Anticorruptionnz's Blog

26/04/2010

Do we have the right to speak and seek the truth ?

Filed under: corruption,Rodney Hide — anticorruptionnz @ 1:24 am

Four years ago  I asked some questions about  the animal welfare institute of new Zealand.(AWINZ)

It plays a public role in law enforcement and   contracts to Central and Local Government. And has obtained significant  public funds through  a fundraising campaign using  council logos,  with which they have sued me  in an attempt  to silence me .

I proved categorically that this “organisation’ did not exist as a legal person in its own right and was nothing more than a trading name for one person.

In four years of questioning accountability with the crown   nothing has been done . Rodney Hide the Mp for local government and  my local MP  who    helped me before the last elections  now claims through his staff  that there is a conflict of   interest.

Does this mean that the crown condones the use of fictitious organisations?

Why can’t I get a reply  from the Ombudsmen   why is the office of the auditor general  dismissing me   when they should be asking questions  why  the  government and local government  contracted to a trading name .

Why does the government condone some one writing legislation for   their own business ventures?

Why do truth and honest play such small roles  and  why are persons  such as myself persecuted for speaking and seeking the truth.

Do we condone  the  use of  fictitious names ? If so why don’t we all start using trading names?

For your next contract   you could be  Peter Pan , Mary Poppins   it appears that it is acceptable to  Government  after all if it is OK  by the auditor general for Waitakere city  and MAF to  contract to a fiction  why can’t  we  each become one .. one  rule  for all  is what I say !

How can New Zealand  be the least corrupt  if we condone the use  of fictional names?

Advertisements

25/04/2010

Animal Welfare Prosecutions – all $$$ no accountability

There are moves afoot to Privatise Dog and stock control which has been the role of  councils.

Auckland city already  contracts dog control  out to animal control services and many dog owners  have experienced the diligence  with which this private enterprise enforces the  legislation.. there Is no secret in this as to   why.. it is because it is lucrative.

Imagine then  if  this service is extended to  give the dog control officer  powers  such as  the SPCA inspectors have, the dog control officer is suddenly not limited

  • To Dogs
  • Public places
  • Offences relating to   dog control

The extension of their powers would mean that

  • There is enforcement of strict liability offences.. You own the cat they claim it is suffering.. Therefore you are guilty.
    • Yes   you can try to defend it  but the  $150  fine will need to be weighed up against the $350 per hour which you’re your lawyer will cost you .
  • Any prosecution undertaken  will result in the  fines  returned to  the complaint  “approved organisation  “Section 171 Animal welfare act- this has to be easier than competing with other charities.

So who are the approved Organisations.

The RNZSPCA by virtue of section  189   is an approved organisation , under its umbrella  come the various branches of the RNZSPCA and the  various SPCA societies which are members.

When an  SPCA member society  or RNZSPCA Branch  recommends a person to the  RNZSPCA be appointed as an Inspector  and that person is appointed  then that  member society  or  branch also becomes an approved Organisation   section 190 .

There is one other approved organisation   this  is  the animal welfare institute of New Zealand  (AWINZ)  It resulted  from a Pilot programme  which a previous RNZSPCA director set up  in Waitakere city,  AWINZ   unlike the RNZSPCA  societies and trusts  is not a legal  person  and is nothing but a trading name to facilitate a concept  which    was documented in 1996  territorial animal welfare authority , effectively  it is a fiction to  which the central and local government have contracted without  checking to see if  it did exist.

At that time of writing the above document  Mr Wells   was located  at No 1 Rankin avenue, the same building as the RNZSPCA.

Mr Coutts   a recruitment manager was also in the same building , he was later to become a “trustee” of AWINZ    and when the RNZSPCA shifted  he also relocated   and  remains today in adjoining offices in Great north road

AWINZ “ contracted” to  Waitakere city  through the manager of animal welfare   Tom Didovich , who  collected  and witnessed the signatures on the trust deed  for AWINZ

Mr Didovich is now national education and branch support manager for the RNZSPCA .

Only one other  organisation  has  ever applied to become an “ approved “ organisation   this was the INTERNATIONAL LEAGUE FOR THE PROTECTION OF HORSES (NEW ZEALAND) INCORPORATED . It applied  to become an approved organisation through MAF and failed     but  has over come the issue  by  changing its name to SPCA AUCKLAND HORSE WELFARE AUXILIARY INCORPORATED    , it is now  under the umbrella of the RNZSPCA    and has   an inspector making it an approved organisation by virtue of section 190  of the act.

And so it appears that  there will be  limitless  possibilities  for   non existent organisations  “ such as AWINZ”   and  for  any organisation   who will change its name and ( possibly for a fee or return on earnings ) to come under the umbrella  of the RNZSPCA   and start enforcing animal welfare.

I suspect that It will not be the serious  stuff which will be enforced , but they will  approach the broken windows  concept  with the pretence that   making people aware of the rights of animals .. its been done before.. speed cameras traffic wardens , swimming pool charges.

It is already happening over seas  http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/Pensioner-banned-from-keeping-pets.6187161.jp

It will  not about  helping animals  it will be about $$$$$$

But worst of all   there is no accountability for animal welfare Inspectors, there is no register , they are not accountable to a tribunal  and there is no  clear cut   complaints  procedure which holds them accountable.

