Anticorruptionnz's Blog

01/11/2011

Will the State Servces commisson act on corruption ?

Filed under: Uncategorized — anticorruptionnz @ 6:01 pm

Integrity and conduct

State Services commission                                                                                                           1/11/2011

I hereby wish to make a complaint for investigation by the state services commission under section 8 (2) of the state services commission.

I am a licenced Private Investigator   (former Police sergeant.)

  1. In March 2006 I was approached by a Waitakere  council dog control officer  who was concerned that she was required to volunteer her  council paid  time  to Animal welfare institute of New Zealand .( AWINZ)
  2. She had no idea who or what AWINZ was but   knew that it was associated with her boss Neil Wells who was manager of  the council dog and stock control unit  whose resources, logos   and infrastructure  was being used for the operation  of AWINZ .
  3. Investigations revealed that  Mr Wells, a former RNZSPCA director and a  barrister  , had commenced a Pilot programme in 1995  with Waitakere City and  MAF to trial his business plan for a Territorial animal welfare authority which was to be like an SPCA but using council  Dog and stock control officers  , I have a copy of this  business plan which involved personal  gain  for facilitating this venture.
  4. After creating the business plan , Mr Wells had written  the   first bill for  the new  animal welfare act and was employed as  an  independent  advisor to the select committee   during the  period leading up to the passing of the legislation . He was also an advisor for MAF at this time.
  5. The act  itself as a consequence has  little accountability for  Approved Organisation  while having  huge potential for financial gain by virtue of section  171   which allows fines , which are  to a maximum of  $250,000 to be returned to the  “approved organisations“
  6. Mr Wells has a very long history with MAF and has firm political ties with the labour government dating back to 1974 when he and former mayor Bob Harvey   ran a successful advertising campaign for the Kirk government.
  7. When the legislation was about to become law , Mr Wells made an application to MAF in the name of AWINZ to acquire approved organisation status.
  8. This application was made in the name of Animal welfare institute of New Zealand which Mr Wells claimed was a trust which had been established and was in the process of being registered under the charitable trust act 1957.  In reality no trust or deed existed and it could therefore not be registered.
  9. Without confirming the existence of a trust or an organisation   the application passed from MAF to caucus and   the undefined   name AWINZ became an approved organisation   using the pseudonym to hide the true identity of  its operator.  This occurred without going through the proper channels and with apparent political interference.
  10. The only other approved Organisation the RNZSPCA which is an incorporated society.
  11. Mr Wells was the only person to make an application or be part of any application process. By virtue of the lack of an application by any other person AWINZ can only be a pseudonym for Wells.
  12. Up until 2006 MAF did not have a Trust deed, MAF did not obtain evidence of the existence of AWINZ and has never sought to verify the existence of AWINZ either before or after that date, It has simply accepted a document   as evidence from Mr Wells who  had already  misled MAF a number of times.
  13.  MAF has never queried why the  that deed   post-dates the application or examined how these persons could possibly be involved with the Approved Organisation.
  14. As a result of  raising questions about the non-existent law enforcement authority AWINZ , I was sued  , this legal action has taken 5 ½ years , Mr Wells a barrister supported By Wyn Hoadley another barrister  and a person who has also had  very close connections with MAF.
  15. They  have used  the charitable  dollar to fund their  attack on me ,  and have won in court  by  making false claims  and  withdrawing them after they had incurred costs which  saw my defence struck out  , then by  skipping  the  bit in the process whereby a decision was made as to whether or not Mr Wells had been defamed they secured their victory by going straight to Quantum  where Mr Wells re wrote history   and used the resulting judgement  to persuade MAF   of the legitimacy of AWINZ.
  16. I have since made a  complaint to the law society  and evidence has now come out to prove that their claims  against me  were malicious  and had no chance of  success    and that Mr Wells  retrospectively created a trust in 2006 .
  17. I brought the issues to the notice of MAF and made requests per OIA. MAF   did not investigate, when it did supply information to me it was censored to such an extent that only a few lines appeared on otherwise blank bits of paper.
  18. Several years later I was able to get the full versions of the documents and had these been made available to me  in their   full form  from the start  it would have precluded many years of litigation, its associated stress and costs.
  19. In a parallel move  at about the same time  as Mr Wells  taking legal action against me I was also sued by  white collar criminals  for harassments, a man who I had never seen spoken to  or investigated   took action   against me  to  stop me from looking for  a director and liquidator of a company he was involved in.  The MED became involved and it transpired that both the director and Liquidator were fictional and had been created to defeat creditors. links Charges over alleged fake liquidator  and Boss invents accountant to escape $60k debt.
  20. Mr Wells was  aware of this action  and  I   quickly found that I was being investigated by MAF  for an allegation of having passed myself off as a MAF officer.  I had been at the premises   of the company which the fictional director owned and had noticed a MAF transitional certificate on the wall, I had mentioned that MAF would be interested in knowing that the  company had  morphed not another company.  On the basis of this I was investigated and    when one lady said  that  she could not remember who I was  but remember  that I was  a MAF officer, it was sufficient for MAF biosecurity to   issue me with a warning.
  21. It appears disproportionate that I should be investigated in those circumstances and that MAF  has not treated the lack of existence of an approved Organisation with  the same degree of importance especially when they had been lied to and I had at all times been truthful.
  22. It is also  strange that Mr wells  has had so much influence in MAF that he has been able to prevent them  from   conducting an  impartial investigation  into AWINZ and that his  revocation letter  of 2009  had the effect of  having MAF withhold  an audit report from me for nearly 2 years.
  23. I note   from Correspondence which I have obtained by  way of OIA that Mr Wells   has  had a relationship with  many of the  high ranking public servants in MAF  and that repeatedly the same names  come up. These people were charged with the over sight of Approved Organisation and the release of information  .
  24. I am happy to assist your investigators in providing    key documents  in investigating the breach of  the standards of  Integrity and conduct.   I  believe that  what has occurred here is   gross corruption and fraud   both of which have been facilitated by MAFs recklessness  and  lack of   integrity.  The  following links on my blog may assist you in your assessment

