accountability

Auckland Council Rates.. does the law apply to Council as it does to you ? part 2

Yesterday we discussed the ability  for council to   charge penalties on  installments  today we take it a step further – what legal right do they have to charge  penalties on GST which they are collecting for the  government ?   We believe that they don’t have any right to do this at all  below is  how we come to  that.

Taking a rates notice which we have here for example
The rates for the financial year 2014-15 are $4510.81 this has a content of $588.36 GST
The current instalment is $1127 and has a  GST content of  $147

The rates notice states

Pay on time to avoid penalties

“‘ It pays to pay your rates on time, as you will be charged a 10 per cent penalty on any part of your current instalment that is overdue.

You will also be charged a 10 per cent penalty on any part of your rates (and penalties from previous years) that have not been paid by 5 July, and again by 5 January, of the current financial year. Any payments that you make towards your rates will be credited towards the oldest amount due first”

The operative words are  any part of your rates.  The Gst is the GST  portion of your rates. The rates  is what is set and  what the GST is payable on .

The the act states penalties Must not exceed 10%   therefore they can only charge  a penalty of 10% on the rates  being 1127-147, the penalty on the rates to be lawful can only be 10% of $980  being $98 .

By charging penalty of $112.70 they are  charging a penalty rate of greater than 10% (11.5% in this case )  which is   and $14.70 over charge  per instalment  and  not  made lawfully .

This is of course  also subject to   the ability  for council to  charge penalties on   instalments as discussed previously

If council can only charge penalties once the years rates are due  being 30 June 2015  then   by imposing  penalties on rates which are inclusive of  GST  ,they will be collecting a further  $58.80  per year ( presuming that you then pay  just prior to  the 30th June )*

Strangely enough  this  sum is more than  the sum which they  give you for early payment .

Where this really gets tricky  is in compounding penalties on the  Gst  of previous payments/ years .

Then there is also the question is GST Payable on the  penalty  or  is GST Payable only on the rates portion ?

We will put that  to council to work out, they have an obligation to us after all to be open transparent and accountable  and presumably that is why we pay crazy high wages to those at the top so that this  kind of thing does not happen ???

 

*based on  instalments being  29 August 2014,26 November 2014, 26 February 2015,27 May 2015 note that   even by instalments  all rates due are paid a month  early .

Transparency International Finally uses the C word

launderwideTransparency International New Zealand has tried so hard to ignore the corruption in New Zealand  but has finally  conceded that    we have it.  In their latest news letter they mention  no less than three items .

New Zealand Shell Companies Involved in Huge Money-laundering Operation

New Zealand shell companies may have played a part in the biggest money-laundering operation in Eastern Europe. A recent investigation by the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) exposed an enormous US$20 billion ($24.4 billion) transfer of dirty Russian funds, dubbed ‘the Laundromat’. Read the story by Richard Meadows in stuff.co.nz.

Evidence of corruption a National scandal – Harre

Internet Party leader Laila Harre will take evidence of corruption to international forums if there is not a full Royal Commission to investigate the growing evidence of the systematic use and abuse of democratic institutions and processes for political gain

Money, politics and scandal in New Zealand’s election

Post election, Washington based Lisa Rosenburg of the Sunlight Foundation, and former legislative assistant to Senator John Kerry, suggested that New Zealand will need to address weaknesses in its political finance system to retain “its squeaky clean reputation and its first place as the least corrupt nation…” sunlightfoundation.com/money-politics-and-scandal-in-new-zealands-election

The article by Richard Meadow refers to web site Naked Capitalism.  In a recent article   on that  site  Richard Smith   states

GT Group was linked to the biggest money-laundering operation in US history.

It does not  take much searching to  find that a variety of   GT group companies  which survived being struck off  have found  a new registered office at  the EQUITY GROUP , others have been registered  again using the names of the struck off companies as shown below.

