Animal welfare institute of New Zealand
Ever wondered why New Zealand is the least corrupt in the OECD , well this is why.
In 2006 I questioned the accountability that the Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand (AWINZ) had to the public
AWINZ is an approved Organisation under the Animal welfare act and has law enforcement powers. Neil Wells who wrote the bill for the act with his own ambitions for a Territorial animal welfare authority in mind , made the application on behalf of AWINZ to the minister in 1999 and in so doing made several false claims including the false allegation that a trust deed existed and that it was being incorporated.
Wells a former head of the the SPCA, intended to make his money by providing local governments with the resources to extend dog control and stock control ( both statutory responsibilities of council ) to include the duties traditionally carried out by the SPCA.
Local government New Zealand objected to territorial authorities being involved in a central government role, but despite this Wells tried to keep his ambition alive by creating the concept of a trust and made an application to the minister .
The reality is that his claims were no more and no less what John Davies was found guilty of and Mary Anne Thompson is facing fraud charges for.
But such as it was it was not Wells who was had up for making false claims, it was me the whistle blower who was executed. Defamation charges were filed to sielnce me and so with my statutory defence of truth and honest opinion denied Judge Roderick Joyce ordered me to pay costs in the vicinity of $140,000 for speaking the truth . The learned Judge came to the conclusion that mr " wells had got ahead of himself .His honour was forced to go on line to find evidence to substantiate his stand against me. ( ironically Joyce has reprimanded jurors for exactly this )
I appealed the decision in February 2009 but the wheels of justice have failed to deliver a decision as yet but never mind with lawyers bills of round the $100,000 mark the cost judgemnt still hovering inthe background and a now broken marriage I have to be grateful that I live in a democracy a civilised society where openness and transparency exists in governance and justice.
This week an official information act release arrived as here with it states “ The trustees of AWINZ have subsequently made a voluntary decision, which has been advised to the Minister of Agriculture, to relinquish AWINZ's status as an approved organisation under the Act. "
But apart from this document ,which is now 3 months old, there is no indication that anything has changed and my sources reveal that AWINZ still operates as it has done for the past 9 years being that this trading name contracts to Central and local Government. Wells is now the manager of animal welfare Waitakere and effectively " contracts" to himself.
The concept is ingenious- an SPCA which operated from council premises, uses council staff , vehicles and resources , prioritises animal welfare work over council work and all that was left for Wells to do ( apart from collecting his council wages ) is to collect the public donations ,solicited in council paid envelopes sent out with dog regsitration , and banking them into a bank account which bearing the name " animal welfare institute of New Zealand " over which only Neil Wells had control over.
This is a classic example as to the lack of transparency in New Zealand and serves as a warning to any one who questions what they believe to be a conflict of interest in a public private relationship . How many more AWINZ’s are there out there , why is it so difficult to question corruption – Oh that’s where we came in New Zealand is the least corrupt in the OECD I know because the statistics show it. Don’t look under the rug that’s where we smother the whistle blowers.
Comments
corruption in New Zealand
We need more people to remove the rugs. However I know just how brave and tough people have to be to do this. They also need a huge financial base because the ones doing the corruption victimise the ones speaking out by taking them to court - therein abusing the justice system. That's why they keep getting away with it.
Not a surprise here.
No surprises here! It is because animal rights activism within Aotearoa is so bourgeois that nothing changes, so no wonder McDonalds, Burger King, abattoirs, factory farms, animal circuses and animal testing laboratories are allowed to operate and Samoans are permitted to eat dogs.
Poor Jumbo!
Disgusting
Megan the Vegan, it is disgusting your comment is hidden because you are spot on: animal rights activism within New Zealand is bourgeois!!! (I think it is because the movement has been hijacked by Greenpeace, Safe, the Green Party, etc which are very mainstream groups that are run by middleclass individuals) This is just another case of the editors being oversensitive and pooh-poohing anyone that is not a part of their mediocre attitude and being inflexible and dogmatic with a policy, which can be easily changed or ignored. By hiding your statement and others like it they are only turning this avenue of expressing opinions into a humdrum and middle-of-the-road channel, just like John Campbell’s Live (really brain-dead) TV show!!!
its not about animals it is about humans
How can animals have rights when people are denied the fundamental right of freedom of speech , freedom of expression and the right to justice .
The animal welfare act was written by a vegan who has been an animal rights activist see http://www.awinz.co.nz/Neil%20Wells.htm.
If Humans have no rights to freedom of speech and expression where does that leave the rights of animals ?
