Anticorruptionnz's Blog


Open letter to auditor general

First of all I would like you  to look  at this clip , I wonder if our “ watchdogs will get such a reprimand one day

Bear that  clip in mind  and then please  don’t ignore   my request or look for ways  to  “ write it off “

For convenience I have hyperlinked  documents  to show that I am not making this up

Please take it seriously  questioning this corruption has  come at a far too great a price   for me  and  no New Zealander should have to go through  what I have been through for asking simple  questions of corruption.

Both MAF and Waitakere city  contract to  ANIMAL welfare institute of new Zealand (AWINZ)  an unincorporated trust ( therefore just a trading name )  which  signed a MOU with MAF  to be an approved organisation under the  animal welfare act .

Both MAF and Waitakere city  have sunk public funds  into the setting up and facilitating this private  body  which  without proof of  independent existences  became an approved organisation under the  Animal welfare act and undertook law enforcement work, piggybacking its “charitable”  work off the back of council .

To clarify the situation AWINZ is  like a SPCA  , but instead of fund raising  and using the charitable funds to  employ staff,  pay for facilities and resources, AWINZ  ,run by the  manager animal welfare Waitakere  uses council staff, resources , facilities and vehicles to  carry out its  work , which is prioritised over council work  . The donations solicited from the public have been used to sue me to keep me quite.

AWINZ  obtained approved status  when  the man  who is now manager animal welfare Waitakere ,  made an application to the minister for approved status   under the animal welfare act 1999, this  act which  was written by that same man and had had clauses added to facilitate his  ambitions of setting up a territorial authority business akin to the SPCA but using council staff which he would train and be remunerated for  in various roles.

Both MAF and Waitakere city contracted to him , Waitakere using public funds to set up and pay for the recruitment of trustees and for legal opinions to facilitate this private  enterprise.

I have now been advised by the minister that the current trustees of AWINZ have asked to relinquish the approved  status section 121 Animal welfare act 1999

Everything  involving AWINZ is muddled, nothing is straight forward or transparent.

  1. The current trustees are not the ones who  signed the MOU with MAF or Waitakere and are  not the ones in whose name the application for approved status was made to the minister.
  2. The current trustees formed a trust in  December 2006 to obtain  charitable status for which  real evidence was required , the purpose  was changed, the name   had a The  added, the trustees were different. ( see earlier deed )
  3. No trust deed had been sighted  prior to 2006  but once I and some others incorporated the identical name to prove that the application to the minister  was  a fraud.  A deed materialised showing the date  1 march 2000 conflicting with  the statement that  a trust had been formed by way of trust deed in 1999. The trust never incorporated.. probably due to lack of a trust deed .
  4. As soon as the trust deed materialised two trustees resigned  and the trust “existed“ against  its own   terms deed  where by 4 trustees were required.( 7 (a))
  5. The  person who signed the contract purportedly for AWINZ  is now the head of  animal welfare Waitakere and therefore effectively contracts to himself.( which  the OECD says is a corrupt practice)
  6. Public money  was banked  into the  AWINZ bank account over which  the  person who made the application to the  crown , was the only one to have  access and control over.
  7. As manager animal welfare Waitakere   contracting to AWINZ  Council  allowed  him to solicit public funds by sending out a flyer with the dog registration, this money also went into the AWINZ account.
  8. As Barrister he undertook animal welfare prosecutions which arose out of the investigations of council employees, money obtained  by offering  diversion was paid into   the AWINZ bank account only he controlled.
  9. He has used council facilities , resources , and  council staff to run this private trust  . The staff were un aware that they did this in a voluntary capacity.( page 2 near bottom)
  10. He told MAF that the premises were leased for $1 per year. Waitakere were unaware that  AWINZ operated  from the premises.
  11. Staff  at Waitakere  still hold AWINZ warrants  despite the minister claiming that AWINZ has relinquished their approved status.

I here by  request an investigation of the use of  MAF’s resources and Waitakere Cities  resources with regards to  the setting up and  operation of AWINZ in terms of section 18  of the public audit act 2001

18 Inquiries by Auditor-General

(1)   The Auditor-General may inquire, either on request or on the Auditor-General’s own initiative, into any matter concerning a public entity’s use of its resources

I am happy to provide the auditor generals office with more evidence than those hyperlinked above Maf has also incurred   costs with the crown law office for  a legal opinion  and  many hours of  research for the purpose of deciding if this organisation was suitable to be approved.

As it turned out  no one ever  checked the most elementary parts of the application in that    the application made  was made using  a false name, a false claim that the organisation existed   and that it had a registered office.

I make this request as  an open letter  in keeping with the spirit of transparency, it will be posted on my blog



LGOIMA requests

last Month I  made a LGOIMA  request  to Waitakere  city , this is a request for information under  the local government  official information and meetings act .

I had received information from MAF that the trustees of AWINZ were no longer wishing to be an approved organization under the animal welfare act.  This was expressed in JULY     It is now DECEMBER  and Waitakere City  have just responded that the animal welfare officers   who are employed by them    are still accountable to AWINZ

This is the OIA  I sent on Tue, 10 Nov 2009  edited  so that I don’t defame Neil Wells. ( Truth is never defamation  but  truth has cost me  $200,000)

Official information act request for Waitakere  City and the minister  of agriculture and minister of local government

In 2006, I  questioned the  legitimacy of the approved organisation AWINZ  ( animal welfare institute of New Zealand)

I had discovered that the statements made to the minister in 1999  by the Baptist elder ( who  also co wrote the act) were PORKIES and made with intent of setting up his own business venture being to utilise  territorial agency employees for a private SPCA  type organisation.

The only place in new Zealand that this existed was in Waitakere  where Neil Wells  as  trustee of the  trust   AWINZ -contract to himself as manager animal welfare  so that staff could be trained by him for extra remuneration and he could collect  donations for the AWINZ  account  which only he had control over.  ( it’s a fact I can prove it – I don’t believe  that   that is defamatory)

I have recently been  advised  by Maf  that  the trustees of AWINZ ( trust deed dated 2006 )  have decided to relinquish the approved status. ( in this case the trustees  are not those on the trust deed but are   different ones,, not to be confused with the ones who sued me  they didn’t have a trust deed )

I am now informed  that the former AWINZ officers have become  warranted through the RNZSPCA.I  believe this was facilitated through Tom Didovich a trustee of AWINZ and also National Education & Branch Support Manager of the RNZSPCA.

By virtue of  the OIA  could you please advise

1.       The mechanism by which the council employees have now become Spca officers,

2.       please provide all documents  discussions, minutes of council meetings ,  correspondence  with relation to this  .

3.       Please also  provide a  copy of the contract between council and the spca  which allows council employees to be  deployed as RNZSPCA officers.

4.       Please also advise if this   role as RNZSPCA officer is  voluntary  and if it is are your employees aware that   it is a voluntary role.

5.       In  1999  local government NZ was  opposed to  council officers being used in a central government role  please advise if  there have been any changes  to this regard.

6.       I would still like to know  why making a false representation to the minister with regards to  claims that  an organisation existed when it did not   is not viewed seriously . why is this acceptable  when it led to  becoming a  law enforcement organisation   based on  the  fraudulent statements. ( as opposed to john davies and Marianne Thompson who were prosecuted for their lies )

For more info see

The reply  from Waitakere was as follows  nothing has been  heard  from the others.

From: Denis Sheard []
Sent: Wednesday, 11 November 2009 10:58 a.m.
Cc:; Rodney Hide (MIN); Mayor Bob Harvey; Councillor Hulse;
Subject: official information act request.. council employees as spca officers.

Your email has been passed to me for response.

Questions 1 – 4

You are misinformed. Council officers have not become “SPCA officers”. Nor is there any proposal under consideration by the Council that this should occur.

The information requested in questions 1 – 4 does not therefore exist.

Those Council officers who hold Animal Welfare Act warrants continue to do so, under appointments made by the Director of Animal Welfare.

Question 5

I have no idea. You will need to address your question to LGNZ.

Question 6

This question is not a request for information but a request for the expression of an opinion.  No response is proposed..

Denis Sheard

General Counsel

DDI phone (09) 836 8004

Mobile phone 021 946 310

Fax (09) 836 8046

Email –

tomorrow.. my reply  and  the next  replies from Waitakere .. still waiting on  Minister f or local governemnt and   minister  of agriculture

« Previous Page

Create a free website or blog at