Anticorruptionnz's Blog

21/10/2012

AWINZ new evidence

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.

Advertisements

23/02/2011

Official Information act request Auckland film studios

Filed under: corruption,transparency,waitakere city council — anticorruptionnz @ 7:22 pm

Sent: Wednesday, 23 February 2011 7:17 p.m.
To: ‘Doug.McKay@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘mayor@aucklandcity.govt.nz’
Cc: ‘Michael.Goudie@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘Penny.Hulse@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘Penny.Webster@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘Wayne.Walker@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘Cathy.Casey@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘jross@jami-leeross.com’; ‘Des.Morrison@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘John.Walker@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘Sandra.Coney@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘Noelene.Raffills@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘Mike.Lee@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘George.Wood@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘Arthur.Anae@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘alf.Filipaina@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘Ann.Hartley@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘Chris.Fletcher@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘Richard.Northey@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘Sharon.Stewart@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’
Subject:Official Information act request Auckland film studios

 

Could you please by way of OIA provide   the following documents.

1.       Documents and discussion papers which were the basis of the cost benefit analysis , and  the cost benefit analysis  on which   Waitakere city  based its decision to purchase  the ENZA cool stores for  film studios

2.       The name of the law firm which  provided a legal opinion as to the purchase and  associated involvement  in Film studios   being  an activity in which council could engage  and that this was not  ultra vires and had a mandate for such an activity.

3.       The  constitution of WAITAKERE PROPERTIES LIMITED  at  point 1A.1 states that its activities are restricted to obligations imposed upon Local Authority Trading Enterprises by the Local Government Act 1974 ,

a.       Please provide documentary evidence that these obligations were  considered  when deciding to Purchase the  cool stores  and   in operating  film studios.

4.       In the 2009 Annual report  Waitakere city Holdings Limited as at 30 June 2009     reports    with regards to Prime West Management Ltd  on page 45    “The company is insolvent and the investment has been written down to nil.”  And page 49 this company is now insolvent.

a.       Please supply all documentation with regards of an advancement of   funds of $49,902 from Waitakere properties Limited to prime west management which was insolvent at the time.

b.      The  documentary evidence  detailing the reasoning and consideration  By Waitakere city in   providing  such a sum to a company in which the shareholding was  $400

c.       Please provide all supporting evidence, agreements etc which provided for this advance and required repayment of this sum during the 2010 financial year.

d.      Documentation which considered the amalgamation of an insolvent  company  with a solvent one  .

e.      What  investigations  the council conducted  into    the insolvent companies cause of insolvency  and any documents which show  why it was insolvent.

5.       At the meeting 25 may 2005  from which the public was  excluded  , Mr  Kenneth Michael Williams was permitted to stay  he was allegedly eligible as a trustee of enterprise Waitakere, Please provide any  disclosure made by  him of  his relationship with   the advisers  B & A Management Limited and therefore the potential   conflict of interest ( Mr Williams was appointed  director of Prime west Ltd  on 9 may 2005, who were the successful   party to  enter into a partnership with council )

6.       Please advise the names of the unsuccessful parties who  were contenders for the partnership  and the considerations which were  given to  excluding them .

a.       Please also provide documentation  as to  why these parties had not  been given the same opportunity as the successful company Prime west to have representatives  present at the  confidential council meetings.

7.       The council ultimately entered into  an agreement with  Prime west Limited  a company which had been set up by the  “ advisors “  and  in which the advisors   had significant control , Please  provide any disclosure  documents made to this effect by  Mr Coldicutt , and Maher of B&A Management Limited .

 

8.       In selling the land and buildings to the  company  what consideration was given to  options such as tender, please provide all documents which discuss this option.

9.       On 28 June 2006  Council accepted Tony Tay group And its associated  entities  as shareholders in Prime west.  The reality is that  Tony Tay Trust   which was not owned by the Tony Tay group ( and therefore not associated )   became the investor  and then  on sold to  Tony Tay  Films  in which  there were   shareholdings by 3rd parties.

a.       Please provide  documentation which discusses entering into an agreement with one legal entity and then  proceeding to act with another entirely separate  entity.

b.      Documents  with regard to any   diligence done as to whether Tony Tay trust was owned by Tony Tay and his wife or if they were acting as trustees for  person and persons unknown.

c.       Discussions and documents which  considered the appropriateness of Kieran Boru FITZSIMMONS, the on site manager  also being a part owner of the property through his shareholding through his company REHOBOTH ENTERTAINMENT (NZ) LIMITED  in Tony Tay film Limited.

10.   On 6 March 2007, 60,000 shares were  transferred from Waitakere properties Limited to Waitakere city council, please provide the minutes of the council meetings, or any correspondence  which facilitated and explained  this  transaction .

 

11.   The documentation which backs up any decision from council   or  notification given to council  on  or about 13 April 2008 that  Kensington swan the councils  solicitors to become the  registered office and solicitors for  Prime west Ltd

a.        and   considering that  Kensington Swann were the solicitors for council   was it seen as a conflict of interest that  Kensington swan was also acting   for a company in which council was a minority share holder.

b.      Please provide any lawyers accounts   for Kensington swan  and itemised   charges  associated  with this joint venture which was paid out of public  funds.

12.   Any documentation in which  Mr Graeme  Wakefield   declared  is interest in WAITAKERE CORPORATE LIMITED and states the purpose of this company.

I look forward to  your response  this is a matter of public interest   On the one hand  our water supplies are being considered for  privatisation yet on the other hand the council runs movie studios.

I am particularly  concerned  with the nature  of the trading in this matter as it appears to  reflect the same  ignorance of what constitutes a company and  a trust as which occurred when the council allowed a council  manager Mr wells to contract to himself  for  animal welfare services through the name of a  fictitious trust , which also happened to be involved in monitoring animal action in the film studios  , this action was carried out by Mr Wells Wife.

It appears to me that   Waitakere city was  very loose about  what constituted a legal entity  and who represented it, I   wish therefore  to highlight the past so that the opportunity for third parties  to profit from the public  will not be  something  which is capable in the future.

Please find here with  a full chronology , those mentioned in the chronology have been shown to be connected   and for your interest I have also attached news item Tax loophole no sin, says charity . The recurrence of biblical names, the associations of the same persons  interlink   this with  a group of people who share the same religious  practices    this could be coincidental   or maybe not.

It appears that this is all about using  public funds, public funding and tax avoidance.  The council has to be careful not to be associated with this or be a vehicle for  this due to  many councillors  not being  up to speed  with regards to  company and legal structures  and the principals  of transparency and corruption.

In the interest of transparency I will be posting this on  My blog https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com/

Regards

Grace Haden

17/02/2011

Axminster system.. we sweep it under the carpet..then we don’t have corruption.

This week   I received back several official information act requests    in one I had asked Mr Key about state capture.. this was sent on to   MAF to answer.. Of course they didn’t know  .

I had also made two further OIAs  which came back  with very interesting results   this document is worth a read OIA dated 14 feb

I have now made a request for the ombudsmen to have the whole thing investigated  considering  it was brought to the attention of MAF in 2004  that AWINZ did not exist  it has been allowed to continue to  trade through its agent   Mr Wells, with seemingly no accountability.

The work I am doing with Gary Osborne  who runs the accountabilitynz Blog is  interesting and  it would appear that   this all ties in neatly with   public   facilities being used for private enterprise .. known overseas as state capture.

But if this is not recognised in New Zealand as a  form of corruption  then  it must be ok

and  if it is Ok then it is not corruption

hence we have  no corruption

Those in control of councils and  in places of control can quietly rip off the tax payers and rate payers  and ask them to pay more  while  enforcing laws on them..  keeps them busy and distracted while those at the  top of the food chain stuff their pockets with proceeds from  the public dollar.

I just love  Gary’s  take on it    In  most parts of the  common wealth  our law  system is based on the  Westminster system   but in New Zealand we have the Axminster system.. that is we sweep it under the carpet.  It  is apparently  condoned  by all except house wives  who know that  the mess will spill out   and its best to deal with dirt in  small manageable portions.

But we have a good back up system  if any one  speaks out  or draws comment on the bulge under the rug  we  sue them . Not a problem    just burden  them with  financial costs and the economics of our  over priced under resourced justice  system which does not rely on facts and evidence will  take care of the rest.

Perjury is not an issue   as it is not enforced by the police    and you can always  say that the person who drew comment on the bulge in the carpet   was vindictive..  .heaven forbid  if they  can speak the truth and be believed  our bulge could be  EXPOSED.

Its time to get accountability. Time for our useless public servants to start earning a wage,  they  are there as our representatives they are there to  protect  our society ,   but somehow think they are  there to  get a wage packet and  get  part of the action of what ever is going.

But how do we stop it   when all those charged with being a public watch dogs don’t?  look at this clip its happened before  its happening here

Its time for   the average New Zealander to get his head out of the sand   and speak up . its our country and were being fleeced.

09/07/2010

reply to NBR article

Filed under: corruption,transparency,waitakere city council — anticorruptionnz @ 3:11 am

Both  transparency International   and united nations  encourage people  to speak out against corruption.   One definition of  corruption is  the use of public office for private gain.

Mr Wells manager of   dog and stock control Waitakere contracts to AWINZ  ( animal welfare institute of new Zealand ) for animal welfare services . AWINZ is akin to the RNZSPCA and has law enforcement powers. But unlike the RNZSPCA, AWINZ  does not employ inspectors  it  uses the  council staff  under Mr Wells supervision  who “ volunteer “ their  council paid time while  enforcing dog and stock control  and while using the  council resources while Mr. Wells administered the bank account into which the fines and donations were banked..

Wells applied for AWINZ to become an “approved organisation”   under the animal welfare act 1999  a statute which he had written the bill for ,He was further an advisor to MAF an independent advisor to the select committee which  discussed the legislation

In 2006  I innocently questioned the existence of AWINZ  which   did not  appear on  any register despite  Mr Wells having assured the minister in 1999 that  the trust had a deed and was in the process of being  registered under the charitable trust act. In further communication in 2000 he told the minister he couldn’t send him a copy of the deed because  it was  being sent off for registration .

I proved categorically that these claims were false. There were no trust deeds on file and no record of an “organisation “ called Animal welfare institute of New Zealand .

My  investigations   in 2006 showed that AWINZ was no more than a trading name for Mr Wells . Since that finding never before seen documents came to light   and a trust has been created with new members to  give legitimacy  however they  refuse to give proof of  any  legal basis for their  claim as to being a trust  prior to  December 2006 .

Defamation is very hard to defend when your defence is struck out   and your truth is considered defamatory  you   simply stand no chance.

Defamation notoriously precede the discovery of many of our great frauds world wide   it is a well known  tactic to silence those who  hold the truth.

The cost for speaking the truth is far more than any criminal would   suffer. And when  you are attacked  using charitable funds    it becomes  very expensive to  defend   the truth.

Whatever happened to the freedom of speech and our right to question?  Corruption will surely flourish.

Corruption will flourish when good men stand by and do nothing.  A copy of this  will be published on my blog https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com/

02/05/2010

Select committee and press appear to be in the dark about the reality of animal welfare

Filed under: corruption,Neil Wells,SPCA / RNZSPCA,transparency,waitakere city council — anticorruptionnz @ 3:37 am

The first indication I had that the select committee had finished its report was the article in the Sunday star times by Sarah Harvey

Alarm bells rang when I noted the bit  where it said  “there are currently just five fulltime Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) inspectors.” this may be so  but  there are a lot more than 5 inspectors .

The act specifically  refers to inspectors as being  appointed under section 124(1) or section 124(2); and includes every constable

Section 122 (2) provides for approved organisations  and as  such the RNZSPCA  and AWINZ are approved Organisations  and can,  and do recommend  persons for appointment as inspectors.

The RNZSPCA  has under its umbrella , its  various branches  and  the SPCA and it appears  anything  which has the letters SPCA in the name  can  have inspectors  approved  through  the RNZSPCA .

AWINZ  itself has  about 10 inspectors   but the catch there is  that AWINZ does not legally exist –  it is but a name  which an ever changing  combination  of persons  have used, some have had a trust deed  others have not,  but it has never stopped any one from claiming to be AWINZ- or pretending that it is  a legal person in its own right !.. I advise you not to ask about it –  I asked   in 2006   why AWINZ didn’t exist and they  have  sued   me  ever since   using over $100,000    charitable  funds.. so  don’t tell me there is no money for  animal prosecutions..   They could sue me ,financially cripple me ,destroyed my family   for  a simple question of accountability… so much for  concern about animals  they have no concern about humans- they have treated me most inhumanely .

The Police too  are inspectors under the act  but I was with a friend a week or so ago  when   the police were  still investigating a brutal sexual assault on  children then aged 14 and 15-years-old   by a known offender- their father . We were advised that the matter would be   another 6 months away before charges were laid  and court  in the event of a Not guilty  would be  a further three years.  the 15 year old  will be 21  then   lets  keep the wound raw!!! –Animals can be put down.. these kids  have to live with their abuse and justice for them is not swift either .. they are walking away from it as it is simply not right to  have this linger for that obscene period of time.

And while I sympathise with  the  costs of prosecutions little has been said  about the ability   for the prosecuting  “ approved organisation”  to recover  costs   section 171  of the act  allows  for this. I  know that is done because I have details of an AWINZ prosecution    incredibly  it received  reparation for vet services  which  Waitakere city  council paid out for. .. yes I have the evidence.

Neither is the RNZSPCA  short of funds ,I have  taken time to see  what assets   the RNZSPCA, its branches and its member societies hold , it is substantial , there is no reason that   some of  the “ investments ‘ can’t be used as  a  prosecution pool  which is repaid and replenished  after prosecutions.

But  there are stranger things afoot  as in the  in the  case of  the Waikato branch of the RNZSPCA   where some $400,000 have been  siphoned off  through use of trusts , name changes  and transferred to another entity   which is now going to use it  for a building project using another bullshit name for another  secret trust –   again the same of the  players of AWINZ are involved.

In looking  closer at the submissions which  had been placed before the select committee and the advice which it was given   ( these can be  located  on this page  at the parliament web site follow the links ·  View all advice ·  View all evidence (including submissions) to  obtain the individual  documents.) I   feel that the  committee  considering the legislation  appears to kept in the dark  and  I can see why  my  submission had to be  removed.

My  submission would have brought too many questions out    and  issues which have now conveniently been   circumvented. E.g.  Questions raised are answered but  not  completely. ( I have had 4 years of this  from MAF  and Waitakere city )  There is no indication given at all that   AWINZ and the RNZSPCA  have undertaken prosecutions and the number of inspectors that each  have, these I believe are material  facts .

I wonder too if  the select committee had the advantage of an  independent advisor  like they had last time? See article How to write legislation for your own business plan

Mr Anderton is  aware of AWINZ ,  he was minister  when I questioned their  existence  and the lack of  accountability , he appears to have  condoned it , even after  I pointed out that   MAF  did not have a trust deed on file  and there was no evidence  of any one other than Mr Wells ( the witer of the  original legislation ) having consented to becoming an “ approved Organisation”

Of further concern is the structure of the RNZSPCA and SPCA.  While it is true that the RNZSPCA  has a MOU with MAF ( as did AWINZ )  the RNZSPCA  has a number of  branches and  member societies  , the  agreements  between these  bodies are not of public record  and it appears  from the recent example that the back door to appointment of  Inspectors is wide open.

Bearing in mind that these people   enforce the law and have powers of search and seizure   the  chain of  command  is very loose indeed.

I still maintain  that before  we look at   greater  penalties  we have to look at  our ability and quality of  enforcement  while keeping it consistent  with the  penalties  , rights and abilities to have  matters pertaining to cruelty to Humans   dealt with , we cannot even contemplate doing that  when the wheels within the  animal welfare are so buckled.

25/04/2010

Animal Welfare Prosecutions – all $$$ no accountability

There are moves afoot to Privatise Dog and stock control which has been the role of  councils.

Auckland city already  contracts dog control  out to animal control services and many dog owners  have experienced the diligence  with which this private enterprise enforces the  legislation.. there Is no secret in this as to   why.. it is because it is lucrative.

Imagine then  if  this service is extended to  give the dog control officer  powers  such as  the SPCA inspectors have, the dog control officer is suddenly not limited

  • To Dogs
  • Public places
  • Offences relating to   dog control

The extension of their powers would mean that

  • There is enforcement of strict liability offences.. You own the cat they claim it is suffering.. Therefore you are guilty.
    • Yes   you can try to defend it  but the  $150  fine will need to be weighed up against the $350 per hour which you’re your lawyer will cost you .
  • Any prosecution undertaken  will result in the  fines  returned to  the complaint  “approved organisation  “Section 171 Animal welfare act- this has to be easier than competing with other charities.

So who are the approved Organisations.

The RNZSPCA by virtue of section  189   is an approved organisation , under its umbrella  come the various branches of the RNZSPCA and the  various SPCA societies which are members.

When an  SPCA member society  or RNZSPCA Branch  recommends a person to the  RNZSPCA be appointed as an Inspector  and that person is appointed  then that  member society  or  branch also becomes an approved Organisation   section 190 .

There is one other approved organisation   this  is  the animal welfare institute of New Zealand  (AWINZ)  It resulted  from a Pilot programme  which a previous RNZSPCA director set up  in Waitakere city,  AWINZ   unlike the RNZSPCA  societies and trusts  is not a legal  person  and is nothing but a trading name to facilitate a concept  which    was documented in 1996  territorial animal welfare authority , effectively  it is a fiction to  which the central and local government have contracted without  checking to see if  it did exist.

At that time of writing the above document  Mr Wells   was located  at No 1 Rankin avenue, the same building as the RNZSPCA.

Mr Coutts   a recruitment manager was also in the same building , he was later to become a “trustee” of AWINZ    and when the RNZSPCA shifted  he also relocated   and  remains today in adjoining offices in Great north road

AWINZ “ contracted” to  Waitakere city  through the manager of animal welfare   Tom Didovich , who  collected  and witnessed the signatures on the trust deed  for AWINZ

Mr Didovich is now national education and branch support manager for the RNZSPCA .

Only one other  organisation  has  ever applied to become an “ approved “ organisation   this was the INTERNATIONAL LEAGUE FOR THE PROTECTION OF HORSES (NEW ZEALAND) INCORPORATED . It applied  to become an approved organisation through MAF and failed     but  has over come the issue  by  changing its name to SPCA AUCKLAND HORSE WELFARE AUXILIARY INCORPORATED    , it is now  under the umbrella of the RNZSPCA    and has   an inspector making it an approved organisation by virtue of section 190  of the act.

And so it appears that  there will be  limitless  possibilities  for   non existent organisations  “ such as AWINZ”   and  for  any organisation   who will change its name and ( possibly for a fee or return on earnings ) to come under the umbrella  of the RNZSPCA   and start enforcing animal welfare.

I suspect that It will not be the serious  stuff which will be enforced , but they will  approach the broken windows  concept  with the pretence that   making people aware of the rights of animals .. its been done before.. speed cameras traffic wardens , swimming pool charges.

It is already happening over seas  http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/Pensioner-banned-from-keeping-pets.6187161.jp

It will  not about  helping animals  it will be about $$$$$$

But worst of all   there is no accountability for animal welfare Inspectors, there is no register , they are not accountable to a tribunal  and there is no  clear cut   complaints  procedure which holds them accountable.

So the scenario will be  that the more they  bring in by way of prosecution  the more the society they represent will earn, the higher their wages will be..

Mr Wells    promoted the AWINZ concept using a  flyer http://www.verisure.co.nz/profit%20in%20animals.pdf there is profit in animals… He wrote the animal welfare act  , to facilitate this concept  he was  independent legal adviser to the select committee  and  adviser to MAF  during the time the  legislation was being considered.

To privatise Dog and stock control  without reviewing the animal welfare act would be extremely dangerous.

08/04/2010

How to write legislation for your own business plan

Filed under: Neil Wells,SPCA / RNZSPCA,Tom Didovich,Waikato RNZSPCA,waitakere city council — anticorruptionnz @ 2:44 am

I have recently become  aware of the word Kaisen  , it means to   bring about change  gradually, a bit  like boiling a frog,  you start heating the water slowly and  he doesn’t realise  he is done for until it is too late.

And so it is with the animal welfare legislation. To illustrate this I will focus on one person Mr Neil Wells .  A short chronology according to his own   CV .

It shows Mr Wells as being a key player in the RNZSPCA joining in 1971  , becoming president of the  Royal Federation of NZRNZSPCA in 1976  .

It is believed by  some that  he became a barrister in animal welfare law because the RNZSPCA paid for his degree, I have not been able to confirm this either  way.

In 1984 he was a founding member   of a “National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee” and “Animal Welfare Advisory Committee”   the status of these bodies   is unknown to me but it would appear that they lobbied   for an animal Welfare advisory Committee to be set up by Government . This occurred in  1989 when Colin Moyle acceded to the submission of lobby groups.

I believe Mr Wells to have been part of the animal advisory committee due to the acknowledgment by Mr Falloon in a discussion paper “A review of the animal protection act 1960” as being a contributor.

Neil Wells had  already  set up a pilot program in Waitakere with his mate  Bob Harvey ( Bob and Neil worked in advertising and  had been responsible for  getting the   Kirk labour  government  into power ) .

Tom Didovich was the manager of the Waitakere  council dog pound  which  during the  early association with Wells changed its name to Waitakere Animal Welfare  .

In 1996 Wells shares his vision for  a territorial animal welfare service with Didovich , there is no doubt  in my mind that this is a business plan for Wells own venture one which needed legislation   to facilitate it.

As luck would have it the Lobby groups ( many of which include Mr Wells in some capacity )  push for a new animal welfare Act and Neil Wells volunteers to write it. This will become the No 1 Bill or the other wise known as the Hodgson bill .

Concurrently Wells  sets up a training program to  train dog and stock control officers, his fees  to train the dog and stock control officers   are $2500 + GST and there are  fees of $1250 + GST p.a. per council .

He takes the training program to Unitec   and  works with them and NZQA  to  facilitate a course  in anticipation of his plan going nation wide.  He was actively   approaching councils for interest at this time.

I firmly believe that  due to this  he had a vested  interest in the legislation he was writing and  consulting on

It was going to provide him with an income stream for   his territorial animal welfare service and the  lecturing at Unitec  and through the prosecution of animal welfare offences.

A significant  change in the new act  is that  offences now became strict liability offences,  that is  no intent needs to be shown , the offence is complete if you are the owner of an animal found to be suffering.

But  most significant  part  is  section 171 of the animal welfare act  is that  the   fines could be paid to the organisation  brining the prosecution.

Every thing   you would ever need for your own business   all in the legislation which you have  helped write.

The legislation  was passed when a second bill was considered with the no 1 bill

But when a second was bill was introduced    and the primary production  committee  took 39 hours and 22  minutes to consider both the bills after  hearing 15 hours and 22 minutes of  submissions.

Fortunately they had assistance and I quote form the animal welfare legislation booklet which Mr. Wells himself wrote   –  the committee recorded  “ we Received advice from the ministry of Agriculture and forestry ( MAF ) we also employed Neil Wells as an Independent specialist adviser who assisted our consideration. Neil Wells , a barrister who specialises in animal welfare legislation , had earlier been involved in the draft Hodgson bill

Of note again was that   Mr Wells was a legal adviser to MAF during this time and it appears to me that he had more than one finger in the pie . I cannot find anything  anywhere where he declared his conflict of interest to the  Primary production committee  although I did  find a reference  that Mr. Wells   told MAF that he had verbally told some one  of the conflict, I have been unable to prove or disprove this.

And so the  act   became law  an act which gave  inspectors wide sweeping powers, , the ability to become a private prosecution  authority with  little or no accountability  and  to keep all funds arising out of their action.

The select committee is currently looking at increasing the penalties for offences under the animal welfare Act .

In an interesting twist  Tom Didovich  who worked with  Mr Wells so closely with in  setting up the integration of dog and stock control with  SPCA  duties, is now well placed in the RNZSPCA  ready to  turn the  RNZSPCA into a  prosecution authority instead of the  helpful   and service it once was.

Didovich is also a “ trustee” of a trust named the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand which bears the  same name as an approved organisation which gained “ approved status from the labour cabinet after  the  president of  the labour party at that time, Bob Harvey  was consulted. The fact that there was no evidence of the  of an organisation by the name of  the animal welfare institute  existing  was  apparently not important … Untill I asked  and then I was sued.

See diagram of the  interactions

06/04/2010

The name game .. Identity fraud , Identity theft or confusion for an ulterior purpose

There appears to be  much confusion as to what exactly identity fraud is , there  appears to be a general expectation that  the identity of one person is used by another  and that there is a theft of  information.

There was a great article published  by Tony Wall which  shows  just how  identities can change   , he showed what confusion went with this, But as Suzanne Paul ( and that is not  her real name either  ) But wait there is more …

I  am of the opinion that when you use  a name which is not your real name  , specifically for a purpose of obtaining an advantage  ( pecuniary or otherwise )  then   that is identity fraud. The are others who use another name   for various innocent  reasons and get to be known  by it Suzanne  being a case in point. (   I bet that if she gets  loan she does so in her real name)

Whilst there  is  no doubt that identity theft  happens  it is  actually a lesser  issue than  being a victim of  Identity fraud   where by  you  trade or inter act with some one  who used a name other than their own  for the purpose of obtaining a benefit.

An identity does not have to be stolen from  some one   in order to be used.  It can simply be created   and  it is often a credible sounding name  which makes  people believe that  such a person or organisation truly exists.

Take AWINZ for example Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand   is but a fictional  name used to portray  the existence   of a united body of persons, but  who or what is the Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand ?( sounds  like WINZ   a government department  even uses a logo nearly identical to that  on  the council buildings ) see here and here

  1. It was used to  provide the false end title which was given to the lord of the rings , that no animals were hurt in the making of the movie . See also the letter which the

AHA wrote

  1. to Neil Wells
  2. It was  the name Neil Wells  proposed to council for the provision of SPCA type services to the council at the end of 1998 when a draft deed was drawn up
  3. It was  the name on the notice of intent  in August 1999
  4. It was the name in which an application for  funding in October 1999 and money  was obtained .
  5. It was  the name in which a  formal application to the minster was made in November 1999 by virtue of section 121 Animal welfare Act for  Animal welfare institute of New Zealand to  obtain “ approved status “  which brings with it  wide sweeping law enforcement ability.

It should be noted that the act says that he application has to be  made in the name off the applicant. You just have to wonder how something which does not exist can be an applicant.

In 2006  when   no  identity could be found for  AWINZ  (and therefore  no accountability) we set up   our own AWINZ his one was legal because it was registered  under the charitable trust act  1957  which confers Body corporate status   and make  the name that of a legal person   it was explained to Neil Wells By  The Ministry of economic developments .

It was following  this that a trust deed was provided a deed this showed Nuala Grave , Sarah Giltrap, Graeme Coutts and Neil Wells to be the trustees  calling themselves AWINZ

We were then told we would be sued   but it was not those people who  sued  ,it was Wyn Hoadley  Graeme Coutts and Neil Wells  who now claimed to  AWINZ but had no proof that they were.

Later  Tom Didovich   the man  who had originally  obtained the  witnessed the  signature on the original   deed signed a deed with  Hoadley , Coutts and Wells  in December 2006 , this  trust then  claimed to be the same as the previous trust .

By now  you should   be suitably confused  and hopefully see  that  identity in New Zealand is  a complicated issue.

Banks  are starting to get it   ,but slowly. I actually found a bank account in the name of Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand  at the national bank , it had no trust deed,  was not a trading name    and  held  public funds. Only Neil Wells had access to this account , in my  mind that    proves to me  at least that AWINZ was at all times a trading name for Neil Wells.

Our Identification practices are less than slack , our accountability to the truth is non existent  But New Zealand  is not  corrupt…Perhaps  its because we cannot identify those who are corrupt  because they are hiding behind some name which  can be any one at any time .

You may sa  why blog about it  why not take it to the police  or   some where.. well I have  I have tried for  4 years to get accountability  but  this seems so well entrenched that it is being protected at the highest level .

If I have been sued  for Questioning this  who  else  is  suffering the same? I am sure I m not alone

We need more transparency and accountability .

03/04/2010

Open letter Official information act request and privacy act request Minister of local Government.

Open letter      Official information act request  and privacy act request Minister of local Government.

This week I was told that I could not meet with you with regards to the issues relating Waitakere city council  ,I was told that this would be a conflict of interest with your port folio  and it was suggested to me that I should speak to some  other MP’s out west  even though you are also my   local MP.

The circumstances are that Waitakere city council is allowing their dog and stock control officers  to volunteer their   services  ( council  paid time ) to  an “organisation”  which I believe  does not have any legal standing.

Circumstances

In 1999 , Neil Wells, who is now the manager of the dog pound at WAITAKERE council   , made an application to the minister of agriculture for  a trust (which he claimed existed   , but in reality had no signed deed  )  , to become an approved organisation under the animal welfare act , an act which he himself  had  had significant in put in.  ( he wrote the bill ,  was independent  advisor to  the select committee and legal advisor to MAF )

The “ trust “ for want of a better word was   given approved status, but none of the trustees  had any  legal accountability  because  only one person ( WELLS)  without any verifiable evidence of his ability to act for and on behalf of  the others,  made the application in their names.

And so it was that  the animal welfare Institute, a trading name  purportedly for  Neil Wells, Nuala Grove, Sarah Giltrap and  Graeme Coutts  became an approved organisation  without    checking to see if the  latter three had any idea of the responsibility they were taking on or even consenting to it.

In 2006 I asked who or what AWINZ was, I was promptly sued   to  stop me from asking   revealing  questions.  But it did flush out a trust deed  in fact it  flushed out two  despite   Mr wells claiming in 2000  that here was only one copy and this had been sent to the  registrar for  the purpose of registering the trust  under the charitable trust act  1957  ( this  obviously never happened ) I  do wonder how the original trust deed came to be returned  when the registrar had no record of having received it( only certified copies are sent   usually )

When the   deed surfaced in 2006 Two Trustees allegedly resigned , again this was all hearsay and no  documentary evidence .

A new trustee came on board   again   no  documentation and no signed deed , this alleged trustee was   Wyn Hoadley.

Imagine trying to collect a debt from AWINZ  , who would pay you?  Who would be accountable?

I can assure you that if it was a debt you were collecting  you would  not have  been able to hold any one accountable  except perhaps Mr Wells  who  was the only real person identified in the transaction.

Incredibly then   Three people  who were not the same people as those who were give approved status then sued me ,  to do this  they used the charitable funds  which were raised  amongst other means   by using  council logos and sending solicitation letters  out with dog registration  papers.

Together  with  former manager of animal welfare Waitakere city ( who witnessed the original  trustees signatures)  joined those who were suing me   and  in December 2006 these people formed a trust  which they also named Animal welfare institute of New Zealand.

But these people  using the same trading name  were not the same   “ trust “ as the people  who had  obtained approved status.

Think of it these terms  , if these people had bought a  house ,  the name  which would have been on the  title  would  have been those of the trustees.  Each trustee would have had to have signed the real estate papers and  the transfer papers.

The  trustees who resigned  would have had to have had their names removed from the title  and  any new ones entered onto the title before they could  lay claim to being a trustee holding interesting that property.

I wish to make it clear that we are not talking about a family trust we are dealing with a  law enforcement agency  capable of  seizing peoples pets and prosecuting people   for what in extreme circumstances could  be their inability to afford vet fees.. a law enforcement  agency  which assured the minister that  it  would have accountability to the  public  by virtue  of  its registration  as a legal person by virtue of the charitable trust act.   ( this process takes  a mater of d ay  yet AWINZ claimed to be in the process  from August 1999  to March2000  and by 2006  was still not registered, Mr wells did manage to  register at leats  four other trusts in that same period )

What is more the legislation which was written   by  Mr Wells  was written   with intent to facilitate his  own business venture and   provides  for  “ approved “ organisations  to  receive the   fines  back into their own coffers ( section 171 Animal welfare act).

The inspectors  are not subject to the   vigorous regulations which e.g. private Investigators  who have no  law  enforcement powers at all  are subjected to and  given the fact that the “ organisation “ to which they are accountable  does not  in reality exist  there can  be no accountability at all.

The whole concept of   approved organisations comes from Mr wells a former RNZSCA director, I   have been told that the RNZSPCA paid for his law degree.  He and Mr. Didovich established the  scheme in Waitakere, Mr Didovich is not  well established in the hierarchy  of the RNZSPCA

Official information request  Minister of local Government.

  1. Your office  has advised me that a  public discussion paper is going to be published in February next year. I have been told by SPCA officers that  Dog and stock control is to be privatised ,  Please advise  If this paper  is with regards to the privatisation of  dog and stock control currently undertaken by councils.
  1. As it is obvious that something is contemplated and that  those in the animal  welfare sector are aware of  what  is in the pipe line   could you please advise  if there is a policy which   allows  certain people to become aware of impending  changes  before public consultation has even begun.( and is still so distant )
  1. Please also advise if it is appropriate that some  sectors of the community are for warned about  such policy changes.
  1. The Waikato animal welfare foundation , which  I believe has close connections with  the Waikato SPCA trust  which Mr  Wells  was a foundation  trustee of (  taking  charge of $400,000  of the RNZSPCA’s money)  has  announced  developments  at WINTEC.  Please advise if  you have been communicating with Wintec or any one involved with this foundation  with regards to the facilitation of training for the council  staff   and  others  to  be trained to replace the council  dog  and stock control officers.
  1. I would  like to mention here that UNITEC  tendered for and won the contract  at the time that the animal welfare Act became law, it was no surprise that Mr Wells who had written the act was also lecturing at Unitec and had written the course to   go hand in hand with the act.  Many would say that this is using inside information and it  appears to me that history is about to repeat.
  1. If you believe that it is a conflict of interest to   speak to me  with regards to lack of accountability of the animal welfare  institute of New Zealand   ,its involvement in Waitakere  city and use of the  public funds obtained through council connections, do you then  condone  such practice  or is  it simply that you do  not wish to   be formally aware of the situation  because that would throw a spanner in the works  for privatisation  which I am aware Act supports.
  1. I  wish to draw your attention to  the fact that you were helping me with this mater before  you became  a minister, you disapproved of the  practice then,   has your status as minister made this practice acceptable? Why do you  seemingly condone this action now  when  previously  you were pro active about exposing   this conflict of interest?
  1. Please provide  copies of all documents, correspondence , notes and  jottings  with regards  to and from  any  approved organisation, to and from  Maf , SPCA, RNZSPCA, AWINZ,  training   establishments such as Wintec, Unitec and the Waikato animal welfare foundation   with regards to
    1. Privatising  dog and or stock control
    2. Amalgamating council   dog and stock control with  animal welfare.
    3. Reviewing animal welfare  services
    4. Reviewing dog and stock control services.
  1. What cost benefit analysis  have been undertaken  and what conflict of interest precautions do you  have in mind.

Further   as per the provisions of the Privacy act    I would  like you to supply all correspondence which  the  minister of local government  and  his department  holds which pertains to me personally  and to my company Verisure Investigations Limited.

And I was  also wondering if you could please provide me with some inside information too so that I can set up a business venture based on   information which is not yet in the public realm so that I can be ahead of others   in the tender process.. I do believe that this is an equal opportunity country  if it  good enough for some   to be in the know  then it must be good enough for all .

I will be posting this letter and   the reply on my Blog   at https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com/, I hope you can treat this reply with urgency so as not to keep the readers, which will include all SPCA’s and local bodies ,in suspense.

Regards

Grace Haden

Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at  www.verisure.co.nz

31/03/2010

official information act request Office of the auditor general

Filed under: corruption,Neil Wells,transparency,waitakere city council — anticorruptionnz @ 3:50 am

Sir

I make this Official information act request   with regards to   those who are involved in   the production of our legislation.  I will illustrate my request with a real example   to substantiate the fact that this is not a hypothetical matter and is very real.

The circumstances

In 1996 a former RNZSPCA director  drew up a concept  to integrate the  statutory provisions of  local bodies, being dog and stock control , with   animal welfare services traditionally provided  by the RNZSPCA. He had already initiated this concept though a pilot programme with Waitakere city council and wished to take the service he called Territorial Authority Animal Welfare Services nation wide.

The document   locatable at the hyperlink above shows that this was clearly a commercial venture.

In the years which followed Neil Wells volunteered to write the no 1 bill for the animal welfare act this was reported in a parliamentary release The next Animal Welfare Act – Pete Hodgson Speech29-06-2001 .

The bill went before the select committee and Neil Wells was employed  as an independent consultant to the select committee.

At this time he was also a  Legal consultant to MAF in relation to the development of the animal welfare act and at the same time was communicating with them with regards to his own personal ambitions .

When the act was finalised and   about to become law Neil Wells applied   for AWINZ ( animal welfare Institute of New Zealand ) to become an approved Organisation under the act he had  been  so heavily involved in.

AWINZ eventually became an approved organisation under the act despite the fact that   it had never been incorporated under  the  charitable trust act  nor  had a trust deed  been sighted  .

In 2006 I had cause to question AWINZ   and it was only then that a trust deed   , which could very easily have been   retrospectively signed, materialised. This was dated 1.3.2000 proving conclusively that the statement in the application to the minister, being that a trust deed existed on 22 11.99 was false.

The reaction for questioning the accountability of the  organisation was over the top  and I was sued by three people who claimed to  be  AWINZ but were not supported by a trust deed and were not the same group of persons who had signed the deed.

This group of persons  then represented themselves to be the  approved organisation and  later were joined by  another  , they subsequently signed a trust deed  and pretended to be  to be the same trust as the first .

I have recently made submissions to the select committee   with regards to   increased penalties  in animal welfare.

In that submission I made reference to the  reality that animal welfare  Inspectors

  1. Do not appear on a publicly available register
  2. Unlike   many other professional persons who  do not have  law enforcement  ability  they  do not have to  apply for a licence annually
  3. are not subjected  to accountability  to a tribunal
  4. Have very little accountability  cf  private investigators, mortgage brokers, real estate agents.

I suggested to the   select committee that this lack of accountability my be due to the fact that the person  who had such a high degree of input  had a vested interest in the act, in that he was  going to use this act as  the foundation of his own  business venture.

My official information act request is

  1. What policy provisions are there to safe guard against the conflict of interest where by a person can be involved in writing legislation which he proposes to use himself.
  1. Has Mr Wells at any time  thought  his involvement of  writing the act, employed as a independent advisor to the select committee ,and as  legal consultant  to MAF declared a conflict of interest, if so please provide copies of these documents if you have access to them  and where would these documents  be   found if they existed.
  1. The animal welfare act has very little accountability for inspectors  who are private individuals  and  have wide sweeping  legislative powers .
  1. Do animal welfare  inspectors have any accountability to the   auditor general because of their delegated authority ?
  1. Where do we find a register of  those warranted as animal welfare inspectors.
  1. Do  council staff  volunteering their paid time   as inspectors  have accountability to the auditor general  through  their  council positions?
  1. i.      If so   and given the fact that   it was considered Ultra Vires for  council to  enforce animal welfare  legislation   what has the  auditor general done   with regards to this conflict in duties.
  1. With regards to government  departments  and local authorities contracting to an unincorporated   Trust  ie a trust  which itself is not  a legal person   but can be a legal person if  it  is  registered  by an enactment which confers  body corporate status.
    1. Please provide all policies that the government has for contracting or entering into agreements with unincorporated trusts.( non body corporates or non legal persons)
  1. When entering into an agreement with unincorporated trust what provisions do policies provide  for one person to sign  on behalf of  others .
  1. What policy is there that enable local or central government to enter into an agreement with a trading name?
  1. What are the expected steps of verification which are laid down for   councils and  government departments to verify that they are entering into an agreement   with a legal  body, i.e.  one capable of suing or being sued.
  1. What policy exists that would allow a person , contracting to   central or local government , to represent themselves as being a trustee if their name does not appear on a deed.
  1. i.      What legal authority does such a person have in terms of  government contracts.
  1. What investigations have been carried out by your department into the legitimacy of
    1. i.      the   MOU of AWINZ to MAF,
    2. ii.      AWINZ to Waitakere city
    3. iii.      And the   legitimacy of AWINZ as a law enforcement  authority for enforcing of animal welfare  legislation.
  1. Please provide copies  of  all reports , research , notes references  and policies  which  have investigated or examined.
    1. The  use of private individuals for law enforcement
    2. The ability of private organisations to  use  law enforcement as a means obtaining funds for charities
    3. The  issues arising  out of organisations  enforcing the  law for their own pecuniary  advantage.
    4. The issues and consequence of accountability of contracting law enforcement to  a  trading name .
    5. Accountability issues of private law enforcement bodies.
    6. Cost benefits analysis of use of private law enforcement bodies.
  1. Further the collection of charitable funds   By a council employee
    1. What policies are in place for a  managers of a city division to use the  logo which is on their building   to collect revenue   by way of   donations from the public they serve  the example I use is the document located at this link which  shows the city  logo  and  the  logo which Waitakere City  animal welfare uses  and is  shown on their building.
  1. Funds which have been raised from the public  have been used for  prosecuting me  in order to silence me  to  prevent me from asking the  questions  which I continue to ask.   Please advise if there is a policy  which deals with the use of public funds by a manager of a city  council  in this  way.
    1. i.       The documents are located at http://www.charities.govt.nz/  search animal welfare institute of New Zealand    the  annual reports show that over the past three years $105,366 of charitable funds  have been used on litigation . The only person  who stands to gain from  this personally is the manager of animal welfare  Waitakere city  who  contracts to himself as a trustee of AWINZ – Please advise of any policies  which facilitate and condone this.
  1. Prosecutions   – Animal welfare prosecutions are carried out  By   Barrister Mr Wells  for  the CEO of AWINZ Mr Wells  who has matters reported to him by the manager of  Waitakere city council  animal welfare  through a  MOU this person is also Mr Wells .  Please advise of any policies  which facilitate this and advise why this is possible .
  1. The  web site of animal welfare Waitakere  City council  has a page for animal welfare http://www.waitakere.govt.nz/cnlser/aw/index.asp#services it states

What we do at Animal Welfare Waitakere?

Animal Welfare Waitakere provides a range of services, all directed at improving welfare standards of the animals in our community, educating the public in a better understanding of animal welfare and of-course finding good suitable homes for those animals less fortunate, abandoned, neglected and unwanted.

We also provide other services such as:

  • Adoptions of dogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, birds and sometimes even stock
  • Impounding and reuniting lost pets with their owners
  • Dog registration
  • Microchipping for just $20 per dog
  • Enforcement of local and national dog control and animal welfare laws
  • Animal Welfare Officers who are also Inspectors under the Animal Welfare Act
  • A holistic approach to animal welfare at the Animal Welfare Waitakere
  1. Please advise  the policy  and the   process   through  which  this territorial body can undertake    the  duties  described  with regards to  duties other than  the statutory duties of  council being dog and stock control.
  1. Since when have council officers been able to be involved with animal welfare work .
  1. Which other councils  have   dog and stock control officers  who are also animal welfare   inspectors under the  animal welfare Act.
  1. Finally please advise why it is not seen as a conflict of interest for  one person to  wear the  hat of manager, contractor  barrister and banker of   funds  for  the work which council paid staff carry out.  Why does the United nations Convention against corruption define this as a corrupt practice and why is it condoned in New Zealand.

This request  will be posted on https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com/

Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.