Anticorruptionnz's Blog


Apparently it is OK to tell lies to MAF biosecurity

Filed under: Uncategorized — anticorruptionnz @ 2:58 pm

Open letter to MAF

To Mr Mc Nee official information act request and Privacy act request.                                  15/12/2011

Thank you for your letter dated 29th November ,It has become apparent to me that  Mr Wells   who  was accountable to MAF  has been  calling the shots  all along  and hence the need for  secrecy.  I would have thought that  an organisation accountable to MAF   would be directed by MAF and not vice versa.

My OIA requests have been  with regards to AWINZ and  how AWINZ received approved status, the fact that   you constantly communicate with   Mr Wells  seeking his approval leaves me wondering if in fact the tail is wagging the dog.

  1. Why that MAF is communicates with Mr Wells   with regards to OIA requests made to MAF?   And why the privacy commissioner has had to be involved. AWINZ has no legal existence it therefore is not a person natural or other wise and is not subject to the privacy act. Please provide me  pursuant to the OIA , with any policy , agreement    or legislation which   require you to advise Mr Wells  when  I make enquiries with regards AWINZ.

This is about transparency   but you appear to defend your right to   secrecy   yet the documents you sent me contained the following picture  .

It indicates to me that MAF does not understand what transparency is about and the right of the public to access information. The information I have sought is with regards to a public private relationship one where the person who made the application  had significant input into writing the legislation    which facilitated his own business plan.

The application  was then made in circumstances where  like our peacocks the cards were not on the  table  and  Mr Wells was making statements which were not true and not verified by MAF in any way.

If things are being done honestly and with integrity then there is nothing to hide, but because of the manner this application preceded there has to be secrecy as by exposing the cards the truth will be revealed.  What is occurring now is that I am exposing the cards and MAF   is simply denying that they are there, this  is another concealment tactic frequently practiced.   By example:- referring to the picture above I say look at the peacocks   and MAF says no they are ducks you are nothing but a troublesome person go away and allow us to be in denial so that  those of our staff who  have had close involvement and have been negligent  can  retire with dignity.

You also provided me with documents on conflict of interest,   and it would appear that you totally ignore the fact that someone who is not employed by MAF   but is accountable to the minister through MAF could actually be in a situation of conflict of interest and if you were to apply the principals contained in that document you would see that he was in a situation of conflict of interest.

Yet MAF facilitated this conflict of interest  your  officers being  referees for Mr Wells in his application for the position which placed him in conflict of interest.

Your audit showed that there was nepotism, lack of governance, lack of accountability conflict of interest  yet Mr Wells was able to write a letter  much like the one he had written years earlier( 18 aug 2000 ) so that   MAF jumped to attention and compiled with his demands.

Mr Wells is apparently so powerful that  he managed to  meet with ministers and persuade them to change the LAW ,  ( see letter he wrote to  Sutton, this  letter saw the law changed. ) what is  incredible about this  is that the council was not involved and AWINZ was a pseudonym  for Mr Wells  and had no proven existence or track record.

I realise that  this whole thing is an embarrassment to MAF  and its  almost part of NZ culture to stand  staunch and continue to  deny the obvious ,  after all it is better for my integrity to be in question than that of MAF- Public confidence  has to be considered after all.

That is why I am publishing everything. (   Transparency is what we are assured  and you have  shown  that  MAF  does  not want a bar of it.

MAF needs to act according to the law not just pretend. Corruption is real and to rely on a perception that there is no corruption by hiding and denying it does not serve the country as this will allow corruption to flourish.

Where has the transparency been in the public private relationship of MAF with AWINZ?  Mr Wells had good reason for   secrecy because   his operation in the false name of AWINZ relied on it. He was running an operation using premises, staff, vehicles and infrastructure which were owned by the public to  derive an income for himself through his pseudonym  AWINZ. He sought law change to accommodate it..

I am a  Whistle-blower, I did not mean to be  one , had MAF done its job properly  I would never have asked the question “ why does AWINZ not exist’   Instead I would have found it on  some register  and/or your documents  would have defined  AWINZ as being  a particular legal entity or  groups of entities/Legal persons .

Instead AWINZ was undefined and had no legal existence    and because of that   I walked into a trap.  Mr Wells has been able to assassinate my character and having  done so with  his lies  and perjury  no one has looked further than the   perception he has created.

No one has taken time to look at the real evidence, that is the proof that AWINZ the “organisation “  which  applied for  and obtained  approved status .was a fiction.

This issue has nothing to do with my character or perceived character it has everything to do with an organisation which had no real existence apart from being Mr Wells acting as if he was an “organisation” – the clue would have been that he was the only visible person the only one who signed anything  and the person   covering up.  He had to  cover up  it  as after all the  perfect fraud  one that could  have  made him significant sums of money had it not been for my   questions.