So the scenario will be  that the more they  bring in by way of prosecution  the more the society they represent will earn, the higher their wages will be..

Mr Wells    promoted the AWINZ concept using a  flyer http://www.verisure.co.nz/profit%20in%20animals.pdf there is profit in animals… He wrote the animal welfare act  , to facilitate this concept  he was  independent legal adviser to the select committee  and  adviser to MAF  during the time the  legislation was being considered.

To privatise Dog and stock control  without reviewing the animal welfare act would be extremely dangerous.

16/04/2010

Who can be an approved Organisation.. Back door wide open to legislative powers.

Filed under: corruption,SPCA / RNZSPCA,transparency — anticorruptionnz @ 10:24 pm

The Animal Welfare Amendment Bill is  currently being  considered by the Primary Production Committee, with view of reporting back to parliament or before 30 April 2010.

I made a submission to this  bill pointing out that we  currently had organisations  such as AWINZ ( which is a legal fiction ) administering  the Bill. But my  submission was too embarrasing to them  (because it pointed out  the lack of independence of their  independent advisor) and was   thrown out.

The other approved organisation   is the RNZSPCA  but  just exactly who or what is the RNZSPCA

I have a very serious issue with regards to  what an approved organisation is  and how simple it  is to become one,apparently just by knowing the right people  and without involvement of MAF or the minister.

First we have to understand what an approved Organisation is

An approved organisation – means an organisation declared, under section 121, to be an approved organisation for the purposes of this Act( animal welfare Act)

The act   by section 189 provides for transitional provisions and states   “The organisation known as the Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Incorporated is an approved organisation for the purposes of this Act.”

The act  does not define the RNZSPCA  but Section 190 of the animal welfare act states “Any incorporated society that is a branch or member of the Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Incorporated may, through that royal society (in its capacity as an approved organisation) recommend persons—

  • (a) for appointment under section 124 as inspectors; or
  • (b) for appointment under section 125 as auxiliary officers.”

It  is interesting that this  is in the act when in the discussion papers of the select committee at the time of considering the animal welfare act they said this ..

We have some concern that SPCA member societies  are not directly accountable to the national body ( unlike branches ) this means that there is no direct line of accountability from member societies to the crown. The bill addresses this to some extent  by requiring that  inspectors of member societies can be appointed only under the recommendation of the RNZSPCA. Further  member societies will only continue to be deemed” approved “ organisations under the act if they  continue to be affiliated with the RNZSPCA  and while the RNZSPCA itself  remains an approved Organisation . we accept that to go further  and require affiliated societies to merge with the  RNZSPCA would not be appropriate. “

In the document written by Neil Wells and used as a training manual for inspectors he states “ Inspectors have considerable  coercive powers, and it is  important that such powers are exercised in an impartial and informed way. In deciding whether to recognise an organisation the bill provides that the minister must be satisfied that an organisation meets specific criteria ……”

There are  two wasy to become an  approved organisation

1. Through application to the minister Like AWINZ did   and succeeded  despite not  existing in reality

Or 2  by being affiliated or a branch of the RNZSPCA.

But who is affiliated and who is a branch.. Look at  the RNZSPCA web site and  they all appear  as Branches   but   they are not all branches  many are SPCA’s    and  according to the   official sources as quoted above are not directly accountable to the RNZSPCA .

And why  does the RNZSPCA  call itself  SPCA  and  its  branches SPCA branches ?  is it because it is trying to look like one organisation  when in reality  it is   a whole group of  societies .

If there is a document which  combines the  societies  why  is  it not publicly available, when was it signed  who were the parties to  it , how do    societies become affiliated? How are new ones   set up  can any one start a new SPCA ?

Can you change your name   and become an SPCA and become an approved organisation through back door , it would appear so

In 1999  when AWINZ( a trading name )   applied in that name to  become an approved Organisation   and succeeded without proof  that  the organisation  actually exists, there was another organisation  which also applied  , it  at least was  an incorporated society    this was the INTERNATIONAL LEAGUE FOR THE PROTECTION OF HORSES (NEW ZEALAND) INCORPORATED

I believe it now It  now has its own inspectors  , and attained this through   a simple change of name  on 11-NOV-2008  when it  became the SPCA AUCKLAND HORSE WELFARE AUXILIARY INCORPORATED   . It apparently  comes under  the umbrella of the  e SPCA   Auckland  which  is a member society  of the RNZSPCA , but the RNZSPCA uses the   logo which  it has trademarked being SPCA.

Will this mean that   any group  changing its name to  SPCA   and affiliating  with the RNZSPCA can  employ its own  animal welfare inspectors    who in turn  can use the  wide sweeping  powers that the animal welfare act  gives them    so that they can prosecute  people    for strict liability offences and  collect the  money for  doing so paying up will be  cheaper than trying to defend it .

Is this a possibility for the likes of  dog  contractors to   Auckland city council  to become  member societies of the SPCA and be  appointed  inspectors under  the act?

Looks like a good money making venture to me. section 171 allows  for   the penalties to be paid to  the organisation which prosecuted now we are calling for greater penalties, which is not something I oppose  but   before we increase penalties  we have to  ensure that the structure and integrity is there, we are setting up a law enforcement service with very little accountability .

Is law  enforcements as a primary duty of the RNZSPCA , its member societies and  branches in the best interest of the relationship  between people and animals?

Do we need to   prosecute   those who  through poverty ,illness or lack of intent  neglect their  animals… those people  need help  not  fines… see   the example of what happened in Britain recently

Where was the SPCA  when people brought their attention to  animals which were suffering  ? seehttp://www.4thehorse.net.nz/ and    the issue  where Waikato  branch had failed to address  dying animals

There is  such a thing as   economy in   law enforcement, where it is cheaper to pay up than to defend the matter     will this be practiced by the  RNZSPCA., branches  and  SPCA’s ?     Got to be a better fundraiser than cold calling.

And where is the accountability ?????    It would appear approved organisations  can grow  disproportionately  all without any  in put and control of   central government.

14/04/2010

Reply to Mr Power re Un convention against corruption – request for clarification and reply

Filed under: corruption,transparency — anticorruptionnz @ 10:35 am

Thank you for your reply , yes I did speak to  one of your officials  however I  would  like to  make a few comments on your reply   so that you can become aware that  in practice  things  do not  happen as  the law  and  the processes   intend  them to.

Further I am  some what confused that   in   one paragraph you state that  “Cabinet agreed last year that New Zealand should ratify UNCAC and agreed to the proposals for legislative enactment”  and in the following paragraph state “…will determine whether it is in New Zealand’s interests to ratify UNCAC and will report to Parliament according” Could you please   clarify these two statements  as to  me they appear to  conflict , does this mean that  there is a possibility that New Zealand may not ratify the UN Convention against corruption ?

The issues which I have   experienced are that  we have  government departments which are meant to be the public watchdogs  but  fail to perform due to  budget constraints  and/ or  make decisions on wrongful assumptions  and /or  employ  those who are  out of their  depth and  have no ability to investigate or even think rationally.

I see parallels with  the Madoff  matter and invite you  to look at this clip of a congressman   reprimanding  government servants  for their inaptitude.  New Zealand is no different.

To illustrate this  I have forwarded to your office ( and  again attach) a reply from the auditor generals office , the questions I asked  were all substantiated with documents  obtained by OIA and  I questioned that   contracting to a non existent body. Their reply is grossly assumptive , inaccurate and  dismissive. This  just proves that  taking defamation action   against people  speaking the truth  reaches way beyond  court – it prevents investigations  at the highest level  and to get in first with a defamation claim is to get  immunity from prosecution.

The OAG are not alone, I have asked the minster of Agriculture   to review the accountability because I believe that in contracting to a trading name there can be no accountability because you can never know whose trading name it is.

I have reported the mater to the serious fraud office and the police.. They will not touch it because it  is before the courts.

All these departments have the ability to investigate, however they also have budgets and an overwhelming work load.

To report  a matter to the police or SFO  you need to    provide conclusive proof of the offending  before they will  take a matter on .

I refer to OECD and United Nations action against corruption https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com/oecd-and-united-nations-action-against-corruption/ there is a link to the pdf the OECD  publish called ENHANCING INTEGRITY IN PUBLIC PROCUREMENT: A CHECKLIST On page 9 of that document it states

Defining integrity
Integrity can be defined as the use of funds, resources, assets, and authority, according to the intended official purposes, to be used in line with public interest. A „negative‟ approach to define integrity is also useful to determine an effective strategy for preventing „integrity violations‟ in the field of public procurement. Integrity violations include:
· Corruption including bribery, „kickbacks‟, nepotism, cronyism and clientelism;
· Fraud and theft of resources, for example through product substitution in the delivery which results in lower quality materials;
· Conflict of interest in the public service and in post-public employment;
· Collusion;
· Abuse and manipulation of information;
· Discriminatory treatment in the public procurement process; and
· The waste and abuse of organisational resource.

AWINZ  ticks all the  above boxes  and  if by  the definitions of the OECD  it is an integrity violation   why  are we ignoring  it?

I  did not go public  with my findings until I hit the brick wall of the government  not  doing anything and It was costing me to be in court , we have to have a system where by we can repost matters  and things are not    put in a large dark cavern for many years.

I know what happens I have worked with Government departments in clearing their back log, serious   immigration matters which  for three years  were untouched. The reality is we have far more crime and corruption  than we can cope with  and to me it appears that we have no alternative but to accept  that corruption in NZ is the norm  and the best way to deal with it is  to ignore it because  in bringing it to the attention of the  authorities only exposes you personally  and  nothing will be done any way.

Those with things to hide get in first using the “attack is the best form of defence principal “. – A Court process   , once begun is impossible to stop except by paying out vast sums of money. In terms of economics it is better to be a fraudster than some one questioning fraud.

Once a matter is before the court  the police SFO , OAG  etc  will not touch it  for fear that they may be   interfering with a civil procedure,  this allows for   time to cover the tracks   as  has happened in the AWINZ  matter  where a  further trust was set up and  took over  the non existent  entities place while using  the charitable funds to   keep me in  court  and  government  investigations out of it .

What I questioned originally was relatively minor, what we have now strikes at the very essence of our legislative process and the ability to write  laws for your  own business venture.

The reasons I have asked about the  united nations convention against corruption is that  it  urgently needs ratification  and it would be useful that Judges are made aware of its  contents  especially sections 32-35 .

Article 32. Protection of witnesses, experts and victims

Article 33. Protection of reporting persons

Article 34. Consequences of acts of corruption

Article 35. Compensation for damage

The defamation and  harassment laws in New Zealand are being abused  , the convention gives scope  for the courts to deal with the issues  as do some of our rules, but  courts  appear to   revolve around process and not around facts.

When I was sued for defamation and was denied a defence, My case   will certainly be a land mark case    and I invite  the  crown law office to  look at the   proceedings    to  emphasise that  to be successful in any  civil proceeding  you do not require evidence  and that  the uncorroborated evidence of the  plaintiff is sufficient… this is a very dangerous precedent.

Had New Zealand ratified the convention, the judges may have looked at the matter differently, New Zealand is simply not corruption aware because we have been given the  false message that New Zealand is the least corrupt.

I believe that we have a right to be protected  from false claims and that  no one should have a finding  made against them without evidence of the alleged wrong doing , that is  that which is asserted in the statement of claim.

In  the case with AWINZ  I have been fighting the public purse , I have proved conclusively that this  non existent organisation  formed  into a trust using others  and fundraised  using logos  belonging to the city council   to obtain  charitable funds  which were then used  to beat me up in  court.

I had no protection from the   protected disclosure act, I am  not an employee of  the organisation I questioned , the act does not apply to any one outside the organisation.

I do believe that we  have the  legislation in place already to clean NZ up    but that legislation is  seldom  enforced.  A massive change could  be made by making people accountable  to the truth , we just need to  prosecute  and hit very hard those who  commit  perjury  in  the court   , affidavits   and statutory declarations.

Currently   it would appear that  very few of such  prosecutions  or investigations occur  and  lawyers   openly joke about how   the courts  are manipulated and that truth  is not an issue .

I hope that   I have been able to alert you to the reality of the situation in New Zealand and with the courts, I request that   you   look at my particular case   as an example  of how  justice works in New Zealand . You will no doubt note that Judge Joyce’s decision   is a most defamatory document of me , it is  a public document   and  one which   came  about  because  what I  believe to be false testimony.

Could you please advise  as Minister of justice   if you intend to   ensure that  complaints of perjury are  dealt with urgently  , that  lawyers  who mislead the courts are  dealt with harshly  and that   the courts will be made   aware of the need to rely on real evidence    so that  the opportunities to  use the courts to conceal corruption  is minimised.

Regards

Grace Haden

Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at  www.verisure.co.nz

12/04/2010

Why does auditor general not care if some one writes legislation for their own use?

Filed under: corruption — anticorruptionnz @ 8:09 am

Privacy act request  Office of the auditor general

Since December 2009 I have written two open letter to the auditor generals office  they are posted on my blog

The first was a request an investigation, to which I have not had a reply until now

https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com/2009/12/17/open-letter-to-auditor-general/

the second  was an official information act request

https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com/2010/03/31/official-information-act-request-office-of-the-auditor-general/

The reply I received today   was simple , It may as well have said  get stuffed.  It did not   contain the usual   rights to take the matter to the Ombudsmen   and  it appears that the auditor generals office has    instead made  enquiries   about me  and got it terribly wrong.

The letter purportedly written by Nicola White was signed by Barbara  Grey  .

In the letter it states “We note that the High Court also found no substance to your concerns, when it considered these mailers and awarded damages against you in defamation in 2008.”

I would  like to   take this opportunity to advise you that the decision is under appeal , There is also an application for Judicial review.  There was never a decision that I had defamed any one   and no determination has ever  been made  that there was no substance  to my concerns.

I have  at all times been denied a defence  and    what I have  said has been the truth ( and actually proved in court that it was true- truth is never defamation  ) , that aside  in my  latest open letter I asked  questions   by way of an  official information act request regarding the ability of some one  writing  legislation to   put it to   their own use.  The evidence is there in black and white and that has nothing to do with any defamation claim.

I am now curious as to where you sourced your  very inaccurate information from  and pursuant to the privacy act I request for all  letters correspondence , documents  and  reports which  you hold and or have compiled  and which relate to me.

I ask for these documents so that I  can  see what information you hold  so that I can correct    that information.. which  so obviously is wrong. I believe that the privacy act makes allowances  for  such action.

I will also  forward this to the ombudsmen as a request   to obtain answers to the  questions which I have   put.

This letter will be posted on my  anti corruption  blog https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com

Regards

Grace Haden

Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at  www.verisure.co.nz

From: Barbara Gray [mailto:Barbara.Gray@oag.govt.nz]
Sent: Monday, 12 April 2010 1:14 p.m.
To: grace@verisure.co.nz
Subject: Letter from Nicola White

Barbara Gray

PA to Bruce Robertson

Assistant Auditor-General, Local Government

Office of the Auditor-General

P O Box 3928

Wellington

DDI 04 917 1531

______________________________________________

From: OAGL2Four@oag.govt.nz [mailto:OAGL2Four@oag.govt.nz]

Sent: Monday, 12 April 2010 1:14 p.m.