a)      Corruption In MAF.. will they hide it or expose it

b)      MAF continues to conceal corruption and so does our government.

c)       request for urgent ministerial enquiry

  1. I believe that the code has been breached as follows

FAIR

a)      Treat everyone fairly and with respect I do not believe that I have been treated fairly or respectfully Mr Wells has much to hide and he has been able to us the trust which MAF has had in him to persuade them not to deal with me in a fair and transparent manner which is evident in the withholding of information.

b)      Be professional and responsive MAF have not been professional in the dealing of the complaint and in 5 1/2 years have not investigated the lack of existence of other persons involved with the so called organisation AWINZ.

c)       Work to make government services accessible and effective there is no accessibility when information is withheld   and there can be no effectiveness when private enterprise can be set up through a non-existent organisation. Additional there appears to be little or no monitoring of approved organisations and the documents which should be supplied according to the MOU are not provided or called for.

d)      Strive to make a difference to the well-being of New Zealand and all its people the difference has been, to condone corruption, this can only be to the detriment of New Zealand and compromises the  essential biosecurity services.  I am one of the people in New Zealand and MAF’s lack of action has not been for my well-being. Whistle blowers  should not  be   treated the way MAF has treated me, not once has some one come  to interview me or ask me  to go through my complaint re AWINZ.  MAF has not reported the Matter to the police or to the SFO both of which will not act without a complaint from MAF.

IMPARTIAL

e)      Maintain the political neutrality required to enable us to work with current and future governments –there appears to have been political interference in the approval of AWINZ, which was given approved status despite not existing and against the recommendation of MAF and treasury.

f)       Carry out the functions of our organisation, unaffected by our personal beliefsKey persons in  MAf appear to have  had  personal relationships  with Mr Wells which have affected their  judgement.  The same people were involved in  1999 as are involved in 2011 – Dr O’Neil became MAF’s chief veterinary officer in 1994 and was appointed to head the MAF Biosecurity Authority when it was formed in 1999. The Biosecurity Authority was the forerunner of Biosecurity New Zealand, established in 2004, which Dr O’Neil now heads.  Mr Bayvel is also a name which has been a constant  he was a  referee for Mr Wells when he moved into a situation of  conflict of interest  as was Mr Mellor.

i.      Questions with regards to conflict of interest  by Both Mr Mellor and Mr Bayvel have been asked in parliament.

g)      support our organisation to provide robust and unbiased advice The personal relationships with Mr Wells have led to Bias to the detriment of MAF and the public.

