Anticorruptionnz's Blog

02/09/2010

Can audit NZ turn a blind eye to fraud ? if so are they condoning private use of council facilities?

Filed under: corruption — anticorruptionnz @ 1:11 pm

Mr Key

Four years ago  I  rightfully  questioned a situation in Waitakere city where by a public servant was contracting to himself. As a result I was sued to keep  me  quite .

Just recently I  questioned the  definition of fraud  used by the audit office I was advised that  this definition was Fraud – an intentional act by one or more individuals among management, those charged with governance, employees, or third parties, involving the use of deception to obtain an unjust or illegal advantage.emails audit NZ

I have a situation which involves  exactly that   yet when I raised questions about  this matter with  the local body concerned I was sued by the  council manager   who used the charitable funds of the  no existent entity  which contracted to the local body  to silence me. This appears to have been  a very effective move  because   the office of the auditor General has  told  me they would not  touch it because I have been sued.

It appears to me  that New Zealand is a breeding ground for fraud   because  no one can safely question it and the audit services which should  protect us from this misuse of public funds and  resources  do nothing to stop it.

The ombudsmen are likewise useless and every  so called   public watch dog we have turns a blind eye.

It appears that  audit NZ and the office of the auditor general can be selective about  what they audit  and can turn  a blind eye to what is clearly fraud by their own definition.  When  those charged with public duty fail  to  perform the propensity for   fraud will only increase  please    look at this clip of a congressman   reprimanding  government servants  for their inaptitude.  New Zealand is no different.

I find it ironic  that on the audit  NZ web site it  is stated “It’s our job to help public sector organisations have better financial and non-financial management.” And

Independent audits play an essential role in the stewardship of public resources and corporate governance of public services. I agree so why is there no independent audit of the   contract which Waitakere city  has with AWINZ for the provision of animal welfare services.   This contract  is controlled by the  by the manager animal welfare is to  himself as CEO of an organisation which had no proof of existence beyond a trading name for himself .  mou waitakere.pdf and has never  been sanctioned by full council

On a further page  there is the  claim Our core strengths are in providing assurance over contract management, tendering and procurement processes, project management, and asset management planning. We have a depth of experience and capability in these areas. Why could contracts  with local and central  government   ( MAF)  be granted in  circumstances which lack  transparency and integrity   and why is audit NZ  not  interested in  investigating  even  to ensure that these  tactics are not  used again in   the  future. mou MAF.pdf,

On a further page it states Following good practice will help to ensure that your contracting is successful and that your organisation’s integrity is maintained. I have to question what good practice is  when   there is no verification in a process  to ensure that he contracting party exists and is not a council l officer acting in a different guise.  And   what is good practice when a  manger of a council  division  can write  for an on behalf of two councils  offering the  voluntary use of the staff they supervise  to outside  organisation  during their paid employment. didovich to maf north shore.pdf didovich to maf waitak.pdf 5  jan 2000.pdf

And  an another  web page there is a statement  You want your asset management planning to allow your assets to be managed effectively and efficiently in support of your key services. Audit NZ and the auditor general therefore condone   the  existence and operation  of a third party  organisation on the premises of council   using plant, equipment,  resources and vehicles   to further their  own business goals   .   So where are our standards?     See 8 may 2000  wells.pdf

By turning a blind eye to  the animal welfare institute of New Zealand  fiasco   are we condoning   this type of fraud? And condoning  the use of  public resources for private  pecuniary gain?

Is the office  of   the auditor general  and  audit NZ are proving that they  are negligent and do not  do the work which they are supposed to do. Who will audit the  auditors?

And Why don’t we verify   anything    we are so trusting  or is that ignorant?  New Zealand is  on its way to be the most corrupt country in the world  we have a very good strategy  to keep us  up there in the least corrupt stakes  by  denial   and  the placement of many brick walls  which are intent to make   those who question give up.

A copy of this letter is on https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com/

Regards

Grace Haden

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

https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com/

Advertisements

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: