Archive for June 2014

National integrity System -TINZ

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

  1. Strong Evidence on Integrity System & Practice
  2. 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.
http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/john-key-keeps-dirt-file-labour-mps-video-5655493

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

  Moving on

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.

“Ms Collins says the Government values its close working relationship with Transparency International New Zealand and she looks forward to working through the report’s recommendations.”

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

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/

Grace Haden

Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at www.transparency.net.nz

Guilty or Convicted the John Banks dilemma

convict BanksIf you were to look up the word Convict you will find that an overwhelming number of dictionaries give the definition as

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 .
Definitions

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 [2014] Paragraph 6

[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

[2] The indictment reads as follows…

[3] 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.

Request for inquiry into the Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand ( AWINZ )

Chris-FinlaysonGood afternoon Attorney General

Please find here with my request for an inquiry into the animal welfare Institute of New Zealand

Request to Attorney General under section 58

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 .

Regards
Grace Haden