The state of corruption : New Zealand
Further open letter to David Mc Neill Corruption , Whistleblowers and Transparency
David,
Since responding to your reply to my first open letter a number of people have approached me and have asked me to put questions to you as a director of transparency International .
Could you any one else from Transparency International NZ please respond with your observations
You state” I can certainly see great misdeeds have occurred.” and then you ask “If Neil Wells is so horribly corrupt, who is he exploiting now?”
These statements indicate to me that you and Transparency International New Zealand may have missed the point on this entire issue.
it is not about me , it is not about Neil Wells
it is about corruption in our public sector , how it is concealed and about our ministers in ability to act responsibly when issues of corruption are brought to their attention .
Unfortunately Transparency International New Zealand claims that we have the least corrupt Public service in the world , if this was the case I would still expect to find corruption but I would expect that there were policies and methods in place throughout the public sector which would ensure integrity and systems of accountability .
Jose Ugay , your international president used an equation which I have been fond of
Corruption = monopoly + discretion – accountability .
If you were to apply this to our public sector you would quickly find that accountability is almost totally absent and discretion being the use of the unreasonable complainant conduct manual , totally out of hand
I have actually come across items where it stated that due to the relatively corruption free environment such policies are not required .This was all driven by the fact that New Zealand was perceived to be the least corrupt .
Of the 2013 Integrity report ,which I believe Susan Snively was paid for for compiling, she said
Our report finds that the mechanisms that support a high integrity and high trust society, and that facilitate social and economic development, remain generally robust but are coming under increasing stress. There has been complacency in the face of increased risks“.
It was not coincidence that TINZ was at the time funded by the very organisations on whose behalf the report was being written. see here To me this appears to be a conflict of interest which in itself is corrupt .
Now if TINZ had taken the trouble to listen to the issues which I and other whistleblowers had raised rather than treating us as a villains then the person conducting the integrity review could have included some very valid points. But then the results would not have been so glowing .
In an impartial and thorough evaluation of integrity in the public service an important aspect would be to monitor public service deals with complaints, this can be done by listening to whistleblowers and evaluating their experience based on the evidence that they have to support their claim .
The reality is that the public sector does not know what investigation is . As a result they investigate the persons and not the issue.
It appears to me , on what I have seen and experienced ,that the public service definition of investigation is about speaking to the persons involved and short cutting the process by accepting what they are told by their trusted colleague , evidence plays almost no part and assumptions , preconceived ideas and perception of integrity of persons are what is accepted and considered. Of course if they want to get rid of the person involved then any complaint will do .
The person “investigating” and coming to an adverse conclusion could of course be implicating his /her work mates and in a way the investigator becomes the whistleblower and become unpopular at work .
So what does the public sector do they turn to manuals , so they go to the ” Good administration guides” published by your gold partner the ombudsman’s office .
There a number of documents are available including Good decision making 10 pages Effective complaint handling 23 pages and Managing unreasonable
complainant conduct 138 Pages Yes that’s right there is no manual on how to investigate
What do you think the “Go to” resource will be , which one allows them to get the head ache off the desk and Write off the matter ?.. yes that’s it “the unreasonable complaint manual” its the thickest and was copied from Australia minus the essential resource “Unreasonable Complainant Conduct Model Policy” .
In NZ and our manual simply refers the user to locate the model policy on the Australian web site. This essential part of the document which is missing in NZ stipulates that each organisation should rely on their organisations own policies for unreasonable complainants.
So with that part missing so are the policies in our public sector and there is no go to person to decide who can make the call on unreasonable complainants and how they are defined.
While I accept that there are fruit loops out there at all times it could be the complaint and not he complainant who is evaluated. and if a complaint is properly and fairly evaluated then people don’t get cross if they are shown why their complaint comes unstuck .
But we work in terms of economy and its not economic to look at ll complaints so throw up a brick wall and very soon you will have enough to designate the complainant as an unreasonable person. Problem solved
The essential Unreasonable Complainant Conduct Model Policy which is missing in New Zealand specifies
3. Avoiding misuses and overuses of UCC policies
Organisations also need to take steps to ensure that their UCC policies are applied cautiously and sparingly.
So this is how the ” investigation ” in our public sector is conducted
- Get complaint
- go to the person allegedly accused and run it past them
- accept what they say about the person making the complaint who after consulting the alleged perpetrator has been made out to be a troublesome person and go to the check list
- The manual says ..”All complaints are considered on their merits”. the perpetrator has already given a good explanation… therefore the complaint has no merit
- The manual says…”Unreasonable complainant conduct does not preclude there being a valid issue”.. well how can there be a valid issue when the complainant is reportedly just a nasty person the whole thing has to be a set up and we know the alleged perpetrator and trust him / her
- The manual says”The substance of a complaint dictates the level of resources dedicated to it, not a complainant’s demands or behaviour.” Substance has already established from our trusted colleague and based on what he/she tells us there is no substance
- For good measure the complainant is evaluated against the Why do some complainants behave unreasonably? page 14 and the early warning signs UCC? page 16 and I can assure you that a genuine whistleblower , on issues of genuine public interest can tick many of these boxes
So let us see how this applied to me
I had been on a trust with Neil Wells , I was treasurer and he was using trust resources and used the trust for his own benefit , I did not know this at the time but I was asking questions due to the trust being in danger of becoming insolvent .
He removed me from the trust by telling lies . I sent him a fax to his work place , Waitakere city council dog control to express my opinion that he was the biggest bully I had ever known .
Lyn Macdonald who worked at waitakere city council as a dog control officer saw that I was a private Investigator , she too had been bullied by wells and he later got her kicked out of her job for associating with me . she asked me to find out who or what AWINZ was , she had been a dog control officer for many years but was now required to prioritise animal welfare over her council paid duties.
I searched for AWINZ but could not find any record of it existing , I did a OIA with MAF and a LGOIMA with council I found that although both had a MOU with AWINZ( MOU Waitakere MOU MAF) neither had a copy of a trust deed .
I obtained other documents from MAF which indicated that AWINZ had to be a real or legal person . This was 2006 and registers were not that easily searched so with others we formed and incorporated a trust called the animal welfare Institute of New Zealand . we did not expect to be successful but we were, this proved conclusively that the entiy which Neil wells claimed to operate was fictional.
Here I have to explain something about names and trusts
- an unincorporated trust can be a group of people who are trustees in a trust which they then give a name , the legal name for that trust is (the names of all the persons ) as trustees in the .. trust.
- An incorporated trust can use the name of the trust and trade in that name without referring to the trustees as the trust is registered and becomes a legal entity in its own right , our trust was incorporated ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTE OF NEW ZEALANDNeil Wells had previously registered ARK ANGEL TRUST BOARD and the NATIONAL ANIMAL WELFARE TRUST BOARD both were registered in mid 1999 these were all legal persons in their own name .
The application. which Neil Wells filed with MAF to obtain law enforcement powers under the legislation which he had drafted and advised on was fraudulent it categorically stated
since the trust had not been formed but was allegedly in the process of being incorporated the application should have been in the names of the four people shown as trustees of AWINZ and each should have at least signed the trust deed and each would have to take responsibility for their role in running a law enforcement body by signing a document committing to that role.
The reality was that the trust did not exist as there was no trust deed .
Wells covers this up in a letter to the minister In this short paragraph he tells the following lies
- Originals are not sent only copies he knows this because he has just incorporated ARK ANGEL TRUST BOARD and the NATIONAL ANIMAL WELFARE TRUST BOARD
- The deed are not registered with the ministry of commerce .
- the trust deed which was allegedly signed three weeks earlier only goes to 19
Just this little bit of information should make the investigators look more closely but Wells was well connected to MAF and was known to ministers he was even able to write caucus papers .
When I raised concerns with AWINZ not existing he created a trust to cover up he selected the people wisely
Graeme Coutts .. a non questioning JP who worked in the office beside Wells and beside the RNZSPCA his name had been on the original application .
Wyn Hoadley QSM.. great to have someone with a queen’s award they are always reputable
Tom Didovich .. the previous manager of Dog control who had written letters outside his field authority claiming to give approval on behalf of council . Tom Didovich was in this up to his neck and went out to get the signatures of the alleged trustees when the deed was missing.. probably missing because hit had never been signed .
So in my situation
I was made out by wells as some fruit loop who was disgruntled about her removal from a trust
Wells was a respected barrister wrote legislation and lots of friends in very high places
so Maf and Council threw up brick walls and I became frustrated, My marriage fell apart due to action which wells took on the side line and also his desire to bankrupt me which was stated in 2007 to Joanna Tuckwell who was so obliging that she regularly communicated with wells with regards to my requests and complaints.
Wells took me to court for defamation , his lawyers Brookfields did not check to see if there was a trust deed before commencing proceedings , Nick Wright a resource management lawyer started the proceedings in a unethical manner by making threats , they then ensured that my defence of truth and honest opinion was struck out , the fed the court a lot of BS and Voila a judgement which they could wave around to discredit me and use to apparently legitimise AWINZ .
every one happy except that Wells kept attacking me subversively and saw to it that I lost my ability to earn a living through private investigations .
when he appeared before the lawyers and conveyancer tribunal he sought name suppression as he was still fearful of being caught out and knew that I would use that decision for his corrupt conduct to have the investigation into AWINZ opened.
Had the public sector acted with integrity they would have left people aside and investigated the Very simple issue
Did AWINZ exist …No it did not no one had a trust deed prior to 2006 By that stage it had been acting as a law enforcement authority for 6 years
Was the application for approved status fraudulent… Yes it was
can you see that we have a problem ?
If we conceal corruption and give the public sectors resources which help conceal corruption then we have no corruption .
You report that there is integrity in the public sector and by refusing to look beyond the perception which you help create . whistleblowers and their families have their lives destroyed .
You don’t have to support our complaints but if you are going to evaluate integrity in the public service, then you have to ensure that proper and fair complaint measures are available and that the issues are dealt with .
I am by no means alone , those of us who are more prone than other to speaking up are easily Labeled Uncooperative complainants because that way we remain the least corrupt and after all ask any economist .. that’s good for business.
so in the end the question is
are you going to look at the integrity of the public service with regards to how they deal with complaints
Are you going to allow whistleblowers to be members of transparency International New Zealand
will you monitor the complaint making process ?
will you be impartial or is the income from your sponsors
Where is the transparency in your accounts you have $400,000 of your 500,000 expenses written off as other expenses .. does this include wages .. who to how much and why be conflicted when you could be making a real difference to corruption in New Zealand instead of being part of the problem .