The Governance body of Transparency New Zealand Limited hereby wishes to express concerns with regards to the ” integrity ” of your organization
You may or may not be aware that Transparency New Zealand was formed when Director Grace Haden was declined membership to TI-NZ on an application which stated that she was a Former police prosecuting Sergeant , Member of the certified fraud examiners association and a licensed private Investigator.
Transparency New Zealand and Transparency International NZ are very different in that TI-NZ wishes to sell New Zealand to the world as the least corrupt country, while Transparency New Zealand wishes to expose corruption so that it does not spread.
We often hear of people who have had cancer and ignored it , their fate is all too often sealed , then there are those who identify cancer early and act , they generally have a much better prognosis ( depending on the type of cancer )
Corruption and cancer are pretty much the same thing. Cancer is caused by the corruption of cells.
We cannot deny that corruption exists , we cannot simply pretend that it is not there and above all we must never reward bad behaviour e.g. by claiming that those who in reality conceal corruption have integrity ( your integrity study )
While Transparency International New Zealand deals with perceptions , Transparency New Zealand deals with reality .
The reality is that every day peoples lives are destroyed by our unjust legal system which has no accountability and has become a tool which criminals use to commit and conceal crime.
The old saying that it is a court of law not a court of justice is some what cynical and unfortunately is true
yet TI- NZ states ” The judiciary provides a system of justice in accordance with the requirements of a legislative framework.” page 107 Integrity Plus 2013 NZ NIS ..
So could some one please explain why TI-NZ believes that the court deliver justice when the people know it does not and this belief even extends to the minister of justice ! TI NZ state ” The court system is seen to be free of corruption and unlawful influence.” It is obvious from that statement that no one involved in the integrity survey has spoken to any of the actual court users especially those involved in the family or civil courts
While Transparency New Zealand ‘s stated objective is to seek accountability and is true to that objective , this does not appear to be the case with TI-NZ with its objectives.
1. TI-NZ claims to be “nonpartisan ” but it wont let me or any other person who is in any way associated a victim of corruption join, RI NZ simply does not want to hear about the prevalence of corruption in New Zealand . There by proving that TI NZ only accepts members who claim that there is no corruption in New Zealand . yet its membership is full of government bodies and members of the universities .
2. TI-NZ will undertake to be open, honest and accountable in our relationships with everyone we work with and with each other..
yet Susan Snively on her linked in profile claimed to be the director of a company which did not exist Suzanne Snively ONZM _ LinkedIn. oops typo
Former director Michael Vukcevic slipps an LLb into his cv oops typo again
The profile of director Murray Sheard falsely portrays him to be a current lecturer at Auckland university in conflict with his linked in profile.. another typo ?
The web site of transparency International has been set up by an American resident also named Snively and using a company which there is no record of . ? Nepotism and use of another fictitious company again. But who would notice as the web site states that you need less due diligence in dealing with New Zealand companies.
3. Transparency International New Zealand appears to be supported by Business, government departments and academics amongst the members are the SFO, office of the auditor general , ombudsmen , Human Rights Commission, Ministry of Social Development, NZ Public Service Association, Ministry for Justice, Statistics New Zealand
- School of Government, VUW
- Ministry for Justice
- Statistics New Zealand
- The Human Rights Commission
- Ministry of Social Development
- The Treasury
- Inland Revenue
- Department of Internal Affairs
- Department of Conservation
- Ministry of Transport
- Civil Aviation Authority
- New Zealand Transport Authority
- Maritime New Zealand
- Te Puni Kokiri
- The State Services Commission
- The Ombudsman
- Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs
- The New Zealand Defence Force
- Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet
- The Serious Fraud Office
- Crown Law
- NZ Public Service Association
- The Gama Foundation
- Bell Gully
- VUW School of Government
- Human Rights Commission Launch Day
- School of Government Institute for Governance and Policy Studies Wellington
- Wellington Girls College
- Thorndon New World
- Institute of Directors
- BDO Spicers
- Russell McVeigh
- Chapman Tripp
- Gibson Sheat
- Susan Gluck-Hornsby
- Chen Palmer
- Juliet McKee
- Claudia Orange
- Te Papa
4. the objectives of TINZ appear to be to encourage business growth and a very dangerous claim is made that “Trading partners recognise cost savings for dealing with New Zealand through less need for due diligence, lower contracting costs, and a culture intolerant of corrupt middle men with whom to transact business.”
Transparency New Zealand believes that this statement is tantamount to entrapment as first you are ripped off and then you find you can do nothing about it. this all happens very publicly with hoards of people standing about saying I see nothing.
Transparency New Zealand advocates the ” trust but Verify ” approach to any dealings with any company or person anywhere .
5. TI-NZ claims to be “A caretaker of New Zealand’s high trust, high integrity society” But apparently as mentioned before they do not lead by example. We question what High integrity is when by our experience you simply cannot report corruption .
There is also a difference in what our definitions are of certain terms as illustrated in the FAQ section of the transparency international NZ web site
How do you define corruption? click link for TINZ,s definition
Transparency New Zealand :Corruption is dishonest activity in which a person acts contrary to the interests of the University and abuses his/her position of trust in order to achieve some personal gain or advantage for themselves, or provide an advantage/disadvantage for another person or entity.
It also involves corrupt conduct by an organization , or a person purporting to act on behalf of and in the interests of the organization , in order to secure some form of improper advantage for the organization either directly or indirectly.
