Inquiry into The Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand (AWINZ) – unincorporated charitable trust & registered charity

July 31, 2012 by Leave a Comment

The Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand [henceforth referred to as "AWINZ"] was registered as a charity by the Charities Commission on 28 September 2007 (Reg. No. CC11235). Its “Deed of Trust and Revocation” dated 5th December 2006,  states on page one:

“This deed revokes the deed executed on 1st March 2000 and substitutes this deed in its place. Despite the revocation of the deed dated 1st March 2000 it is declared that this trust established on that date [1/03/00] is continued by this deed.” [Emphasis added].

As part of Court proceedings involving AWINZ, Auckland barrister Mr Neil Edward Wells, Settlor [photo: right] of the 1st March 2000 AWINZ Deed of Trust, supplied a copy of it to the Legal Standards Solicitor of the NZ Law Society on 25 May 2011 and confirmed to that body that it constituted the “original deed“. He swore an affidavit to that effect.

However…

On 15 December 1998, over two years before the “original deed” was allegedly signed and established on 1 March 2000, Neil Wells sent Barry O’Neil, Chief Veterinary Officer, MAF Reg, MAF. a copy of a proposed (unsigned) AWINZ Deed of Trust. It is very similar to the AWINZ Deed of Trust dated 1 March 2000.

On 12  August 1999, the National President of the Royal NZ Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Inc sent a Memo to National Councillors et al. stating:

“The CEO and I had a meeting with Neil Wells and Tom Didovich who have [past tense] established a Charitable Trust which, once the legislation receives Royal Assent, will make application as an approved organisation [under the Animal Welfare Act 1999].”

On 22 August 1999, Neil Wells wrote to Barry O’Neil, Group Director, MAF Biosecurity Authority, Wellington stating:

“Enclosed is a notice of intent that the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand will, on the Animal Welfare Act 1999 being given its Royal Assent, formally apply to be Gazetted as an “approved organisation”.

“A charitable trust has [past tense] been formed by Deed of Trust as the “Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand” (AWINZ). It is being registered under Part II of the Charitable Trusts Act. The founding members are:

“Nuala Grove, Sarah Giltrap, Graeme Coutts, Neil Wells.

“The purpose of the Trust is to promote the welfare of animals …”

On 28 October 1999, four months prior to the date when Mr Neil Wells claims the original signed deed was signed, he signed an application as “Trustee” of AWINZ and submitted it to the Community Well-Being Fund of the Waitakere District Council, seeking funding for AWINZ. He claimed in the application that AWINZ was “a legally constituted trust … in process of registering as charitable trust”. However, neither of these two claims in his funding application could have been true in October 1999 if the original trust deed was in fact dated 1st March 2000, as Wells claims it was in the deed dated 5 December 2006 on the Charities website.

Wells wrote in his application to the Waitakere Council dated 28 October 1999:

“AWINZ was [past tense] established as a result of consideration by Waitakere City Council of its strategic options for animal welfare over the period 1997/99.

“The establishment of the Institute was contingent on the passing of the Animal Welfare Act 1999. Parliament passed the Act on 7 October 1999 and commences [i.e. the Act takes effect] on 1 January 2000.

“The Institute will be launched as a vehicle for promoting animal welfare in Waitakere City and will work in partnership with the Animal Welfare Services of Waitakere.”

Signed Neil Wells [signature] Trustee – Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand (AWINZ).

Note: Neil Edward Wells signed the letter to the Waitakere District Council dated 28 October 1999 and the accompanying application form, identifying himself as “Trustee” of AWINZ”.

However, no signed Deed of Trust has ever been produced by the Settlor, Neil Edward Wells, to prove that AWINZ had ever been established as a legal entity in 1999 or any time prior to 1 March 2000. At best,  in 1999 it was nothing more than a concept in his head or a trading name he used, or intended to use, for his services rendered to the Waitakere City Council.

In a carefully crafted letter written to the Secretary of “Beauty With Care” (BWC) from Neil Wells, soliciting funding and dated 14 March 2005, he states:

The Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand has been functioning since its inception in 1998 as the channel for animal welfare inspectors at Waitakere and North Shore Cities. AWINZ is one of only two “approved organisations” recognised by the Minister of Agriculture and gazetted as such. The other one is SPCA.

He signed the letter “Warm regards Neil Wells, Trustee” [AWINZ].

