WHAT’S WORSE THAN BEATING A DEAD HORSE?

5 March 2009
Three  years  ago  former New Zealand police prosecutor and current private investigator Grace Haden, operating on a tip, questioned the subsistence of the Animal  Welfare  Institute  of  New  Zealand  (AWINZ ).  It was disclosed to Ms Haden that AWINZ was paid handsomely to lend its name to the movie credits of Lord of the Rings, attesting that no animals were harmed in the making of the movie.  Beyond the mystery of what AWINZ actually was, the reality was that AWINZ ‘officers’ were on set less than 25% of the animal action time.  Haden’s source informed her that a horse named Moon was sent to slaughter after non-specified problems were determined with its front legs.  Three other horses reportedly died during shooting. 

The American Humane Association does not condone sending animals to the slaughterhouse because it is not fit for work required by film production.  AHA has requested further veterinary reports and documentation as to the reasons why Moon was determined unfit and slaughtered.  Its investigation into the other deaths has so far proven inconclusive.
Questions were also raised by Electric shock collars used in the training of two horses. AHA considers the general use of shock collars to be unacceptable. 

So what is "AWINZ"?  The apparent origins of AWINZ hark back to an application made by barrister Neil Wells for AWINZ to become a Council- approved organisation in 1999.  'Apparent' because false claims were made in the application and the trust documents were never sighted.   

Without verification of whether AWINZ was a bona fide organisation, the Ministry of Agriculture gave AWINZ statutory powers and the same legislative responsibilities as the SPCA.
Unlike the SPCA, AWINZ was never incorporated under any Act - this despite assurances by its founder, trustee and local barrister Neil Wells.   Rather, AWINZ was, and remains, an unincorporated trust whose members have furtively changed, without  the public being able to see, who was on the trust at an given time  and brings into question  if AWINZ is anything more than just a name.

On 20 January 2004 Wells on behalf of AWINZ  signed an agreement with the animal control division of Waitakere Council to extend the domestic animal and stock control services to animal welfare, which is not a regulatory responsibility of  council. Mr Wells is now the manager of that department.
There appears to be no Council mandate for the service this "organisation" provides and there are no known council meetings by which it had been considered or approved yet it is a service paid for out of the rates. 

In  "extending  the  services"  of  the  legislative  requirements of Council Mr Wells effectively created a  private  SPCA,  run  on  council  premises, using  council staff  and  vehicles.  What  he  does do  independently  of  council  is  solicit  and  collect  donations  and  undertake  prosecutions for which diversion (satisfaction of an alleged offence) was offered  for  a  donation  to  the  trust.  This money is then paid into a bank account which CEO Wells had sole control over.

The boundaries between AWINZ and council are so blurred that AWINZ appeared to be part of council and created a logo identical to that at the entrance of Waitakere City animal welfare. 

When Ms Haden  questioned  what  she professionally perceived  to  be  a  corrupt  practice  (it  fits  the  definition  of  corruption offered  by  the OECD), a virtual avalanche of local and central government bureaucrats acted  to cover up the mater, all seemingly fearful this shady arrangement would  reflect  poorly on their department if exposed.   Mr Wells hired powerhouse lawyers Brookfields to bring a defamation claim against Ms Haden in the Auckland District Court.  This legal claim by Wells ironically demanded Ms Haden turn over her legal rights to the AWINZ trust registry - a registration she undertook with the New Zealand Companies Office solely to expose the fact that Mr Wells was fraudulently representing his AWINZ organisation as a registered trust. 

To date, Ms Haden has incurred over $140,000 in costs and legal fees.  In November 2008, Auckland District Court Judge John Joyce ruled in Mr Wells favour in a manor that would make a first year law student blush.  Largely devoid of evidence to support a judgment in Wells' favour at the hearing, Judge Joyce resorted to doing what every judge instructs juries not to do - scour the internet for 'evidential support'.  This judgment is now under appeal.

There is extremely little transparency in public private contracts within most District Councils and the procedure for engaging contractors is typically not embarked on with due diligence.  As this 'partnership' between Mr Wells and Waitakere demonstrates, these systematic deficiencies can mask serious conflicts of interest or worse. 

Waitakere city council claims that AWINZ does not operate from the Waitakere animal welfare headquarters at the Concourse, but the reality is that it does.  Cats which are brought in get taken to the SPCA.  Birds get taken to "the bird lady"-Lynn Mc Donald- who used to be an AWINZ officer and was sacked for asking too many questions.  Dogs are shot after a week.
Mr Wells, both the CEO of AWINZ and the manager of animal welfare of Council, wrote the first bill for the Animal Welfare Act 1999.  In the Act he tried to introduce the concept of territorial (aka council) bodies carrying out the SPCA type work. He simultaneously set up his own business whereby he would assist councils in training staff and providing the legal back up services to comply with the provisions of the Act he had written.

This followed a Pilot program he personally set up in 1995 in Waitakere; a program which continued on till  2000.  Problems arose for Wells side business when a second Bill was introduced into Parliament after widespread opposition to the inclusion of territorial bodies and other aspects were voiced.

Mr Wells became an independent advisor to the select committee as they merged the two bills to become the Animal Welfare Act 1999.  Still he was unable to preserve his pet project.  The revised Act which eventuated threw up hurdles to Mr Wells plans, a revision which ultimately led to the creation of 'AWINZ'.  In effect, Mr Wells furtively sidestepped the legislative confines by obfuscating the lines between a "private organisation" and the local council.

 Ms Haden's considered opinion is that this is a matter of public concern on more than one front.  First, it signifies the dubious way in which public-private partnerships can be formed.  This peril is exacerbated by the lack of transparency, which generally allows private contractors funneling public money to themselves to avoid scrutiny.  Finally, as Ms Haden's efforts reveal, the price of questioning  corruption can be huge.
More background at www.AWINZ.ORG.NZ