Anticorruptionnz's Blog


whistleblowers in New Zealand get no protection.

Filed under: corruption — anticorruptionnz @ 10:55 am

To: ‘’
Cc: ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘pita.sharples’
Subject: whistleblowers in New Zealand get no protection thereby protecting NZ’s least corrupt status .


Open letter to transparency New Zealand  .. What protection do Whistle blowers get ???

Good morning Alex

You may remember me I am  a fellow member of the association   certified Fraud examiners  and  a  corruption whistleblower.

I  am writing to you  in your role of director of Transparency International.


I am not wishing any assistance from you with my   personal  case but wish to express to you the issues  which I have faced over the  past 4 ½ years since asking what I thought were some simple  questions of public  accountability of a  private law enforcement “ organisation”. Background to my case is on see the INDEX for  specific headings

The best form of  defence  is attack  and those seeking to  conceal the corruption attacked me in the civil jurisdiction.  I have been financially drained , they have had me in bankruptcy   my family has been torn  apart.. I am sure that you  will know the symptoms  it is classic  of what Whistle blowers endure.  We need only look at  case studies of high profile fraud cases  which   all start by attacking  and discrediting the whistleblower.

My Issue  is that   I have  over that time been unsuccessful in getting any one   in  government  to act. I have   been everywhere and all I get is  walls to knock my head up against.  I know I am not alone   I know of others who experience the same.

New Zealand cannot  keep on pretending that there is no  corruption  by simply  making it impossible for people to expose it .

By allowing corruption to be concealed we are creating a breeding ground for  corruption which  left unchecked will be uncontrollable.

I have just returned from the ACFE conference in Melbourne   and there whistleblowers were recognised as the No  1 means by which  fraud and corrupt practices were exposed. Yet in New Zealand we have no protection  for  persons  such a as my self  as I am not protected by the   protected  disclosures act.

New Zealand has signed but  not ratified the UN Convention against corruption.   Had we signed it  the convention would  provide  protection.

Could you please advise  what Transparency International ( New Zealand) is doing  in creating corruption awareness  in the government sector  and  providing  protection to persons  such as myself.

Do you have any plans to put  effective systems in place where by those who   wish to question corrupt practices  are not left on their own to be crucified by those  who can attack them using a bottomless pit of  charitable dollars and legal  expertise.

Had I been a criminal   I would have served my time by now  , instead this is my 5th Christmas where I am fighting court decisions which through the  cunning  manipulation of the  court process by those seeking to conceal their  corrupt practice  have sought to  deny me my basic   human rights of a fair hearing and a right to justice .

For your information  My matter is of gross public interest and strikes at the heart of State capture  and  public private  relationships  where by a person in public office was acting in circumstances as  defined by the UN as  using a  public office for private gain.  What makes it worse  is that this man even wrote the legislation to facilitate it.

I have no doubt is the tip of the ice berg

I look forward to your response and a way forward so that others  do not have to endure   what I am going through.


Grace Haden


“Seize the state, seize the day”: state capture, corruption, and influence in transition

Filed under: corruption — anticorruptionnz @ 4:01 pm

“Seize the state, seize the day”: state capture, corruption, and influence in transition refer  source

Mr Key

I wrote to you this morning   regarding  the animal welfare institute of New Zealand ( AWINZ )   a law enforcement authority which is  fictional in structure and  although it has legal powers  is no more than  a trading name for one man  who wrote the legislation to facilitate it.


Because of the lack of substance of AWINZ  there are  no binding contracts  but  despite this  those  using the name in the pretence that it exists  have  the legal ability ( and has done so ) to prosecute  citizens and keep the proceeds   section 171 animal welfare act.


AWINZ   came into being  when  a citizen who had drafted a business plan for  his own  business venture  , wrote  the major part of the  animal welfare act, he then  became an employee of the  select committee and  was their independent advisor, he was also advisor to MAF .


When the  act he had contributed to and advised on  became law he told  the minister that  an organisation existed   and applied in the name of that organisation for approved status under the act to  give himself the same rights as   the RNZSPCA   of which he had been a former director.


The statements in the application was false  and in 2006 there was no evidence of any organisation and an alleged trustee stated that the proposed  trustees had  not met since late 1998 .  The deed  which was supplied  had expired in 2003   and he contracts with local and central government was  signed without  the deed or any evidence of  trustees being provided.


Despite claims that AWINZ  no longer exists  it is still a registered charity and   has never been removed from the list of approved organisation.


I   have been  informed that this is  a good example of state capture  which is a form of corrupt practice.   The article    whose title  has been used  was published in 2000.


I again emphasise that I questioned this corrupt practice some 4 ½   years ago and have been held in the court  without right of trial   having been arbitrarily found  guilty  of defamation on the basis of my own  affidavit which was submitted   in mitigation of damages as the  act allows for.


I have been unsuccessful in finding any  government department  which  deals with this  aspect of corruption and therefore seek your assistance.


Could you please advise  to whom one makes a complaint with regards to state capture and By way of OIA please supply all documents which consider this form of corruption and methods we  have employed to combat this .


More information  with regards to AWINZ  can be found  on my blog site




Grace Haden


Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at

From: Grace Haden []
Sent: Monday, 13 December 2010 12:42 p.m.
To: ‘’
Cc: ‘’; ‘’; ‘’
Subject: whistleblower protection United nations convention agaisnt corruption


Good afternoon  Mr Key



Some 4 ½  years ago  I asked questions   of a  private law enforcement authority   which contracted to both local and  central government .


The so called organisation was  run by the man who wrote  and advised on the legislation to facilitate it  he


1.       Applied for approved status under the act which he had written ( animal welfare ) for  an organisation which did not exist to become  an approved organisation  making it similar to the RNZSPCA

2.       Avoided sending a trust deed when Maf requested it

3.       Failed to register the  so called trust under the charitable trust act  as assured in the application and  in correspondence to the then  minster  of agriculture

4.       In 2006  when I questioned the existence of  the trust and the lack of  trust deeds on public  record   I was sued  for defamation  for calling it s sham trust.

a.       In a game of legal manoeuvring  I was prevented  from having a defence  and no  decision has ever been made that I  defamed Mr wells  and that  what I said was not the truth .  the court  has continually been misled  and I have been denied  the right to a fair hearing. ( the only hearing was for Quantum  in which  my affidavit of mitigation of damages  was used against me

5.       The trust documents which first saw light in 2006  claim that the deed was signed 1.3.2000

a.       This is some 4 months after  the  trust was claimed to be in existence ( application  22/1/99 )

b.      The deed  states that the trustees are appointed for  3 years   this means that without further proof the trust ceased to exist after 1/3/2003

i.      The  trustees claim that the trust did not meet  and there is therefore no evidence of re appointment of trustees .No evidence has been provided  or is available to show that the trust   continued to exist

6.        The author of the legislation  acting  as trustee  of the trust whose deed had now expired  signed  agreements  with   MAF and to Waitakere city through his  colleague Tom Didovich  the manager of  dog and stock control ,  who’s job he was to acquire  a year  or so later.

a.       This manager had also collected the signatures for  the deed, witnessed them and  then became  a trustee of a similarly named trust which attempted to show continuity.

I have been to every government department  which I can think of   , I have been stone walled all the way .

Had New Zealand ratified the united nations convention against corruption  I would have protection through the court , instead   all these  years of litigation  have  taken their toll on my  family , my financial resources , my health, my business , my friends .

Not only  am I not provided  with any  protection  I have been left entirely in the cold  by all government agencies which have a responsibility to ensure that corrupt practices  do not occur.

This is far worse than  John Davies, Marianne Thompson  and Stephen Wilce,  yet no  one will investigate , I have been left entirely on my own

Could you please advise  why a matter of  government  and local bodies  contracting to  fictional   bodies  through the staff members     is not seen as  fraud and corruption and why  no one investigates.



Grace Haden


Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at




MAF gives Law enforcement powers to a Mythical creature

Filed under: transparency — anticorruptionnz @ 5:29 pm

For the information  for the ombudsmen’s office and  for the information of the ministers  Please  do something!     ..   also a further OIA for MAF  by way of clarification of the  letter attached.

MAF gives Law enforcement powers to  a Mythical creature .. then runs and hide and allows a woman to be destroyed because she asked  why it wasn’t real?

Why steal and identity  when you can make one up and have it treated as real and given more rights than a real person has?

How can MAF condone this ????  Why do our ministers  not get involved?

In 2000  The  then minister of Agriculture , based on direction from  the labour cabinet , gave law enforcement powers to   a mythical creature called AWINZ. It had  been  created by one of  their party members, an advertising man well versed in spin,  and  supported  by  the labour party  president   at that time ..Bob Harvey a former  associate  in advertising  of  AWINZ creator.

AWINZ, the mythical creature   and sounding  just like a government  department   became a  private law enforcement  authority  with ability to keep all the proceeds of  prosecutions  it under took through the animal welfare act.

It was Given” Life”   through the animal welfare act  which   had been written  with   the creation of AWINZ in mind   by the man  who  advised on the act, wrote the bill and  applied  for AWINZ  to be an approved Organisation.

AWINZ the fiction which has been personified  has been  better than  any Identity fraud I have   ever seen . No one is interested in it because there is no proof of how much money it took from the people , but  I can assure you that the potential  was massive.

Like a great parasite  it leached on to   Waitakere city council functions of dog and stock control, the city in which Bob Harvey was mayor.

It operated from the council  premises, used council Logos, staff, resources  and  vehicles. Like a true  mythical creature  it was there  but not there. AWINZ  creator   became the manager of animal welfare   and although he contracted to himself through this hypothetical trust which no one had  seen a deed for   it was not seen as corruption  as defined by the OECD  or the united nations  .. being public office for private Gain  and was apparently   condoned  by all to who the issue was raised.

When dog registration came up  funds were collected   and banked in to the creatures bank account  which   the manger of animal welfare administered.

When the  staff under his council supervision noticed  some one being naughty with an animal  they would  tell their boss  who would report to the  creator of  the mythical creature  who would then  pass it to the barrister   who would get money from the prosecution   and  would then put it in the bank account.   This system was highly efficient  as   the one man  wore many hats..  we were to find out in court  that this is because NZ is small.

Something  got in the way of the creatures growth   and that was me…  I said one day  excuse me  but isn’t this a  fiction (  I actually used the  words  sham trust )     and  from there on  I have been held in court for  some 4 ½  Yeas , been denied a   defence  had costs trumped up against me, , I have paid out nearly $200,000  to lawyers, it brought about the end of my marriage,  torn may family apart  and destroyed my business  . You see the creature fought back   by misleading he court and using  the public  charitable dollar  which  it had ferreted away.

I am a reasonably astute person  , Former Police Sergeant, Private investigator    and have found it impossible to get MAF  to  investigate AWINZ. I have  found it impossible to get justice .

Wells   the  man  who created AWINZ  is  obviously so trusted by MAF ( advised  both  MAF and   the select committee on the legislation ) that  he has not had to provide  any evidence of the fictional  creature he created.  And with Mr Wells firmly in control of the creatures bank accounts  and  the public paying into this  he has been able to fund the litigation to silence me .

MAF on the other hand  provided me with the brick  wall to hit my head against  while I have been  sued for defamation  where no evidence has ever been produced and I have been denied my statutory right to a defence of  truth and honest opinion.

This has gone on for too  long . MAF   they treat me as if I a   nuisance  yet  their neglect in confirming the organisation    set me up for the fall when I asked  why  there was no evidence of its existence   and therefore questioned the accountability.

There are now so many people involved in the cover up  that I feel it is easier  for me to be sacrificed  than to admit that there was a law enforcement agency which did not exist in reality and no one   did anything when it was brought to their attention.

I  had  hopes  that National would  do something about it   because it is not involved in this cover up    but we are now 2 years into National  governance  and nothing much has changed.    Does National     condone  this   ?  or have they simply been too busy    I ask the ministers  to whom this is addressed  please to  investigate.


Thank you for the attached response  reply re awinz ceasing to be an  approved organisation it does however raise a few more questions  which  I hope  can be addressed by  virtue of the official information act.

1.       I have ascertained from the new council that there are still a number of warranted officers   at the  Waitakere city  animal welfare facility.  Could you please provide  all correspondence with regards to the warrants for these   inspectors    which shows the   accountability and  lawfulness of their  appointments in terms of the act. IE

a.       who were they accountable to

b.      who did they report to

c.       who supervised them and

d.       since the  existence of  Waitakere city council who in Auckland city approved the continuation of  this arrangement.

2.       Please provide details of any animal welfare  prosecutions which have  occurred in the past year as a result of work done by the   warranted inspectors  in Waitakere.

a.       How many prosecutions were there

b.       Who prosecuted the  cases

c.       Which approved Organisation received the  compensation  form these  prosecutions as provided for by section 171 of the animal welfare act.

3.       Any correspondence to Waitakere animal welfare , Auckland transitional council  and  Auckland city council  regarding the r  continued appointment of the   animal welfare inspectors at Waitakere  and termination  letters if applicable.

Your letter makes it clear that  that the MOU dated  4 December 2003   is the current MOU .

This MOU was signed By Neil Wells as trustee of  AWINZ  could you please provide

1.       all evidence on which you relied  that Mr Wells was Trustee of AWINZ  and  had   authority  to sign for  and on behalf of other trustees.

2.       Provide  the  copy of the trust deed which you relied upon to show that this  Trust was a legal entity

3.       Please advise when you received  copy of this trust deed.

4.       Please provide all documents  that show the   resignations and appointments of all trustees to the trust

5.       Copies of all trust deeds which you have on  file .

Your letter also states that AWINZ has ceased to be an approved organisation.   Please provide  all correspondence gazette notes  letters from ministers  etc which indicate that   it  now  has no  further legal   powers.

I also have  to raise an issue with  the use of the  word AWINZ   .   AWINZ the acronym  for  Animal welfare institute of New Zealand  is  no more than a trading  name  of a group of  people , various  people at various times    Please advise  which group of people, or which person  had accountability , and please provide evidence of their support  and agreement to  being accountable  at the  various times

1.        When the application was made  in the name of  the unincorporated trust  in the application which  was unsupported  by a trust deed.

2.       Approved status was given to AWINZ, which was done at a time when MAF neither had a trust deed on file or  had seen a trust deed.

3.       When the MOU was signed  .. which was signed on 4 December 2003   which  according to the trust deed which you were supplied   with By Mr. Wells in 2006  had expired  8 months earlier   .. see page 4  term of office and vacancy  .

4.       When  AWINZ requested   the revocation of its approved status   (some 6 years after the  deed had expired and  some three years after this  obsolete  trust deed with no legal standing had been supplied.

Create a free website or blog at