On the AWINZ “Deed of Trust and Revocation” dated 5 December 2006 on the Charities website it states:

“On the 1st day of March 2000 the Settlor [Neil Edward Wells] established a trust for charitable purposes by creating the Trust provided for in this deed.”

On 25 March 2000, Neil Wells wrote to the Hon. Jim Sutton, Minister of Agriculture, as a “Trustee” on behalf of AWINZ (copied to MAF Policy and MAF Biosecurity Authority) and stated:

“This letter addresses issues raised in your letter of 24 December [1999] and in a letter from MAF Policy of 28 January 2000, and other issues since raised by MAF Policy….

“A signed copy of the Deed of Trust will follow. The original is being submitted to the Ministry of Commerce for registration as a charitable trust in accordance with clause 20(a) of the Deed.”

However, no such original signed Deed of Trust or certified copy was ever submitted to the Ministry by AWINZ and the Trust has never been incorporated. No Deed of Trust has ever supplied by AWINZ/Wells to any Minister of the Crown. No clause 20(a) exists in the so-called “original signed Deed of Trust dated 1 March 2000 or the Deed dated 5 December 2006 on the Charities website.

Neil Wells had registered two other trusts in 1999  and he knew that  an applicant sends a certified copy of the deed to the Ministry when applying for incorporation, not the original.  If at the time of writing he still had in his possession the original deed,  he could have sent the minister a certified copy, but he never did. If  he had sent the original to be registered he would  have had the trust registered and there would be an official record of it having been received. There is none.

Minister of the Crown Hon. Jim Sutton, together with Barry O’Neil, Group Director, Biosecurity Authority, had signed a letter dated 24 December 1999, raising serious concerns concerning an application by Neil Wells as “Trustee” of AWINZ, seeking “approved organisation” status, and it stated:

“Mr Wells has promoted the formation of a charitable trust called Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand (AWINZ).”

Serious questions need to be asked about the AWINZ “Deed of Trust and Revocation” dated 5th December 2006 which is the only version present on the Charities website (www.charities.govt.nz).

QUESTIONS

A. If AWINZ was indeed “established” as a Trust on 1 March 2000, why has its claimed founding Trust Deed dated 1 March 2000 not been registered on the Charities website?

B. Furthermore, why has a copy of the AWINZ “Deed of Trust” referred to in a letter dated 21 November 1999 by the Trust Settlor, Mr Neil Edward Wells, to Hon John Luxton, Minister of Food, Fibre, Biosecurity and Border Control (see below) not been registered on the Charities website? (This Deed of Trust, if it did indeed ever exist, must have preceded the so-called “original deed” dated 1 March 2000. Minister Luxton never received a signed copy of the Deed of Trust).

C. Which is the original signed AWINZ Trust Deed – the one claimed by Wells to have been dated 1 March 2000, or the earlier one referred to in Well’s letter (who signed himself “Trustee” of AWINZ) to the Minister Luxton of 21 November 1999 ?

D. What is the true nature of “AWINZ”, claimed by the Trust’s Settlor, Neil Edward Wells and three other Trustees to have been established on 1st March 2000 and what charitable activities, if any, has it ever engaged in?

Preliminary findings

AWINZ is a “Trust” which has never been incorporated, a fact which is undeniable as anyone with access to the internet can be establish this as fact by checking on the Companies Office website. See: http://www.business.govt.nz/companies/app/ui/pages/companies/otherSearch

AWINZ is not a corporate body and it has certainly never been a charitable trust incorporated under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957, despite suggestions that it is in misleading statements in the Trust Deed dated 5 December 2006, such as:

17. Winding Up and Distribution of Surplus Assets.

On winding up of the Trust OR on its dissolution by the Registrar, all surplus assets after the payment of costs, debts and liabilities shall be given to such exclusively charitable organisation or organisations within New Zealand of a similar nature to the Trust as the Board decides or, if the Board is unable to make such a decision, shall be disposed of in accordance with the directions of the High Court pursuant to section 27 of the Charitable Trusts Act 1957.”  [Emphasis added]  

The sections highlighted reveal the misleading nature of the AWINZ “Deed of Trust and Revocation” registered on the Charities website.

AWINZ has never been an incorporated entity and therefore as such it cannot be dissolved by the Registrar under any Act. Mr Wells would probably argue that the word “OR” in the first sentence of section 17  allows for the Trust’s dissolution by the Registrar in case the Trustees ever went ahead and incorporated AWINZ at some future date. But a Trust Deed must reflect the true nature of the entity at the time its Trust Deed is duly executed and not allow Trustees to engage in obfuscation.

Only the Trustees are able to wind up an unincorporated Trust and it is a relatively simple matter to do so, provided that a majority of the Trustees are in agreement and follow the procedures set out in the Trust Deed relating to winding up the entity.  It is also a relatively simple mater to incorporate such a Trust, rather than wind it up, if the Trustees are in majority agreement on this matter.

It is an exercise in obfuscation to note in the Deed of Trust that on the winding up of the AWINZ Trust it would have to have its assets disposed of in the manner outlined in section 17 -  “pursuant to section 27 of the Charitable Trusts Act 1957“; given that the Trustees have never applied to incorporate it under this Act or any other Act.

The 5 December 2005 “Deed of Trust and Revocation” is also deliberately misleading with respect to the “interpretation” (section 18) of its “charitable purpose”, when it states:

“Charitable purpose” means and includes that term as defined by the Charitable Trusts Act 1957…”

AWINZ has never been incorporated under this Act, so it is misleading to suggest that its purposes as defined in its “Deed of Trust and Revocation” qualify as “charitable” purposes under this Act. Such a claim is mere assertion, unsupported by any factual evidence.

AWINZ  has never been tested against the Charitable objectives assessed in gaining incorporation under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957.

AWINZ was a business, it was always meant to be a business and the territorial animal welfare authority  business plan it/Neil Wells submitted to Waitakere City Council, MAF and other officials  in 1996  proves this as the format  which the approved organisation  AWINZ adopted  and that  this was a business venture as opposed to a  charitable venture.

There is no evidence that the AWINZ trust has done anything of a charitable nature and they have never had the ability to pay for  the legal proceedings that they have been party to in recent years. They have used the  charitable dollar to  derive an income for themselves from the ‘spoils of war of litigation’ (see below).

The AWINZ Deed of Trust (5/12/06) states under section 5 (“Powers”):

“… the powers that the Board may exercise in order to carry out its charitable objects are as follows:

…… (a) To incorporate as a Trust Board under the provisions of the Charitable Trust Act 1957….”

However, no incorporation had been effected by the time this Deed dated 5 December 2006 had been witnessed and duly executed. Nor has incorporation been effected since that date.

The Minutes of the AWINZ Board dated 10 May 2006 state:

“Neil [Edward Wells] advised that the original signed deed [of Trust] had been mis-filed.

“Neil [Edward Wells] and Wyn [Winifred Norien Hoadley] will work on a revision of the deed.

“Deed needs to be finalised in the next four weeks.

“AWINZ has not been registered under the Charitable Trusts Act to date. This needs to be organised.

“IRD approval required.

“It was agreed to seek charitable trust approval with IRD and Charitable Trust Act.”

Here is the explanation for why AWINZ never submitted and has never registered its “original signed Deed of Trust” (assuming one actually existed) with the Charities Commission….

On 10th May 2006 Trust Settlor, Neil Wells informed the Trust Board that the “signed original”  had been “mis-filed” (i.e lost). By the time AWINZ received charity status with the Charities Commission on 28 September 2007, the “original” deed remained “mis-filed” (lost). Then one month after registration the Charities Commission uploaded the AWINZ “Deed of Trust and Revocation” dated 5th December 2006 on to its website. The so-called “signed original” dated 1 March 2000 referred to on page one of the 2006 Deed, has never been filed with the Charities Commission as it should be in line with the law and the principles of honesty, accountability and transparency.

 AWINZ produced one original deed in the court in 2007  and  two “ originals “ in the district court  in 2008 all being copies of the alleged 2000 deed.

On 21 November 1999 Neil Edward Wells, acting “For the Board of Trustees” of  “the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand (AWINZ)”, wrote to Hon John Luxton, Minister of Food, Fibre, Biosecurity and Border Control, “to formalise” AWINZ’s application to be declared an approved organisation under the provisions of section 121 of the [Animal Welfare] Act [1999].” This was the only application AWINZ ever made seeking this “approved organisation” status under the Act.

Wells attached Appendices including “Appendix V -Charitable Trust Deed”.

Under the heading “2. Functions of the [Animal Welfare] Institute” he wrote:

A charitable trust has been formed by Deed of Trust as the “Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand” (AWINZ). It is being registered under Part II of the Charitable Trusts Act 1957. [Emphasis added]. The founding trustees are:

Nuala Grove

Sarah Giltrap

Graeme Coutts

Neil Wells

The Deed of Trust is set out in Appendix V

This letter of application to the Minister of the Crown dated 21 November 1999 claims that AWINZ had been formed by way of  a Trust Deed executed and signed by the four Founding Trustees (named) and that:

“The principal purpose of the Institute is to promote the welfare of animals. The Institute aims, inter alia, to provide a national body to which individual Inspectors will be properly answerable.”

and

“It [AWINZ] is being registered under Part II of the Charitable Trusts Act 1957.”

The problem is that “original” Trust Deed Mr Wells refers to in his letter of 21 November 1999 to Minister Luxton did not exist at the time of writing. The copy supplied to the Minister at the time application for “approved organisation” status was being sought for “AWINZ” was an unsigned and undated Deed of Trust. This signed AWINZ “Deed of Trust” he refers the Minister to in 1999, has never been registered with the Charities Commission and AWINZ has never sought to be incorporated under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 on the basis of any “Deed of Trust”.

Mark Neeson, Senior Policy Analyst for the MAF, wrote to Neil Wells on 28 January 2000:

“Legal status of the Trust

20. Could you please provide documentary evidence confirming that the Trust has been legally registered under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957.”

Mr Wells, who never supplied any evidence, met with MAF officials before responding to this letter, to put his case that an organisation like AWINZ, which had not been incorporated under the Act , should still be able to apply for and gain “a recommendation for approval … under the provisions of section 121 of the Animal Welfare Act 1999.

In an email dated 17 March 2000 to Mark Neeson of MAF, Neil Wells argued that if AWINZ was required to become an incorporated entity under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957, before its application for approval under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 could even be considered by the Minister and MAF; then this would be unfair. Going through the claimed arduous process with the Ministry of Commerce involving incorporation, he contended, would add “months” to the process before a valid application under the Animal Welfare Act could even be commenced by AWINZ.

In reality the process of incorporating a Trust under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 was not that difficult at that time (or today) and Wells appears to have deliberately exaggerated the ‘difficulty’ of the task. As noted above, he had incorporated two Trusts earlier in 1999 with little difficulty, so he knew that the process was relatively easy.

Mr Neil Wells pointed out to Mark Neeson that an unincorporated Trust such as AWINZ constitutes a “legal Person” as soon as the Trust Deed has been witnessed and executed by the Trustees and that even though AWINZ was not a corporate body, such as a company or an incorporated society; AWINZ should still be considered as a potentially “approved organisation” under section 121 the Animal Welfare Act. However, his argument was based on the false premise – that a Trust that is not incorporated constitutes an “organisation” as envisaged under the legislation which he had helped to write. For an organisation to be a legal entity in its own right  it must be incorporated, a fact that should have been well understood by Mr Wells – a barrister.

In the email dated 17 March 2000, Mr Wells wrote identifying himself as “Programme Coordinator – Animal Welfare Investigators”, to Mark Neeson of MAF, stating:

“AWINZ can produce evidence that the trust is in being by providing a signed copy of the trust deed and will give an undertaking that it will be registered with the Ministry of Commerce.” [Emphasis added]

Again, as stated above, the Trust was never registered. The only way of doing that was to get it incorporated.

On 25 March 2000 Mr Wells wrote to the Minister – Hon. Jim Sutton:

“A signed copy of the Deed of Trust will follow. The original is being submitted to the Ministry of Commerce for registration as a charitable trust in accordance with clause 20(a) of the Deed.”

There exists compelling evidence that this statement contains falsehoods:

1. As we have already established, AWINZ has never been incorporated as a charitable trust.

2. Neither of the AWINZ Trust Deeds dated 1 March 200 or 5 December 2006, contain a clause 20(a), a clause that Neil Wells referred the Minister to as evidence that the Trustees were duty-bound under the Deed to incorporate AWINZ under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957.

3. It appears that the Minister was deliberately misled by Wells into thinking that the AWINZ Trustees/Board not only intended shortly to have AWINZ incorporated, but were required to do so by law because of clause 20(a) in their Deed of Trust. There is no evidence that any such application for incorporation was ever made or that a clause 20(a) ever existed in the Deed of Trust. It is not in the so-called “original signed Deed of Trust” dated 1 March 2000.

The AWINZ “Deed of Trust and Revocation” dated 5 December 2006, on the Charities website, states:

“On the 1st day of March 2000 the Settlor [Neil Edward Wells] established a trust for charitable purposes by creating the Trust [AWINZ] provided for it in this deed…”

The fact that neither of the Deeds dated 1 March 2000 nor 5 December 2006 contain clause 20(a) – referred to in Mr Well’s letter dated 21 November 1999 to the Minister, proves that the Trust Deed dated 1 March 2000 cannot be the  original Deed of Trust. Alternatively it proves that a clause 20(a) never existed, other than in the mind of Mr Wells.

So why did the Charities Commission allow a Trust whose Settlor, barrister Neil Edward Wells, was unable to produce a copy of its original signed Deed of Trust, to be granted charitable status under the Charities Act 2005?

One can only assume that Charities Commission Registration officials were duped into thinking that AWINZ was in fact an incorporated Charitable Trust, when it was not; and that compliance issues relating to Trust Deeds had all been taken care of by Ministry officials as part of its supposed ‘incorporation’. Without a Statutory Declaration having ever been made with respect of its original Deed of Trust or subsequent versions of it involving elements of revocation, the true status of this “Trust” and the nature of its “charitable activities remain highly questionable and warrant further investigation.

References

http://www.anticorruption.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Chronology-and-purpose-of-documents.pdf

http://www.transparency.net.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/community-well-being-fund.pdf

http://www.anticorruption.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/maf-letter-24-dec-1999.pdf

http://www.anticorruption.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/18-to-sutton-25-march-2000.pdf

http://www.transparency.net.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/AWINZ-MEETING-MINUTES-doc-10-05-06-original.pdf

http://www.anticorruption.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/awinz-deed-maf-copy.pdf

http://www.anticorruption.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/awinz-deed-maf-copy.pdf

http://www.anticorruption.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/RNZSPCA-meeting-with-didovich-and-wells.pdf

http://www.anticorruption.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/V-lord-dowding.pdf

New developments in animal welfare. New Zealand Government Media 19 January 2001

http://www.mpi.govt.nz/news-resources/news/new-developments-in-animal-welfare

Filed Under: Enforcement Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Registered Charity’s website (www.protectmarriage.org.nz owned by Family First NZ) suffers major attack

July 30, 2012 by 1 Comment

A website opposed to a law change that would allow gay marriage has been removed from the internet, less than 12 hours after its launch.

Conservative lobby group Family First [which was registered as a charity with the Charities Commission in 2007] this morning announced the launch of the protectmarriage site after Labour MP Louisa Wall’s members bill to redefine marriage, which is not currently defined in the Marriage Act, was pulled from the ballot last week.

The bill would make it clear that two people, regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity, could marry.

Family First national director Bob McCoskrie said his group had launched the website to protect the current definition of marriage, which he described as “one man, one woman”.

The website at www.protectmarriage.org.nz featured an online petition to Parliament and a tool to let people contact MPs to express their views.

But by midday the site had crashed after a large-scale denial of service attack.

The IP addresses associated with the attack were being actively blocked and by 2pm the website was up and running again.

However, by 5pm the website domain had been completely removed.

“Due to large scale Denial of Service attacks against this domain it has been decided to ensure the stability and security of our servers and network this account has been removed,” the web host [247 hosting.co.nz] said.

It was not known where the attacks were coming from, Mr McCoskrie said.

Mr McCoskrie was told it was a fairly major attack, which was aimed at the protectmarriage website but also took down quite a few of the host’s other websites.

“You always hope you can have a robust debate about ideas, and show respect for each other but when you’re trying to take out each other’s website it kind of suggests that you’re not going to get a good debate, so that’s disappointing.”

In explaining the website this morning Mr McCoskrie said politicians had been hammered recently with reasons to redefine marriage, and the website would help to balance the debate.

“Ultimately, the state – which did not invent marriage – has no authority to re-invent it,”he said.

“Equality does not mean we must redefine marriage. Same-sex couples have the option of civil unions to recognise their relationship so there is no need for redefining marriage.”

Adding to the website’s early-launch woes, US band Train is also vowing to get one of their songs removed from the website, after a YouTube link to the song Marry Me was placed on the website without them knowing.