RESPONSIBLE

h)      Act lawfully and objectively  How can it be lawful to allow a non-existent organisation to  continue to enforce the law.? What is   objective about not following policies and guide lines  for approval of approved organisations which state that the   application is made in the applicants name.. a non-existent entity  cannot have a name.  It is a nothing!

i)        use our organisation’s resources carefully and only for intended purposes  the  costs of AWINZ have been huge , all of this  could have been prevented by simply asking for  proof of existence and verifying it from the appropriate register.  Why has no one ever contacted the so called original trustees?

j)        Treat information with care and use it only for proper purposes The information I have provided them   with has been totally ignored and they have been unnecessarily obstructive in releasing information which should have been released. It must be obvious to MAF that they have slipped up badly; it appears that they are taking action to   cover up their negligence.

k)      Work to improve the performance and efficiency of our organisation. How can providing legal authority to   non-existent “organisations’ be effective, there has been a total lack of verification and investigation, the only audit which was done was done   in such a way that the corruption and fraud fell outside the parameters of the audit.  This is worse than   Davey , Thompson and Wilce  put together , this is not just negligence  this is  concealment of corruption .

TRUSTWORTHY

l)        be honest MAF has not been honest with itself in looking at this matter in an un bias manner, You  only need to look at the letter from Mr wells  Dated  7 October 2009  to see that Mr Wells can  reprimand MAF and  MAF has then complied with his demands  only to be over ridden by the ombudsmen 2 years later when  Mr wells has  finished beating me up in court. .

m)    Work to the best of our abilities Not verifying facts and not investigating something which is untoward is not   working to the best abilities it is beyond reckless.

n)      ensure our actions are not affected by our personal interests or relationships There is   much evidence that the personal relationship of Mr wells   with the high ranking MAF officers has  advantaged him   , he managed to get MAF to investigate me  while preventing MAF from investigating him.

  • o)      never misuse our position for personal gain I  know that   several of the  top person  in MAF hold positions of conflict of interest and questions have been raised in parliament, However I  do not know  if any of those person have gained from  this incident  but hey have allowed Mr Wells to set up a private  enterprise   using the resources of   a local council     which was  a situation of  public office  for private gain, MAF there by became a party to the offence by their negligence.  What is significant is that Mr Wells had the web site  animalwelfare.org.nz  while Mr Mellor and Bayvel  had animalwelfare.co.nz
  1. We must act with a spirit of service to the community and meet the same high standards of integrity and conduct in everything we do.  MAF  has not shown any integrity in this matter at all  even to the very last letter I received from Mr Mc Nee where he states that  he does not intend to take this matter any further.
  2. As part of complying with this code, our organisations must maintain policies and procedures that are consistent with it. I have  further asked MAF what policies they have with regards to corruption and whistle blowers,, if they have such policies it would appear that they have been totally ignored.   If these    rules had been followed since their inception  MAF

a)      Maf is not alone, The police have failed to act because the matter   was before the  court  , then  they failed to act on perjury.

b)      The  SFO  failed to act because I could not show a  $ value of missing money

c)       Audit NZ, I spoke to one  person who said he saw my emails come in  but  didn’t do anything because he was close to retirement  and did not wish to rock the boat.

d)      Every Government department I have dealt with   has  shown me that the code is there to be ignored.

  1. The  code is the closest thing which we have to an anti-corruption policy  , if it is not enforced or  adhered to   corruption will rise, it appears that currently we    do not have corruption because we  have not defined it and we give those  reporting incidents such as this a brick wall to bang their heads against.
  2. All I ask for is an independent investigation into  AWINZ  how it came to be, its legal existence  and   MAFs role   in allowing  this  fictional organisation to  exist and to continue to exist even after   a most revealing audit which confirmed    my claims and should have  set off alarm bells.
  3. I do not hold out much hope   the mere fact that ringing the state services commission and no one knowing who to report this to   does not inspire me.   I can only guess that the state services commission too will simply ignore this. That is why I will in the interest of transparency post this on my blog site.

Yours sincerely

Advertisements

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: