carterton 'event centre/facility' white elephant

The widespread opposition to the proposed 'Carterton Events Centre' is well justified. We had a Community Centre in Carterton, and a Health Centre, and a Borough Farm. Gary McPhee and Georgina Beyer have divided and poisoned the community and closed, demolished and sold most of our most valuable community assets.

The Friends of the Carterton Community Centre is calling for a proper inquiry into the affairs of the Carterton District Council, particularly regarding the affairs of the former Carterton Community Centre, and a judicial review of the election on the grounds that there were several irregularities resulting in serious disadvantage and undemocratic practice, namely that the voters were sent the candidate profiles for the candidates for Central Otago, the electoral officers refused to publish one of my candidate profiles at all, the votes were counted in Christchurch by the same company who had demonstrated their incompetence by sending out the profiles for the candidates from Central Otago. It was wrong to count the votes in Christchurch, it disadvantaged me by preventing me having a scrutineer present at the counting of the votes.
Furthermore, after I submitted my declaration of expenses the electoral officers have refused to refund my nomination deposits, and falsely claimed to have not received the declaration of expenses after I wrote to ask what they delay was in returning my deposits.
It is no coincidence that the deputy returning officer was none other than Julie Hallam, who lied to NZ Post regarding who was on the committe of the Carterton Community Centre, shortly before joining her other associates from the Carterton District Council on the committee of the former Community Centre - an obvious conflict of interest as the Council was a major funder of the Centre. She was instrumental, along with others on the Council, in closing the Centre in order to conceal the fraud and mismanagement endemic under the administration of the group of people associated with the Council.
Several lawyers, and the petition, point to the need for a proper inquiry into the affairs of the Carterton District Council and the proposed ' Events Centre".
Nobody in their right mind would give the "trustees" of the "heart of Carterton" "trust" any money toward what they claim is a community facility because the group of people associated with the 'trust' would not know the meaning of the word community. My motto for the election was "vote for Kate and put the unity back in the community."
When I stood at the last election I used the time allocated to speak at the public meeting in Carterton to read out the report of the Office of the Auditor General on the Carterton District Council. I was the only one of the four candidates for the Mayoralty to mention this report, it took about eight minutes or so to read it out, and by the time I had finished, the audience was sitting in stunned silence as I pointed out that what they had just heard was not my opinion of the gross incompetence of the Carterton District Council, but the opinion of the Office of the Auditor General, but that although I have a good imagination, if I sat down and thought really hard I couldn't think up anything worse, because there quite simply wasn't anything worse that could be said. The report was utterly damning in every possible way.
Parts of it can be read towards the end of the post containing the submission to the Police Complaints Authority from Michael Appleby on this blog.
Now Environment Minister Nick Smith is talking about appointing a Commissioner to run the affairs of the Carterton District Council because of their continuing poor performance regarding compliance issues. The sooner the better for the people of Carterton.
The reason for the high rates of suicide, violence and crime in general in the Wairarapa are a result of the poor role models - recidivist violent offender Gary McGoofy and George-ina Beyer and the local police. Their claims that it will take 20 years or more to acheive any real results from their Rise Above It campaigns is right because these dubiously appointed community leaders, and others such as Tere Torea, Garth Gadsby, Councillor Boof Lyford, the members of the Martinborough 'community' vigilante group, and the young son of the local policeman who is accused of murdering Paul Irons in circumstances of extreme cruelty and degradation.

When we learn to elect people who are fit to lead, who know what to do and how to do it, we will acheive much more, and fulfill our potential.

One of the four mayoral candidates made a big deal of knowing the difference between governance and management, but failed to understand that history has taught us that good governance includes understanding and overseeing management. Kieran Shaw, CEO of the Carterton District Council at the time of the fraud at the Community Centre involving Council finds, committed by Council members, officers, employees and associates, quit giving virtually no notice right before the damning Audit Office report saying basically he couldn't be bothered with all the paperwork.

Join the call for a proper inquiry into the Carterton District COuncil and the involvement of persons associated with the Council in the affairs of the Carterton Community Centre/Events Centre/Facility Focus Group, etc, so the town can finally move on!
PS: The spell checker doesn't work on this site, and life is short.

Transparency International NZ just a front for a few corrupt ex police and their wives by the look of it:

Transparency in New Zealand (Kiwikileaks) began from a realisation that the culture of dealing with complaints in New Zealand has become corrupted, and that corruption and incompetence are rife in the public sector.

I decided, after following the correct channels, writing endless letters to managers and ministers, and the Ombudsmen and the PCA, and politely pointing out that taxpayer funded organisations were blatantly corrupt, only to be fobbed off with even more corrupt responses, that the solution to this was to put the evidence of it on the internet. This is a new investigation service. It operates by putting the evidence of corruption and incompetence on the internet for all to see exactly how our taxes are spent. The last straw was when we discovered the truth about the government funded organisation Transparency International. The following reports are copied from Vince Seimer's website Kiwisfirst.com:

TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL INVISIBLE IN NEW ZEALAND

12 February 2009
In a 9 square metre closet next to the elevator shaft on the fourth floor of a former department store in Wellington resides an eight year old 'autonomous chapter' of the Berlin based Transparency International. The office is so obscure that a kiwisfirst staffer searching for the office in November resorted to asking a Courier delivering a package on the same floor where it was. The Courier had no clue. The closet office was finally found but no one was home. The only identification was a A4 letterhead stationary folded in half and taped to the locked red door. A business card was left on the door with a request to call, but no return call came.

A Wellington man first brought the NZ chapter to the attention of kiwisfirst a year ago. He had read on the Ministry of Justice website how TI had rated New Zealand along with Iceland the most transparent of the 180 countries it ranks. This raised questions for the man, so he phoned the office. A former kiwifruit salesman with dubious credentials answered the phone and introduced himself as the Chief Executive Officer. He was so pleased to have a phone call from another Kiwi, saying it was a rare thrill. He spoke effusively of the chapter's mission to bring transparency to the 'Pacific Islands'. It was minutes before the caller could squeeze in a question. Finally, the man asked what the chapter was doing about transparency in New Zealand and CEO Paul Browne haltingly responded that this was not a problem. The call abruptly ended.

Kiwisfirst finally got through in January. CEO Browne again answered the call and quickly went for the sell. TINZ was doing wonderful things, he said. Business corruption was a result of a lack of transparency and TINZ were deeply engaged in spreading religion to the hapless Pacific Island nations which desperately needed this gospel. Déja vu hit the reporter. He played along for a bit, until he found the opportunity during this gospel to ask the enlightened one how the Corruption Perception Index came to rate NZ tops in the world on transparency. Browne matter-of-factly responded the CPI was self evident. This allowed the reporter to ask him whether he was familiar with the October 2006 OECD report which would appear to beg to differ. "Yes", Browne countered defensively, emphatically adding the TI ranking "is a perception index". "New Zealanders believe NZ is highly transparent. My job is focused on Pacific Island nations."

He was asked whether TI's top ranking could be defended when it is actually touted on the NZ Ministry of Justice website as seeming validation why NZ Court judgments need to be trusted without accurate recording of hearings. What others do with TI's opinions was outside their control, he asserted. He insisted TI did not promote the CPI as anything but perception. He was then asked whether the organization was alarmed that the New Zealand Courts were wearing the TI CPI as a badge of honour when the Courts did not allow accurate recording - i.e. transparency - without expressed consent of the Judge. Mr Browne was now uncomfortable. He became suddenly busy. He apologized for having to cut short the call to attend to other pressing business.

The International, not-for-profit Berlin based Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) was founded some 15 years ago to actively work toward reducing corruption by promoting transparency in government and business environments. Since then, some 90 'independent national chapters' have sprung up. The New Zealand chapter has been around for 6 years. In contrast to the potent fight parent TI has waged to keep its official line promoted on websites like Wikipedia, source information for the New Zealand chapter was hard to come by for this story. Information from TINZ's official website www.transparencynz.org.nz was strong on platitudes but light on substance - if not misleading. The website link to "Newsletter and documents" did not work. It was soon discovered several directors were added to the website merely to effuse false credibility. Instead of the nine directors listed, inside information suggested there are actually only four.

Kiwisfirst emailed these four directors, as well as CEO Browne, seeking basic information such as number of NZ staff, sources of funding, a newsletter and an accurate list of directors. Every inquiry went unanswered - even a subsequent detailed request for the above information from New Zealander Jeremy Pope, a former New Zealand Law Journal Editor listed as a 'founding member' of the original Berlin Secretariat NGO. Mr Pope is not listed as connected with the local chapter.

According to the International Secretariat website "TI raises awareness and diminishes apathy and tolerance of corruption, and devises and implements practical actions to address it." Such nobleness has not insulated the Berlin parent from criticism. The organization has achieved some infamy over disclosures its funding has come from notoriously opaque (and corrupt) corporations such as ENRON. Secretariat staffers have responded by obtusely referring to the public bloggers ignorance of its goals, relationships with its 'independent national chapters' and fundraising methods on webpostings.

If transparency is the goal of the New Zealand chapter, one could at least say the organization is as invisible to New Zealanders as its closet office. From most reliable indications, the local chapter is little more than a fundraising and lobbying entity for certain NZ bureaucrats and businessmen.

The "Deputy Chairwoman" of TINZ, Claire Johnstone, is a principal in a consulting company called Sinclair Robertson Associates. SRA's website brags "We deliver strategic development services for a variety of clients, ranging from iwi groups to central and local government, not-for-profit organizations and small to medium sized enterprise. We have particular expertise in analyzing and presenting an organisation's business case. This has allowed us to raise equity or access grant funding from government for many of our clients."