Corrupt conduct can take many forms including:
conflicts of interest ( government departments paying for ” integrity” reports )
- taking or offering bribes
- dishonestly using influence ( promoting business in New Zealand though claims that there is no corruption )
- tax evasion
- nepotism and favouritism( this includes having a relative designing a web site through a fictitious company )
NOTE: Corruption does not include mistakes or unintentional acts, but investigations are required to determine intent.
What is “transparency”?click link for TINZ,s definition
Transparency New Zealand : Being open , truthful and lacking concealment .
What is bribery? click link for TINZ,s definition
Transparency New Zealand : Bribery is an act of giving money or gift giving that alters the behavior of the recipient. Bribery constitutes a crime and is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty.
The bribe is the gift bestowed to influence the recipient’s conduct. It may be any money, good, right in action, property, preferment, privilege, emolument, object of value, advantage, or merely a promise or undertaking to induce or influence the action, vote, or influence of a person in an official or public capacity.
What is fraud? click link for TINZ,s definition
Transparency New Zealand:Fraud is a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain . Fraud included Identity fraud and the use of ” organizations” which do not exist. In New Zealand one of the largest vehicles for fraud are trusts .
Transparency New Zealand is extremely concerned with the conduct of TI-NZ . We suspect that the directors have handed over the reins to just one person an economist who misunderstands the importance of corruption prevention . We suspect that her objectives are to assist business development and growth rather than combating corruption . We believe that Susan Snivley is an excellent business woman with an objective of bringing in money rather than an objective of independence.
True corruption prevention comes from Accountability , I gave this example of accountability to a director of TINZ recently with regards to Suzanne Snively LinkedIn profile which claimed she was the director of transparency International Limited
We believe that Susan Snively wished to create a false perception of her abilities , she was blowing her trumpet too vigorously and duplicated some of her roles and presented those as though they were different entities.
Because no one checks in New Zealand when may have believed that she could get away with it.. this is often the case.
Corruption = Monopoly + discretion – accountability
Susan had control over her Linked in account .. Monopoly
She and she alone had discretion of what was presented.
We are holding her accountable
= Linked in profile changed. and no corruption
I also gave an example of perception
When I was on Police patrol in Rotorua , I saw a decapitated cat on the road, I made a comment to the driver about the grizzly find.
He disagreed with me and said that it was nothing more than a plastic bag.
Because our views were so different we went back and on close inspection found that we were both right, it was a cat with its head stuck in a plastic bag.
The reality was that he cat lived to see another day . Happy ending !!!!
When you deal with perceptions you cannot just look from one side. You have to look at the facts and consider the views of many and not just a few.
You cannot promote the lack of corruption by will fully being blind and intentionally ignoring the corruption which is occurring.
To examine the corruption which is occurring and to call for accountability for those involved is what will prevent corruption from blowing out of control.
What good are laws which are not enforced, codes of conduct which are ignored , and processes which are flawed.
ACCOUNTABILITY is what we should be insisting on , and by doing a report showing e.g. that the auditor Generals office is doing fantastic work , when they are openly ignoring corruption and fraud, does not serve NZ .
A report which has been funded by the party concerned is not an impartial report.
The office of the auditor general is a member of transparency International and has given $15,000 and $30,000 in two consecutive years ( I have not checked beyond that ) when you get $30,000 from someone and want to get $30,000 again next year you will give them a favourable report. This process is akin to reverse bribery where the state is paying someone to give a glowing report .
Being no partisan and apolitical is not enough TI NZ should be totally Neutral and not be acting for an on behalf of businesses in New Zealand to encourage business growth.
I look forward to working with Transparency International New Zealand to truly strive to make New Zealand Transparent by focusing on ACCOUNTABILITY . I would like to start by making Transparency International Accountable to their code of ethics and the definitions of fraud and corruption which I have provided above.
We look forward to hearing from the directors of TI-NZ and we undertake to publish their response .
Transparency International ( New Zealand) has recently undertaken a national integrity survey.
A quick look at their web site http://www.transparency.org.nz/ flashes up messages such as” Least corrupt public sector in the world “.“New Zealand’s high trust public sector is its greatest competitive advantage”
The integrity survey cost $174,320 , the accounts do not reveal who the recipients of that payment was but I do believe that a sizable chunk of it went to the chair person Susan Snively .
the survey was funded in the following manner
National Integrity Systems Assessment
Donation: Gama Foundation $15,000
Office of the Auditor General $30.000
The Treasury $30.000
Ministry of Justice $30.000
Statistics New Zealand $15.000
States Services Commission $10.000
Ministry of Social Development $10.000
now look at the pillars of the integrity system they are
Legislature (pillar 1)
Political executive – Cabinet (pillar 2)
Judiciary (pillar 3)
Public sector (pillar 4)
Law enforcement and anti-corruption agencies (pillars 5 and 9)
Electoral management body (pillar 6)
Ombudsman (pillar 7)
Supreme audit institution (pillar 8)
Political parties (pillar 10)
Media (pillar 11)
Civil society (pillar 12)
Business (pillar 13)
looking in particular at the Supreme audit institution you will note that the $15,000 donation in 2012 and the $30,000 donation 2013 have not been wasted.
When you see high scores like that you could be mistaken in thinking that this is the reality . The reality is that Here in New Zealand we are very good at manipulating data .
Three pages worth looking at at the auditor generals we site
Fist of all How fraud was detected
Internal control systems were deemed to be the most effective method of detecting fraud . This is best assessed in conjunction with the Price Water House coopers publication prepared on behalf of the auditor general page 85 is particularly interesting in that it shows a very low percentage of entities having a whistle-blowers hotline.
But internationally Whistleblowers are Still the Best at Detecting Fraud.
It is no surprise that this is not the case in New Zealand as the systems are not in place for whistle blowers according to the auditor generals own figures .
What I notice here is that all the frauds are $$ based. In true auditor style we need figures. but not all frauds occur in such a way that good book keeping can pick them up – there is a very large field called Identity fraud which is not represented in the tables and I wonder if it is at all considered.
Again we have the word theft occurring repeatedly , Theft generally implies that you have something and next it is gone without your permission.
The frauds which are very prevalent in New Zealand are identity frauds perpetrated through fictitious organizations and secret trusts.
Money is moved from one entity into a seemingly legitimate trust and then the trust is split off and dissolved in a very non transparent manner
The fraud which has impacted on my life is one where a person pretended to be a trust. a fictitious trust obtained law enforcement powers and the one person carried out the duties of this fictional trust using the staff and resources of a council . This type of fraud is apparently condoned by the auditor general as shown by this correspondence.correspondence with the auditor general
The office of the auditor general claims to be Parliaments watch dog it would appear that this watch dog is asleep as the office of the auditor General in New Zealand condones fraud as follows
- 1. Making a false application to the minister 22 November 1999 this document in itself is a fraud on the government .. using a document for a pecuniary advantage. AWINZ does not exist it is not a legal person in any manner or form. condoning a criminal act.
- 2. Central government giving coercive law enforcement powers to an entity which does not exist and no one checks for its exists, even when they know it does not exist they continue to pretend that it does. condoning a criminal act.
- 3. MPI not having the slightest idea of what a trust is and how a trust should function, and allowing the false application to be justified because 6 years later they received a trust deed which was signed 3 months after the application was made. The fact that the people who had signed that deed had never met or made a valid decision between, was totally beside the point. condoning incompetence .
- 4. MAF ( now MPI) not being in possession of a trust deed with the party to whom law enforcement powers had been given and then getting a trust deed which was altered or fabricated, and ignoring this despite having this pointed out to them. Deed provide June 2006 this is the deed MAF have on file condoning incompetence .
- 5. Using fictions names for contracts to local and central government. Mou Waitakere & MOU MAF condoning a criminal act.
- 6. Council employees contracting to themselves Mou Waitakere ( Mr Wells became both parties to this contract). condoning a criminal act.
- 7. Employees obtaining employment at council without declaring a conflict of interest condoning corrupt actions .
- 8. Council manager writing to the crown consenting to the use of staff and resources to fictional third parties North shore city and Waitakere city condoning this corrupt action.
- 9. Council managers using council resources in a manner so that the premises take on a look and feel of a private enterprise , even MAf was confused as to where the fictional AWINZ finished and the council property began . condoning a criminal act.
- 10. Use of council resources to solicit donations the funds of which are then misappropriated ( you were there when I did my presentation) condoning a criminal act.
- 11. Allowing a trust set up in 2006 to pretend to be the law enforcement authority . This trust became a charity and has used its charitable funds, obtained from the public to conceal corruption condoning a criminal act.
- 12. The processes within the government department and councils are such that they serve to conceal fraud as the very persons involved and implicated for their lack of diligence are put in charge of the release of information, additionally Mr Wells was consulted on what was released to me and what was not there was no impartiality between the department/ council and third parties condoning this incompetent practice .
Why do we have to pretend to be the least corrupt why cant we deal with the reality , Corruption happens, dont condone it deal with it that will ensure that corruption does not ruin lives .
By outsourcing your services to private enterprise teh office of the auditor general has lost control over the process , but in the end its the perception that is worth preserving and that is why the office of the auditor general is a member of transparency International New Zealand , that is as good as any watch dog being a member of the local gang.
so much for the rules of independence
Just recently there was much discussion on a Linked in forum CV Fraud, is this a sin or not the topic of Michael Vukcevic was raised as it had just been in the news . Today as a result of that discussion I have received several copies of the offending CV which is apparently doing the rounds.
I have cropped it to make it download faster but otherwise I am assured by various sources that this is the CV is that which he submitted for the job at Baldwins.
I routinely check CV’s for my clients and I cannot accept Michelle Boag’s statement
“This is a bit of a storm in a tea cup,” Ms Boag, an executive adviser to the Middle East Business Council, said.“As I understand it, he should have had the word ‘incomplete’ next to LLB. Having said that, I don’t know why it wasn’t there.”
this is the offending bit
It appears to me that the claim of having a LLB is conclusive. It does not say studied for LLB and BA and deceptively avoids saying that the LLb was not attained. the statement is clear. LLB, BA indicating that the person whose Cv it is holds those degrees.
Going back to a former life of Michael Vukcevic we find an interesting story when he was a recruiter in the It industry , he states in this article entitled Values pay off for everyone
The reason the Curriculum Vitaes they put forward have such a high success rate is due to a range of factors .
Let me guess what that some of those factors are could it be that he left this degree of his CV
I would welcome any input from any one who can give any formation with regards to Michael Vukcevic’s career path .
For recent news items see
I have referred to the actual report previously in the post The Ernst and Young report into Len Brown not worth the paper it is written on
The reason I asked about who the report was written by was because the report did not disclose who EY was and as I pointed out the report on its last page provides the definition for EY as being
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 ey.com.
© 2013 Ernst & Young, New Zealand.
All Rights Reserved.
