Archive for August 2012
A news item was published this morning and then removed from the stuff web site, fortunately we have a hard copy “news clipping hobbit
AWINZ is a controversial ” charity” currently being investigated by the Society for Promotion of Community Standards inc their findings have been reported on their web site
Inquiry into The Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand (AWINZ) – unincorporated charitable trust & registered charity
AWINZ – a registered “animal welfare” charity spends $126,850 on defamation proceedings over four years
AWINZ – registered charity – loses “approved organisation” status. Trust Deed subject of fraud allegations
Speculation is that Christine wells the wife of the founder of this charity, which shared the same name as the ” approved Organisation ” is doing all the film monitoring. she has done so in the past and from our investigations we have not been able to confirm that she has any formal qualifications as an animal welfare inspector .News items relating to the 2002 incident can be found at Towers title slammedand Towers title slammed as insult to US attack
We would welcome any information as to who the animal welfare monitors are on the set, which is probably a well guarded secret.
a further article can be found on the one ring net
I have responded as follows
From: Grace Haden
Sent: Friday, 3 August 2012 12:11 p.m.
To: ‘Jude Hutton’; email@example.com
Cc: 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’; Chester Borrows (Chester.Borrows@parliament.govt.nz); email@example.com; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: refusal to investigate and privacy act request.
Open letter in response to the Auditor General
Thank you for your response Jude.
This is not an Individual matter but one which goes to the heart of corruption In New Zealand
The AWINZ matter involves two distinct types of corruption
- State capture
- Public office for private pecuniary gain
These issue are very serious and of public concern.
I have given you a lot of evidence which shows that
- That managers in public office can contract to themselves
- That trusts are used and that there is a general naivety and lack of understanding of requirements when dealing with various forms of trusts .
- The use of public resources to derive a private income and the lack of awareness to prevent this
- The inability of Councils and government departments to verify alleged facts , instead relying on trust and being deceived.
- The ability for people to write legislation, and advise on it for their own business plans.
- The ability of interested parties to write caucus papers to see their own project be accepted by cabinet.
- The inability of the charities commission to administer their act .
- The ability to manipulate the process of law.
- The propensity to cover up rather than expose wrong doings within councils and government departments
It would appear to me that the tactics used in the AWINZ scenario are wide spread .Vast sums of tax payers and rate payers funds are being lost and here we have a perfect example which provides many lessons but we cast it aside and say we prefer not to remain ignorant .
By learning lessons from the AWINZ matter better procedures and process could be put into place and the billions being syphoned off from the public will instead go for the betterment of society as a whole.
In the AWINZ matter the council never considered if it wished to provide “ animal welfare services “ to the rate payers and the council never gave approval for their staff to be used by a third party organisation yet it happened, legal opinions for this private enterprise were also obtained at a cost to the rate payers.
I would have presumed that the audit office would not have approved of council managers using the staff under their control to use the councils vehicles, infrastructure and resources to prioritise non council work. It could well be that there are no policies for this and that you simply assume that “ that doesn’t happen”
There is much to be learnt from this very well documented matter and it proves that there are no safe guards against corruption and that you do not intend to have any in place.
I have three requests.
- Privacy act request – Please provide me with all personal information that you hold on me .
- Please provide a definition for both State capture and public office for private gain and provide copies of the policies which you have in place to deal with those forms of corruption .
- Please advise if you have ever uncovered or investigated matters involving state capture or public office for private pecuniary gain.
I am the lead petitioner in a petition calling for an independent commission against corruption, the reply I received from you today will become part of the evidence as to why we need such a body.
This letter will be published on www.Transparency.net.nz
In reply to my request for investigation I received the following
From: Jude Hutton [mailto:Jude.Hutton@oag.govt.nz]
Sent: Friday, 3 August 2012 10:26 a.m.
Subject: RE: request for investigation
Dear Ms Haden
Thank you for your further email of 23 July 2012 to Lyn Provost.
You are concerned about the existence or otherwise of the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand (AWINZ).
We have reviewed the information you have provided in this and your earlier email of 19 June 2012 and must advise that we do not intend to investigate this matter any further.
We see from our files that you have written to us several times in the past about this matter. Our previous response has been that this matter does not require investigation by this office. There is nothing in the information you have provided to us in your recent emails that would cause us to change this view.
We note that your concerns are historic in nature and focus on the Waitakere City Council, which no longer exists. It is not clear from the information you have provided whether AWINZ still exists.
For your information, this office’s primary role is to audit the 4,000 or so entities that make up the public sector. We are also able to inquire into issues of concern that are raised with us. Our inquiries function reflects our auditing role. Our focus is on the way public entities use their resources, including financial, governance, management and organisational issues. The Auditor-General’s office is not an avenue for resolving individual complaints or concerns about how a public entity has handled a particular matter.
Office of the Auditor-General Te Mana Arotake
100 Molesworth Street, Thorndon, Wellington 6011
PO Box 3928, Wellington 6140
Ph: +64 4 917 1500 Fax: +64 4 917 1549
DDI: +64 4 917 1600