Train was asked yesterday by a New Zealand tweeter, @Mikey_J_S, why their music video appeared on the website.

Train responded: “Didn’t know. Getting it off asap. Tnx 4 tip”.

Mr McCoskrie said he had not yet heard from Train, and the song remained on the website.

“We’re not going to do anything based on Twitter, but if they contact us and ask us to remove, we will certainly respect their wishes.”

Initial indications are that the bill has the numbers to pass. Of the 76 of Parliament’s 122 MPs who responded to a New Zealand Herald survey last week, a clear majority of 43 were in support of the bill or leaning towards backing it.

Labour leader David Shearer has said he will support the bill, and Prime Minister John Key today said he would vote in favour the bill.

Source:

Anti-gay marriage website attacked 30 July 2012

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10823280APNZ

Filed Under: Marriage Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

Registered charity Family First NZ promotes “21 Reasons Why Marriage [Between 1 Man & 1 Woman] Matters.”

July 30, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Family First NZ, a registered charity (Reg. No. CC10094) that was registered with the Charities Commission on 21 March 2007, is promoting and making available to the public for free download, its booklet entitled “21 Reasons Why Marriage [Between One Man and One Woman] Matters.” (Available from homepage of “The National Marriage Coalition of New Zealand” www.nzmarriage.org.nz).

The content on this website presents the case for protection of the current definition of marriage as ‘one man one woman’. in response to the private members bill of Labour MP Louisa Wall which seeks to redefine marriage. The registrant of the domain name nzmarriage.org.nz is the “National Marriage Coalition of New Zealand” C/- the Family First NZ’s P.O. Box 276133 Manakau City 2241.

Filed Under: Marriage Tagged With: , , ,

Pro-Marriage Website (www.protectmarriage.org.nz) launched by registered charity – Family First NZ

July 30, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Family First NZ, a registered charity (Reg. No. CC10094) that was registered with the Charities Commission on 21 March 2007, has announced that:  “A website to protect the current definition of marriage as ‘one man one woman’ has been launched today. The website is www.protectmarriage.org.nz and has been launched in response to the private members bill of Labour MP Louisa Wall which seeks to redefine marriage.”  [The registrant of the domain name protectmarriage.org.nz is Family First NZ, which purchased it on 4/08/2011].

“The website will provide research, latest news, quotes of interest, free downloadable resources about the role and function of marriage, and will host an online petition which will be presented to Parliament,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “It also has the haveyoursay tool which enables people to easily contact their local MP, all MP’s, or a select group of MP’s to express their view.”

“Politicians have been hammered recently with the reasons for taking the twink bottle to the dictionary and to redefine ‘marriage’. This website will help balance the debate. Ultimately, the state – which did not invent marriage – has no authority to re-invent it.”

Family First also rejects the notion that NZ’ers are ready for same-sex marriage. In the US, polls have also shown support for same-sex marriage increasing, yet in every state where the issue has been on the ballet, voters have rejected it.

“Equality does not mean we must redefine marriage. Same-sex couples have the option of civil unions to recognise their relationship so there is no need for redefining marriage. If the law was redefined to allow same-sex marriage, and only same-sex marriage, we would then be discriminating against those seeking, for example, polygamous, polyamorous, or adult incest unions,” says Mr McCoskrie. “If we are going to have a debate about same-sex marriage and liberalising adoption laws, it is essential that the politicians acknowledge just how far this is going to go.”

“Almost every culture in every time and place has had some institution that resembles what we know as marriage, and it has always been associated with procreation. Every society needs natural marriage. Nature also discriminates against same-sex couples. Same-sex couples cannot have children. Only a man and a woman can produce children. This discloses something of the purposes and providence of nature, and the role and purpose of marriage,”

“We would encourage politicians to spend their valuable time focussing on major issues such as family poverty, negotiating our way through the world recession, child abuse, and getting people employed – rather than taking to the dictionary with a twink bottle,” says Mr McCoskrie.
ENDS

Filed Under: Marriage Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Parliament to vote on gay marriage bill – Fairfax NZ News

July 26, 2012 by 2 Comments

Gay marriage could be allowed in New Zealand after Labour MP Louisa Wall had her Bill drawn from the Members’ ballot today.

The Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill would enable same sex marriages and would have implications for gay adoption.

It is likely to be a conscience vote.

The Government has further battles on its hands after Labour had four out of five bills drawn from the Members’ ballot.