If you visit the companies register you will note that there are several EY companies
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 TRANSACTION ADVISORY SERVICES LIMITED (953248) Incorporated 20-May-99
ERNST & YOUNG GROUP LIMITED (1221939) Incorporated 28-Jun-02
ERNST & YOUNG LAW LIMITED (2494153) Incorporated 20-May-10
Go to the intellectual property office and you will find that the trade mark EY is registered to EYGN Limited which is not even registered in New Zealand but is apparently registered in Nassau in the Bahamas. The general disclaimer with regards to that company can be found here
The person at Auckland Council who dealt with the request could well have assumed who the company was which prepared the and assumed wrong we will follow up requesting evidence .
As a private Investigator myself I find it most disturbing that a report has been issued which has no evidential value at all for the quoted price of $198,751. I have to wonder if that is before or after GST .
The law issue
I requested the legal basis on which this report was commissioned
the response states
The report was commissioned in accordance with s12(2)(a) and 12(2)(b) of the Local
Government Act 2002 (LGA). Additionally, the Chief Executive has broad power
under s42 of the LGA to ensure the effective and efficient management of the
activities of the local authority.
This response totally circumvents the requirements of the code of conduct elected members set out in part 8 and has requirement for an independent panel .
The sections which have been quotes in the response are nothing more than a brush off
12Status and powers
(2) For the purposes of performing its role, a local authority has—
(a) full capacity to carry on or undertake any activity or business, do any act, or enter into any transaction; and
(b) for the purposes of paragraph (a), full rights, powers, and privileges.
and section 42 sets out the general duties of the Chief executive
But when a specific duty is placed on the CEO that takes prescient over any general responsibility in this case the obligations were to the provisions of the code of conduct and an independent panel should have been appointed not an organsiation which had a pecuniary interest in supporting the Mayor .
Item 2 time sheets
In an open transparent and democratic society one would expect a bill for $198,751 to be explained . Private investigators work at $150 per hour this represents over 33 weeks of work , how many people worked on it and WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE .
The report is such that it has no accountability paying 200,000 for which amounts to unsubstantiated opinion is reckless.
Item 3 Engagement agreement dated 26 October 2013
I have to question the terms of any agreement between EY and Council. the previous CEO Doug Mc Kay was a member of the committee for Auckland and met with the members of this elite group behind closed doors without any requirement to report back to council see Download View as HTML
Membership to the committee for Auckland was justified as follows
Membership to this committee is an operational issue and was approved by the Chief
Executive, or his staff, within delegated financial authority. As such, no Governing Body
approval is required, nor is the Chief Executive required to report back to the Governing
Once we drew the attention of the CEOs placement on this committee to the attention of he world Stephen towns name was removed from the membership of the committee for Auckland .
Doug Mc Kay who was concurrently with being CEO of Auckland council a director of another committee for Auckland member BNZ .
It appears to me that a CEO who does not appear to know what conflict of interest is , spent more time instructing his fellow members of the committee for Auckland than properly consulting with the executive body of council who employed him.
We await with baited breath to see the path the new CEO follows, his removal from the membership of the committee for Auckland is a step in the right direction
First of all congratulations to all of you.
I hope that you have got a better Idea of what I have been up against these past 7 ½ years. The corruption I questioned is pretty much the same as what the prosecution has been for on the north shore and the investigation is about in Auckland Transport .
The manager whose actions I questioned contracted council services to himself using a pseudonym
He also rebranded the council premises as per attached and if you look at the flow chart you will see how the fraud worked.
I have been told this is historic but it was operating in 2010 and so were these other frauds which have been actioned.
No whistle-blower should have to endure what I have been exposed to . I request an urgent meeting so that we can start dealing with this matter before I have to sell my house because of councils neglect to investigate.
I look forward to hearing from you all
To: Grace Haden; Councillor Christine Fletcher; Mayor Len Brown
Cc: Jazz Singh; Doug McKay
Subject: RE: Congratulations and request for meeting
The last time you asked to meet with us, the advice that Councillor Fletcher and I received from legal counsel is that all of your allegations have been exhaustively investigated and there is no action that we as councillors can take.
If you have any new evidence, please provide that to our legal department.
I am copying in CEO Doug McKay and Acting General Counsel Jazz Singh.
Dr Cathy Casey
Councillor, Albert-Eden-Roskill Ward
Governing Body, Auckland Council
Sent: Tuesday, 15 October 2013 10:23 a.m.
To: ‘Councillor Cathy Casey’; ‘Councillor Christine Fletcher’; ‘Mayor Len Brown’
Cc: ‘Jazz Singh’; ‘Doug McKay’
Subject: RE: Congratulations and request for meeting
Thank you Cathy
I have been somewhat unfortunate to have had Bias directed at me by your counsel Wendy Brandon . I have sent her evidence which any competent lawyer would recognise as being a conflict of interest in a mangers role however she responded that she refuses to investigate .
I have supplied tons of evidence , I can conclusively prove that there was no trust in existence and the manager was using council resources and infrastructure for self-enrichment. He was contracting to himself using a pseudonym. I think the vital ingredient all along has been is that Mr Wells is a colleague of Bob Harvey and there is also involvement of former mayor Wyn Hoadley . This is serious corruption and the councils lack of action has had major repercussions on me and my family.
I should have been able to ask the simple question Why is a manager contracting to himself without fear of losing my home. Council appear to have learnt nothing from this as I am dismissed as some freak.
Just in the past week globally there have been a number of fraud incidents where mayors and councillors have been involved in fraud , it won’t happen in Auckland as we have great control measures within which ensure cover ups. I have I believe conclusively proved that
Just because former mayors are associated with the fraud does not mean that there is no fraud. I can appreciate that there is a huge amount of influence within council which has stopped this from being investigated. I am sure that Waitakere council fully knew what was going on but in the words of mission impossible they would have said “ if you are exposed we will disavow any knowledge of your action. “ The on going proof of this is the fact that I could not even get a straight response to my LGOIMA requesting why the branding at the concourse changed from Animal welfare to animal management. When council knowingly conceals corruption it condones it .
I have spent nearly 8 years hitting my head against a brick wall. The very people who should investigate have not done so . I am a Fraud professional I have the evidence – it is conclusive , real and verifiable . I have given it to your lawyers and your CEO multiple times and I am discredited in return.. A good policy is to attack the person when you cannot attack the issue , I am sick of being discredited and I am sick of being bled dry by your former employee who is using the charitable funds of a retrospectively set up trust to do as much damage to me as possible. A proper council investigation would have prevented that- Most of the evidence is on your files! That is why I am again approaching the councillors.
Cathy it was good to learn that you have a degree in criminology as such you may appreciate this perfect fraud .. it was a perfect fraud until I came along - few people would have picked up what I discovered, my mistake was to ask the question of accountability from council. I was taken to court for defamation and denied a defence of truth and honest opinion, NO EVIDENCE was ever produced and the court simply skipped the formal proof hearing, its like being sentenced without being found guilty ! .
I have never done anything but speak the truth, the price I have paid is excessive that is why I stood and I am sure with the number of hits on my site that I have drawn attention to the issue .
Wendy Brandon falsely claims that there is an injunction, there is no injunction against AWINZ. AWINZ (Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand ) does not exist, it had an appearance of existing and it was your staff, buildings and vehicles which gave it that appearance.. very clever really.
The only injunction is against me saying nasty things about Mr wells, so I say nothing bad about him and only confine myself to producing documents which show what he has done, I frequently ask him if there is anything I have published which he wasn’t correcting and not once in the past 7 years has he objected to anything or taken me back to court.
Cathy I Made another Request for Auckland council to investigate corruption last year and the end result was that Wendy Brandon had my emails diverted to exclude councillors . You have all the evidence- what is the point of giving you more when you won’t look at what you have .
I even made a complaint with regards to the conduct of counsel to council but it appears to be a diverted email which only Ms Brandon received see Urgent call for the suspension of Wendy Brandon there was supposed to be an investigation into her blocking my emails and that disappeared into thin air. In return I was harassed by council and a person claiming to be W is posting the obscene things directed at me on web sites belonging to my associates .
I can go blue in the face sending evidence to Ms Brandon she simply will not look at it that is why I am addressing this to councillors because you employ the CEO and he employs the counsel. If counsel does not take corruption seriously then that is an issue for the governing body.
If you allow this fraud to be concealed then I can only ask what else is going on., I am making a determined effort to expose the corruption in Auckland council and have already started with my latest LGOIMA where I have addressed the issue of some 55 million of undefined “ other “ employee benefits in excess of last years 8 million “ other benefits “ which are shown in your annual report Council Employee Benefits v Mowing verges
Cathy so here we go another three years of me being fobbed off. What do I need to do to get some one to look at the evidence. I am very happy to sit down with them and take them through it but in 7 years that has never occurred.
In my normal transparent manner I will be publishing this on Transparency .net.nz
I won’t hold my breath I know I will be ignored again. After all electioneering is over and were back as usual.
You will be hearing a lot from me I would love to meet with you and Christine as this is a governance issue it is very serious.
Back on the subject of Mowing Verges
Len Brown when he heard he had won said he would go out an celebrate by mowing his Berm this prompted me to look at how big his berms were and I noted that he might mow them but it also seems that he can use them for parking, the address is 8 Tiffany close have a look for yourself on Google earth , Google maps or wises.
Perhaps this is an employee Benefit ?
Maybe if we had a house like his an income of some $200,000 then we wouldn’t begrudge mowing the berms, the chances are the mowing contractor would be doing it .. For the rest of us there is nothing like paying for a service and then doing the work yourself and not being allowed to park on it.
I had asked by way of LGOIMA as to the policy for mowing verges, we are told it went through council yet in this email I have been clearly redirected to Auckland Transport as follows
Thank you for your response.
As your enquiry requires more detailed information about the berm mowing policy, we have referred it to Auckland Transport.
You can expect to receive a reply from them directly within 10 working days.
Should you wish to follow up on this enquiry, please contact Auckland Transport on (09) 355 3553.
In the mean time, you may wish to read through the information provided on the Auckland Transport website in regard to urban berm mowing:
Nāku noa nā | Regards
Written Communications Team
(09) 301 0101
So I shall wait for Auckland transport to reply, I actually don’t pay rates to Auckland transport , I pay them to the council who owns the grass verges .
Yet we are saving 15 million in not mowing them.. this pales into insignificance in light of this item in the annual report
I have addressed this in a LGOIMA request via FYI. as follows
Dear Auckland Council,
In your annual report item 7 (www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoli…) you list the following
7 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS ( millions )
Other 2013 Group 42 million 2012 7 million
2013 Council 21 million 2012 1 million
Please give a breakdown of the 35 million difference in the group
benefits between last annual report and current report and also the
20 million difference in the council benefits
Please also advise the number of employees council has and how many
of them benefited from these benefits and also detail how these
benefits were approved.
Will keep you posed I will be sure to bring the parking on the berm to the attention of Auckland transport if it si good enough for Len then is good enough for all of us.
Last night I attended a meet the candidates meeting at Mt Albert Baptist church. I heard Cathy Casey say that the council had been addressed by the lady who cleans the town hall who had 6 children and was on $14.00 per hour Cathy said that this lady was employed by Spotless cleaning.
I note that spotless on their web site states “Spotless Group is an Australian owned, managed and operated provider of integrated facility management services. ” Why are we paying an Australian corporate to employ locals and pay them peanuts to do the work which these very same people could do if they were employed directly. How many employees are there how much is the contract worth ? We would probably be able to pay these people a much better hourly rate if we employed them directly through a council cleaning division.
Council owns film studios so why not a cleaning division which provides direct contract to cleaners. Why does everything need to be contracted to multinationals why in the interim can we not utilize local companies or is it that the contracts are now so big that locals cannot compete.
It therefore comes as no surprise that spotless cleaning is a member of the NZ council for Infrastructure the very organization which pushed for the super city and the very organization which first came up with the phrase ” most livable city ”
I have submitted a LGOIMA request to seek the number of persons employed by spotless on council contracts and the value of that contract see the FYI request here
Last week this news Item appeared Spanish court convicts 53 in corruption trial the scene is totally set for this in Auckland council . but new Zealand defends its least corrupt status so much that it has got to the stage where corruption is condoned.
Good morning Len
I put a question to you last night with regards to the corruption which I exposed at Waitakere city council.
At the council meeting earlier this year you said you knew nothing about it but would not investigate due to it being historic
Last night at the meeting you stated that there were two sides to the story, thereby indicating that you knew of another side which somehow implied that it exonerated the corruption
Your statement indicated to me that you know a version which I am not familiar with which makes me a villain and Mr Wells an employee acting legitimately and I therefore by way of privacy act request all information which you hold or have been told of which concerns the corruption in the dog and stock control division of Waitakere city council where Mr Wells was contracting to himself via the attached MOU
To spell it out Mr Wells signed the attached MOU with the previous dog control manager Tom Didovich.
Didovich plays a vital role in this corruption he had written to the minister consenting for Waitakere and North shore cities to become a linked organisations when in reality MAF expected this to be a council supported matter not something done in house in dog control this is reflected in the cabinet papers as attached and in the audit report
Not only did AWINZ not exist ( basically that is proved by the fact that the audit papers shows that it only had four meetings since 2004). The trust was established in 2000 by its own terms it ceased to exist 1.3 .2003 see page 4 .
The audit report proves it never held bank accounts so we now have a trust which never met and did not hold assets.
It also did not make the application for approved status on 22.11.1999 and it was not an oral trust as claimed by Neil Wells as the trustees that Tom Didovich paid him to recruit were recruited under a different deed
It was Tom Didovich the manager of dog control who witnessed the signatures of the trustees on the deed established in 2000 and Paid Wells to train the dog control officers. He acted without authority for and on behalf of council went on to become a trustee of a trust designed to conceal the corruption in 2006 .
I hope that you do not condone such actions
Under the privacy act I have the right to make corrections and quite obviously you have the story wrong.
I am extremely concerned that you should think that there are two sides as there is only one side portrayed in the documents I recovered from council and MAF and that is that Council has failed to investigate this properly preferring to see me the whistle-blower as the villain
I will be putting this email and my letter to you up on Transparency and will be directing everyone to it at each and every candidate meeting.
I felt that you got close to defaming me last night by suggesting that I knew of the other side.
I was denied a defence for the defamation claim .Wells never produced one bit of evidence. It is being appealed at this very moment for obtaining a judgment by fraud. .. the alleged defamation does not change the facts revealed in the documents held by council . if you can’t find them I will be happy to supply them to you . Your own documents will reveal corruption . Look at the audit report they expected AWINZ to be incorporated, and to be acting with the councils consent . council denied any involvement. The audit report does not look for corruption it only dealt with the obligations of AWINZ as far as MAF was concerned.. no one went back to the fact that AWINZ did not exist.. it was quickly re created in 2006 to cover up
For ease here is the video The AWINZ story exposing corruption in council
It’s complex but I can simply take you through it if I was to be given the chance.
No one should have to pay the price I have had to pay for questioning corruption in council , the questions I asked were legitimate and had foundation .
Because truth matters
Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at www.verisure.co.nz
I am currently standing for council and receive a number of questionnaires this one from Mangere Bridge Residents and Ratepayers Association,Manukau Harbour Restoration Soc. and The Onehunga Enhancement Soc. supported by their submissions
this is my response
Questionnaire for Auckland Council Local Body Candidates
1. In respect of the request for an independent inquiry(unrestricted and able to consider all aspects and ramifications of the proposed Central Interceptor and associated strategies)
2. In respect of the request for a comprehensive study with reliable modeling to establish the effects of the proposed Central Interceptor and related strategies on the Manukau Harbour before the proposal is implemented
3. The costs of the Central Interceptor and of the associated strategies versus alternative options being worthy of a full and transparent economic study
Would you be prepared to initiate such an inquiry?
Support suc an inquiry?
interest in the matter?
Yes I am very interested in these issues
· Comments… the three issues you have listed are actually related and strike at the heart of the corruption which I wish to expose.
First a bit about me. I have lived In Auckland on and off since 1960 ( Ellerslie , Pakuranga Manurewea and Epsom since 1984 .
My children are direct descendants of John Jermyn Symonds after whom Symonds street in Onehunga is named ( he was Governor Greys secretary and a Fencible captain residing in Onehunga) They are also descendants of Dr Scott a prominent Onehunga Physician .
I served in the New Zealand Police I left in 1989 when I was a Sergeant The ERA had not come not effect and raising a family while serving in the police was not well catered for. My children attended Cornwall park primary school which is also well attended by children from Mangere and Onehunga.
With my friend Helen Wenley I am coauthor of short walks in Auckland we document walks all over Auckland and have documented a number of magnificent coastal walks on the Manukau harbour.
The harbour is a treasure, a recreational reserve which is not being treated with dignity , I have discovered why and it strikes at the root of corruption which is practiced in Auckland today.
When My children grew I became a Private Investigator I was approached one day by Lyn Macdonald the bird lady who at the time was a dog and stock control officer at Waitakere city council at the concourse. She asked me to find out who or what The animal welfare institute of New Zealand ( AWINZ) was as she was required to “volunteer” her council paid time to AWINZ. See the video here
I discovered that AWINZ did not exist. I basically asked two questions
1. Of Waitakere city council why is a manager contracting to himself under a pseudonym ?
2. Of MAF why have you given law enforcement powers to a fictional organisation.
The only thing which happened was that I was sued for defamation , no evidence was ever produced and I was denied a defence.
The proceedings were won using tactics and lies. In 7 years I have ever been able to put the evidence before the court but last week my evidence was seen in the high court, I proved that
1. AWINZ was a sham trust
2. It was only Mr. Wells the manager of Dog and stock control from 2005 -2010
3. He lied to the minister by claiming that he was making an application on behalf of a trust when no trust existed at the time and as a result of these lies AWINZ which had no existence other than in Mr. Wells mind became a law enforcement authority under legislation which Mr. Wells had written the bill for and had been independent advisor to the select committee.
I brought the conflict of interest to the attention of council in 2006, and the deceit to the attention of Government at the same time . My experience in this matter has caused me to look closely at the corruption which prevails in this the least corrupt country in the world.
Len brown who is aware of the matter flatly refused to investigate he claimed that it “ historic” I claim that the fact that it is still being covered up is indicative of the corruption which prevails in council.
I Applied to join transparency International which produces the statistics that New Zealand is perceived to be the least corrupt in the world. I applied stating that I was a former Police Prosecuting Sergeant, Licenced private Investigator and member of the certified fraud examiners association with a special interest in corruption. I was turned down, not just once but three times. So I set up Transparency New Zealand which specializes in exposing the corruption which exists and is well hidden so as to fool the perception index.
When it comes to corruption Government often states “well look at the statistics we must be doing things right “ the reality is that corruption is everywhere but we just don’t recognize it As such and if you speak up you stand to pay a price which will put you out of business for ever. My price has been over $300,000 costs, over $200,000 has paid Mr. Wells and his sham trust backed by Former Mayor Wyn Hoadley and JP Graeme Coutts and Tom Didovich a life coach who was the manager of Dog and stock control who has been a very active accomplice.
Brookfields Lawyers have not acted according to the law at all and are still trying to liquidate my company despite the fact that I have conclusively proved that AWINZ was a sham and that their clients Neil Wells Wyn Hoadley and Graeme Coutts could not legally bring their claims.
I am telling you all this because you need to think outside the square to see where the corruption is. I would not believe my own story had I heard it 7 years ago . New Zealand’s corruption is alive and well it is a false illusion which claims that it is not there.
With an open mind I wish you to look at the following facts
Watercare.. is a member of the NZCID the New Zealand Council for Infrastructure Development, this is the body which was behind the one Auckland concept .
This was their initial board Alasdair Thompson, Brent Waldron, Jim McLay,
A capture of their web site back in 2008 shows this
Change now is vital. The way that our local government leads us is central to our quality of life. The
supply of water, energy, transportation and communications underpin the quality of our health,
education, agriculture, trade and commerce, personal safety and security, culture and entertainment.
For Aucklanders, having a good standard of living and being able to make progress relies on several
Our ability to:
· Improve our productivity
· Trade successfully in international markets
· Attract international investment
Yet in Auckland local government is extremely complex. We are facing huge challenges which are
frustrated even more by the governance situation.
There have already been a number of initiatives to try to get Auckland’s eight local authorities to work
together. Because the responsibilities for funding and delivery of regional infrastructure and facilities
are split between a lot of independent parties, there has been no real success. The region is also facing a massive infrastructure funding gap, $3.5 billion in roading and public transport alone.
In fact if you read their early intentions you will see that the whole livable city concept comes from them we will have a livable city the problem is that no Aucklander will be able to afford to live here.
The NZCID worked alongside the committee for Auckland .They are members of the committee for Auckland and the committee for Auckland are members of them.
The Committee for Auckland Board 2003 Bryan Mogridge – Chairman.Richard Didsbury, David McConnell, Diane Robertson, David Tapper
It may come as no surprise that the patron of the committee for Auckland is Sir Ron Cater , of Beca fame was the contracting company which put the Waikato pipe line in. He has also endorsed Penny Hulse who is standing again , in 2010 she was Chair Council’s Policy and Strategy Committee overseeing the economic, environmental and community direction needles to say she was a good horse to back by the committee for Auckland. In my experience , support generally comes with a pay off.
Penny would not be the first to be endorsed by the developers who support huge expenditure for infrastructure. David Tapper had his wife Margret “on the inside in council “ I have no doubt that there are many more .
The super city has had massive influence from the committee for Auckland and the NZCID by looking at the industry connections and the many interrelationships you have to wonder is it planned?
I generally find that when officials are fearful of what you say then you are striking close to the bone, such was the case last Monday when I spoke at the select committee but was not able to give my submission to the NEW ZEALAND INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION CENTRE BILL without interruption from the chair.
The investigation which needs to happen is into the whole development of Auckland , why have we gone silly with development? why are those who are connected with the committee for Auckland driving the recruitment of foreigners to Auckland .. hat is wrong with natural growth ?
Why do we want to relocate half of the world onto the narrowest part of New Zealand. Is it to drive up prices? It would appear so, but it is also reducing the quality of living in which once was a truly super city.
By driving up population there is a need for infrastructure and the committee for Auckland and the NZCID are able to provide this through their many internationally owned corporates .
Why Auckland? Well I believe that it is because the corruption and influence on council here is so rife that it facilitates this venture.
Auckland was the most livable city, why fix something which was not broken.
An illustration of how these people are inter t wined in public private relationships is in this summary of Richard Didsbury (Committee for Auckland)
Mr. Richard Didsbury, B.E. (Auck) has been an Advisor of Sky City Entertainment Group Ltd. since November 2011. Mr. Didsbury serves as Executive Officer of Housing New Zealand Corp. He chairs the Project Control Group directing the Sylvia Park Development. Mr. Didsbury was a founding shareholder at Kiwi Income Property Limited, when it was established in 1992. His career evolved with Lend Lease and other New Zealand based property companies. Mr. Didsbury is also well
Another worthy mention is that the NEW ZEALAND COUNCIL FOR INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT INCORPORATED is at LEVEL 20, ASB BANK CENTRE, 135 ALBERT STREET, AUCKLAND the building which was in the news in 2012 and owned by
Multiplex New Zealand Property Now BROOKFIELD JOHNSON CONTROLS PROPERTY SERVICES (NZ) LIMITED whose former director Peter George WALL is on the Auckland harbour trust responsible for developing the Takapuna camp ground , he is also on the board of directors of Auckland Council Property Limited, he too is a member of the committee for Auckland
But then I have heard it say that NZ is a small country. Well I would not have thought it was THAT small
It’s all about $$$ for developer$ and bringing in more people than we need keeps them in business , unfortunately people need a sewerage system and that is why the central interceptor is so important and that is exactly why it needs to be stopped my reason for this .
There was once an argument between two orifices, the mouth and the anus . The mouth claimed to be more important. To which the anus said nothing and just ceased work. You can guess what happened.
We therefore need an urgent enquiry into the need for this Central interceptor, and an inquiry into the role and influence of developers in running council and why the whole world is being recruited to come to Auckland .
Each and every voter can play a part by voting for those who speak up about corruption, and those who are NOT incumbent or supported by those associated with the construction industry.
Auckland is for Aucklanders we need a functioning affordable city , a city which works for us and is not a vessel which uses our rates money for the prosperity of a few.
Given the serious state of some of the water ways and harbours in the region
Would you be prepared to initiate an urgent corrective action
Support such action
Given the dissatisfaction on its handling of the Central Interceptor proposal and other matters– the Auckland Long Term Plan,Unitary Plan,Transport Plan etc.it could be appropriate to assess and review Auckland Council’s performance in respect of its compliance with the requirements
of relevant acts and its responsibility to democratic principles
Would you be prepared to initiate such a study?
Support such a study?
· Comments……You need only look at the committee for Auckland and their involvement with buses to see who the tail is which wags the dog.
If we pay buses regardless of performance then they have no need to improve their service
Name…Grace Haden....Date 9/9/2013
Sent:Thursday, 11 July 2013 4:40 p.m.
Cc: ‘Councillor Alf Filipaina’; ‘Councillor Calum Penrose’; ‘Councillor Cathy Casey’; ‘Councillor Noelene Raffills’; ‘Councillor John Walker’; ‘Chris.Fletcher@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘Mayor Len Brown’; ‘Councillor Penny Hulse’; ‘Councillor Ann Hartley’; ‘Councillor Arthur Anae’; ‘Councillor Penny Webster’; ‘Councillor Sandra Coney’; ‘Councillor Cameron Brewer’; ‘Councillor Mike Lee’; ‘Councillor Michael Goudie’; ‘Councillor George Wood’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘Councillor Wayne Walker’
Subject: Who governs Auckland
Open letter to Councillors and LGOIMA
I have just updated the blog site with an article Why do we bother to vote for Auckland Councillors?
It is very clear that you are the democratically elected members you are according to statute the Governing body, So how come the hired help is dictating to you
I see the plight of Sandra Coney and I also know of other Councillors who have had the same issue .
What is the point of voting for any of you if you cannot hold your proper place with the council employees.
I also have to wonder how effective your CEO is when he holds so many directorships including one for the BNZ and wonder if this is not a conflict of interest depending on who you are banking with.
Also by way of LGOIMA could you please advise if the directorship of Doug McKay as director of BNZ was disclosed to you . Please provide all documents which were provided as a back drop for you to consider any potential conflict of interest in his appointment.
Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at www.transparency.net.nz
Response Response_council re McKay
It would appear that his right to privacy is greater than our right to democracy . How and Why is it a breach of privacy to advise us if the conflict was disclosed or not ?
Your request has been declined. We are withholding the information requested pursuant to
section 7(2)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act.
7. Other reasons for withholding official information
(2) Subject to sections 6, 8, and 17 of this Act, this section applies if, and only if, the
withholding of the information is necessary to—
(a) Protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural