Open letter to the minister of Primary Industries and Minister for Local Government.
Sir
AWINZ operated from the premises of Waitakere city council in a manner where it appeared to be a CCO , it used council databases, vehicles , infrastructure, plant and personnel for private pecuniary gain. It also attained approved status under the animal welfare act in a situation which was considered by MAF at the time to be ultra-virus and in a manner where council officers were cut out of the loop. While council denied that it existed on its premises MAF were of the belief that the Council premises had been leased for $1 per year.
With the on-going saga of Animal welfare institute of New Zealand (AWINZ ) I have been putting together a chronology of documents which I have obtained under LGOIMA and OIA over the years and in reading each in detail I have found more documents which shed light on the issue.
Both MAF and Council have not acted responsibly in investigating this matter properly .
Since these documents came from your own department MAF and from a local body ( Waitakere council ) it will not be difficult to verify everything I claim.
First of all it appears that Mr Wells was able to meet with ministers and high ranking MAF officials on a regular and “ off the record” basis. I on the other hand can’t even get near my local MP and when I do he totally ignores the issues I have raised. He also had undue influence within council and circumvented the normal processes.
I have had 6 years of being fobbed off but have a ton of evidence which supports my allegations but no one is prepared to look at them.
To that end I respectfully request that I could meet with you or an investigator / lawyer appointed by you and detail the evidence which I have collated which shows that the Minister at the time and therefore the crown was deceived in the application for approved status for AWINZ.
To help you make the decision to appoint an investigator / solicitor it may be appropriate for you to look at the attached documents.
The document 13 nov 2008.pdf was written by MAF solicitor joseph Montgomery , it is in response to a question raised by Neil wells as to whether or not Waitakere animal welfare can be an approved organisation. The reply is that Animal welfare Waitakere cannot be an approved organisation as it is not an “ organisation “ as intended by the act.
Since Mr Wells could put such questions to MAFs solicitors for a legal opinion I request that I may have the same privilege extended to me.
I f the following could be put to either crown law or to the MAF solicitor it may help you see this matter clearly.
My question is In view of the following evidence is “ could AWINZ have been an approved organisation? “
On 22 November 1999 an application for approved status was made as attached. You will note that this is the “ application” which was relied upon by the minister at the time which subsequently led to AWINZ becoming an approved organisation under the act. See paragraph 3 18 december 2000.pdf
- This application contains a blank trust deed.
- The application is made in the name of an alleged trust but the application itself has not been signed by any person .
- Evidence obtained at a later time proves that no trust deed existed on 22.11.1999 and the statements contained in the application were false . trust deed.pdf
- The name of the applicant could not have been the animal welfare institute of New Zealand as this name was not defined and no legal person using the name other than as a trading name existed. No person using the name as a trading name was identified.
- No subsequent applications were received and Mr Wells gave a number of assurances that the trust existed but avoided providing a deed.
- Since the very nature of an unincorporated trust means that the trust is only represented through its trustees, there would have had to have been applications made which show that each and every trustee consented to the application for approved status and accepted responsibility in their personal capacity.
- Mr Wells was the only person involved in the application, He did not even sign the application but signed the covering letter claiming that he was a trustee. Significantly I have located a business plan which Mr Wells drafted in 1996 (Territorial authority Animal welfare services.pdf) and shows the format which eventually became AWINZ and that this was about personal profit. The business plan applies to AWINZ if the name territorial authority animal welfare services is substituted. And shows mr wells propensity to using trading names
- Individuals could not be an approved organisation , It is therefore a reasonable assumption that he wished the minister to believe that an organisation existed as individuals could not be an approved organisation.
- No verification of the existence of AWINZ was ever carried out by MAF or the minister and in the audit in 2008 it was noted that AWINZ operated seamlessly with Waitakere city council ( page 2 )
- A lawyer versed in company or trust law will be able to advise that an entity which has no independent legal existence cannot enter into contracts , only real or legal persons can enter into contracts and as such the MOU entered into between MAF and AWINZ was not worth the paper it was written on
- Throughout the application process MAF expressed their concern that the council becoming involved in animal welfare work was not lawful , I was given documents which were edited BY MAF , I was fortunate enough to find documents at Waitakere city which had not been edited and from these documents the edited comments were shown to be as follows.
