Archive for October 2011
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.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.
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 .
- all documents relating to the review which you undertook including any documents in which you report your findings.
- any anti-corruption policies MAF has particularly pertaining to investigations and audits
- procedure documents which outline the verification process adopted for ensuring that MAF Trades with real entities as opposed to fictional names.
- Documents outlining the procedures which are available to the public when they are questioning the existence of an approved organisation
- Documents which relate to procedures for the protection of whistle-blowers and manner of dealing with Whistle-blowers.
- Policies with regards to Cronyism ( page 33 document 1) and management of conflict of interest
- 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 .
- 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.
- 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 .net.nz
Because truth matters
Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at www.verisure.co.nz
From: Grace Haden [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 14 September 2011 4:10 p.m.
To: ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘CowanP@LandcareResearch.co.nz’; ‘Morgand@LandcareResearch.co.nz’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘Kathryn.Bicknell@lincoln.ac.nz’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’
Cc: email@example.com; ‘Wayne.McNee@maf.govt.nz’; ‘Paul.Stocks@maf.govt.nz’; ‘Carol.Barnao@maf.govt.nz’; ‘Andrew.Coleman@maf.govt.nz’; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; ‘Ben.Dalton@maf.govt.nz’
Subject: Corruption In MAF.. will you hide it or expose it
Documents referred to
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 http://kaimanawa.homestead.com/ContactUs.html 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 anticorruption.co.nz.
Because truth matters
Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at www.verisure.co.nz