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
Anticorruptionnz's Blog 