Auspiciously omitted from Ms Johnstone's business profile on the SRA site is her directorship of 'not-for-profit' TINZ, as well as her current position as General Manager Corporate for the New Zealand Ministry of Transport. While such obvious conflicts do not necessarily suggest or lead to corruption, it is safe to say few people would find such conduct "transparent". SRA's website claims to entice new clients, coupled with obvious relevant omissions, do beg questions. Is TINZ a client of SRA and, if so, did TINZ benefit from the government largesse SRA (and government official Claire Johnstone) get for their clients? If so, omissions of information by double-dipping directors raise legitimate concerns. This is all the more worrisome if done by self-professed anti-corruption advocates of transparency.

TINZ Board Members are a snapshot of longstanding government bureaucrats, with Chairman Gerard McGhie touted as a "38 year member of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade". It begins to make sense why a fruit salesman is the chapter's CEO.

For a not-for-profit organisation actively soliciting donations, it is particularly surprising how clandestine the local chapter seems to be. It defies reason that any organisation would seemingly refuse to provide rudimentary information such as an accurate list of directors or newsletter. For this reason, Kiwisfirst will continue to investigate this story. Stay tuned.
BACK TO FRONT PAGE

TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL NEW ZEALAND ORDERS ARREST OF ANTI-CORRUPTION ADVOCATE

11 December 2009
In a stinging irony - on United Nations International Anti-Corruption Day no less - Chairman Gerald McGhie of Transparency International's "autonomous" New Zealand chapter ordered Police to arrest public watchdog Penny Bright for trespassing at its Annual General Meeting on Wednesday. This was despite the government-funded group riding her coat-tails as a watchdog front ostensibly focused on increasing transparency and exposing corruption. Attendees were given pamphlets with the bold heading "CORRUPTION RUINS LIVES - FIGHT BACK". Once inside, the local chapter's newsletter on the information table lauded Ms Bright as an "Anti-corruption campaigner".

Bright is due to appear at Wellington District Court on the criminal charge Monday.

Despite Transparency International New Zealand's website encouraging new memberships and guests to attend the AGM, which featured Attorney General Chris Finlayson as speaker, at least five applications for membership were declined and five others were turned away from the meeting. Only 20-25 people did attend. The drama was caught on film by a TV cameraman, including the small protest against the organisation conducted outside the high rise office building.

Ms Bright paid $56 to join the non-profit organisation earlier this month and had travelled down from Auckland to Wellington to attend the AGM at the law offices of Minter Ellison Rudd Watts. CEO Paul Browne met her at the door and announced "You are not welcome (here) Ms Bright". Ms Bright was one of six who initially did not accept this polite rejection.

Ms Bright has been critical this year of Transparency International New Zealand as a "perpetrator of the myth" that New Zealand has low corruption. She has recently alleged the closed-shop and secretive nature of the not-for-profit organisation goes against every principle it supposedly stands for. While her membership was not declined, she asserts that those who have been declined were not given reasons for such declination - and that this failure directly conflicts with TINZ's membership application which states reasons will be provided where an application is declined.

Ms Bright, a self-funded public watchdog who operates on a shoe-string budget, has repeatedly asked TINZ for information as to its financial funding, expenditures and meeting minutes. The response has been silence.

Kiwisfirst has surreptitiously obtained TINZ's 2009 financials, which seem to raise suspicions about their stiff-arm to requests for this information. $544,446 of their 2009 revenue came from an auspicious NZAID grant, while only $5,791 came from membership subscriptions. It appears that TINZ has no employees. Office rent for 2009 was only $3,118. Meanwhile, there are some seemingly un-transparent and rather large expenditures of $281,820 for "core funding", $75,778 for "civics education" and $40,655 for "peer learning network".

As reported earlier this year by kiwisfirst, Transparency International New Zealand's Board of Directors seems comprised of feather-nesting bureaucrats with fingers in businesses that benefit from covering-up corruption. That type of deception might be arguably innocuous if the organisation was not overtly presenting itself to the unsuspecting public as the corruption police - and receiving government aid and preferred tax status as a result. To "raise awareness of corruption" is publicly touted as the Berlin-based parent Transparency International's primary goal. But, it is safe to say, the reality is quite the opposite within the New Zealand chapter. Last month TINZ popped its head up briefly to herald the fact that New Zealand was rated best among the 180 countries surveyed in TI's "Corruption Perception Index" but is itself transparent when it comes to raising actual awareness of corruption in New Zealand.

Add to this the appearance that the local chapter seems rife with conflicts and lacks any diversity. Deputy Chairwoman Claire Johnstone alone works as General Manager Corporate for the New Zealand Governement Ministry of Transport and is also principle of a consulting company (Sinclair Robertson Associates) which boasts success in getting its private sector clients government funding. At the AGM, her husband, NZ Police Constable Ash Johnstone, was running security.

To the public, TINZ lists as " Goal 1" of its workplan "Greater Accountability and Transparency in New Zealand". Yet, CEO Browne admitted in a phone interview earlier this year that TINZ was not generally focused on reducing corruption in New Zealand because it was "perceived" not to exist. When asked to identify an initiative coming from TINZ to promote transparency or expose corruption within New Zealand, he refused to answer on the professed basis TINZ was more effective working within quiet diplomatic channels. Instead, he bragged ethereally about the good works the local chapter was doing among the smaller Pacific islands in furthering transparency and reducing corruption. BACK TO FRONT PAGE
_______________________________________________________________

The following correspondence was then exchanged:

27 January 2010 - From Penny Bright: Latest developments from the (not so) transparent people.

The THOT PLICKENS! FAR OUT! How 'transparent' is TINZ??? hmmmm....not very!

How come Board members could make a decision on my request to attend the TINZ AGM - but not my membership application???

Did we ever get a copy of the minutes of the TINZ Board mtg on 23 November 2009? DUH???

Seems we have affected a 'rule change;' regarding the inclusion of membershoip fees at the time of membership application!!

(You don't have to send in membership fees at the same time now :)

Any thoughts??? Cheers! Penny bloody Bright

_______________________________________________________________

Date: Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 2:19 PM
Subject: TI(NZ) membership request/ personal information request
To: Penny Bright <waterpressure@gmail.com

Dear Ms Bright

I refer to your email sent 22 January 2010. The Executive Officer is currently overseas and I am responding on his behalf during his absence.

I have considered the points raised in your email and advise:

Application for membership

1. Your application for membership, which was received on 23 November 2009, was too late for inclusion on the Agenda for the November Board meeting.

2. Your application for membership was placed on the Agenda for the Board meeting on 21 January. It was agreed at that meeting that the decision of all Board members on membership applications, including yours, would be sought by email.

a. Your application, therefore, has neither been declined nor accepted. You will be advised of the outcome of your application in due course.

b. Under the rules, decisions on membership applications are within the discretion of individual board members. TI(NZ) has not established criteria for membership. Board members are not required to give explanations for their decisions and TI(NZ) neither seeks nor records information on which individual Board members base their decisions.

Personal information request

3. Information has been withheld from the documents supplied in response to your request for access to personal information only where it falls outside the scope of your request or where disclosure would involve the unwarranted disclosure of the affairs of another individual.

Transparency International (New Zealand) has provided all the information it holds that falls within the scope of the personal information request we have received from you. We cannot assist further with this matter. In anticipation of a further request for disclosure of personal information, however, I confirm that you will be provided with copies of the Board members’ decisions on your membership application, when these are available.

I note your concern that your membership fee is being held pending the outcome of your application. While until now the process has been that membership fees are paid at the time of application and held in trust pending the outcome of the Board decision on temporary membership, in future fees will not be required to accompany the application.

Yours sincerely

Julie Browne

pp. Paul Browne

Executive Officer,

Transparency International New Zealand.

P: +64 4 894 9114

M: +64 21 202 6479

E: executive@transparencynz.org.nz

The truth is that there is way more corruption in NZ than we realise, and in the South Pacific in general. Another example can be found here, Barry Grossman has documented his experiences on the site Open Trial in a way that's easy to follow and clearly it's indisputable evidence of blatant corruption. Barry can be contacted through Facebook.

This from National Business Review's Niko Kloeten, 10 December 2010:

"An “alarming” 4% of New Zealanders admit to having paid a bribe in New Zealand in the last 12 months, according to Transparency International’s 2010 Global Corruption Barometer.

Transparency International New Zealand director Alex Tan described it as a “truly alarming” result, but “in some ways not surprising.”

He said, “We have traditionally tended to rest on our laurels and think we are above corruption and bribery practices which are common place in the rest of the world.

“In fact, this can be a naïve assumption and we need to stay on our game and be vigilant about these matters.”

The New Zealand figure was higher than our traditional benchmarks Australia (2%) and the UK (1%), and looked particularly bad next to Denmark’s 0% result.

Mr Tan said this was the first time the survey had included New Zealand so it was impossible to tell whether the bribery figure had increased or not. [Really?]

There was also no way of knowing exactly where people were paying bribes. [Really? You could always just ask them!]

“The questions are relatively simple- what it means is in their mind they have had to pay something extra to a public official to get something done,” he told the National Business Review

“The message is, actually we may still be a very corruption free society but there is corruption going on that we don’t want to admit.” [Really?]

Nearly three-quarters of New Zealanders (73%) felt corruption had increased in this country in the last three years and political parties were rated the most corrupt group, followed by Parliament and the private sector.

Referring to new UK anti-bribery legislation (see NBR, October 15), Mr Tan said it is illegal for New Zealand companies to pay overseas but there has never been a single prosecution for it.

The truth is that there is way more corruption in Australia and NZ than we realise. Another example can be found here, Barry Grossman has documented his experiences on the site Open Trial in a way that's easy to follow and clearly it's indisputable evidence of blatant corruption. Barry can be contacted through Facebook, and would appreciate support, legal advice, etc.

It's not enough to just "measure perception of corruption" - we need to establish effective means of exposing it, legislating against it, and preventing it! The irony is that Transparency International NZ is funded to effectively conceal corruption and has no intention of ever investigating it or doing anything constructive about it, and the organisation itself appears to be corrupt - or at least seriously dysfunctional and redundant.

Steven Wallace shot by Keith Abbott, IPCA cover up:

This is the report into the death of Steven Wallace, who was shot in Waitara by NZ Police officer Keith Abbot in April 2000.

Several aspects of this report (which can also be viewed at this link) are chilling, particularly the response of the Police to the Coroner's report.  At Paragraph 99 of the report:

"Police response to the Coroner’s findings:
99.  On 3 August 2007, in a media statement, the Police Commissioner dismissed the Coroner’s criticism and commended the three officers for their professionalism and dedication.
100. On 27 August 2007 the Officer in Charge of Operation McLean, (now retired)
Detective Inspector Pearce, tabled a lengthy report in response to the Coroner’s criticisms of the three officers. Mr Pearce concluded that the lack of leadership as found by the Coroner could not be regarded as a contributory factor to the death of Steven Wallace.
The Authority did not have its own investigators in 2000 and at that time was  reliant on Police resources to carry out investigations."

Coroner's findings regarding the death of Steven Wallace, shot by Police:

Steven Wallace was shot in Waitara by Police Constable Keith Abbott.

Here is the Coroner's findings on the death of Steven Wallace (which can also be viewed at this link), and the response of the Police complaints authority is at this link.

Paragraph forty seven is particularly disturbing, as are the actions of Kristy McDonald.


The recommendation that Police should be drug and alcohol tested has been ignored to date.  So has the recommendation that the Police review secrecy provisions:


14.23.2013 - Shane Cowlishaw, Fairfax:

"Work on implementing one of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct has been quietly shelved because of a lack of resources.

The commission, headed by Dame Margaret Bazley, was set up in 2004 in response to allegations by Louise Nicholas of police rape and coverup.

Its report was published in 2007, making 60 recommendations, including a revamped code of conduct and the recruitment of more women.

Twelve recommendations were also made regarding the Independent Police Conduct Authority, the body set up to investigate complaints.

But almost six years on from the report, one recommendation aimed at ensuring those complaints are investigated properly has been canned.

A briefing from the Ministry of Justice to Justice Minister Judith Collins, provided under the Official Information Act, reveals work on the recommendation requiring the ministry to review the secrecy provisions in the authority's legislation was stopped in July last year.

The authority and its staff are required to maintain secrecy in all matters, and information cannot be used in criminal or disciplinary proceedings.

Authority members cannot be called to give evidence.

The recommendation demanded that the secrecy provision be reviewed to ensure it did not inappropriately prevent the authority from investigating complaints that may result in criminal or disciplinary proceedings against members of the police.

In 2009 the work was put on hold because of "other Government priorities" and it was recommended it be stopped altogether.

The main risk in discontinuing the work was an "adverse public perception" that the authority is ineffective and simply refers matters back to police, it said.

"Although there is merit in undertaking further policy development on this issue, this is not a priority for the Government or agencies in the context of competing justice sector priorities."

Ms Collins said the review of secrecy provisions had been discontinued to progress other justice sector priorities.

"And the proof is in the pudding - New Zealanders continue to have high levels of trust and confidence in our police."

She said it would be "most inappropriate" for her to ask the IPCA, an independent body, to speed up or slow down its inquiries.

IPCA spokesman Andrew Baxter said each case was regularly reviewed to assess the impact it had, or may have, on criminal investigations as well as on judicial and coronial processes.

Some investigation reports may be delayed because of ongoing criminal proceedings, such as its look into complaints stemming from the Urewera raids."

How long are New Zealanders going to put up with this bullshit and blatant corruption!?

Our Police force are a disgrace!  Local officers have engaged in blatant politically motivated corruption involving serious violence - and have been involved in a so called 'investigation' into how they've been throwing hundreds of child abuse files in the rubbish bin and LYING about it - the so called 'inquiry' into it has been nothing but a great big gravy train for all involved!  It never even involved interviewing Mark McHattie!  And both him and the Area Commander have been actually PROMOTED instead of imprisoned!

Amalgamation: more corruption, less accountability and transparency

Georgina Beyer introduced the idea of amalgamation of the Wairarapa Councils.  Beyer the Liar has no credibility whatsoever following her involvement in the cover up of the fraud and gross mismangement at the former Carterton Community Centre, and Beyer's subsequent resignation as a Member of Parliament.  The people promoting this idea are doing so for their own purposes, and in order to keep their own snouts in the trough, and keep as many others out as possible in order to increase their own portion.  Local Councils can co-operate and share resources if they so desire, but they have failed to demonstrate much inclination to do so at all.  The answer to the Wairarapa's problems is not amalgamation, it lies in electing competent and honourable people to govern, not transvestite prostitutes and drunken bikers.  We need intelligent, visionary people.  Why follow like sheep just because Beyer the Liar tells anyone who is silly enough to listen that amalgamation is 'inevitable'?  It's time to think for ourselves, not blindly follow corrupt and incompetent idiots.  The link above provides a bit of balance to the discussion, unfortunately I have to prepare for Court proceedings and lack the time or access to resources to expound my own views further at the moment, but intelligent people will be able to work it out for themselves if they have a good look through the sites referred to.

Depositions transcript makes a mockery of justice!

Below is an embedded pdf document, which is the Depositions hearing transcript regarding the corruptly laid charges of perverting the course of justice and escaping from custody which were laid by Police after they refused to charge Michael Francis Murphy .  The hearing took place on 20 November 2009 before bent Justices of the Peace Adams and Debney.  Pages 6 and 7 have to be seen to be believed - star witness Aaron Brook says repeatedly
"I don't know", "I can remember", "I forget" - before corroborating MY evidence, not that of the Police or the Crown.  This is a BLATANT and serious attempt to pervert the course of justice - shame on the legal profession for refusing to do anything about it, I will do it myself.

The evidence can also be viewed at this link.

Ministry of Justice inquiry a sham - Jeff Orr perverts the course of justice:

Monday, 9 November 2009, 1:15 pm
Press Release: Bruce Stuart-Menteath

Available for immediate use

Ministry of Justice enquiry a sham:

If you’ve ever felt that access to justice in New Zealand is based on the premise that who you are is more important than what you have to say, then you’ll be interested to know that an internal Ministry of Justice document recently released under the Official Information Act has revealed that you were dead right.

The embarrassing exposé came to light as a result of a complaint made in May 2008 by environmentalist Bruce Stuart-Menteath to the Minister of Justice about the alleged misconduct and inability of the Registrar of Private Investigators and Security Guards (PISG), Gary Harrison, for the manner in which he dismissed a complaint Stuart-Menteath had made about Provision Security Ltd.

Following his complaint about Harrison, Stuart-Menteath eventually received a letter from the then Associate Minister of Justice, Clayton Cosgrove, who informed him that his complaint on that matter had also been rejected. He didn’t provide any reasons for his decision, but merely referred to his acceptance of the Ministry’s advice and Harrison’s rebuttal. He also pointed out that Stuart-Menteath’s complaint was the first in the twelve years that Harrison had been on the job.

Unhappy at the outcome, especially given the supporting evidence he had provided, Stuart-Menteath made an Official Information Act request to Cosgrove for copies of the information or advice he had used to reach his decision. His response revealed that he had received only two documents. One was Harrison’s rebuttal, which, whilst it referred to Stuart-Menteath’s allegations as “scurrilous” and falsely claimed that he had been trying to use the objection procedure for improper purposes, its most notable characteristic was its abject failure to even mention the key legal and natural justice issues that had been raised.

It stood to reason that the second document, the advice from the Ministry of Justice, must have contained the crucial advice that influenced Cosgrove to reject the complaint, but he claimed that it was legally privileged, that its continued confidentiality outweighed any right of disclosure to the public and refused to release it.

However, Stuart-Menteath had raised serious legal issues, which included Harrison’s failure to apply non-discretionary provisions of the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act and proper procedure with regard to his award of costs to Provision Security. It thus appeared that the confidential advice Cosgrove had used to reject the complaint was contrary to the express wording of the PISG Act and the basic principles of natural justice.

A judicial review in the High Court was Stuart-Menteath’s only means of addressing Harrison’s dismissal of his original complaint. When the matter went to a hearing on 29 July 2009, Justice Fogarty found strongly in favour of Stuart-Menteath. Indeed, neither he nor the court appointed amicus (friend of the Court), could find anything to support Harrison’s decisions. He stated that he was satisfied that Harrison had not treated Stuart-Menteath “...fairly and reasonably...”, quashed his decisions and instructed that a new hearing on the original complaint must be held. (Stuart-Menteath has objected to Harrison’s intention to preside over the hearing and a date has yet to be set).

So how did Harrison get things so wrong, and why did the Ministry of Justice not find something wrong with his decisions? Stuart-Menteath knew the answer to the first question, but the answer he was about to discover about the second was quite unexpected.

When the Labour government lost power in 2008 Stuart-Menteath renewed his OIA request for the internal document to the new Associate Minister of Justice, Richard Worth, and this time was successful in acquiring a copy of the advice that Cosgrove had received from the Ministry of Justice. It revealed that no investigation into Stuart-Menteath’s complaint had actually been conducted, but somehow the Ministry’s chief legal counsel, Jeff Orr, had formed an opinion of the worth of the complaint, and Cosgrove had merely rubber stamped his approval of that opinion.

The document revealed that Orr had remained unaware of, or had just ignored, the legal and procedural issues that Stuart-Menteath had raised in his complaint, and that they had not been disproved by Harrison’s rebuttal. He nevertheless came to the conclusion that Harrison’s rebuttal was acceptable because...

“On the face of it Mr Harrison’s account appears very thorough...”

However, the only thing that was apparent was that Orr had made such a superficial assessment of Stuart-Menteath’s 29 page complaint he may as well have not looked at it at all. Likewise his appraisal of Harrison’s “thorough” account had not acknowledged that it had failed to respond at all to the key legal points raised, much less rebut them.

One of those points, which Justice Fogarty found central to the matter, was section 56 of the PISG Act, which stated that the Registrar “shall fix a time and place...” and “shall give not less than 14 days’ notice...” of a hearing. Basic principles of natural justice. The wording of section 56 is clear and unambiguous.

First year law students are well aware that the use of the word “shall” in a statute specifies a binding requirement, but Harrison had circumvented its purpose by making up a new rule of his own that must have gone something like this. “If a notice of hearing carries advice that the hearing may be brought forward at short notice, then the requirement to provide 14 days’ notice will no longer be necessary.” And that is exactly what he did.

Furthermore, it is obvious that he made up that rule specifically to benefit Provision Security, should the need arise. Harrison knew that Provision’s director, Gavin Clark, would be in attendance at the Christchurch District Court on the two day’s before the notified hearing date defending his other company, Thompson and Clark Investigations Ltd, from a complaint by the Save Happy Valley Coalition about the use of a spy to infiltrate their organisation. And, as it turned out, that hearing had finished early and Clark wanted the Provision matter to start immediately in order to limit his attendance costs.

But Orr ignored this irregular conduct and instead placed emphasis on a recent review of Harrison’s position, in particular the opinions of the President of the New Zealand Institute of Professional Investigators, Trevor Morley, and the Chairperson of the New Zealand Security Association, Peter Freeman. Orr noted their praise for Harrison and considered it reasonable to use it to support his advice to Cosgrove that Stuart-Menteath’s complaint was without merit.

By using advice from those in the private investigation and security industry to help form an opinion about the complaint, Orr had adopted a procedure that no proper judicial system would accept.

Firstly, since when was it acceptable practice for the Ministry of Justice to use such opinions, instead of facts, to clarify whether a complaint about one of its own judicial officers should be accepted as valid? If one is found guilty of some indiscretion, one’s past behaviour may well be relevant when deciding on an appropriate penalty, but an enquiry cannot ignore the facts pointing to someone’s guilt and find them not guilty on the basis of their unblemished past behaviour. Furthermore, how does one decide who to ask about someone’s past behaviour? Maybe Orr should have also sought the opinions of past complainants or special interest groups that may have wanted to comment on Harrison’s performance, but he didn’t carry it that far.

It also appears that Orr gave no thought for the possibility that Morely and Freeman may have had a vested interest in Harrison remaining in his position. After all, the private investigation and security industry had had little trouble from him laying down the law, or disciplining operators for breaches of the PISG Act. Orr also thought it relevant that Harrison had not previously been complained about, as if that provided additional defence against Stuart-Menteath’s complaint, like a blemish free record should be taken into account when a motorist gets caught drunk driving.

Then, despite his failure to analyse Stuart-Menteath’s complaint, or Harrison’s rebuttal, Orr reached an astonishing conclusion, that...

“the matter rests largely on the credibility of the parties.”

By that statement he was clearly not referring to the credibility of the facts and legal arguments Stuart-Menteath had raised, or Harrison’s rebuttal, because the “enquiry” had made no assessment of them. To the contrary, it is equally clear that what he was referring to was their personal credibility. Whether they were reliable, honest upstanding members of society. Whether they could be believed. It was evident that Orr had already determined that Harrison was of such a calibre by his acceptance of the opinions of Morely and Freeman, people who should know because they had a professional, if not personal, relationship with Harrison. And how could a Registrar of Private Investigators and Security Guards who had not been the subject of a complaint before be anything other than an upstanding citizen?

There is no indication in the document that Orr acquired any information to support his conclusion that Stuart-Menteath’s character was less reliable, less honest and less upstanding than Harrison’s, and therefore his complaint less credible than Harrison’s rebuttal. Perhaps he did a Google search of the internet and disapproved of the way Stuart-Menteath had publicised his criticism of Harrison. Perhaps he was influenced by some of the unverified comments that Harrison had made in his rebuttal, which suggested that Stuart-Menteath was less than honest. The fact that Orr had not bothered to verify anything beckons the question, how could he form an impartial opinion and be so convinced about the accuracy of his advice to Cosgrove? And yet somehow he felt compelled to state that...

“From the information available, I do not consider that further enquiry is likely to alter my view Mr Stuart-Menteath’s representations do not form grounds for his [Harrison’s] removal from office.”

Regardless, without being preceded by a proper investigation, Orr’s conclusion was somewhat vulnerable, and likewise Cosgrove’s acceptance of it, without being provided with even a shred evidence that an investigation had actually been conducted, exposed his shortcomings too. The fact that this all happened under the roof of the Ministry of Justice makes it all the more ominous.

A detailed complaint of misconduct or inability about any judicial officer must always be taken very seriously unless there is clear evidence that it is spurious. There was no such evidence in this case. Once accepted, a proper investigation should apply a structure and procedure consistent with the principles of natural justice, which can analyse the substance of the complaint and any denial. It should provide a clear synopsis of the evidence and reach conclusions based on facts, sound reasoning and legal precedents. Basic natural justice. To fail to pursue such a course would be an evasion of accountability that invites corruption and cronyism.

In 2006 Cosgrove spoke to members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Anti Bribery Evaluation Team that had come on a fact finding mission to New Zealand, and stated that “New Zealand is strongly committed to fighting bribery and corruption in any form...” Later that year the OECD ranked New Zealand first equal with Iceland and Finland as one of the least corrupt nations in the world. Now that’s really comforting.

The matter is now before the Associate Minister of Justice.

Additional information

The Registrar PISG is a sole position appointed by the Minister of Justice to administer the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act 1974. In effect he is required to act as watchdog over the conduct of the private investigation and security industry, including the vetting of applicants for an operator’s licence, ensuring that they are fit and proper persons, and holding hearings into complaints. He may impose penalties such as a fine, or cancel a licence for breaches of the Act. He may also penalise those who make complaints if they are not upheld.

The PISG Act intends that members of the public may make objections and complaints and the Registrar is obliged to allow for their lack of legal background when reaching his decisions. Indeed, to the layperson a complaint hearing may be an intimidating experience, not unlike a court hearing. Harrison has been a barrister since 1978 and Registrar PISG since 1996. He has acquired a reputation for allowing vigorous cross-examination of complainants on matters unrelated to their complaint.

Harrison accepted Stuart-Menteath’s complaint about Provision Security as valid and set it down for a hearing on 22 February 2008. His complaint included allegations of intimidation; covert surveillance on Department of Conservation land without authority; refusals by employees to provide ID and failure by employees to hold the required Certificate of Approval.

Before that date Provision produced evidential statements that actually confirmed the substance of the complaint. It seemed a fait accompli that the company would be found guilty and penalised, but in a surprising turn of events, after only consulting with Provision, Harrison brought the hearing forward to the day before the notified hearing date.

Stuart-Menteath first became aware of this change when he received a phone call from the Christchurch District Court and given only 2½ hours notice to attend. He objected to the short notice, stated that he could not attend and could not find his witnesses, but Harrison was inflexible and dismissed his complaint when he failed to appear, then awarded $1500 costs to Provision, which it sought to recover by initiating bankruptcy proceedings.

When the High Court heard Stuart-Menteath’s opposition to Provision Security’s bankruptcy notice, Justice Chisholm stated that he had never heard of such a situation before, where only 2½ hours notice of a hearing had been given. He refused to allow Provision Security to disassociate the costs award from the short notice and in an attempt at preventing the situation from escalating out of control and causing the parties to incur further expense he provided an opportunity for them to come to an out of court settlement, but Provision refused to mediate.

The principles of natural justice are a set of rules developed from common law, which ensure a just and fair decision making process, if followed. Essentially referred to as fairness writ large they are included in section 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and apply to decisions of the courts, tribunals, council hearings and a wide range of other public administrative bodies, such as schools and health boards.

According to the principles there are three basic rules that a decision-making body must follow. The first, the nemo judex in causa sua rule, states that a person may not be a judge in his or her own case, where they may have some personal interest in the subject matter, obviously to prevent conflicts of interest interfering in the decision making process, or even a perception of a conflict of interest. The second, the audi alteram partem rule, states that the affected parties must always be fairly heard, which essentially means that they must be fully informed and have a fair opportunity to present their evidence. It follows that adequate preparation time must be allowed; a reasonable opportunity provided to present evidence, including being informed of the date, time, and venue of a hearing well in advance; and the adjudicator must have an open mind and listen to all relevant evidence, which means they cannot ignore evidence, and must reach a decision that is reasonable and consistent with it. The third principle states that the decision maker must give reasons for their decision.

In the early 1980s Harrison was counsel assisting the Royal Commissioner in the Erebus Air Crash Inquiry, which was the subject of the Privy Council decision Re Erebus Royal Commission [1983] that became an important precedent for clarifying the principles of natural justice. The Privy Council noted two major rules of natural justice, the first being that the person making a decision “...must base his decision upon evidence that has some probative value...” and the second that he must “...listen fairly to any relevant evidence conflicting with the finding...”

The first and third principles were not at issue in this matter, but with regard to the second, when the High Court heard Stuart-Menteath’s opposition to Provision Security’s bankruptcy notice, Justice Chisholm stated that he had never heard of such a situation before, where only 2½ hours notice of a hearing had been given. He refused to allow Provision Security to disassociate the costs award from the short notice and in an attempt at preventing the situation from escalating out of control and causing the parties to incur further expense he provided an opportunity for them to come to an out of court settlement, but Provision Security refused to mediate.

ENDS