If people can't speak up then animals are vulnerable.
If a so caled humanitarian has to tell lies to get an animal welfare group set up what other lies are being told ?
AWINZ also claimed that no animals were hurt in the making of the lord of the rings see http://www.awinz.co.nz/Lord%20of%20the%20rings.htm
So if they say no they do not shoot dogs at the back of the animal welfare compound in Waitakere can you beleive them?
Actually I hid that for it's
Actually I hid that for it's racist comment, not to do with anything else.
Kerry A-IMC ed
mixed standards Friday
mixed standards
Friday October 9 2009 - 10:12pm
First we had the fake qualifications of john Davies, then there was Mary-Anne Thompson who tried presented a fraudulent CV but they are not alone. Whilst the government acts in some cases a blind eye appears to be turned to far greater frauds.
Imagine making an application to the minister of Agriculture so that your "organisation" could become an animal welfare organisation such as the SPCA. You make the application by making false claims to the minister that your "organisation" a trust has been formed by way of trust deed and is being incorporated by virtue of the charitable trust act 1957 . Without any one checking to see if the organisation actually exists or if any of the statements made are true, the application is approved and as a result a new animal welfare law enforcement agency is born.
The Trading name of this “organisation " contracts to a local council (through the manager of animal welfare division who effectively contracts to himself as head of the "organisation")
The “organisation” operates from council premises leased for $1 per annum according to documents MAF holds ( although the council will deny this) uses the dog control and stock control officers as staff( in their voluntary capacity but they don’t know this they think it is a requirement of the job ) and collects donations from the public which disappear into a bank account controlled only by the manager / organisation head .
It is a perfect concept, all the income without any outgoing effectively a leach on a public resource and there is no danger of being sued, because a trading name cannot be sued and the people who now claim to be the " trust" now are not the ones who were " named" on the application to the minister.
So if false Cv's are worthy of prosecution and Taito Phillip Field was be prosecuted for his deceit, why is the government not acting on false applications to the minister and allowing a law enforcement authority which has no legal standing and has origins in fraud to continue to exist. Why is this being condoned and why was some one who questioned these circumstances sued to ensure silence. What else is being covered up ?
We know that the “animal welfare Institute of new Zealand” has strong labour connections but why is National allowing it to continue to operate when the circumstances have been brought to their attention.
Good information
This is good information Grace and it is great to see it published!
It is yet another example of how complacent the public has become and how the burden of information and its prosecution can be left as dependent on a private citizen.
There is a level of reprehensible cowardice associated with main stream media where you can get left to carry the financial burden for investigating for the rest of us (the public interest) and we pay them handsomely (TVNZ & RNZ) for their interpretations of the most significant local and international affairs.
Kind regards,
Benjamin Easton
LAOS New Zealand
Freedom of speech
Thank you Benjamin , very few realise just how much our rights to question corruption are suppressed , Kiwis don’t question, they prefer to see the old New Zealand that was and not the corrupt society we have.
If we cannot question corruption it will only spread , if there is no openness and transparency then what we have is only an illusion and not reality.
Those in power prefer to hammer those who question rather than make those who have transgressed accountable. Take Vince for example why are they attacking him just because he questioned the suppression of Judge Winkelmanns decisions which threw out 6 of the 9 search warrants on the basis that there was "No reasonable grounds for issue of (the) warrants".
What is being done with regards to those who issued the warrants and obtained them without reasonable grounds .. why is it condoned and why is the public not allowed to know that a judge made this finding.
Has it got something to do with the new legislation which seeks wider powers for search and seizure? It appears that If the police can't act within the law we amend the law.
I was a police sergeant 20 years ago and have been a PI for 5 years , this world is different to the police service I served in , so much so that I think I am on a different planet .
So we give the Police Greater powers of search and seizure but we restrict Private investigators ability to collect evidence for the defence by continuing to deny them the right to take Photographs and make recordings.
And with what has been illustrated in the AWINZ matter - I don’t even have the right to question what many new Zealanders see as Fraudulent behaviour. Where are the guide lines what is the law when it is not upheld equally for all and whether you are prosecuted or not or have a fair hearing through the courts depends on who you are and what connections the other parties have to the " old boys net work"
It is time for New Zealanders to wake up . who will tomorrows target be? Hear no evil speak no evil see no evil.. lets all pretend that we live in the perfect society.. corruption free.
Right to remain silent
Just briefly on the point you have raised, it was raised with me last night in political conversation while busking on the street. The man I was talking with directly drew my attention to this legislation. Maybe you or anyone else would have an idea if he was right without my having to dig under any more rugs where I have more than enough on my plate at the moment.
What powers do new provisions have in respect of the police questioning? Is the right to remain silent in anyway under threat? If it is then I will put some energy into it…
As you know Vince is in Court on Thursday I think. I am in the Court of Appeal in Wellington on Wednesday so cannot get there. However, I plan to file an affidavit to his proceedings sharing the burden of his publication by replicating it in part in the affidavit.
If we have a public prepared to flag self esteem allowing their liberty to be kicked to oppression, then that public should feel the shame as deep as any who do the kicking.
the right to silence
Police have lost the ability to investigate , they are after quick clearances and therefore we should not throw obstacles in their path where by citizens could remain silent. , many offences now days including the ones written into the animal welfare act are now have become strict liability this means that your moggy only needs to become ill and you ca be had up for negligence… takes care of the need for any guilty intentions and has a quick turn over of revenue.
You have to remember that sometimes silence by an accused can be taken as a sign of guilt . But every one has the right not to incriminate themselves .But if an explanation is called for consideration is to be given to the acceptable levels of truth.
The acceptable levels of truth are set by politicians, lawyers and spin doctors and I strongly recommend that you follow their standards for to be more truthful than that is ecxtemely expensive. Look at what truth cost me , It cost Vince Siemer $940,000 when he spoke out about the ethics of Stiassny and Bob Moodie aka Alice had a similar story to tell when she wandered into wonder land.
Truth is but a perception don’t be fooled by your own definition of it adopt the illusion of truth and she will be right, that concept is apparently the accepted norm.
To clarify this Neil Wells in 1999 declared to the minister “a trust has been formed by way of trust deed and is being incorporated under the charitable trust act" . No trust deed existed and it was never incorporated. MAF has defended Wells statement ( as they dont want to be seen lacking in verification) , the court has defended it ( although they did say Mr. Wells got a head of himself - try that with the tax man or winz ) Previous ministers have defended it.
Wells is a barrister and by me proving with facts and factual documents, that this statement was not true I was severely punished .
Therefore his statement to the minister must have been true even though there is no evidence of it being true , the only conclusion I can reach is that my concept of truth is wrong.
I have learnt the truth hurts and truth must therefore be avoided at all times.
The truth is that there is corruption in New Zealand and our statistics say there is not.. We all know that Statistics cannot be manipulated or wrong.
Eating dogs is wrong.
What is racist about Samoans eating dogs? It is a fact and it happened in August this year in Auckland.
To a Vegan is there a
To a Vegan is there a difference between a person eating a cow or a person eating a dog? The comment I hid was collectivising an individual case and generalising an entire culture in the process. To me this is racist and that is why I hid it.
Kerry A-IMC ed.
corruption
I can't speak for other parts of government, but the regulation of animal welfare is riddled with corruption. The Animal Welfare Act was not started by a vegan; according to Senior Lecturer in Animal Law Peter Sankoff, it was started by farmers' groups, concerned, not with animals, but their image overseas. MAF olicy documents confirm that they see animal welfare as a market access issue. Ie animals only count when European customers are looking.
The codes of so-called welfare are written by the industry, and I have documents from a high powered lawyer employed by the Egg Producers Federation, threatening legal action against the supposedly independent MAF appointed body NAWAC, if NAWAC or MAF dare to interfere with "their" code, giving hens freedom from cages. Naturally MAF stood up to the threat for about the same amount of time as a walnut stands up to a sledgehammer.
Animal Rights groups took the code of so-called welfare for battery hens to the Regulations Review Committee, and the committee agreed that keeping hens in cages, did not meet the requirements of the Animal Welfare Act. Then minister of agriculture Jim Anderton was shamelessly lobbied and threatened by the Egg Producers Federation, and as a result he totally ignored the Parliamentary Select Committee recommendations.
Animal Activists played the game by the government's own rules, and won. The government responded by changing the rules. The same happened with the Colin Kay piggery (the one exposed by Mike King). It was found to be clearly in breach of the code of so-called welfare for pigs. I was at MAF meetings when the MAF staff admitted this. But after being given clandestine lunch dates with the Pork Board, MAF simply retrospectively changed the rules to suit the industry.
It is no wonder animal activists resort to illegal or semi-legal actions when all avenues for legitimate legal action are blocked by dishonest and corrupt politicians and their industry bosses.
To qualify changing rules to suit a common practice
Mike this is slightly off topic against animal welfare but I was in proceedings recently with the Broadcasting Commission (NZ on Air) and the Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA). I had an argument that under duty to consult and ensure all views are protected, NZ on Air had abrogated the statutory responsibility exercising ordinary practice instead, being purposefully lax and damaging fatherhood by not protecting it to respect and dignity – allowing instead mainstream media and advertising to run men into the ground as if they are the only perpetrators of domestic violence. I thought I had a pretty good case which never got substantively into the Court of Appeal (on appeal) – where the Supreme Court ruled that my arguments needed to outweigh the call for several thousands of dollars of security.
What happened is the NZ on Air lawyer – filed an application on behalf of the BSA using the BSA signature, merely changing a few fonts and references to make it appear like different parties filled out the application (directly misleading the Court). This is collusion by overshadowing the independent responsibilities of the BSA (as a judicial body and Crown entity). To do this under the Crown Entity Act 2004, the BSA had to give its authority of delegation. The statute is very clear. The action was never denied and the application modification was admitted. Additionally and in my submission the removal from due process was substantively significant because it was NZ on Air that had so much to cover up (not protecting over a long period to engage and consult with the controversial views) and in the substantive proceedings of an appeal (still to be heard) the BSA is going to lose hands down (they directly altered the wording and meaning of the complaint in order to make it easier to dismiss).
The High Court judge ruling against me said this was ‘ordinary practice’. The lawyers said the judge knew that the same party had compiled both applications, as if having a judicial body abrogating statute where acting dependent on a Commission was not an offence within the public interest. The Court of Appeal thereafter and the Supreme Court all ignored this act and the application went against me without my points of appeal getting before the Court.
However, I can in fact draw relativity to the main thread of Grace’s comments. At the same time I was in proceedings against the Bank of New Zealand where they had funded an outright and offensive gender discriminatory advertisement proving that the bank had failed to follow in almost every regard their responsibilities under the International Standards for advertising. There can be no denial of this and the bank didn’t attempt to deny it either. The relativity of the proceedings to the thread is that the BNZ employed the same lawyer that NZ on Air employed. It was stunning to think that the money bags of the private sector dealing in abrogating international advertising standards were employing the very same high flying lawyer as the money bags of broadcasting for failing to respect the very same codes. If that isn’t corruption – then as Grace says – I don’t know what it means.
The link – NZ on Air and the BNZ think more about pigs than they do about fathers.
Sorry the other point was:
Sorry: the other point was that while this was all going on the Ministry of Justice amended the High Court Rules to allow the event to take place even though by changing the rules it protects the lawyers to cover each others backs even if acting in expedient impropriety.
I lost both cases - the NZ on Air as above and the BNZ because even though I proved my case the Chief High Court Judge judge Randerson ruled that I as a man and a father had no standing to bring the bank to court saying that the bank was treating men and fatherhood like they have no standing in society.
animal welfare act
The animal welfare act came about after two bills wee considered by the select committee. the first bill was written by Neil Wells a vegan and animal activist according to news paper articles dating back to the mid 70's
Wells a Labour stalwart lobbied for the new act and with his own idea of being gainfully employed by converting council dog officers into animal welfare officers wrote that bill.
A second bill was introduced and the two were heard together and amalgamated into the animal welfare act 1999
The welfare codes were written separately after the act became law.
The animal welfare act provides for approved organisation which have law enforcement responsibilities my issue is that this " organisation was founded on Lies and it is questionable that it existed in any form other than neil wells at the time.
You may also wish to read the letters from the American humane society which show the injuries to the animal on the set of the lord of the rings when Neil Wells used the trading name Animal welfare institute of New Zealand misappropriating the tag line of the American humane society to claim that injuries had occurred there by giving Lord of the rings a false end title. See letters from AHA Read the letters from the American Humane association ( AHA)
animal welfare act
Grace Neil Wells worked with me at MAF, and he was a fairly typical beaurocrat and not an animal activist (nor was I at the time). As far as I know his diet was no different from many others who profess to "care" for animals while eating their flesh. When I spoke to him he certainly did not display any vegan tendencies.
Maf appears to look after their own
I can only comment on the documentary proof I have and that which I have seen with my own eyes .
Man has traditionally eaten the flesh of animals and while some may see this as offensive others see it as a traditional right and an essential part of the food chain, or should we also seek to convert all carnivores to herbivores.
Man is part of nature , it is natural for us to eat meat, in my opinion it is also natural to look after fellow man and not be hypocritical to ones religion and those who claim to be humanitarian should at least treat those of the same species in a humane manner.
It is news to me that Wells worked at MAF that is an aspect which MAF has sought to deny and distance itself from.
It makes it more apparent of the inside dealings and why they are protecting him.
It was probably their trust in him which made them believe what he said that is why he could make such un true statements and be protected by them for all repercussions for telling porkies to the minister.
I have become curious about you Michael are you the same Michael Morris who is/was connected to Transparency International New Zealand (TI-NZ),or are you the animal welfare researcher and Tauranga resident Dr. Michael Morris - or are they both one and the same .
I think Neil was actually
I think Neil was actually contracted by MAF, he was not an employer. But it probably makses no difference; they would want to protect him anyway. The animal welfare division was next to the animal imports division where I used to work.
Man (and to some extent woman) has traditionally eaten meat, just has he has traditionally kept slaves, waged war, raped looted and pillaged. Our ancestors did indeed eat meat. They also spoke in grunts, lived in caves, had very poor hygiene and did not own cell phones. Most of us have moved on since then.
I live in Tauranga and work as a tertiary teacher. My namesake works for Transparency international and he is the one who stated that New Zealand is one of the least corrupt countries in the world. He is probably right as far as it goes. It just means that corruption is more subtle. Instead of the open cheque book, the cosy lunches with the old boy network. Instead of the masked thugs, the cleverly worded legal threats, couched in so much verbiage it takes special training in law to even realise it is a threat.
More subtle corruption in our public service; but just as effective.
animals in films
Dear Grace, I have just looked at the AHA letter you linked to about concerns on the LOTR set, and it appears as if the treatment of animals in films is something that the animal rights community in New Zealand has so far neglected. With more high budget films being shot in New Zealand this is something we need to be more aware of.
I had no idea of Neil Wells' questionable practices, but knowing what I do of other corruption in MAF and NAWAC it certainly does not surprise me. What is surprising though is that I actually found MAF to be a fairly decent employer. Though I was employed at a different division.
Illusions
As a private Investigator I see that the number one cause of all corruption / fraud starts with trust. People who are trusted so much that others rely on their word without corroboration are in a position of power. When that position of power is abused every one feels foolish for having ben conned and human nature then dictates that a lot of arse covering goes on.
Such is the case in this matter. When the whole thing is finally exposed there will be many heads in nooses not for having been a party to the offence but for having been a party to the concealment.
I have learnt a lot from my observance of this con and I have seen how getting other influential persons involved in a con makes it even more successful.
In New Zealand only lawyers and those who have access to bucket loads of money have access to the law.
I proved that AWINZ was not incorporated by incorporating the identical name under the charitable trust act . I was phoned by Vivienne Parre ( a non practicing lawyer ) late one night and told to give up the name( awinz) or I would be sued. When her threats didn’t work her husband Nick Wright a Brookfields resource management lawyer tried some intimidation.
When that failed they filed a statement of claim three trustees claiming to be the trustees of AWINZ although they did not have a deed showing that they were AWINZ trustees and the deed which did exist said there had to be 4 trustees .
However three people claiming to be AWINZ trustees took the matter to court - Breach of fair trading act .. Now given that AWINZ was their trading name and one of the trustees Wyn Hoadley had become a trustee only after we had incorporated our trust.. how could we be trading on their name?
The other claim- a Tort passing off.. well that is what they were actually doing as the original documents for the AWINZ trust concept included Waitakere city Council as the settler .Our web site clearly said that we were a different trust.
Finally they threw defamation in as a persuader because I had called it a sham trust in correspondence to Waitakere city councillors and had made some factual statemnts about wells which showed his true colours.
When we first appeared before Judge Sharp I was told to hand over the name and give up the web site pay $2000 and give an apology to wells . She added that if I did not my life would be miserable-this was without any evidence being heard and without any affidavits in support of the statement of claim
As a former police prosecutor I still believed in that fairy tale called justice .I did nto think that a judge could do that but apparently that is acceptable in our courts. In the end Judge sharp was right . I have discovered that evidence and truth play no part in our courts and those who can spin can embroider anything, it is not so much about being right having the evidence but who you are and who you know.
But I look upon this as a positive thing I can help my clients so much better because I know how corrupt the system is and how much everything is an illusion.
Cold dark orb which rules the night
Takes the colours from our sight
Red is black and yellow white
Only we decide what is right
and what is an illusion …. Moody Blues
I choose not to live in the illusionary world .