Transparency New Zealand

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.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.”

AUDIT

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.

Being.

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 .

Fraud

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 .net.nz

Regards

Grace Haden

VeriSure

Because truth matters

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