To: Barbara Gray

Subject: Scanned document from OAGL2FOUR

Document  located at https://anticorruptionnz.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/reply-for-oag.pdf    note the efficiency  it was dated 14 April  recievd in an email on the 12th.. and these people  are auditors!!!

08/04/2010

How to write legislation for your own business plan

Filed under: Neil Wells,SPCA / RNZSPCA,Tom Didovich,Waikato RNZSPCA,waitakere city council — anticorruptionnz @ 2:44 am

I have recently become  aware of the word Kaisen  , it means to   bring about change  gradually, a bit  like boiling a frog,  you start heating the water slowly and  he doesn’t realise  he is done for until it is too late.

And so it is with the animal welfare legislation. To illustrate this I will focus on one person Mr Neil Wells .  A short chronology according to his own   CV .

It shows Mr Wells as being a key player in the RNZSPCA joining in 1971  , becoming president of the  Royal Federation of NZRNZSPCA in 1976  .

It is believed by  some that  he became a barrister in animal welfare law because the RNZSPCA paid for his degree, I have not been able to confirm this either  way.

In 1984 he was a founding member   of a “National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee” and “Animal Welfare Advisory Committee”   the status of these bodies   is unknown to me but it would appear that they lobbied   for an animal Welfare advisory Committee to be set up by Government . This occurred in  1989 when Colin Moyle acceded to the submission of lobby groups.

I believe Mr Wells to have been part of the animal advisory committee due to the acknowledgment by Mr Falloon in a discussion paper “A review of the animal protection act 1960” as being a contributor.

Neil Wells had  already  set up a pilot program in Waitakere with his mate  Bob Harvey ( Bob and Neil worked in advertising and  had been responsible for  getting the   Kirk labour  government  into power ) .

Tom Didovich was the manager of the Waitakere  council dog pound  which  during the  early association with Wells changed its name to Waitakere Animal Welfare  .

In 1996 Wells shares his vision for  a territorial animal welfare service with Didovich , there is no doubt  in my mind that this is a business plan for Wells own venture one which needed legislation   to facilitate it.

As luck would have it the Lobby groups ( many of which include Mr Wells in some capacity )  push for a new animal welfare Act and Neil Wells volunteers to write it. This will become the No 1 Bill or the other wise known as the Hodgson bill .

Concurrently Wells  sets up a training program to  train dog and stock control officers, his fees  to train the dog and stock control officers   are $2500 + GST and there are  fees of $1250 + GST p.a. per council .

He takes the training program to Unitec   and  works with them and NZQA  to  facilitate a course  in anticipation of his plan going nation wide.  He was actively   approaching councils for interest at this time.

I firmly believe that  due to this  he had a vested  interest in the legislation he was writing and  consulting on

It was going to provide him with an income stream for   his territorial animal welfare service and the  lecturing at Unitec  and through the prosecution of animal welfare offences.

A significant  change in the new act  is that  offences now became strict liability offences,  that is  no intent needs to be shown , the offence is complete if you are the owner of an animal found to be suffering.

But  most significant  part  is  section 171 of the animal welfare act  is that  the   fines could be paid to the organisation  brining the prosecution.

Every thing   you would ever need for your own business   all in the legislation which you have  helped write.

The legislation  was passed when a second bill was considered with the no 1 bill

But when a second was bill was introduced    and the primary production  committee  took 39 hours and 22  minutes to consider both the bills after  hearing 15 hours and 22 minutes of  submissions.

Fortunately they had assistance and I quote form the animal welfare legislation booklet which Mr. Wells himself wrote   –  the committee recorded  “ we Received advice from the ministry of Agriculture and forestry ( MAF ) we also employed Neil Wells as an Independent specialist adviser who assisted our consideration. Neil Wells , a barrister who specialises in animal welfare legislation , had earlier been involved in the draft Hodgson bill

Of note again was that   Mr Wells was a legal adviser to MAF during this time and it appears to me that he had more than one finger in the pie . I cannot find anything  anywhere where he declared his conflict of interest to the  Primary production committee  although I did  find a reference  that Mr. Wells   told MAF that he had verbally told some one  of the conflict, I have been unable to prove or disprove this.

And so the  act   became law  an act which gave  inspectors wide sweeping powers, , the ability to become a private prosecution  authority with  little or no accountability  and  to keep all funds arising out of their action.

The select committee is currently looking at increasing the penalties for offences under the animal welfare Act .

In an interesting twist  Tom Didovich  who worked with  Mr Wells so closely with in  setting up the integration of dog and stock control with  SPCA  duties, is now well placed in the RNZSPCA  ready to  turn the  RNZSPCA into a  prosecution authority instead of the  helpful   and service it once was.

Didovich is also a “ trustee” of a trust named the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand which bears the  same name as an approved organisation which gained “ approved status from the labour cabinet after  the  president of  the labour party at that time, Bob Harvey  was consulted. The fact that there was no evidence of the  of an organisation by the name of  the animal welfare institute  existing  was  apparently not important … Untill I asked  and then I was sued.

See diagram of the  interactions

06/04/2010

The name game .. Identity fraud , Identity theft or confusion for an ulterior purpose

There appears to be  much confusion as to what exactly identity fraud is , there  appears to be a general expectation that  the identity of one person is used by another  and that there is a theft of  information.

There was a great article published  by Tony Wall which  shows  just how  identities can change   , he showed what confusion went with this, But as Suzanne Paul ( and that is not  her real name either  ) But wait there is more …

I  am of the opinion that when you use  a name which is not your real name  , specifically for a purpose of obtaining an advantage  ( pecuniary or otherwise )  then   that is identity fraud. The are others who use another name   for various innocent  reasons and get to be known  by it Suzanne  being a case in point. (   I bet that if she gets  loan she does so in her real name)

Whilst there  is  no doubt that identity theft  happens  it is  actually a lesser  issue than  being a victim of  Identity fraud   where by  you  trade or inter act with some one  who used a name other than their own  for the purpose of obtaining a benefit.

An identity does not have to be stolen from  some one   in order to be used.  It can simply be created   and  it is often a credible sounding name  which makes  people believe that  such a person or organisation truly exists.

Take AWINZ for example Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand   is but a fictional  name used to portray  the existence   of a united body of persons, but  who or what is the Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand ?( sounds  like WINZ   a government department  even uses a logo nearly identical to that  on  the council buildings ) see here and here

  1. It was used to  provide the false end title which was given to the lord of the rings , that no animals were hurt in the making of the movie . See also the letter which the

AHA wrote

  1. to Neil Wells
  2. It was  the name Neil Wells  proposed to council for the provision of SPCA type services to the council at the end of 1998 when a draft deed was drawn up
  3. It was  the name on the notice of intent  in August 1999
  4. It was the name in which an application for  funding in October 1999 and money  was obtained .
  5. It was  the name in which a  formal application to the minster was made in November 1999 by virtue of section 121 Animal welfare Act for  Animal welfare institute of New Zealand to  obtain “ approved status “  which brings with it  wide sweeping law enforcement ability.

It should be noted that the act says that he application has to be  made in the name off the applicant. You just have to wonder how something which does not exist can be an applicant.

In 2006  when   no  identity could be found for  AWINZ  (and therefore  no accountability) we set up   our own AWINZ his one was legal because it was registered  under the charitable trust act  1957  which confers Body corporate status   and make  the name that of a legal person   it was explained to Neil Wells By  The Ministry of economic developments .

It was following  this that a trust deed was provided a deed this showed Nuala Grave , Sarah Giltrap, Graeme Coutts and Neil Wells to be the trustees  calling themselves AWINZ

We were then told we would be sued   but it was not those people who  sued  ,it was Wyn Hoadley  Graeme Coutts and Neil Wells  who now claimed to  AWINZ but had no proof that they were.

Later  Tom Didovich   the man  who had originally  obtained the  witnessed the  signature on the original   deed signed a deed with  Hoadley , Coutts and Wells  in December 2006 , this  trust then  claimed to be the same as the previous trust .

By now  you should   be suitably confused  and hopefully see  that  identity in New Zealand is  a complicated issue.

Banks  are starting to get it   ,but slowly. I actually found a bank account in the name of Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand  at the national bank , it had no trust deed,  was not a trading name    and  held  public funds. Only Neil Wells had access to this account , in my  mind that    proves to me  at least that AWINZ was at all times a trading name for Neil Wells.

Our Identification practices are less than slack , our accountability to the truth is non existent  But New Zealand  is not  corrupt…Perhaps  its because we cannot identify those who are corrupt  because they are hiding behind some name which  can be any one at any time .

You may sa  why blog about it  why not take it to the police  or   some where.. well I have  I have tried for  4 years to get accountability  but  this seems so well entrenched that it is being protected at the highest level .

If I have been sued  for Questioning this  who  else  is  suffering the same? I am sure I m not alone

We need more transparency and accountability .

03/04/2010

Open letter Official information act request and privacy act request Minister of local Government.

Open letter      Official information act request  and privacy act request Minister of local Government.

This week I was told that I could not meet with you with regards to the issues relating Waitakere city council  ,I was told that this would be a conflict of interest with your port folio  and it was suggested to me that I should speak to some  other MP’s out west  even though you are also my   local MP.

The circumstances are that Waitakere city council is allowing their dog and stock control officers  to volunteer their   services  ( council  paid time ) to  an “organisation”  which I believe  does not have any legal standing.

Circumstances

In 1999 , Neil Wells, who is now the manager of the dog pound at WAITAKERE council   , made an application to the minister of agriculture for  a trust (which he claimed existed   , but in reality had no signed deed  )  , to become an approved organisation under the animal welfare act , an act which he himself  had  had significant in put in.  ( he wrote the bill ,  was independent  advisor to  the select committee and legal advisor to MAF )

The “ trust “ for want of a better word was   given approved status, but none of the trustees  had any  legal accountability  because  only one person ( WELLS)  without any verifiable evidence of his ability to act for and on behalf of  the others,  made the application in their names.

And so it was that  the animal welfare Institute, a trading name  purportedly for  Neil Wells, Nuala Grove, Sarah Giltrap and  Graeme Coutts  became an approved organisation  without    checking to see if the  latter three had any idea of the responsibility they were taking on or even consenting to it.

In 2006 I asked who or what AWINZ was, I was promptly sued   to  stop me from asking   revealing  questions.  But it did flush out a trust deed  in fact it  flushed out two  despite   Mr wells claiming in 2000  that here was only one copy and this had been sent to the  registrar for  the purpose of registering the trust  under the charitable trust act  1957  ( this  obviously never happened ) I  do wonder how the original trust deed came to be returned  when the registrar had no record of having received it( only certified copies are sent   usually )

When the   deed surfaced in 2006 Two Trustees allegedly resigned , again this was all hearsay and no  documentary evidence .

A new trustee came on board   again   no  documentation and no signed deed , this alleged trustee was   Wyn Hoadley.

Imagine trying to collect a debt from AWINZ  , who would pay you?  Who would be accountable?

I can assure you that if it was a debt you were collecting  you would  not have  been able to hold any one accountable  except perhaps Mr Wells  who  was the only real person identified in the transaction.

Incredibly then   Three people  who were not the same people as those who were give approved status then sued me ,  to do this  they used the charitable funds  which were raised  amongst other means   by using  council logos and sending solicitation letters  out with dog registration  papers.

Together  with  former manager of animal welfare Waitakere city ( who witnessed the original  trustees signatures)  joined those who were suing me   and  in December 2006 these people formed a trust  which they also named Animal welfare institute of New Zealand.

But these people  using the same trading name  were not the same   “ trust “ as the people  who had  obtained approved status.

Think of it these terms  , if these people had bought a  house ,  the name  which would have been on the  title  would  have been those of the trustees.  Each trustee would have had to have signed the real estate papers and  the transfer papers.

The  trustees who resigned  would have had to have had their names removed from the title  and  any new ones entered onto the title before they could  lay claim to being a trustee holding interesting that property.

I wish to make it clear that we are not talking about a family trust we are dealing with a  law enforcement agency  capable of  seizing peoples pets and prosecuting people   for what in extreme circumstances could  be their inability to afford vet fees.. a law enforcement  agency  which assured the minister that  it  would have accountability to the  public  by virtue  of  its registration  as a legal person by virtue of the charitable trust act.   ( this process takes  a mater of d ay  yet AWINZ claimed to be in the process  from August 1999  to March2000  and by 2006  was still not registered, Mr wells did manage to  register at leats  four other trusts in that same period )

What is more the legislation which was written   by  Mr Wells  was written   with intent to facilitate his  own business venture and   provides  for  “ approved “ organisations  to  receive the   fines  back into their own coffers ( section 171 Animal welfare act).

The inspectors  are not subject to the   vigorous regulations which e.g. private Investigators  who have no  law  enforcement powers at all  are subjected to and  given the fact that the “ organisation “ to which they are accountable  does not  in reality exist  there can  be no accountability at all.

The whole concept of   approved organisations comes from Mr wells a former RNZSCA director, I   have been told that the RNZSPCA paid for his law degree.  He and Mr. Didovich established the  scheme in Waitakere, Mr Didovich is not  well established in the hierarchy  of the RNZSPCA

Official information request  Minister of local Government.

  1. Your office  has advised me that a  public discussion paper is going to be published in February next year. I have been told by SPCA officers that  Dog and stock control is to be privatised ,  Please advise  If this paper  is with regards to the privatisation of  dog and stock control currently undertaken by councils.
  1. As it is obvious that something is contemplated and that  those in the animal  welfare sector are aware of  what  is in the pipe line   could you please advise  if there is a policy which   allows  certain people to become aware of impending  changes  before public consultation has even begun.( and is still so distant )
  1. Please also advise if it is appropriate that some  sectors of the community are for warned about  such policy changes.
  1. The Waikato animal welfare foundation , which  I believe has close connections with  the Waikato SPCA trust  which Mr  Wells  was a foundation  trustee of (  taking  charge of $400,000  of the RNZSPCA’s money)  has  announced  developments  at WINTEC.  Please advise if  you have been communicating with Wintec or any one involved with this foundation  with regards to the facilitation of training for the council  staff   and  others  to  be trained to replace the council  dog  and stock control officers.
  1. I would  like to mention here that UNITEC  tendered for and won the contract  at the time that the animal welfare Act became law, it was no surprise that Mr Wells who had written the act was also lecturing at Unitec and had written the course to   go hand in hand with the act.  Many would say that this is using inside information and it  appears to me that history is about to repeat.
  1. If you believe that it is a conflict of interest to   speak to me  with regards to lack of accountability of the animal welfare  institute of New Zealand   ,its involvement in Waitakere  city and use of the  public funds obtained through council connections, do you then  condone  such practice  or is  it simply that you do  not wish to   be formally aware of the situation  because that would throw a spanner in the works  for privatisation  which I am aware Act supports.
  1. I  wish to draw your attention to  the fact that you were helping me with this mater before  you became  a minister, you disapproved of the  practice then,   has your status as minister made this practice acceptable? Why do you  seemingly condone this action now  when  previously  you were pro active about exposing   this conflict of interest?
  1. Please provide  copies of all documents, correspondence , notes and  jottings  with regards  to and from  any  approved organisation, to and from  Maf , SPCA, RNZSPCA, AWINZ,  training   establishments such as Wintec, Unitec and the Waikato animal welfare foundation   with regards to
    1. Privatising  dog and or stock control
    2. Amalgamating council   dog and stock control with  animal welfare.
    3. Reviewing animal welfare  services
    4. Reviewing dog and stock control services.
  1. What cost benefit analysis  have been undertaken  and what conflict of interest precautions do you  have in mind.

Further   as per the provisions of the Privacy act    I would  like you to supply all correspondence which  the  minister of local government  and  his department  holds which pertains to me personally  and to my company Verisure Investigations Limited.

And I was  also wondering if you could please provide me with some inside information too so that I can set up a business venture based on   information which is not yet in the public realm so that I can be ahead of others   in the tender process.. I do believe that this is an equal opportunity country  if it  good enough for some   to be in the know  then it must be good enough for all .

I will be posting this letter and   the reply on my Blog   at https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com/, I hope you can treat this reply with urgency so as not to keep the readers, which will include all SPCA’s and local bodies ,in suspense.

Regards

Grace Haden

Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at  www.verisure.co.nz

01/04/2010

Breaking news Privatisation of dog and stock control

Filed under: corruption,Rodney Hide,SPCA / RNZSPCA,Tom Didovich,Waikato RNZSPCA — anticorruptionnz @ 11:15 pm

This week I  was told by Rodney Hides office that  he could not meet with me due to a conflict of interest  due  to a public discussion paper which is going to be released  next February… all I knew  was that it has not yet been written   .

I have been questioning  why a local  government  contracts  animal welfare services to a trading name for an undisclosed  trust  and there are no documents  which contract council to a  legal person . What complicates this is that the person representing the trust  ,   is also the council manager   and effectively contacts public services  to himself .

Rodney Hide  is the minister of local Government and he is my Local MP and it looks as though   he is planning his next move after  he has the super city  set up .The council manager who   in my opinion has made false statements to the crown   and  has worked with a pretend trust  then set another trust up to  give it some  substance  is also so the man who wrote the legislation which now appears to me to be being used to privatize dog and stock control, legislation which has  wide sweeping powers and little accountability for the  enforcers   and  will be a licence to print money.

We are not supposed to know   what is next on the  menu  but it appears that some already know and are actively planning     and this  is one year  before the  public discussion paper is going to come out .  so why are some already in the know    and How democratic is  al of this?

From information I have received from various sources  I am  of the belief that  Dog and stock control will be taken from councils and the SPCA will take over this role.   The SPCA  and the RNZSPCA  will take on extra inspectors , actually I believe that the RNZSPCA will be   wound up  and new SPCA’s  with new constitutions take over.

Royal New Zealand SPCA’s National Chief Executive, Robyn Kippenberger and Rodney Hide are well connected as Robyn was none other  than Robyn Mc Donald   who  was in parliament with  Rodney  when she was a NZ First list MP.

Despite millions of dollars stashed in  trusts, the RNZSPCA is pleading poverty ,this lack of funds  was brought about by tactical measures which moved  significant sums into  other trusts as with the Waikato branch of the RNZSPCA . A recent  example of   shifting of  funds can be seen at SPCA: benefactor’s cash safely invested | Stuff.co.nz

In the mean time  more branches are popping up  the  International league of  horses , which  tried to become an approved organisation and failed  has now   become a branch of the SPCA

Many RNZSPCA Inspectors volunteer their time and get little support while the Business  of the SPCA grows using the legislation written by a former director  and gives them much power and  little accountability or transparency.

Few see the significance of the  blurring of boundaries   with the SPCA and the RNZSPCA   much confusion is occurring here and  no one seems to  be asking questions.

What is significant is the   select committee is  currently looking at increasing the penalties  for animal welfare offences.  My  submission was rejected and I believe this to be   so that   the conflicts of interests  and the  fact that these penalties  are payable to  the  enforcement authorities can remain out of public view.

While this is going on preparations have already commenced for the training of the extra officers  and I am picking that this is going to be done through  the Waikato Animal Welfare Foundation, which  just like  AWINZ  is just a name and not a  legal person .

See  news items  http://www.infonews.co.nz/news.cfm?l=69&t=72&id=50174

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/AK1003/S00362.htm

http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/3526478/New-home-will-be-animal-haven

Hands up who would  like to write the  legislation for their own business venture, then   with as little accountability as possible   enforce offences  which are strict liability  and  collect the   fines yourself  all set in motion  without  consultation to the  public.

Looks to me  like  an open door to corruption.  So why Won’t Rodney speak to me ?  does he support corruption? or does  he not grasp  that  councils  should not allow managers to contract to themselves and avail themselves  of public money by  using council staff for   their private purposes or fundraise  for services provided  by council staff  and  put money in a private bank account  held in a  trading name  for undisclosed persons.

Perhaps its time Rodney looked up the definition of corruption as provided by the  United Nations convention against corruption  and   if New Zealand is at all  serious about ratifying the convention then  turning a blind eye  takes us further from that objective.

Blog at WordPress.com.