It has long been known that attack is the best form of defence and attacking me has been what has protected AWINZ from a proper investigation .

This has gone on for 6 years, I have played this game of official information act requests for far too long, It has cost me personally and my business, I want this to end and have my reputation restored and I want accountability of MAF  for the  corruption  that they have ,apparently , condoned.

I have asked MAF previously if they will refer this to the serious fraud office or the police- nothing appears to have happened, I can only suspect that this is  because it is not MAF but Mr Wells  who has been calling the shots  as proved  by the  communications with him  with regard to   the release of official documents. (See the documents here communications with Wells re the release of information )

Mr Wells’s long term relationship with MAF and the personal interaction of many  high ranking MAF officials  appear to have served him well.

Privacy act request  With regards to your oia reply 29 November ,I request for the  information mentioned in item  1 of your letter ,  which has been  refused under the official information act  to be released to me under the privacy act  so that  if an opinion was  formed on information which  was inaccurate I can advise MAF  and through the correction you can re consider your opinions

But as I have said  before ,  this is not about me it is about AWINZ   so  the following official information act request therefore focuses on process rules and   legislation applicable to AWINZ.

In going through you letter dated  29 November  I note that you state “It is essential that the chief executive of MAF be confident that the advice received for decision-making is unimpeded by the threat of it being released under the Official Information Act and published on the web to the world at large” Would it not be true that if the decisions are made according to rules regulations and in a sound manner there would be nothing to hide? (Refer back to the picture of the peacocks above.)

The reality in this situation is that had procedures and policy been followed AWINZ would never have become and approved organisation, on top of tis Mr Wells has been able to dictate

I refer to the following documents   which for convenience I have attached

  1. 22/08/1999                          notice of intent
  2. 18 /10/1999                        criteria for considering applications for approved organisations
  3. 21/11/1999                        application for approved status AWINZ
  4. 5 /1/ 2000                            5 jan 2000 Wells email MAF with fictitious financials
  5. 1/03/2000                           trust deed (NB this document was not seen by MAF until June 2006)

Requests for information pursuant to OIA

  1. You advise that  there is no information with regards to anti-corruption policies in investigations and audits and I therefore have to question if corruption issues and fraud were ever considered, I hope that with  the production of the following documents someone may just  say  hang on something is not right here. I will   indicate  in each what I have already got and    if there are further  documents  which put a different view on what I  have ,   I  would  like to have them supplied.
    1. please provide   all documents  which   show that  your investigations  and Audits  considered fraud and corruption  issues  with regards to  AWINZ  , the application for approved status  and   the  manner in which  AWINZ  operated.

i.      I already have the 2008  audit report

  1. You also advise that there is no process adopted for verification  and I  have to  question that  if there are no processes for verification how  did MAF  confirmed  the  requirements  of the  criteria for considering applications to be an approved organisation.  And to that end I seek information as follows based on that document. ( doc 2)
    1. Please provide any documentation which over rides   the intent of this document (as stated on page 1 )  and   any correspondence which provides for exception to this document  for any  application.
    2. On page 2 it states “although the term “organisation” is not defined in the Bill, an individual cannot be approved as an organisation” Given that no other persons were involved in the application (document 3) and no trust  with the name  animal welfare institute of New Zealand  existed at the time of the application 22 November 1999  (see trust deed dated  2.3.2000  document 5)   Please provide documents or evidence of any the exemption which allowed Mr Wells to make an application for approved status in a pseudonym or for and behalf  of any other persons without their  knowledge or consent.

i.      If it is not accepted by MAF that the application was made in a pseudonym please provide evidence of all entities/real persons which applied including evidence of their existence on the date of application.

ii.      If MAF believes that the application was made by a trust could they please provide documents which consider how people who have not met together   or have formed a common purpose together can have an application made on their behalf and without their knowledge?

iii.      I wish to refer   MAF to document 1 attached.    In this document Mr Wells states as he later  also did in the application  “A charitable trust has been formed by Deed of Trust as the “Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand” (AWINZ). It is being registered under Part II of the Charitable Trusts Act 1957”.  This document is dated 20 August 1999. It is  obvious from the  evidence  and from later admissions in court By Mr Wells  that a trust did not exist at this time .   Please provide   MAFS policies  with regards to people making  false statements   and  what  would  be the expected action of MAF .

  1. The question has to be   is it Ok to tell lies to MAF and  the minister is this condoned. It would be good for the public in New Zealand and  the tourists who arrive here to know  how MAF views  lies   and if all lies are treated  the same.
  2. If telling lies  is not condoned why is this false statement ( lie )   being  condoned. ( and the rest of the document  which is an notice of intent from a trust which  did not exist.

Definition “A lie (also called prevarication, falsehood) is a type of deception in the form of an untruthful statement, especially with the intention to deceive others”

iv.      Please also provide copies of all correspondence relation to the supply of the trust deed in 2006.

  1. On page 3  document 2  it states “Section 121 of Animal Welfare Act 1999 provides that the Minister may, after receiving an application from any organisation, declare that organisation, by notice in the Gazette, to be an approved organisation for the purposes of this legislation”

We have already covered in our previous correspondence that no applications, approval or correspondence was received from the persons Mr Wells alleged to have been “trustees” of AWINZ namely Graeme Coutts, Nuala Grove and Sarah Giltrap.

Please provide documents or evidence to show that MAF knew that

1.            These persons   existed,

2.            were aware of the application in their name,

3.            Consented to the application and

4.            Were aware of the responsibility they were taking on.

5.            Documents which consider how the alleged trustees could have become

accountable to  the approved status .

  1. On page 3  under the heading Monitoring-  “The ministry ( MAF ) intends to formally review and monitor all approved to ensure that required standards are being maintained… 122(l)(b)”

i.      Please provide copies of all annual reports  provided by AWINZ  since  obtaining its approved status  which address the issues  set out in “A “ of this section namely  “an annual report from the approved organisation  commenting on how the criteria in appendix 1 and conditions imposed under section 122(2) have been met, with supporting information.”

ii.      Please provide a copy of appendix 1 referred to as I have not received a copy of this.

iii.      Please provide copies of any other final and draft audit reports which MAF has on AWINZ. ( please note I  already have the  2008 audit which was released to me recently despite Mr Wells objections )

  1. On page 5 under the heading REQUIRED INFORMATI0N please provided  all documents correspondence which verified these   details and show how they were accepted as being true.

i.      (a)  Full name of applicant: Please provide any correspondence, notes discussion papers which consider who or what the applicant Animal welfare institute of New Zealand is .

  1. To be fair  we know  now this was a pseudonym , no organisation existed by that name  an no other person  made  the application or consented to it.  Please accept or deny the fact that this was a pseudonym, if you deny  it was a pseudonym please provide  evidence to   support your reply.

ii.      The application states that AWINZ has been formed by way of trust deed and is in the process of being incorporated under the charitable trust act. Please provide all documents which show when and how MAF became aware that this statement was false and   provide documents to show how this was mitigated (other than by cover up) .

  1. I believe that you will find that  this   came to your attention in 2006  when I raised  questions about the existence of  AWINZ , it was subsequent to  this that you received a trust deed as you had advised me that prior to this you have never had a copy of the deed.

iii.      Provide all documentation discussion papers which considered the implications of   the  statement with regards to   formation of a trust and incorporation ,  being false and the consideration of trading with an unincorporated trust.

iv.      (b) contact address:  the  contact address was given as a Registered office , Given that  we have established that no “organisation” existed at the time   Please advise  under which provision was this presumed to be a “registered office”  and what consideration  MAF gave to   the fact that this is also Mr Wells home address and that the registered office was not registered where. ( please note this is not a preformatted form this is a document   Mr Wells created and provided heading for   the various categories, there was no requirement for a registered office  and  to call his own home the registered office is   deceitful in view of the lack of registration   and or existence of the alleged “ organisation “ )

v.      (c) the area in which the applicant proposes to operate, this was stated as nationally , Considering the fact that the staff involved were those of Waitakere city council  Please provide all documents which considered the ability of   the  applicant  Mr Wells  to operate   nationally .

vi.      (d)  Sets out the information that will enable the Minister to assess whether the organisation meets the criteria   . It would appear   that with the lack of existence of an organisation named AWINZ and the lack of provision of a trust deed that this criterion was not met. Please provide documentation    which outlines any process or any law which permitted MAF to  allow this   matter to go  before the minister  without advising him that   the criteria had not been met.

vii.      The approval   of AWINZ came through cabinet  after Mr Wells   had involved the labour party via their president Bob Harvey ;  the application  went to cabinet against treasury advice and when the document  went to cabinet, somehow the words INC had been introduced, portraying AWINZ as an incorporated society .

Please provide   any   documentation which shows how and when  the  words INC were introduced and why  the  minister was led to believe that AWINZ had been  verified as an incorporated society when it  had no such existence . Please also provide documents which show that MAF recommended   the application  for consideration  by  the minister.

  1. Please also provide documents which show that MAF recommended   the application for   consideration  by  the minister and had confirmed that the criteria  had been  met.
    1. Copies of all documents which MAF relied on to satisfy themselves that AWINZ was an unincorporated trust and the trustees named   had accountability to the approved status. In particular I would like to know  how MAF would have  held Wyn Hoadley , Graeme Coutts and  Tom Didovich accountable to their role  as alleged trustees of the approved organisation awinz . I believe that the revocation letter is the only document  you have  which they all  signed  together ( notably in the absence of the author  Mr Wells  who did not sign it  )

i.      As an aside it should be noted that Tom Didovich  who  called himself a trustee was also  the person who wrote to  the minister for and on behalf of two  councils   didovich to maf north shore   and didovich to maf waitakere .

