Archive for June 2014
Last week I was in Brisbane at a conference and work shop co hosted by Griffith University and transparency International –Using Anti-Corruption to Protect Growth and Development in the G20 and Beyond.
Much of the focus of the work shop was to explore the national integrity system ( NIS ) and how various countries had interpreted the guidelines and come out with their reports.
While it was clear that Transparency International saw corruption as the key element it transpired that TINZ ( Transparency International New Zealand ) had not included this in their assessment .
Suzanne Snively made two presentations at one she pointed out that TINZ is not funded and they have trouble getting members, I guess this is evident when new members sign up and immediately become directors . She made no mention of the Members who were leaving because they were so overwhelmed out being outnumbered by the Government agencies which appear to control TINZ and hence the resulting finding that New Zealand has the least corrupt public sector in the world. see the NIS report here
We all do well if we blow our own trumpet , any way Suzanne’s presentations are
Suzanne Snively and Daniel King – A national perspective
Suzanne Snively and Daniel King – Adapting the NIS to a ‘developed’ country: environment, business and the Treaty of Waitangi
When referring to the presentation of Finn Heinrich – Where does it come from? How does it work? What is needed for the future? you can see that he refers to two Crucial Ingredients to provide Momentum for Anti-Corruption Reform they are
- Strong Evidence on Integrity System & Practice
- Engagement with key stakeholders in a country
Lets evaluate these criteria against the current New Zealand Climate
Strong Evidence on Integrity System & Practice
Currently we have a spat going on pre election between our two main parties. It is a Tit for tat and we are slinging mud to repel corruption allegations, this is basically our anti corruption system at work, name calling at school play ground level.
The latest spat has occurred after our minister of justice took time out on her ministerial trip to promote milk for a Chinese company of which her husband has been made director, I have reported on the matter in full at this link
The next blow came to National when Maurice Williamson was discovered to have been supporting the citizenship of Donghua Liu against official advice .
Last year the Mayor of Auckland was caught with his pants down and at the time Mr key had this to say “I’ve had plenty of people who’ve rung me up with information about Labour MPs,” he said.
“And I’ve done the same thing to every person that’s rung me. I’ve written it down, put it in my top drawer and kept it to myself. I’m just not interested in engaging in it.”
It is very obvious that the top drawer has now been opened and they have had to dig deep to find the dirt which they can throw back at labour.
The reality is that the Prime ministers act of keeping dirt in his top drawer is in itself a corrupt act as each and every incident reported to him should be passed on for independent investigation at the time the issue arises and not held on to until a blackmail-able opportunity arises
There simply is no integrity in stockpiling dirt on the opposition – this allows corruption to be traded off with corruption , each act should be independently evaluated and the perpetrators charged if evidence is sufficient.
Engagement with key stakeholders in a country
While Whistleblowers are seen as essential any where else in the world (Grzegorz Makowski – Cross-cutting problems in the NIS: corruption of anti-corruption policies; whistleblower protection; human rights protection) TINZ prefers to ignore us. this is like doing a report on the operations of a company and leaving out the shoppers .
There are two sides to any system, the one looking out and the one looking in. the systems my look in place but if they are not user friendly or are designed to be counter productive against corruption then the system has no integrity .
I would have thought that it would be a serious matter for some one to make an application for law enforcement powers using false information, after all people are taken to task for benefit fraud and the like every day , but it appears that the bigger it is the more people that are implicated and the more systems that are shown to be unsafe then more reasons exist to deny what has happened and simply carry on. look no issue .. too hard lets move on .
The key stake holders on the other hand who were engaged with were the members of TINZ, and the funders , these include Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet
TINZ appears to be too closely aligned with government so much so that those ministers who are engaging on corrupt practices rely on the NIS to refute any claims e.g.
Not bad since her ministry paid to get the report done .
I have again asked Suzanne Snively if I can join TINZ see my email here email application jun 2014 .. will keep you posted
PRESS RELEASE: Epsom Independent candidate ‘anti-Corruption whistle-blower’ Grace Haden
“I have decided to stand as an ‘Independent’ candidate in my home electorate of Epsom. I am seeking accountability from government and to achieve this I will be campaigning for an Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Ratification of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC)”), says ‘anti-Corruption whistle-blower’ Grace Haden. (https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/)
“I believe that a by-election in Epsom is essential to keep the public spotlight on the corrupt practices surrounding the resignation of ACT MP John Banks, but also shine it on the reality of the widespread corruption which is becoming more and more evident in New Zealand.
“The harsh reality is that New Zealand’s “least corrupt country in the world “tag line is not reality but a perception and as such ,the perception is a false illusion a façade . The perception index (http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2013/results/) is frequently misquoted and does not correlate with the fact that we are one of a small handful of countries which have not ratified the United Nations convention against corruption. “(https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/signatories.html)
“Despite New Zealand claiming to be “the least corrupt “ , I , a former long-serving Police officer, (and Police prosecutor), now a licensed Private Investigator, have found it impossible to get corruption investigated in New Zealand by any of the so called public watch dogs. I have discovered that we do not have corruption because we do not define it and turn a wilful blind eye to it, as occurred in the John Banks case. “
“8 years ago, I questioned serious public corruption, provided facts and evidence to support my allegations, but so far, to no avail.” I have discovered that Corruption does ruin lives – It tore my family apart.”
“Enough is enough. No one else should have to go through what I have had to endure. Lessons need to be learned from the past and solutions found for the future. Cancer cannot be treated without a diagnosis and this is also true with corruption. Ignore corruption and like cancer it will consume us.
“New Zealand desperately needs an Independent Commission Against Corruption, and I am pleased to report that I now have an MP who will present a petition which I initiated, seeking
“That the House legislate to set up an independent Commission against Corruption, tasked with the prevention, education, detection and prosecution of corruption in New Zealand.”
I have a well-established background in fighting and exposing corruption in New Zealand, these are documented on the following web sites http://www.civiljustice.co.nz/, http://www.transparency.net.nz/, http://www.anticorruption.co.nz/
Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at www.transparency.net.nz
Convict 1. Declare (someone) to be guilty of a criminal offence by the verdict of a jury or the decision of a judge in a court of law.
Convict 1. Law To find or prove (someone) guilty of an offense or crime, especially by the verdict of a court:
con•vict verb (used with object)
1.to prove or declare guilty of an offense, especially after a legal trial: to convict a prisoner of a felony.
2. to impress with a sense of guilt.
Why it matters
Electoral Act 1993 55 How vacancies created
The seat of any member of Parliament shall become vacant—d) if he or she is convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment for life or by 2 or more years’ imprisonment or is convicted of a corrupt practice, or is reported by the High Court in its report on the trial of an election petition to have been proved guilty of a corrupt practice;
The offence with which Banks was charged is an offence punishable with imprisonment of 2 years .
It is interesting that currently our legislation does not have a definition for convicted but up until 1 July 2013 the crimes act 1961 carried such a definition which was repealed on that date this definition read.
3. Meaning of “convicted on indictment’‘—For the purposes of this Act, a person shall be deemed to be convicted on indictment if—
(a) He pleads guilty on indictment; or
(b) He is found guilty on indictment; or
(c) He is committed to the Supreme Court for sentence under section 44 or section [153A or section] 168 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957; or
(d) After having been committed to the Supreme Court for trial, he pleads guilty under section 321 of this Act.
I have no idea why this was removed from the legislation 1 July 2013, by section 6 of the Crimes Amendment Act (No 4) 2011 (2011 No 85). But it appears that a huge hole was left in the legislation
The scenario used to be convicted – sentenced.
Now it appears to be found guilty – convicted – sentenced.. Yet there appears to be no legal precedent or legal foundation for this.
The interpretation act gives no definition for convicted or guilty.
Since our legislation no longer defines Convicted we have to rely on the interpretation of the legislation and the common dictionary meaning
There are many examples in legislation which point to the fact that convicted still means guilty e.g.
Criminal Procedure Act 2011 section 147
4) Without limiting subsection (1), the court may dismiss a charge if—
• (a) the prosecutor has not offered evidence at trial; or
• (b) in relation to a charge for which the trial procedure is the Judge-alone procedure, the court is satisfied that there is no case to answer; or
• (c) in relation to a charge to be tried, or being tried, by a jury, the Judge is satisfied that, as a matter of law, a properly directed jury could not reasonably convict the defendant.
So how could a jury convict any one if this is something that is only in the realm of a judge and done after being found guilty?
The reality is that this makes sense only if to convict and to find guilty are one and the same thing.
The plot thickens when you read the judgement R v BANKS  Paragraph 6
 The information against Mr Banks was laid on 10 December 2012. Sections 105 and 106 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 apply to Judge-alone trials. However, those provisions only came into force on 1 July 2013. Pursuant to s 397 of the Act, this matter has been determined in accordance with the law as it was before that date.
The crimes act definition of convicted still existed at that time as it was not repealed until 1.July 2013
The criteria for section 3 crimes act Print/Download PDF (5.5MB)or see it on it own Crimes Act 1961 S 3 are therefore the criteria which apply to this decision and he question is was he found guilty on indictment.
The answers to that are again in the decision
 The indictment reads as follows…
 I have found Mr Banks guilty of the charge
The only possible outcome in that case is that John Archibald banks is convicted
We have brought this to the attention of the court by way of memorandum, this was filed at about 3.15 pm Friday 6 June 2006
memorandum for registrar.
We will keep you posted.
Perhaps the government in the meantime would like to attend to the definition of Convicted.
Please find here with my request for an inquiry into the animal welfare Institute of New Zealand
This is not just any ordinary trust AWINZ claimed to have law enforcement powers under the animal welfare act.
In the detailed document attached I have shown how the application for Law enforcement powers was fraudulent and it has been covered up by the creation of several trusts and groups of persons posing as trusts.
The charities commission directed my complaint to you .
This is a matter which touches the heart of corruption in New Zealand s I have found that in 8 years it has been impossible to expose this perfect fraud.
I will be attending an international anti corruption conference this month I am therefore publishing my request on the transparency web site so that it is transparent .