Transparency New Zealand

I am extremely concerned with   the  standards  that the  Charities commission adopts when it comes to  trusts, it appears that the notion that all you need is a trust deed is  correct.   even to the extent that you  can lose your deed or claim to have lost your deed and make up a different deed years later and back date it.  this to me creates a legal fiction     where are the standards. ?  When you park for  5 minutes in excess of your  time these standards are very real  but for charities   near enough is apparently good enough.

The  following is  my latest OIA to the charities commission with regards to the  fictional trust which operated in Waitakere city  using  rate payers money.

I have in the past made a number of complaints with regards to  the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand.

 The charity commission somehow condones what this   charity  gets up to  base on  documents which are years old   and without considering the facts.

 I am  therefore  making this an official information act request to seek the information on which the charities commission relies upon to    give credibility to the actions of this  charity   I will   give  you the evidence then I will ask  for the information  throughout  the  document.

 Please note that this document  has hyperlinks which open the evidence on which I rely .

 I will also be posting this on Transparency .net .nz for transparency purposes.

 The Animal welfare Institute charity   trust deed  1.3.2000   .  Allegedly revoked by  trust deed  5/12/2006became  a charity in 2007  and has used its charitable funds to  pay for litigation  which  this trust was not part of.

 Reliance of the existence of the charity CC11235   has been on the foundation document of the animal welfare Institute Of New Zealand   trust which was allegedly revoked by a trust deed  5/12/2006

 Documents sent to the law society by Neil Wells on 25/5/2011  are the governance documents which he calls the “  the relevant supporting documents”  being

1. 1. 1. minutes  10/5/2006

1. 1. 1. Resignation of Giltrap

1. 1. 1. Resignation of Grove

1. 1. 1. Email to  Wyn Hoadley

1. 1. 1. 13 July 2006 telephone meeting  

1. 1.  Minutes 14/8/2006

An  audit report received by me early September 2011 dated 20/7/2009 did much to unravel the truth behind AWINZ   due to the information it contained..

 This audit report had been made in the course of an official government enquiry  into  the activities of this  alleged trust

1.       The audit report under point 4.1.2   states:

“We found that despite being set up in 2000, AWINZ did not hold any trust board meetings until June 2004.  Since its inception (and at time of the audit), AWINZ has held 4 Trust Board meetings. The deed of trust and Revocation required 24 meetings between the financial years of 2001/02-2007/08. There were no meetings for three of the 7 financial years of operation.”

2.       There were therefore no other meetings of the alleged trust other than the four occasions mentioned up until August  2008  when the audit was conducted .

3.        The documents from the law society accounted for all four meetings as follows.

3. 3. 1. 2004  referred to in the minutes  10/5/2006

3. 3. 1.  The  meeting 10/5/2006 

3. 3. 1. 13 July 2006 telephone meeting 

3. 3. 1. 14/8/2006 meeting

3. We therefore know what happened at each of the last three meetings. The first meeting June 2004 is not recorded but its time frame speaks volumes.   

5.       Section 7 of the trust deed  1.3.2000   – Term of Office and Vacancies (a) The term of appointment of each Trustee shall be 3 years provided that upon the expiry of any term of any term of appointment each Trustee, unless a person to whom any of the provisions of clause 7.3 (b) {i), (iii), (iv), (v} or (vi) applies, shall be eligible for reappointment.

a.       The deed was signed 1.3.2000 when Tom Didovich drove to each trustee and witnessed their signatures.

                                                              i.      It is significant that Didovich is now a trustee  according to the trust deed  5/12/2006

b.       By the terms of the  trust deed  1.3.2000   “ term of office “ the trustees term expired 1.3.2003

5. 5. 3. There were no meetings there were therefore no reappointments.

5. 5. 3. This means that from 1.3.2003 the trust which had no assets, had no trustees and therefore ceased to exist.

5. Unincorporated trusts do not have perpetuity they only exist through their trustees and their deed.  Therefore no trustees.. no trust .

Why the deed 5/12/2006  is not a deed of Revocation

7. The  deed dated 5/12/ 2006   is  therefore not  a deed of revocation  because

1. 1. 1. there was no continuity of trust- there was nothing to revoke

1. 1. 1. there was no meeting  to  alter  the deed

1. 1. 1. there was no resolution to change the deed.

1. 1. 1. If anything it is the deed of an entirely new trust.

1. 1. This trust became a charity and used the charitable funds to fund litigation which commenced before this trust was formed.- see statement of claim

OIA question  1  If there is an argument for the trust continuing to exist  after t1.3.2003  could you please advise what  evidence you considered   being  case law  . legislation  or  any other evidence ( other than an assumption)  which gives  the trust  established 1.3.2000   any  legal  continuity after  1.3.2003.

OIA question  2  If the trust  ceased to exist  on 1.3.2003   because  by  its own trust deed  the trustees were not re appointed  how can the trust deed  5/12/2006have any legal standing  since it is revoking a non-existent trust. Please provide all evidence which you considered which would  give a legal foundation to the deed 5/12/2006  being a deed of revocation or any deed  which gives continuity of trust.  ( please refer to the  minutes of the meetings  it appears that there was no meeting when this deed was signed and no resolutions  to change the deed.)

Appointment of HOADLEY

8. With regards to  the appointment of Wyn Hoadley  if the  trust had existed legally (by  acting according to its deed ) or by any evidence which you may  rely on ,   then her appointment should have been made in accordance with  Section 4 of the  Charitable trust act  1957 which provides for  the appointment of trustees ,

4 Evidence of appointment of trustees

·         (1) For the purpose of preserving evidence of every appointment of new trustees to which section 3 applies and of the persons in whom any estate or interest in property from time to time becomes legally vested, every such appointment shall be made to appear by a memorandum under the hand of the chairman for the time being of the meeting at which the appointment was made, and shall be executed either in the presence of that meeting or at any time after that meeting, and attested by 2 or more witnesses.

(2) Any such memorandum may be in the form or to the effect of Schedule 1, or as near thereto as circumstances will allow, and may be given and shall be received as evidence in all courts and proceedings in the same manner and on the like proof as deeds, and shall be evidence of the truth of the several matters therein stated.

9. The only record of Hoadley appointment are the minutes  10/5/2006 , these minutes were missing in 2008 according to the audit report recorded as follows

 “Neil Wells was unwilling to allow MAF’s auditors to sight all AWINZ papers and records on the basis that some papers and records were either confidential or unrelated  to AWINZ role  as an approved organisation. This limited the evidence available to us to for our opinion. We were advised that AWINZ does not own any computers or other assets and that Neil Wells uses his own personal laptop for AWINZ business. Neil told us that ,a recent computer problem with his personal laptop meant that many of AWlNZ governance and  business activity records (e.g , emails concerning agreements and discussions-between Trustees) had been lost.“

4.1.3 “During our audit visit, we were unable to review all records of commitments and decisions made by the organisation. Neil Wells told us that many of the electronic copies of these records had been lost in a computer hardware accident.”

10. 10. The minutes which allegedly confirm Hoadley’s appointment were created in 2011 (right click  on the  open document and select properties )   .minutes  10/5/2006

10. The  Deed however sets out criteria for legal minutes  and these  minutes are not legally acceptable minutes  according to the trust deed  as they have not been signed according to the  provisions of the trust deed

11.11 Minutes of Meetings:

Minutes of all resolutions and proceedings of all meetings of the Trustees shall be prepared by the Secretary and. if confirmed at a subsequent meeting of the Trustees, shall be signed by the chairperson of the meeting as a true and correct record of those proceedings

12. Additionally the deed ( singular )   was missing  and she was appointed under a section number  ( 7a) which  does not appear in the only deed relied upon as being a copy of the true deed 

OIA question  3   Please provide all evidence on which you rely for the  valid appointment of  Wyn Hoadley as a trustee  in 2006  which enabled  her to  use charitable  funds to pay for litigation ..

Decision to obtain charitable status

13. If there were only four meetings prior to August 2008, how was the decision made to become a charity in September 2007?  Who made that decision, how was it a resolution of the trust?

OIA question  4   Please provide copies of  evidence which you rely upon which show   that the trustees  consented to the application for charitable status and  that this decision as not  just made by one person.

OIA question  5   Please provide  the evidence on which you rely   that would enable  the charitable trust which formed by way of trust deed 5/12/2006  to pay for  litigation for a group of people  who pre-existed the formation of that  trust .

OIA question  6   Please provide  copies of he legislation  or case law which you rely on  which allows  trusts to   exist  in circumstances where by they do not   comply with their deeds in  any manner or form and stilt be considered a valid trust. .

OIA question  7 Please provide the minimum standards of compliance to a trust deed  which the charity  commission considers   necessary for a trust to exist.e.g.   if I say I lost  a trust deed    and re-sign  a  deed   to replace it  & the trustees don’t meet  at all  is that  trust still  considered valid ?

OIA question  8   Please look at the invoice which has been made out to  AWINZ  June and July 2006 these total  $9099    then look at the chronology below   which incorporates the details on those invoices ..  Please provide the evidence  which the  charities commission  relies upon to  validate the   expenditure  to Brookfields ( which shows in the  financial statements as well ) as being consented to by the trustees in a lawful manner  when the  minutes  show that there  was never such a  consensus.   

OIA question  9   Please provide the guidelines   which  the charities commission refers to for determining if there is any misappropriation of charitable funds.

OIA question  10  In view of the charities commission    having found the activities of this  trust to be legitimate  could you please advise if the  charities  commission will have a need for trust deeds in the future as they appear to serve no useful  function.

I look forward to a response on these matters

Few Aucklanders are aware of the  role of the committee for Auckland in the formation of the super city  .

It comes as no surprise that when the committee for Auckland is looked at a bit closer  there are many things which do not stack up  neatly  and it is  even more revealing to look at the members of  the committee for Auckland  and  see what role they play in the city.

lets look at some facts.

The committee for Auckland is a charity  , not  just one charity , its three charities

CC43500  Committee For Auckland  group

    CC43499 Committee For Auckland Limited

    CC43498  The Committee For Auckland Trust

There  is a lack of transparency in its accounts  as it only lists one set of books which is for the  CC43499 Committee for Auckland Limited.

The company was registered as COMPETITIVE AUCKLAND LIMITED it changed its name 23 Dec 2002 to Committee For Auckland Limited   . The shareholder is a group of people who may or may not be a trust there is no indication of this other than the fact that the shares are jointly held.

The beneficiary of the company / charity proceeds is COMPETITIVE AUCKLAND Trust   this is not a charity it is not a trust registered under the charitable trust act 1957, no trust deed is visible.

Documentation which relates to the competitive Auckland   entity indicates that the purpose is not charitable and it has been created to inspire business growth.  It is very much a commercial venture.  the  crucial documents are located at the following links

Transparency New Zealand has made a complaint to   the charities commission  with regards to  these charities  see the complaint here   Complaint by Grace Haden with regards to the committee for Auckland

 One of the earlier documents relating to   Competitive Auckland is found on   a council web site  which is a page which had the origins on the Waitakere city  council web site. Indeed many of the members of committee  for Auckland  and their associates appear to have common connections thorough the  Portage trust  and the  Waitakere licensing trust

Early documents  relating to   the who is who and  the intention behind the project can be found in the internet archives  it speaks of Auckland being a ” one stop shop ” Investment attraction agency  and it comes as no surprise that one of the key drivers of the project  is Richard Didsbury of Kiwi Income Properties   and  another is Bryan Mogridge   who is well connected with  travel industry and   liquor industry   see  the  Proposed strategy document here  and the  Interim report dated 4 may 2001  here  the opening remarks state

Competitive Auckland is a charitable trust that has been established
by a group of Auckland’s business leaders concerned about:
– The poor economic performance of the region;
– The loss of businesses;
– The loss of talent.
• They established Competitive Auckland in March 2001 to:
‘Deliver a well articulated competitive strategy to enhance Auckland
as an internationally competitive location to undertake business’.

Transparency New Zealand   has noted  that over the years  the members of  the committee for Auckland  have  done exceedingly well in comparison to  the  average person in Auckland. their focus  has ensured the development and expansion of the casino  .

Many of the   members  or their associates from  other businesses  which they are involved in   have made it on to    boards of CCO’s  such as Auckland Transport , Auckland property  etc.

Transparency New Zealand is concerned that some of these members   seem to have a very  close relationship with projects which   the companies which these persons are  involved with  will also benefit from  once the   project gets the go ahead.e.g. Peter Wall , the  harbour access trust and BROOKFIELD MULTIPLEX

We are continually told that ” New Zealand is a small place ”   it is not that small that   those who lobby for a project  should end up on the decision making  authority which gives the go ahead to the project  which is then  contracted to  the company which  the  lobbier owns or controls.

Conflicts of inertness appear to have no meaning  and to declare a conflict of interest  apparently makes it OK.

So we go over budget and over time   who cares there is  a bottomless pit of ratepayers out there,  they can come  up with more rates    and if they cant afford to live in Auckland well they can move   because the marketing that has been  done  by the committee for Auckland  internationally   ensures that there are plenty of   buyers  for your property  people who can afford to live here.

Its time we put an end to this conduct   we need  more transparency   and  more accountability.

Strangely enough Businesses don’t  get a vote  , they are not   who council is there for.  Council appears to have lost sight  on  who put them in power and who they serve.

Another  oddity is the   CEO of council  Doug MC Kay    who with no previous  experience in  local government came straight into the hot seat from  companies which the  members of the committee for Auckland   were involved with mainly  the liquor industry . check him out here 

We have to have people in  Governance  who   represent the   people  and do what is best  for Auckland as a whole   not just  the Auckland   based business of  multinationals.

see also

Council CEO Conflict of interest none of our business ??????

Why do we bother to vote for Auckland Councillors?