Companies registered to the premises of Equity group  frequently use the very same  directors  identified as  proxy directors  in  international press   . In this case we look at Leah Toureleo  of  B.p. 1487, 1 Port Vila, Pot 540208, Port Vila , Vanuatu  who is as is mentioned in the  Richard meadows story NZ firm named in huge European scam

Leah Toureleo has the following  active companies

PHOENIX INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED (3934638) Registered Company
Leah Toureleo appointed as a director on 27 Jul 2012 overseas registered company   about to be struck off the address 24b Moorefield Road

Seems to be another busy little  office   it is a medical center  see this interesting post  http://www.blakjak.net/node/1312

 

GOLDAGE GROUP CO., LIMITED (3934658) Registered Company
Leah Toureleo appointed as a director on 27 Jul 2012   overseas registered company   about to be struck off reg office Room 4, 221a Dominion Road, Auckland, only two companies registered here and both about to  be struck off

 

IRVINESTON LIMITED (3239028) Registered Company
Leah Toureleo appointed as a director on 14 Nov 2013 Registered Office
TROPIC ALLIANCE LIMITED, 7 Rose Road, for more on this address see naked capitalism

DORNOCK LIMITED (3239007) Registered Company
Leah Toureleo appointed as a director on 14 Nov 2013 Registered Office
TROPIC ALLIANCE LIMITED, 7 Rose Road,

the director   of tropic alliance  lives in Inga 9a-31 Zaubes, Riga, LV1013 , Latvia

Now these next four companies have something in common they all had  the receptionist at  this  former law firm  as their  director , she resigned last year when she was warned her about  the dangers of being a proxy director ( see news links  below )   these companies   continue to exist with Leah Toureleo as  their director

WELKIN BUSINESS LIMITED (3665631) Registered Company
Leah Toureleo  appointed as a director on 29 Mar 2013 owned by Trust NZ holdings   –  director  xxxxxxx

SELBY LIMITED (3665671) Registered Company
Leah Toureleo  appointed as a director on 29 Mar 2013 owned by Trust NZ holdings   –  director  xxxxxxx

This is a phoenix company  of  SELBY LIMITED(2466848) (NZBN: 9429031562881) Struck off NZ Limited Company it was  registered to 1504 B, 363 Queen Street, Auckland, New Zealand which was pat of  the Taylor group.  the new company was incorporated  by EQUITY TRUST INTERNATIONAL LIMITED just a few months after the  companies office struck the other off

4-WAY LOGISTICS LIMITED (3589351) Registered Company
Leah Toureleo  appointed as a director on 29 Mar 2013 owned by Trust NZ holdings   –  director xxxxxxx

MAXIMUS CORPORATION LIMITED (3589616) Registered Company
Leah Toureleo  appointed as a director on 29 Mar 2013  owned by Club property (xxxxx)  this company is a phoenix  company for

MAXIMUS CORPORATION LIMITED (2454570) (NZBN: 9429031578738) Struck off NZ Limited Company Level 4, 44 Khyber Pass Road, Grafton, Auckland, 1023, New Zealand,  this company was  originally set up by the Gt Group

The receptionist had one further  company  that she was director of this company  now has the  wife of the  director of this this companies director     who is also a  lawyer this company is Eurostone Holdings Limited

for News   items on   Glenn Smith  69 Ridge Road, Lucas Heights, North Shore  ( Company Net ) see

Web of intrigue – crime – national | Stuff.co.nz

New Zealand as a rogue financial state

NZ shell companies in Kyrgyz corruption | Stuff.co.nz

New Zealand, Fresh From Its Service to Mexican Drug Lords

Complaint – Securities and Exchange Commission

Traseks Ltd., is a corporation incorporated under the laws ofPanama on
February 9, 2009, with its principal place of business located at 69 Ridge Road, Albany,
Auckland, New Zealand. Traseks, Ltd. received $976,302, wired during April through
July 2009 from Rockford’s Bank ofAmerica and Banco Popular Bank Accountsto an
account in its name at JSC Multibanka in Riga, Latvia.

Reserve Bank warns public – money – business | Stuff.co.nz

RBNZ warns on dodgy ‘Bancorp’ pyramid scheme claiming

Reserve Bank warns public – Stuff

1766 defunct New Zealand companies at 69, Ridge Road, Albany,

News items  re proxy directors and activities of companies  of  Leah Toureleo  see below and  at this link click here

Sep 2, 2010 Lu Zhang, 28, is accused of 75 offences of making false statements in company registration forms after she declared her office address was her …
www.stuff.co.nz/…/Company-director-with-alleged-arms-links-in-court
Sep 3, 2010 Lu Zhang, 28, is charged with 75 counts of making false statements in company registration forms – by the seemingly minor act of declaring her …
www.stuff.co.nz/national/4090241/Mystery-arms-firm-director-revealed
May 29, 2011 Lu Zhang, below, is its director. launder2 . launder3. Stella Port-Louis, of the Seychelles, is director of four Queen St companies linked to illegal …
www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/latest-edition/…/Web-of-intrigue
Jan 11, 2010 The signature over it has no resemblance to the signature of Lu Zhang in the New Zealand incorporation documents. The cost of the charter is …
www.stuff.co.nz/national/3218894/Papers-confirm-arms-going-to-Iran
Nov 5, 2010 Former fast-food worker Lu Zhang, 28, was the sole director of Queen St registered SP Trading Ltd, a company that hired a plane discovered at …
www.stuff.co.nz/dominion…/Chinese-warning-on-court-case-angers-judge
Feb 13, 2010 Police National Headquarters in Wellington said it was still investigating SP but would not discuss individuals, including Lu Zhang.
www.stuff.co.nz/business/3323439/Change-of-director-for-shell-company
Oct 20, 2010 SP Trading former director Lu Zhang was later charged with 75 counts of making false statements in company registration forms, and appeared …
www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/…/NZ-a-target-for-arms-traders-Oxfam
Jan 15, 2010 SP’s director is Lu Zhang whose registered residential address is 369 Queen … that on December 21 detectives here interviewed Lu Zhang.
www.stuff.co.nz/national/3231635/Police-given-details-of-arms-flight-client
Feb 12, 2010 Police National Headquarters in Wellington said they were still investigating SP but would not discuss individuals including Lu Zhang.
www.stuff.co.nz/world/asia/3318708/Thailand-drops-gun-running-charges
Jan 13, 2010 SP Trading Ltd – formed last year with a woman, Lu Zhang, who cannot be located, as its director – is part of a web of hundreds of companies …
www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/…/Director-breach-punishable-by-jail

TINZ Integirty systems in question

LochinvarTransparency international New Zealand was funded by the  government  to  do an integrity report on our public service.

We  found that the finding  that we  had  ” the least corrupt public sector ” came about   due to a number of factors.

  1. Corruption was not defined or looked at – due to the assumption that  as”the least corrupt country ” we must be doing things right .
  2. Transparency Internationals New Zealand  itself having  given NZ the status of being  perceived to be the least corrupt so as to encourage business growth in NZ
  3. Transparency International New Zealand funded by government departments

see  correspondence with the minister Judith Collins  Please provide the evidence to support that New Zealand is the least corrupt country in the world.

and the response from  the companies office

the  following is  a news  release

We repeatedly hear that Shanghai Pengxin has purchased land in New Zealand previously the Crafar farms and now poised to buy the Lochinver Station.

It is time that we got our facts right as to who actually owns the property and just a tiny bit of research brings massive concerns.

There is no company in New Zealand called Shanghai Pengxin and no land in New Zealand owned by a company of that name

There is however an entity called PENGXIN NEW ZEALAND FARM GROUP LIMITED which owns some 76 titles according to Terranet .

PENGXIN NEW ZEALAND FARM GROUP LIMITED has one director, Chinese billionaire Zhaobai JIANG, the company’s sole shareholder is MILK NEW ZEALAND HOLDING LIMITED which in turn is also directed by Mr Jiang.

But look at the shareholding of MILK NEW ZEALAND HOLDING LIMITED and it is allegedly owned by Milk New Zealand Investment Limited Suite 1, 139 Vincent Street, Auckland Central.

Strangely enough Milk New Zealand investment does not exist on the New Zealand company register.

The question is how can a non-existent company make an application to be a shareholder?

According to the lawyers for the company’s registrar takes applications on face value, this is the reality of the integrity systems which Transparency New Zealand reported on recently .

It was these very same integrity systems which Judith Collins attributed to New Zealand being perceived as the least corrupt.

If we don’t look we don’t see
If we don’t define it we cannot have it

Will there be an enquiry into the company structure of PENGXIN NEW ZEALAND FARM GROUP LIMITED ?

Grace Haden Independent candidate for Epsom.

see anticorruption.co.nz

Lets put justice back in New Zealand

Open letter / OIA to Minister of Justice

This letter has been published on www.Transparency.net.nz and broadcasted via social media

I also  refer to a previous open letter to you “What justice system “ and statement you made in this news article where you stated “it’s a court of law not a court of justice”.

I have become aware through being sued in our courts for speaking the truth and for exposing serious corruption that our courts are on a par with our casinos.Except that  our casinos have more security issues in place to prevent abuse.

We apparently fare no better than the Wild West it appears to be a free for all in our courts with no ENFORCEABLE systems or processes  to give those taken to court any protection .

When truth and evidence are not factors we cannot have justice. The justice sector by not providing prosecutions for perjury is failing the people

It appears  to me, that the course of justice has been averted. Those in the middle income group who own their own houses are a very good target. Their houses are now worth going after and what better way than to bring a massive financial burden on to them, costs which no one can possibly budget for.

This means that those with means and those who are lawyers themselves can totally abuse the court system for their own advantage and write the costs off as a tax advantage while forcing the other party to hire a lawyer .

If you do not hire a lawyer and defend  yourself you become prey to the dirty legal tricks which deny justice and which is apparently allowed in our Legal system .

Our Justice sector fails in its task to “to make society safer and provide accessible justice services.”

Court has become a tool of oppression , why use a baseball bat to steal some ones wallet when you can use a lawyer and get their house and anything done through a lawyer is apparently legal .

Truth, evidence and integrity have no place in our courts and it appears that you can bring civil claims based on nothing but hogwash . Once the papers are served it is for your opponent to spend funds on lawyers, money which they cannot recover due to the oppressor cleverly hiding all their assets before they start.
I have experienced instances where the civil jurisdiction is being used to pervert the course of justice.

Police simply won’t act if a matter is before the court and without evidence the civil jurisdiction supported by the total lack of rights to the Universal Declaration of Human rights

Some Lawyers appear to use the court to pervert the cause of justice by using the civil jurisdiction to conceal criminal offending.While it is a crime to beat someone up with a baseball bat it appears to be sanctioned if done with a lawyer and legal tactics.

The fact that immense stress and bullying has health repercussions is not even considered a factor and neither must the person being beaten up show any emotion because that is another black mark against them.

I am a former police prosecutor and through my involvement in the Civil court have found that our bill of rights in New Zealand does not afford the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial court to those in the civil jurisdiction this is totally out of step with the Universal declaring of Human rights .

I have previously made an OIA request with this regard and  your staff have responded .

I would By way of OIA request further Documentation and discussion papers which examine
1. Why criminal judgements confidential when all civil judgements are published, are both not equally accountable to the public records act.

2. Why convictions in the criminal jurisdiction are not a matter of public record and accessible to all yet civil matters gets full and permanent publicity

3. Criminals have advantage of the clean slate act yet those in the civil jurisdiction are accountable to the decisions for ever , this appears to be a disparity has this been considered and discussed if not why not

4. What the threshold for perjury is and to what degree that drifting from the truth is acceptable before any one is prosecuted, and who prosecutes when the police are under resourced and overburdened?

5. What consideration the minister of justice has given to the use of the civil jurisdiction to pervert the course of justice in the criminal jurisdiction? – To this end, those engaged in crime tend to have more funds than whistle-blowers. Any one coming across a crime has a choice of becoming an accessory by concealing it or speaking up. When they speak up they find themselves under attack from the “would be” criminal and legal tactics rather than truth and evidence are used to financially cripple them. Law is not affordable to the average person and the costs of being taken to court is crippling it is a tool by which the rich and the corrupt can beat up those who are trying to survive. An hour for a lawyer is a weeks wages for the average New Zealander . Law has got out of hand.

6. If the minister of Justice has no way of delivering justice has the minister considered ways to put justice in place or otherwise renaming the ministry.

Our courts need to give protection to the citizens of this country. To allow the courts to be used in appropriately is an abuse of process which I believe the Minister of Justice should seek to prevent.

I look forward to your response.

I am standing as an Independent for Epsom and will make this an election issue.

 Update  see response from Judith Collins re justice

New Zealand’s reputation for being corruption-free is a load of hogwash

liesI recently  did  an official information act request to Judith Collins seeking  her source of information  for being consistently quoted as stating that New Zealand is the least corrupt .

In the response she states  that this is the perception index  yet   far too often she  makes the statement as though it is   fact and not  a mere illusion  One such instance is  in  her address to parliament where she erroneously   interprets this to mean ” Corruption free ”

“New Zealand’s reputation for being corruption-free is one of its biggest assets internationally. People who do business and invest in New Zealand know they can trust our laws and our Government to protect their rights and freedoms. New Zealand’s ranking by Forbes as the best country for doing business is in part due to the high trust in our public sector. Well done, New Zealand.”

If the ‘corruption free ” statement was made by a company it would be  held accountable under the fair trading act.

National are slapping themselves on the back  for  the low levels of corruption  by  actively concealing corruption and preventing people from speaking about it  as is evident in this question by  MP Grant Robertson 29 May 2014:

I would ask why it is that I am unable to ask a question that is legitimately to the Minister of Justice about the question of corruption and bribery—and I quoted from a Ministry of Justice fact sheet, which describes that as abuse of one’s position of power—and I am not allowed to ask questions about Ministers who bullied somebody—

Ross Robertson will retire for Government this year   without seeing his bill  Members of Parliament (Code of Ethical Conduct) Bill [PDF 148k] being passed.

Current chair of GOPAC (Global organisation of parliamentarians agaisnt corruption ) is Andrew  Little , he has a hard job a head of him when   our minister of justice   states that  we are corruption free  and also states ( at 1.05 )that in New Zealand there is no court of  justice .  To me this is a contradiction of terms .

My petition for a commission agaisnt corruption was presented this week . I have little doubt that   it will be viewed  seriously for as long as we do not label or define corruption we wont have any .

I have still to hear form John Key with  regards to my request to him,  I suspect that this has been filed in his drawer until one day he needs to pull it out  in a tit for tat trade off against an opposition minister .

National  appears to thrive on corruption  and  to act in the name of corruption would be  to clip their own  wings  .

I have come to the conclusion that a government which will not let you  question corruption must be corrupt .  Time for a change me thinks.

Open letter to Mr Key – will you condone corruption?

corruptionOpen letter to Prime Minister.

I refer to the cabinet manual 2.53

“In all these roles and at all times, Ministers are expected to act lawfully and to behave in a way that upholds, and is seen to uphold, the highest ethical standards.

Ultimately, Ministers are accountable to the Prime Minister for their behaviour.”

In 2001 the then minister of Agriculture, Jim Sutton gave approval for the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand to become an approved organisation under the animal welfare act 1999.

Section 122 of the act requires that the minister must be satisfied “by the production to the Minister of suitable evidence” that the “organisation “complied with the criteria as set out in sections 122 (1) (a) – (e).

It has transpired that the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand (AWINZ) had no legal existence, It had no members, structure or existence beyond that of only one man. There was no Organisation, no body of persons had held a meeting or made a decision to make an application for the coercive law enforcement powers.

I have over the years made a number of OIA requests from the MPI and have conclusively established that.
1. The application for approved status for the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand was fraudulent

a. Mr Neil Wells made the application on behalf of an alleged trust knowing that no trust existed .
b. The statement with regards to the trust having been formed by way of trust deed was false and known to be false by Mr Wells a statement he was to attempt to retrospectively cover up in 2006.
c. The persons named as the alleged trustees had never formally met together as a trust, signed a trust deed, or discussed the application for approved status under the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act 1999.
d. Section 10 of the application, the institute’s compliance with section 122, sought to mislead and deceive the minister as an organisation which does not exist cannot comply with the criteria.

2. The minister relied on MAF advising him with regards to the trust deed, the reality was that there was no trust deed and no signed deed was ever considered or sighted. This ensured that the ministry staff evaluated the application on a worthless and meaningless document which had not been consented or agreed to by any persons.

3. Mr Neil Edward Wells who had appointed himself as Manager (10.4 of the application) was the former Head of the RNZSPCA, in 1996 he wrote a business plan for his own personal ambition to integrate council’s dog and stock control with Animal welfare which was a central government concern. He called the service Territorial animal welfare service .

4. Mr Wells was well connected with the MPI (MAF at the time) and through this and his party connections (Labour) came to write the No 1 Bill for the new animal welfare legislation this bill was written with his personal business aspirations in mind.

5. Mr Wells served as an Independent Specialist Adviser to the Primary Production Select Committee during the consideration stages of the Bills but no record has ever been located of any declaration of his conflict of interest.

6. During 2000 Mr Wells and his associate Tom Didovich provided the minister and the ministry with information which appeared to be legitimate, however neither the minister not the ministry verified

a. The legal status or existence of AWINZ

b. The consent and knowledge of Waitakere council in providing funding, staff resources and infrastructure for the venture.

c. The knowledge and consent for the alleged trustees named on the fraudulent application

7. Records show that the policy advisors for the ministry of Agriculture were opposed to the granting of the application despite having previously assisted Mr Wells. MAF officials had voiced their concerns with regards to Mr Wells’s undeclared conflict of interest.

8. Consent was finally given after the application went to the labour caucus after Neil Wells was able to comment on and amend the caucus papers and allegedly briefed his former work colleague, Bob Harvey who at the time was the president of the labour party and Mayor of Waitakere City Council.

9. In 2006 as a result of an enquiry from a Waitakere dog control officer I established conclusively that

a. There was no legal person by the name of the Animal Welfare institute of New Zealand
b. Neither MAF nor Waitakere council who both contracted to AWINZ held a signed trust deed.
c. The law enforcement authority AWINZ was not identifiable.

10. Despite AWINZ not existing the then Minister of Agriculture Jim Anderton did not consider that AWINZ no longer complied with section 122 and did not revoke the approved status, he too was deceived as to the existence of AWINZ due to a group of persons posing as AWINZ and despite lacking evidence claiming to be the law enforcement authority . These persons were Tom Didovich, Neil Wells, Graeme Coutts and Wyn Hoadley. Not one of these persons (other than Wells) had been a party to the application process or consented to it.

11. This deception continued through the next minister’s term off office and David Carter was similarly deceived.

12. In a series Official information act requests I have established that MPI do not know who the legal persons were who represented the law enforcement authority and it would appear from the latest response ,that they did nothing to investigate the consequences of having a fictional law enforcement authority .

I have recently discovered submissions by Mr Wells for the Animal Welfare Amendment Act , curiously he does not mention his involvement with AWINZ at all  but in these he points out the seriousness of this situation by pointing out that New Zealand is only one of two countries to have a private law enforcement authority (the other is Australia).

Mr Wells in his submissions states “Legal commentators maintain that the enforcement and prosecution of criminal law (animal welfare offences are crimes) are the responsibility of the state and not private organisations that have no public accountability.

He goes on to state “There are (in NZ) three types of enforcement and prosecuting authorities — the Police, the Ministry for Primary Industry, and approved organisations. “

And “MPI does not have the resources to be able to deliver national enforcement and prosecution services on its own for all animal welfare complaints and is totally dependent on approved organisations. This creates an enormous risk for government.”

AWINZ was an approved organisation yet it did not exist, no one knew who comprised it, ran it, apart from Mr Wells who was not given law enforcement powers in his own name but obtained it fraudulently in a fictional name and then acted on behalf of that fictional body.

The act, section 122, requires that the Minister must be satisfied – by the production to the Minister of suitable evidence – before declaring an organisation to be an approved organisation for the purposes of the Act.

For the decision of several Ministers to have been lawful evidence must exist which shows

1. Who the legal persons were who applied for the law enforcement powers and
2. The legal basis upon which the ministers granted law enforcement powers to a trading name for person or persons unknown and had belief that there was accountability to the public.

If that evidence does not exist then there is another option and that is that successive ministers were deceived.

If this is the case the government has two options

1. To condone fraudulent applications to the crown for law enforcement authority or
2. Instigate a full ministerial enquiry into the matter and hold all those who played a part in the deception accountable to the full force of the law.

The current Minister, Nathan Guy appears to have distanced himself from this matter despite repeated requests for him to conduct a ministerial enquiry into this deception. Every request I write to him is routinely handed over to the MPI. The MPI do not hold the evidence and quite clearly under the act it is for the minister to be in possession of the suitable evidence which satisfies him, it is therefore clear that if there is any evidence as to the legitimacy of the application of AWINZ and the existence of AWINZ then it must be held by the minister.

If the minister does not hold that information then the minister cannot condone a fraudulent act of this magnitude. It is also not a responsible action just to ignore the issue. (Ignorance of the law is no excuse Crimes act 1961)

Fraud is a crime and obtaining law enforcement powers for one of only two approved organisations is serious, it is even more serious when the law was enforced through this fraud and I have evidence that it was.

I did not intend to be a Whistle blower, I simply raised issues which I believed were in the public interest to raise in what was reported to be the world’s least corrupt country. I asked

1. Why did the minister give law enforcement powers to a fictional organisation
2. Why was the manager of a council dog and stock control unit contracting to himself in a fictional name

Those two questions have devastated my life and that of my family, I have had a total cold shoulder from the government for 8 years now. I have been treated like the villain in a tactic which I now recognise as classic Darvo where the roles of villain and victim are reversed.

I have been persecuted thought the courts on defamation claims for which I was denied a defence of truth and honest opinion, skipped formal proof and went straight to sentencing.

My crime has been to speak the truth and speak up on a matter of serious public corruption, it has been 8 years I have had every bit of spin and every bit of avoidance, it is painfully obvious that no one knows who the law enforcement authority was and there was no accountability to the public.

I should not be the scape goat. If New Zealand wished to strive to be the least corrupt country in the world then it would instigate a full investigation into this matter and see that whistle blowers are compensated as intended by the United Nations convention against corruption.

While New Zealand is still covering up corruption it will never be able to ratify the convention. We cannot continue to pretend that there is no corruption the only way to deal with it is to meet it head on.

I therefore ask for you Mr Key to direct that the minister for MPI conduct a full investigation into this matter together with lawyers versed in criminal law and Trusts.

I am happy to assist I am a former Police Prosecuting Sergeant and am currently a licenced Private investigator, the matter is already well investigated and researched.

Additionally I request financial assistance to relieve the financial hardship which I am experiencing due to having blown the whistle. I would not be in the position that I find myself in today if the government had acted responsibly and relied on evidence rather than hearsay.

I will soon be attending an international anti-corruption conference and hope that I can report that NZ is taking corruption seriously. I will also send a copy of this to the United Nations for their reference and also publish this on www.transparency.net.nz
I see this as a true test of the ethics of our current government.

A government for businesses.

we the peopleIn the famous Gettysburg  address Abraham Lincoln stated

  “government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth”

Well he was wrong  , the year was  1863 and  New Zealand was still in  its infancy   and no one  would have thought that this would be the country  where  democracy  would become a farce.

We vote  for the members, in a competition  where by money rules , those supported through secret trusts   and  large businesses have the biggest adverting   budget and we all know how effective advertising is

Once into office the  debt to  the sponsors needs to be  re paid .  There are  several ways of  doing this  so as to make it look like it is an open an transparent process

One way is through the New Zealand Business and Parliament Trust.

This is a charitable trust which was set up in 1991  by PATRICK LEDGER GOODMAN and DRYDEN THOMAS SPRING  “To advance and encourage business understanding of Parliament and parliamentarians’ understanding of the business community of New Zealand’

( a quick look at their backgrounds  shows  that they are very well connected

GOODMAN  one of the wealthiest families in New Zealand and Australia, with an estimated worth of $A770 million see also Goodman dynasty cooks up recipe for success

SPRING held a number of directorships including Nufarm Ltd., Maersk NZ Ltd., Affco Ltd., Fletcher Building Ltd., Sky City Entertainment Group Ltd., Northport Ltd., Deputy Chairman of Goodman Fielder Ltd., Chairman of Ericcson NZ Ltd. Chairman Of Tenon Ltd., Deputy Chairman Of Ports Of Auckland Ltd., Deputy Chairman of The Rural Banking and Finance Corp of New Zealand. He was formerly a member of The APEC Eminent Persons Group, which in 1993 drafted the APEC Vision of Free and Open Trade in the Asia Pacific, a member of APEC Business Advisory Council, Chairman of Asia New Zealand Foundation,

the members are listed  here

Each business has an MP assigned to them ( called associate members ) they are listed here some companies e.g. Fonterra  has several MPs .

So while we the mere mortals  who  believe we live in a  democratic society have difficulty in accessing our MPS  this is not so  for  big  business.

There does not appear to be any legislation which supports MPs membership to  this trust  and I have done an OIA to clarify this .

I have also asked if we can set up   an organization along the same lines which  educates MPs with regards to  corruption

until we get an independent commission agaisnt corruption we will have

Government  of our businesses  by those who have been sponsored  by businesses to support businesses.

I also have to  wonder  why David Cunliffe  was the only one to disclose  his role in the New Zealand Business and Parliament Trust.

What does Transparency International – New Zealand Know about corruption ?

TI-NZOpen letter to the Directors of Transparency International New Zealand

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.

Our very own minister of Justice said this week that we have  a legal system not a justice system 

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

with  sponsors

  • 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
  • Corrections
  • 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
  • PwC
  • Deloitte
  • KPMG
  • Human Rights Commission Launch Day
  • School of Government Institute for Governance and Policy Studies Wellington
  • Wellington Girls College
  • Thorndon New World
  • NZTE
  • 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 )
  • blackmail
  • fraud
  • theft
  • embezzlement
  • tax evasion
  • forgery
  • 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 funded by government departments

parliaments watchdogTransparency 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

Income
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
Other                                                 $55.000

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.

auditor gen  integrity result diag

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

how fraud was detected ,   Fraud types   and methods of committing fraud

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   .

Fraud types  

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.

methods of committing fraud

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.

 

 

  • 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.

 

 

 

 

  • 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

watchdog

Auckland council naive about Identity and the law

identity crisisI have it  in black and white   Auckland council have no policy   with regards to  trading with  undefined or unidentifiable  entities.

My  long over due LGOIMA was addressed  last night the actual response is here EY report response

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
Body.

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