Posted by: transparencynz | January 30, 2014

The Ernst and Young report into Len Brown not worth the paper it is written on


EYMany New Zeallanders don’t grasp the concept that there are two  types of  person , there  are the living  breathing people ( and I  guess those who no longer breath )   who are called natural persons  and then there are the “legal persons”  which are companies , trusts , societies & organization which have had  body corporate status  assigned to them through  statute.

Only  legal and natural people can  sue or be sued. In a nut shell Legal & natural  people can be identified and held accountable .

There is a trend in NZ to use trading names , it is always a good idea to know and to have it in writing  just who is using  a particular trading name  because you cannot sue  the trading name or recover a debt from it  or seek accountability for   statements made    as this has to be done through the legal person who uses that name.

The independent EY  report  into Len Brown is located at this  link , (which  reportedly cost $200,000  to produce ) is unsigned  and  does not  disclose  any real or natural persons who take responsibility for the accuracy of the document .WE presume that it  comes from  Ernst & Young Ltd  Show Details as this is the only company registered under the Private security and personnel act. but then it does not disclose  who the investigator /s were. – wish I had their job I certainly cant  charge sums like that .

EY in this document is defined as ( emphasis mine )

“EY refers to the global organisation and may refer to one or more of the member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee,does not provide services to clients. For more information about our organisation, please visit”

It is important   for an investigator to be identifiable  and if Ernst and young Limited are the investigators  why   not say so.. or are they ashamed to put their name to the document?

So   who was the legal person   who  compiled the report   with no one identifiable and the page of disclaimers the  document  could   easily be totally fictional as there is no way that any one can be held accountable for the accuracy of  its content.  The investigation could have been completed by one of the many other EY companies  who have no   licence to investigater.. its all open to speculation and assumption  which must reflect on the     accuracy of the content.

Based on the  content however the council  has acted and censured the mayor.. What is the reality    what does the report not reveal ?

EY had  just finished  compiling a report commissioned by the mayor on PPPS  Access the report here  . If a 19 page document cost $200,000  we can only speculate what the 67  page document was  worth , so EY  had a vested interest in remaining  loyal to the had which pays them.. Len Brown . In all fairness you cannot say that the EY report is ” independent ”  as   1. we don’t know   who conducted the   inquiry   and 2. EY companies  had a vested interest in preserving a working relationship with the  mayor.

Current EY companies in NZ are

ERNST & YOUNG NOMINEES (20067)  Registered NZ Unlimited Company 7-Jul-67

ERNST & YOUNG LIMITED (437730) Incorporated 30-Nov-89

ERNST & YOUNG CORPORATE NOMINEES LIMITED (955165) Incorporated 15-Apr-99


ERNST & YOUNG GROUP LIMITED (1221939) Incorporated 28-Jun-02

ERNST & YOUNG LAW LIMITED (2494153) Incorporated  20-May-10

so which one did the investigation ?

Can you rely on an entity  which hides behind an undefined trading  name ?  It is great to advise and consult  from a point of anonymity .. all care  no responsibility .

smoke screens and mirrors      watch this space for more  on EY.   clue  TOP SECRET INVITATION LIST WIDENS BUSINESS- GOVERNMENT CHASM

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.