Anticorruptionnz's Blog

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

Advertisements

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: