Dear Sirs .
There is one fundamental issue with the complaints system in New Zealand .. it is out of date and does not appear to comply with the standard for complaints AS/NZS 10002:2014
I note that the Good administration guides are all about 5 years old and probably out of line with the Changes to the Ombudsmen Act and official information legislation document dated May 2017.
Just recently I blogged about the reliance by authorities on the unreasonable complainant conduct manual
and commented that this manual was pretty much identical to the one used in New South Wales , the fundamental difference is that here in New Zealand whistleblowers are often labeled unreasonable complainants, in an attempt to drive home the message the complainant will provide more evidence and where the toll of whistleblowing is starting to show the whistleblower may resort to highlighting text, bolding it and in conversations may raise their voice due to frustration . the easy course to take is to say AHAH an unreasonable complainant.
In New South wales the complainant can go to the Independent commission against corruption who will independently investigate the matter .
In New Zealand you go to the Police who say it is too serious and the SFO who say sorry not serious enough .
It appears some australian states have adopted the standard for complaints AS/NZS 10002:2014 and have published a document in 2015 and 2016 which guides Public sector agencies through the complaint process.
The publications can be found at these links
[PDF]complaint management framework – Ombudsman SA www.ombudsman.sa.gov.au/wp-content/…/Complaint_Management_Framework.pdf
[PDF]Complaint management framework and model … – NSW Ombudsman https://www.ombo.nsw.gov.au/__…/Complaint-management-framework-June-2015.p…
[PDF]Good Practice Guide to Handling Complaints – Parliament of Victoria https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/…/Tabling_copy_VO_Report_A_good_practice_g…
[PDF]Effective complaint handling guidelines – International Ombudsman … www.theioi.org/downloads/…/Effective-complaint-handling-guidelines-Third-edition….
and the company registration also has its policy
[PDF]Complaint management policy – ASIC download.asic.gov.au/…/complaint-management-policy-for-external-publishing-final….
In New Zealand we appear to be hell bent on ” writing complaints off ” covering up and doing what it takes to preserve our corruption free image .
As a whistleblower with over 11 years experience of banging my head on a brick wall I have also noted that identity fraud in New Zealand is only dealt with by the department of internal affairs . the companies office on the other hand unlike ASIC , looks at compliance and does nothing about the use of “trading names ” and similar names
My complaint about the approved organisation Animal welfare institute was thrown out by your office because no one identified the fact that the court had been seriously misled through the introduction of a trust which bore the same name as the fictional law enforcement authority .
the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand ( AWINZ ) was an undefined trading name it was a falsely portrayed as being a legal entity by a lawyer who has now been proved to be corrupt .
He set up a trust with the identical name and misled the court and MAF by switching one for the other and thereby pulled off the perfect fraud .
MPI never checked if AWINZ existed and processed the application with an unsigned trust deed. they didn’t even question why the subsequent deed that was provided to them 7 years later differed from the signed copy which i was given for court.
Nor did they question why The minister had been told on the 25th march 2000 that the deed had been sent on for registration when in reality it had never been incorporated in any way .
Also a simple check of the trust deed would have revealed the out right lies as there is no 20 (a) in the deed.
MAF at the time were clearly out of their depth and had not the faintest idea what a legal entity was and how they should deal with an unincorporated trust . They relied on Mr Wells experience as a barrister and was prone to drafting documents for the ministry
Mr Wells who wrote the No 1 bill for the animal welfare act and inserted the provisions of an approved Organisation to fulfil his own business plan in to the new legislation on which he advised as “independent advisor “to the select committee without apparently declaring his conflict of interest.
He made a fraudulent application to MaF claiming that AWINZ existed as a trust and was in the process of being registered quite clearly this was a lie as the trust deed showed the trust was formed after this date and AWINZ was never incorporated it was at all times an undefined trading name which was given legal existence without actually having any . What made this so important was the fact that this was a Prosecuting authority under statute .
It would have been impossible for anyone to hold AWINZ accountable , new trustees were magically switched in in 2006 to give it a pseudo appearance of legitimacy . I say magic as no real or legitimate process was involved . But MAF was very happy to cover it all up .
I Brought it to the attention of the council , Maf and a multitude of government departments and 11 years on I am still being persecuted . Government departments like the companies office look for compliance they don’t prosecute that is why it is so open to abuse .
Whistleblowers in New Zealand are treated very poorly to blow the whistle means to devastate your life. it is therefore essential that we have proper complaint procedures and staff who know what they are doing and don’t ask the alleged offender for guidance.
I may have forwarded one or two of her very early Emails for Mr Wells’ awareness/comment/response.
they also state that MAF needed to provide assurances to the minister that AWINZ accountability met requirements of the act.. how could they possibly have achieved this when the organisation was a total fiction ? This is Wells OIA request
The significance of the existence of an entity also goes to the heart of any agreements .Here Joanne Tuckwell states
and it states “This Memorandum of Understanding between the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand
(AWINZ) and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) ”
definition ” “AWINZ” means the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand. – this shows that MAF clearly thought that AWINZ was a legal person in its own right But Neil Wells signs as trustee and conceals the reality that the application was not made by any trust ( there was no trust meeting which would have allowed him to sign for the other trustees, the trustees of he 200 deed never met ) and that AWINZ is not a legal person in its own right .
Now that Neil Wells has been proved to be deceitful and a person who is less than honest in his roll as barrister , I hope that this may be used to test out a robust complaint procedure. 11 years of victimisation for whistleblowing is enough .
Please implement the standards adopted by australia and enforce them .
It is unreasonable to treat whistleblowers as unreasonable complainants no one should have to go through what I have been subjected to .
I look forward to finding some Fairness .
Leave a Reply