- Crown Law has advised MAF that the Local Government Act does not allow a territorial authority to fund an animal welfare organisation or employ animal welfare inspectors.
- A territorial authority may employ staff only to perform its functions as set out in that Act and may only spend money on matters expressly or impliedly authorised by statute.
- Crown Law considers that if Parliament had intended a territorial authority to have an animal welfare role then the power could be expected to be found in the Local Government Act or other legislation.
- I believe that the opinion given by Crown Council is detailed and persuasive and raises an important matter of public policy.
- I would need to consider whether I should approve a proposal given that I am advised that to do so would be contrary to the law.
- Whether or not we approve AWINZ should stand on Its own merits ie I am not keen on the Government entering into an agreement under S37T to legitimise something that is not a l ready legit “
- If the crown were to enter into an agreement with TA and with AWINZ that would be recognition that work was being undertaken on behalf of the crown should it come to pass that the TA was held not able to undertake the activity from its funds the crown would be left with a potential claim against it.
- etc
- The crown law office gave a legal opinion saying that AWINZ could not have law enforcement authority and Mr Wells obtained an opinion through the council dog control manager ( who is not a trustee f the cover up trust ) Wells told MAF at the time that he felt that he could have gone to the council lawyers but chose to go to Kensington Swann, this stamen makes me suspect that the council lawyers were deliberately circumvented . It also appears from the documents I obtained that that Mr Wells probably influenced the Kensington Swan legal opinion as significant changes were made to the draft sent back to Tom Didovich manager Waitakere dog and stock control who routinely consulted Mr Wells.
- Maf when facing the conflicting legal opinions stated “A definitive resolution of these conflicting legal opinions should be decided in court”
The conflicting legal opinions were never tested, Mr wells at this time met with the president of the Labour party Bob Harvey and from that point on the approval for AWINZ to become a law enforcement authority went before caucus and was approved by the minister despite opposition by treasury and MAF .
AWINZ was not an organisation and never functioned as an organisation . When I asked questions as to its lack of existence in 2006 Mr Wells called a meeting the meeting notes came to light in 2011 , despite an audit report by MAF in 2009 recording that all governance documents had been destroyed in a computer crash .1.6 page 7 & (4.1.3 Record keeping)
The meeting minutes AWINZ MEETING MINUTES 10-05-06 show that in 2006 the deed which MAF had never received a copy of was again missing.
It a had been missing on 25 march 2000. When Mr Wells reported that he could not send a copy of it to the minister as it had been sent off for registration bottom of page 6 ( also note that the deed does not have a section 20(a) in it and originals are never sent. )
However when the matter came to court in 2008 there were two trust deeds this happened after a judge had shown disgust in a copy which had been presented to the court but which looked nothing like the copy which I had been sent by the alleged trusts lawyers trust deed.pdf , and indeed there are now two trust deeds the copy which MAF has is different to the copy which I was supplied with. trust deed MAF version
I have been conveniently made out to be the villain in the piece , I did not mean to question corruption but I asked simple questions as to why council dog control officers were volunteering their time to an organisation which was so indistinguishable from council that it looked like it was one and the same. I note that MAF made the same observation in the audit in 2008. Had either MAF or council done the proper thing and investigated it , this would have been resolved many years ago.
Instead it is apparent that when I asked OIA questions that MAF consulted none other than Mr Wells for responses , thereby giving him control over the concealment of facts.
I believe that times have changed and hope that a proper investigation can be conducted into this matter and that a crown solicitor can look over this email and properly advise you to the legal issues involved.
In short AWINZ with its structure could not have obtained a $5 loan from a bank but it could obtain law enforcement ability from the government.