  1. Please provide details ( notes, interview  jottings ) of any   enquiries  which  MAF has undertaken  with the  alleged trustees  of AWINZ  namely Graeme Coutts, Nuala Grove and Sarah Giltrap.
  2. Documentary Evidence other than an assumption, that the trust AWINZ was one  and the same as the approved organisation  AWINZ.
  3. The minister was to rely on information that MAF  provided  “to assess whether the organisation meets the  criteria set out in section 121” Your document states “  It must be possible to  verify the legal status of the organisation, including a clear statement  that its principal purpose is to promote  the welfare of animals.”  Please provide documentation to support as to how  in the absence of a trust deed , the Legal status was verified.
  4. Mr Wells wrote  documents  alleging  a quality management system, however your audit in 2008   raised questions of  governance ,  please provide all documents which showed that consideration had been given to the criteria  which required  AWINZ to  have management , associated policies and procedures and  documents  or notes which show  that the existence of these  were verified.
  5. With regards to the provision  for a Copy of the employment contract or other written agreement or arrangement between  the organisation  and  inspectors and auxiliary officers, Please provide documentation which considers the  ability of a council  manager (didovich to maf north shore   and didovich to maf waitakere ) to be able to  authorise the  contracting out for no remuneration the staff paid  by the council he is employed  by and also   provide  documentation which  explains  why  MAF sought approval from a council manager  rather than dealing with  the council itself.
  6. Please advise what consideration  MAF gave to the  conflict of interest when Tom Didovich  who had authorised  the use of the council  facilities and resources including staff allegedly  became a trustee of a trust with the same name as the  approved organisation  .
  7. “All information should be clearly written, be comprehensive and credible.” It would appear that 2 out of three is all MAF  went for   why was credibility not an issue and  please provide all documents which prove that  there was independent verifications to  show that the  information was credible and did not  rely on  long standing relationships of trust.
  8. On page 6 The evidence must show that “‘the principal purpose of the organisation is to promote the welfare of animals”. What documentation is there that  show that consideration was given to AWINZ history , Please provide the documentation provided  with regards to AWINZ  history , given that  it did not even exist at the time of  making  the application as proved by the  trust deed  belatedly supplied  in 2006 .
  9. Page 7  “The accountability arrangements, financial arrangements and management of an organisation must be such that having regard to the interests of the public, the organisation is suitable to be declared an Approved Organisation.” Please provide all documentation    which considered the interest of the public in giving approved status to  AWINZ. e.g. how  were people going to be able to  identify who or what AWINZ was?  Who comprised it and  how to locate it?
  10. Management of the organisation:  why as there not a management structure and why was  Neil Wells allowed to be the only person speaking on behalf of  others who  had no proven involvement ?  Please provide any documents which consider this.
  11. Page 9 Conflict of interest .Please provide all documentation which  considers the  conflict of interest  of Mr Wells in making the application using a pseudonym and being the only person involved in the running of  AWINZ   in conjunction with his council work  and  using the councils premises, resources and  staff. The evidence we now have is that Mr Wells  was the only person who ran the bank account he  had opened in the name of AWINZ  into which he banked the proceeds of prosecutions returned to him by virtue of section 171.
  12. Inspectors properly answerable   Please provide any documents which consider how an inspector can be properly answerable to an organisation which has no existence or definition and which did not identify its members  and/or where  the alleged members  did not know they were an approved organisation.
  13. Please provide evidence of the legal   composition of AWINZ ( who it as comprised of  and when they resigned )  from the time of the application  to the time it  was  Gazetted as  being  removed as an approved organisation. Pease rely on the best evidence , that is    documents signed by those persons and not  just   documents forwarded by Mr Wells.
  14. Please provide   documents which considered the ability of Hoadley, Coutts and Didovich to revoke the approved status  when they were not part of  the application and had never signed anything which  gave them any responsibility to the  approved status

I am certain that MAF will struggle with many of these questions and it will become clear that AWINZ would never have attained approved status if the  simple policy you had   had ben adhered to  and  the  act had been adhered to . The reality is that there was significant political intervention combined with   MAF turning a blind eye to mater which would normally be considered serious.

I Hope that MAF  sees that   transparency is about doing the right thing  and   about owning up and saying we stuffed up   when things have gone wrong.

I have been made the  sacrificial lamb on this matter   , It is time  MAF    acknowledged the fact that they got it very wrong.   What can be worse than  giving law enforcement authority to  a non-existent   organisation..   It is allowing one man to write legislation for his own use and then tell lies to   conceal the truth.

Internationally this is serious corruption  called state capture .. in New Zealand  we condone it

Yours sincerely

Grace Haden


Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: