Archive for November 2011
Integrity and conduct
State Services commission 1/11/2011
I hereby wish to make a complaint for investigation by the state services commission under section 8 (2) of the state services commission.
I am a licenced Private Investigator (former Police sergeant.)
- In March 2006 I was approached by a Waitakere council dog control officer who was concerned that she was required to volunteer her council paid time to Animal welfare institute of New Zealand .( AWINZ)
- She had no idea who or what AWINZ was but knew that it was associated with her boss Neil Wells who was manager of the council dog and stock control unit whose resources, logos and infrastructure was being used for the operation of AWINZ .
- Investigations revealed that Mr Wells, a former RNZSPCA director and a barrister , had commenced a Pilot programme in 1995 with Waitakere City and MAF to trial his business plan for a Territorial animal welfare authority which was to be like an SPCA but using council Dog and stock control officers , I have a copy of this business plan which involved personal gain for facilitating this venture.
- After creating the business plan , Mr Wells had written the first bill for the new animal welfare act and was employed as an independent advisor to the select committee during the period leading up to the passing of the legislation . He was also an advisor for MAF at this time.
- The act itself as a consequence has little accountability for Approved Organisation while having huge potential for financial gain by virtue of section 171 which allows fines , which are to a maximum of $250,000 to be returned to the “approved organisations“
- Mr Wells has a very long history with MAF and has firm political ties with the labour government dating back to 1974 when he and former mayor Bob Harvey ran a successful advertising campaign for the Kirk government.
- When the legislation was about to become law , Mr Wells made an application to MAF in the name of AWINZ to acquire approved organisation status.
- This application was made in the name of Animal welfare institute of New Zealand which Mr Wells claimed was a trust which had been established and was in the process of being registered under the charitable trust act 1957. In reality no trust or deed existed and it could therefore not be registered.
- Without confirming the existence of a trust or an organisation the application passed from MAF to caucus and the undefined name AWINZ became an approved organisation using the pseudonym to hide the true identity of its operator. This occurred without going through the proper channels and with apparent political interference.
- The only other approved Organisation the RNZSPCA which is an incorporated society.
- Mr Wells was the only person to make an application or be part of any application process. By virtue of the lack of an application by any other person AWINZ can only be a pseudonym for Wells.
- Up until 2006 MAF did not have a Trust deed, MAF did not obtain evidence of the existence of AWINZ and has never sought to verify the existence of AWINZ either before or after that date, It has simply accepted a document as evidence from Mr Wells who had already misled MAF a number of times.
- MAF has never queried why the that deed post-dates the application or examined how these persons could possibly be involved with the Approved Organisation.
- As a result of raising questions about the non-existent law enforcement authority AWINZ , I was sued , this legal action has taken 5 ½ years , Mr Wells a barrister supported By Wyn Hoadley another barrister and a person who has also had very close connections with MAF.
- They have used the charitable dollar to fund their attack on me , and have won in court by making false claims and withdrawing them after they had incurred costs which saw my defence struck out , then by skipping the bit in the process whereby a decision was made as to whether or not Mr Wells had been defamed they secured their victory by going straight to Quantum where Mr Wells re wrote history and used the resulting judgement to persuade MAF of the legitimacy of AWINZ.
- I have since made a complaint to the law society and evidence has now come out to prove that their claims against me were malicious and had no chance of success and that Mr Wells retrospectively created a trust in 2006 .
- I brought the issues to the notice of MAF and made requests per OIA. MAF did not investigate, when it did supply information to me it was censored to such an extent that only a few lines appeared on otherwise blank bits of paper.
- Several years later I was able to get the full versions of the documents and had these been made available to me in their full form from the start it would have precluded many years of litigation, its associated stress and costs.
- In a parallel move at about the same time as Mr Wells taking legal action against me I was also sued by white collar criminals for harassments, a man who I had never seen spoken to or investigated took action against me to stop me from looking for a director and liquidator of a company he was involved in. The MED became involved and it transpired that both the director and Liquidator were fictional and had been created to defeat creditors. links Charges over alleged fake liquidator and Boss invents accountant to escape $60k debt.
- Mr Wells was aware of this action and I quickly found that I was being investigated by MAF for an allegation of having passed myself off as a MAF officer. I had been at the premises of the company which the fictional director owned and had noticed a MAF transitional certificate on the wall, I had mentioned that MAF would be interested in knowing that the company had morphed not another company. On the basis of this I was investigated and when one lady said that she could not remember who I was but remember that I was a MAF officer, it was sufficient for MAF biosecurity to issue me with a warning.
- It appears disproportionate that I should be investigated in those circumstances and that MAF has not treated the lack of existence of an approved Organisation with the same degree of importance especially when they had been lied to and I had at all times been truthful.
- It is also strange that Mr wells has had so much influence in MAF that he has been able to prevent them from conducting an impartial investigation into AWINZ and that his revocation letter of 2009 had the effect of having MAF withhold an audit report from me for nearly 2 years.
- I note from Correspondence which I have obtained by way of OIA that Mr Wells has had a relationship with many of the high ranking public servants in MAF and that repeatedly the same names come up. These people were charged with the over sight of Approved Organisation and the release of information .
- I am happy to assist your investigators in providing key documents in investigating the breach of the standards of Integrity and conduct. I believe that what has occurred here is gross corruption and fraud both of which have been facilitated by MAFs recklessness and lack of integrity. The following links on my blog may assist you in your assessment
- I believe that the code has been breached as follows
a) Treat everyone fairly and with respect I do not believe that I have been treated fairly or respectfully Mr Wells has much to hide and he has been able to us the trust which MAF has had in him to persuade them not to deal with me in a fair and transparent manner which is evident in the withholding of information.
b) Be professional and responsive MAF have not been professional in the dealing of the complaint and in 5 1/2 years have not investigated the lack of existence of other persons involved with the so called organisation AWINZ.
c) Work to make government services accessible and effective there is no accessibility when information is withheld and there can be no effectiveness when private enterprise can be set up through a non-existent organisation. Additional there appears to be little or no monitoring of approved organisations and the documents which should be supplied according to the MOU are not provided or called for.
d) Strive to make a difference to the well-being of New Zealand and all its people the difference has been, to condone corruption, this can only be to the detriment of New Zealand and compromises the essential biosecurity services. I am one of the people in New Zealand and MAF’s lack of action has not been for my well-being. Whistle blowers should not be treated the way MAF has treated me, not once has some one come to interview me or ask me to go through my complaint re AWINZ. MAF has not reported the Matter to the police or to the SFO both of which will not act without a complaint from MAF.
e) Maintain the political neutrality required to enable us to work with current and future governments –there appears to have been political interference in the approval of AWINZ, which was given approved status despite not existing and against the recommendation of MAF and treasury.
f) Carry out the functions of our organisation, unaffected by our personal beliefs– Key persons in MAf appear to have had personal relationships with Mr Wells which have affected their judgement. The same people were involved in 1999 as are involved in 2011 – Dr O’Neil became MAF’s chief veterinary officer in 1994 and was appointed to head the MAF Biosecurity Authority when it was formed in 1999. The Biosecurity Authority was the forerunner of Biosecurity New Zealand, established in 2004, which Dr O’Neil now heads. Mr Bayvel is also a name which has been a constant he was a referee for Mr Wells when he moved into a situation of conflict of interest as was Mr Mellor.
i. Questions with regards to conflict of interest by Both Mr Mellor and Mr Bayvel have been asked in parliament.
g) support our organisation to provide robust and unbiased advice The personal relationships with Mr Wells have led to Bias to the detriment of MAF and the public.
h) Act lawfully and objectively How can it be lawful to allow a non-existent organisation to continue to enforce the law.? What is objective about not following policies and guide lines for approval of approved organisations which state that the application is made in the applicants name.. a non-existent entity cannot have a name. It is a nothing!
i) use our organisation’s resources carefully and only for intended purposes the costs of AWINZ have been huge , all of this could have been prevented by simply asking for proof of existence and verifying it from the appropriate register. Why has no one ever contacted the so called original trustees?
j) Treat information with care and use it only for proper purposes The information I have provided them with has been totally ignored and they have been unnecessarily obstructive in releasing information which should have been released. It must be obvious to MAF that they have slipped up badly; it appears that they are taking action to cover up their negligence.
k) Work to improve the performance and efficiency of our organisation. How can providing legal authority to non-existent “organisations’ be effective, there has been a total lack of verification and investigation, the only audit which was done was done in such a way that the corruption and fraud fell outside the parameters of the audit. This is worse than Davey , Thompson and Wilce put together , this is not just negligence this is concealment of corruption .
l) be honest MAF has not been honest with itself in looking at this matter in an un bias manner, You only need to look at the letter from Mr wells Dated 7 October 2009 to see that Mr Wells can reprimand MAF and MAF has then complied with his demands only to be over ridden by the ombudsmen 2 years later when Mr wells has finished beating me up in court. .
m) Work to the best of our abilities Not verifying facts and not investigating something which is untoward is not working to the best abilities it is beyond reckless.
n) ensure our actions are not affected by our personal interests or relationships There is much evidence that the personal relationship of Mr wells with the high ranking MAF officers has advantaged him , he managed to get MAF to investigate me while preventing MAF from investigating him.
- o) never misuse our position for personal gain I know that several of the top person in MAF hold positions of conflict of interest and questions have been raised in parliament, However I do not know if any of those person have gained from this incident but hey have allowed Mr Wells to set up a private enterprise using the resources of a local council which was a situation of public office for private gain, MAF there by became a party to the offence by their negligence. What is significant is that Mr Wells had the web site animalwelfare.org.nz while Mr Mellor and Bayvel had animalwelfare.co.nz
- We must act with a spirit of service to the community and meet the same high standards of integrity and conduct in everything we do. MAF has not shown any integrity in this matter at all even to the very last letter I received from Mr Mc Nee where he states that he does not intend to take this matter any further.
- As part of complying with this code, our organisations must maintain policies and procedures that are consistent with it. I have further asked MAF what policies they have with regards to corruption and whistle blowers,, if they have such policies it would appear that they have been totally ignored. If these rules had been followed since their inception MAF
a) Maf is not alone, The police have failed to act because the matter was before the court , then they failed to act on perjury.
b) The SFO failed to act because I could not show a $ value of missing money
c) Audit NZ, I spoke to one person who said he saw my emails come in but didn’t do anything because he was close to retirement and did not wish to rock the boat.
d) Every Government department I have dealt with has shown me that the code is there to be ignored.
- The code is the closest thing which we have to an anti-corruption policy , if it is not enforced or adhered to corruption will rise, it appears that currently we do not have corruption because we have not defined it and we give those reporting incidents such as this a brick wall to bang their heads against.
- All I ask for is an independent investigation into AWINZ how it came to be, its legal existence and MAFs role in allowing this fictional organisation to exist and to continue to exist even after a most revealing audit which confirmed my claims and should have set off alarm bells.
- I do not hold out much hope the mere fact that ringing the state services commission and no one knowing who to report this to does not inspire me. I can only guess that the state services commission too will simply ignore this. That is why I will in the interest of transparency post this on my blog site.