Archive for August 2012

Horses die on the Hobbit film set

A news item was published this morning and then   removed from the stuff web site, fortunately we have a  hard copy  “news clipping hobbit

Hobbit horse deaths needless and avoidable wrangler
This would appear to be a  case of history repeating itself.
Horses died on the  lord of the ring set as well . In that case  the  monitoring was being done  through a fictional organization called AWINZ  which in reality was nothing more than  barrister Neil Wells  sub contracting to SPCA  inspectors. ( Neil Wells  is a barrister who write the  standards for  animals in  entertainment ) see article page 13  of this  document
The movies were given the end title  that no animals were harmed  which is a registered trade mark of  the  American Humane association   see the letter here
MAF  conducted an investigation into the matter   see their   correspondence here

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

AWINZ – The Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand – an unincorporated trust under investigation 

And

Inquiry into The Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand (AWINZ) – unincorporated charitable trust & registered charity

and

AWINZ – a registered “animal welfare” charity spends $126,850 on defamation proceedings over four years

and

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

we will keep you posted

State capture. does the Auditor General know what it is ?

In reply to my request for investigation  I received the following reply from auditor general

I have responded as follows

From: Grace Haden
Sent: Friday, 3 August 2012 12:11 p.m.
To: ‘Jude Hutton’; lyn.provost@oag.govt.nz
Cc: j.key@ministers.govt.nz; ‘j.collins@ministers.govt.nz’; johnhayes.mp@xtra.co.nz; d.carter@ministers.govt.nz; david.shearer@parliament.govt.nz; info@winstonpeters.com; ‘pita.sharples@parliament.govt.nz’; Chester Borrows (Chester.Borrows@parliament.govt.nz); a.tolley@ministers.govt.nz; ‘peter.dunne@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘metiria.turei@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘russel.norman@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘lianne.dalziel@parliament.govt.nz’; david.parker@parliament.govt.nz
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

  1. State capture
  2. 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

  1.  That managers  in  public office  can contract to themselves
  2. That  trusts are used and that there is a general   naivety  and lack of understanding of requirements when  dealing with various forms of  trusts  .
  3. The use of public resources to derive a  private income and the lack of  awareness to prevent this
  4. The inability of  Councils and government departments to verify alleged facts , instead relying on trust and being deceived.
  5. The ability for people to write legislation, and advise on it for  their own business plans.
  6. The ability of interested parties to write caucus papers  to see their own project be accepted by cabinet.
  7. The inability of the charities commission to  administer their act .
  8. The ability to manipulate the process of law.
  9. 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.

  1. Privacy act request – Please provide me with all  personal information   that you hold on me   .
  2.  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    .
  3.  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

Regards

Grace Haden

reply from auditor general

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.
To: Grace
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.

Regards

Jude Hutton

Inquiries Co-ordinator

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

www.oag.govt.nz