006  but once I and some others incorporated the identical name to prove that the application to the minister  was  a fraud.  A deed materialised showing the date  1 march 2000 conflicting with  the statement that  a trust had been formed by way of trust deed in 1999. The trust never incorporated.. probably due to lack of a trust deed .
  4. As soon as the trust deed materialised two trustees resigned  and the trust “existed“ against  its own   terms deed  where by 4 trustees were required.( 7 (a))
  5. The  person who signed the contract purportedly for AWINZ  is now the head of  animal welfare Waitakere and therefore effectively contracts to himself.( which  the OECD says is a corrupt practice)
  6. Public money  was banked  into the  AWINZ bank account over which  the  person who made the application to the  crown , was the only one to have  access and control over.
  7. As manager animal welfare Waitakere   contracting to AWINZ  Council  allowed  him to solicit public funds by sending out a flyer with the dog registration, this money also went into the AWINZ account.
  8. As Barrister he undertook animal welfare prosecutions which arose out of the investigations of council employees, money obtained  by offering  diversion was paid into   the AWINZ bank account only he controlled.
  9. He has used council facilities , resources , and  council staff to run this private trust  . The staff were un aware that they did this in a voluntary capacity.( page 2 near bottom)
  10. He told MAF that the premises were leased for $1 per year. Waitakere were unaware that  AWINZ operated  from the premises.
  11. Staff  at Waitakere  still hold AWINZ warrants  despite the minister claiming that AWINZ has relinquished their approved status.

I here by  request an investigation of the use of  MAF’s resources and Waitakere Cities  resources with regards to  the setting up and  operation of AWINZ in terms of section 18  of the public audit act 2001

18 Inquiries by Auditor-General

(1)   The Auditor-General may inquire, either on request or on the Auditor-General’s own initiative, into any matter concerning a public entity’s use of its resources

I am happy to provide the auditor generals office with more evidence than those hyperlinked above Maf has also incurred   costs with the crown law office for  a legal opinion  and  many hours of  research for the purpose of deciding if this organisation was suitable to be approved.

As it turned out  no one ever  checked the most elementary parts of the application in that    the application made  was made using  a false name, a false claim that the organisation existed   and that it had a registered office.

I make this request as  an open letter  in keeping with the spirit of transparency, it will be posted on my blog


1 Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: