Archive for October 2011

MAF continues to conceal corruption and so does our government.



the following reply was received   from MAF  Mr Mc Nee   reply 25 october 11

Prior to this I received a letter    Which Mr Wells had written to  MAF    this is well worth reading letter from trustees

ToMr Mc Nee

And to  the members of NEAC and NAWAC , senior management MAF and Ministers

I am in receipt of your letter dated 25 October 2011  and I thank you for your reply( attached )  I also refer to the letter written by Mr Wells on behalf of the   the trustees of AWINZ

I refer specifically to the last paragraph of your letter which states.  “On the basis of my review I am satisfied that MAF has followed a proper process in all of its dealings with you and has acted with the professionalism that I expect from public servants. The audit into AWINZ found no evidence of any dishonest activity.”

I Have attached  two corruption tool kits  one is  addressed to legislators, public officials, media, NGOs, business circles and civil society at large By the Office of the Co-ordinator for Economic and Environmental  the other  form the  United nations addressed  to PROSECUTORS AND INVESTIGATORS Activities, there are many other publications   available from the UN  the OECD  world bank  etc.  I will refer to them as Document 1  and  document 2  respectively.

World wide  Corruption is an issue, except in New Zealand   we are immune from it as we simply ignore it and we have the statistics to prove it.

Document 1 .13738

On page 5 of the document there is reference to state capture “This occurs when organized crime groups and oligarchs infiltrate government affairs or corrupt public officials use their positions to finance lucrative businesses.

 Document 2 .Handbook

Page 23 CORRUPTION DEFINED  “The working definitions presently in vogue are variations of “the misuse of a  public or private position for direct or indirect personal gain”.

Grand corruption” is an expression used to describe corruption that pervades the highest levels of government, engendering major abuses of power. A broad erosion of the rule of law, economic stability and confidence in good governance quickly follow. Sometimes it is referred to as “state capture”, which is where external interests illegally distort the highest levels of a political system to private ends.”


I note that the audit conducted in 2006    had  pre-determined Parameters  being

The MAF criteria outlined the requirements to be met in the following areas:

• organisational management structures and internal controls

• workable and effective accountabilities

• policies and procedures to cover operations and management

• communication and coordination processes

• processes for monitoring and evaluation of work and management

• robust and transparent financial accounting systems

• planning for medium term financial robustness; and ,

• control over conflicts of interest.

 Additionally the  Audit  did not look at  the organisation structure   and only looked at the approved Organisation.

The audit would therefore not have found any fraud or corruption as the   fraud and corruption can only be found by looking outside the parameters.


State capture

Mr Wells wrote and advised on the   animal welfare legislation which he  intended to facilitate  the business plan  for  a Territorial animal welfare authority  , he  also advised MAF on  the  legislation .


Once the legislation passed Mr Wells  made a fraudulent application for approved status  in the name of the animal welfare institute of New Zealand   – I say it is fraudulent because no such organisation existed  and Mr Wells gave repeated  assurances  that the organisation  existed.     In my honest opinion that is fraud .       MAF simply asked him to  provide documents,  they never checked.In my opinion That is worse than employing a former  Olympic  bob sled  team member

Mr Wells undertook prosecutions  under the animal welfare act and banked funds into a bank account    called the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand  when  no such organisation existed. He was the only person to operate this account.  And the funds   were entirely within his control as confirmed by your audit.

The specific crimes act offence of Fraud   is to use a document for pecuniary advantage   It is clear that Mr Wells repeatedly supplied false documentation to  MAF and the minister  and   since the  funds were entirely within his control there can be no dispute that   he made a pecuniary advantage through the “approved organisation”

Further corruption  which  MAF is a party to   

MAF Was aware that Mr Wells was operating AWINZ from council premises  and  By the  fact that Mr  Beyvel and  Mellor  were both named as referees for  the application .

Your audit picked up on the conflict of interest  , and  you seemingly condoned it by allowing AWINZ to continue to  be an approved  organization.

In the  approval process MAF was happy to accept  documents from   Tom Didovich  the manager of dog and stock control   as evidence of approval  from the council . I have yet to find documentation where the council have confirmed that they would   extend   dog and stock control to extend to  animal welfare and allow their staff to be used  in a “ voluntary capacity”   and rent the facilities out  for $1 per year to AWINZ.

Fraud thrives  where there is  extreme trust  and he trust is abused.  Basically Mr wells has been able to assert anything and   no one checked. Mr Wells worked closely with  MAF     and was simply taken on his word.

Had MAF checked  event he  simple existence of AWINZ  I would have  been spared  five years of hell.

As a whistle blower  I would have had protection   if New Zealand had ratified the Un convention against corruption   but   instead everyone has simply stomped over me  because  to hide the whole issue   would   make it go away and it won’t interfere with any ones retirement plans.

This is not about you  or me.. this is about Corruption in New  Zealand and the blind eye that is turned to it and the cover up  that we instigate  to keep our  clean green image.

By virtue of   the official information act    could you please   provide  .

  1.  all documents relating to the review  which you undertook   including any  documents in which you report your findings.
  2.  any  anti-corruption policies MAF  has  particularly pertaining to    investigations  and  audits
  3.  procedure documents which  outline  the verification process adopted for ensuring that  MAF Trades with real entities as opposed to fictional names.
  4.  Documents outlining the procedures  which are available to the public when they are questioning  the existence of an approved organisation
  5.  Documents which relate to procedures  for the   protection of whistle-blowers  and  manner of dealing with Whistle-blowers.
  6.  Policies  with regards to  Cronyism ( page 33  document 1) and management of conflict of interest
  7.  Policies for investigation of complaints, In particular  covering  aspects which would   explain  why  I was  investigated in depth  for allegedly passing myself off as a MAF officer ( a complaint made by persons  who are  now convicted fraudsters)  and  why a similar investigation was not  conducted into the  existence of AWINZ .
  8.  A copy of all correspondence to  Mr wells and any of  the alleged trustees Of AWINZ   with regards to withholding the audit report  from me.
  9.  Documents which  prove  or show   that you have investigated and were satisfied that  tom Didovich, Wyn Hoadley , Graeme Coutts and Neil wells were  together the approved organisation.

I look forward to hearing   from you  this    is now posted on transparency


Grace Haden


Because truth matters

Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at

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

From: Grace Haden []
Sent: Wednesday, 14 September 2011 4:10 p.m.
To: ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’
Cc:; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’;;; ‘’
Subject: Corruption In MAF.. will you hide it or expose it

Documents referred to

maf cover letter  ,
audit report
Teritorial authority Animal welfare services

Fraudulent application for approved status

wells relationship with MAF

 To the members of NEAC and NAWAC , senior management MAF and Ministers

I am writing to all of  you with regards to my  concerns  that there appear to be corrupt practices  within MAF.

In 2006  I questioned the existence of the  Animal Welfare institute of New Zealand ( AWINZ ) ,  it is an approved organisation under the animal welfare  act. And has the same status and powers as the RNZSPCA.

What is significant under the act is that penalties can be up to $250,000  and  by virtue of section 171   they are payable to the approved organisation which undertook the prosecution.( this provides opportunity  for fraud )

AWINZ is what I believe to be the perfect fraud-   but instead of  the authorities  dealing  with it I was taken to court on a private prosecution By Neil Wells and Wyn Hoadley   on trumped up charges and   defamation.

5 years of court battles later It has cost me my 23 year marriage  and about $200,000 not to mention the damage to my business and my personal reputation and  my family.. forget about cruelty to animals this  has been a total assault on my family.

Effectively there is still $200,000 in  court costs and damages to   be paid , this   for a   court proceedings where I was denied a  hearing on the facts, I was effectively  sentenced without  being found  guilty first. .. but that is beside the point    on what I am approaching you  for.

AWINZ was the brain child of Neil Wells

Neil Wells and Bob Harvey worked  together  in 1974  in advertising   their campaign saw the Kirk Govt into power.

Wells was  director  RNZSPCA   and later  became involved with the various  animal welfare advisory groups and wrote  many of the codes.

He came up with the idea to set up  a territorial animal welfare service  where by dog and stock  control   operated by councils would be given extended  powers  to   become  animal welfare officers.

He  worked  with Bob Harvey    and set this up In Waitakere as a  trial.

He then wrote the No 1  Bill for the  animal welfare act to facilitate his business plan  by introducing    the approved organisation status.

He became the  independent advisor to the select committee   in the time leading up to the bill becoming law.

When the bill was  passed  but before the act became law  he made an application   for approved status for AWINZ , claiming that AWINZ was a trust and that it was in the process of being registered under the charitable trust act 1957 .. the reality was that  no one else ever signed or showed any evidence that he could make this application  in their names.

In 2006 I was approached by an AWINZ animal welfare officer  and  who was also  a council employee.  She was concerned   that she had to  volunteer her  council paid time to  AWINZ and prioritise animal welfare  jobs over dog control  work.

I  found that the logos for AWINZ and for the  animal welfare at Waitakere city council where Mr wells   now worked as manager  were deceptively similar and he was running fundraising campaigns using the  logo  sending out donation requests with the   dog registration,  he further claimed that AWINZ was a charity when it was not.

With others we had formed a trust called the  animal welfare institute of New Zealand and  had legally  registered it.  Neil Wells now finding himself caught out needed the name to cover up and  took legal action against me   for passing off, breach of fair trade and   defamation, the object at all times was to intimidate me  and force the release of name.

I  have evidence that he  committed perjury in court and misled the court, none of this apparently matter in NZ  but this is not an issue for  you .

Due to the questions I had raised AWINZ was audited   late 2008   and   in July 2009  the audit report published. ( as attached )

As a result of tis audit  AWINZ  chose to   relinquish its approved status  but despite this continued to operate until December 2010  when I  drew the ministers attention to the fact that  it was still operating.

AWINZ is now no longer an approved organisation .

The conflict  of interest for Mr wells was

  •  He was manager  dog and sock control Waitakere.
  • He had signed an MOU  with MAF for AWINZ
  • He had signed an Mou   for AWINZ with Waitakere dog and stock control  with the previous manager.
  • He was  therefore now  both parties to this MOU.
  • He used the staff  under his control for    AWINZ
  • They used the council infrastructure (  he therefore had no over heads )
  • They reported an animal welfare offence to  Him as manager Animal  welfare
  • He would pass this to  himself as AWINZ
  • He would pass it to himself as Barrister
  • The money would  come in   and  he banked this into an account only he  had control of.

What is of further concern is that MAF   have gone all out to protect  Mr Wells.

I have   evidence that  he has a long term   relationship  with David Bayvel ( the writer of the letter ) and Barry O’Neil   who is the director  referred to in the letter.  Refer  attached document  where he   acknowledges  long term relationships  11 years ago  with   Peter O’Hara, John Hellstrom ,Barry O’ Neil  and David Bayvel.  Mr wells claims in a  cv which can be located on line  that he was

1984– 1995          Member, National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee.

1989– 1998          Member, Animal Welfare Advisory Committee

Wyn Hoadley was  of course similarly involved  and was  chair  of the NAEAC

I was further investigated by MAF biosecurity in 2006 on another matter where  I was investigating a  non-existent liquidator and director, the company involved  had a transitional  facilities licence.  I happen to refer t the documents and  was accused of passing myself off as a MAF officer.

A colleague   who  assisted me   by taking over the name Animal welfare  Institute of New Zealand, had his herd of Manchurian Seika Deer confiscated out of the blue.

The reason I am writing to you all is that   this case will impact on the credibility of    MAF and the related  animal  advisory  boards  unless someone is  proactive enough to  say enough is enough  let’s have a good look at what is going on.

5 years of this I have had enough  the report speaks for itself   why  was nothing  done after  this audit report was released… why is MAF continuing to protect   Mr wells.. its  time to decide if you are facilitating fraud  or acting in  the best interest of  the public.

AWINZ never existed.. it was only ever Mr Wells   trading as AWINZ and because I pointed it out I have been crucified.

We  desperately need an independent commission  against corruption and this case proves it. Those who are supposed to guard the standards  don’t.

I  doubt  that any one of you will act   so in the interest of transparency this will be posted on


Grace Haden


Because truth matters


Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at