The Members’ ballot is drawn every time the progression of bills on Members’ night makes room for Parliament to debate further legislation.

MPs can only have one bill in their name in the ballot.

Today’s ballot was considered a record because it will see five new bills introduced to Parliament.

See full story: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7354142/Parliament-to-vote-on-gay-marriage-bill

The Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill

http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/07819230-A1EF-4A7B-B5C2-9D7A830AC40E/222836/MarriageDefinitionofMarriageAmendmentBill_1.pdf

Filed Under: Homosexuality, Marriage Tagged With:

Kahui case: $25,000 reward offered by registered charity Family First NZ for information that leads to a conviction

July 26, 2012 by Leave a Comment

TVNZ One News Story: Kahui case: 25k reward offered. Family First [a registered charity. Reg. no. CC 10094] is offering a $25,000 reward for any new information that leads to a conviction in the case of the Kahui twins’ deaths.

Coroner Garry Evans says he is satisfied that the traumatic brain injuries suffered by three-month-old boys Chris and Cru Kahui were incurred during the afternoon-evening of June 12, 2006, while they were in the “sole custody, care and control of their father” Chris Kahui at the Mangere house where they lived.

Chris Kahui was acquitted of the twins’ murders in 2008.

The National Director of Family First Bob McCoskrie said it is hoped the reward will be enough incentive for somebody to break their silence.

McCoskrie said somebody must know what happened.

“This should not be allowed to be swept under the carpet,” he said.

“New Zealanders want answers to this case – who killed the twins, why did the prosecution fail, and what were the contributing factors to these murders that need to be tackled to avoid similar cases in the future?”

He said a reward will be a small price to pay for justice to be served for Chris and Cru.

Kahui’s defence claimed that the twins’ mother Macsyna King was responsible for the deaths, but she denied this at his trial and at the coroner’s inquest last year.

Evans said in his report released today that the allegation that King was responsible for the infliction of the twins’ fatal injuries “lies unsupported by the evidence and is without substance in fact”.

Police consider evidence

The coroner also said in his report that the evidence given by Chris Kahui was “unreliable, conflicting and, on many occasions, untrue”.

But Kahui today rejected outright the findings of the Coroner’s Court and again denied any involvement in his sons’ deaths.

Police said they are still considering the evidence heard during the coroner’s inquest and will not be making further comment until that analysis is completed.

“The death of the Kahui twins is yet another tragic reminder of the need for everyone in our communities to play their part in ensuring the safety and welfare of our young and vulnerable people” said Superintendent John Tims.

Police said today they thoroughly investigated the deaths of the Kahui twins and put all available evidence before the court for examination and judgement.

Family members initially refused to co-operate with police in their homicide investigation into the twins’ deaths.

Source: TVNZ  One News Story: http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/kahui-case-25k-reward-offered-4985743

See Family First NZ Offer (first made in 2010).

http://familyfirst.org.nz/2012/07/kahui-case-25k-reward-offered/

http://familyfirst.org.nz/issues/kahui-case-reward/

Filed Under: Crime, Enforcement Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

Lobbyists with free access to Parliament – Revealed

July 26, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Members of one of New Zealand’s most exclusive clubs have finally been revealed – the 15 members of the public with access cards to Parliament have been named by Speaker Lockwood Smith.

As expected, the list includes some of our most influential lobbyists, including former diplomat Charles Finny, Sky TV’s Tony O’Brien and Wellington identities Barrie Saunders and Mark Unsworth, as well as leading unionists Helen Kelly and Peter Conway.

Philippa Falloon, widow of former Cabinet minister John Falloon, and Lady Jane Kidd, wife of former Speaker Doug Kidd, are also on the list.

The Speaker has previously rejected calls to reveal those lobbyists with access cards for Parliament, but agreed to release the list yesterday to coincide with the first reading of a bill sponsored by Green MP Holly Walker calling for greater transparency around lobbyists.

The access card gives holders the right to enter Parliament without passing through the usual security screening and through the public areas.

A spokeswoman said the card did not give the group swipe card access to private areas like the Beehive core, Bowen House or the Speaker’s corridor.

There have long been questions over the level of access to MPs by lobbyists, and elsewhere, including in Australia and the United States, they are required to sign lobbyists’ registers that allow the public to know which lobbyists have been schmoozing a country’s decision-makers.

The Speaker’s decision to make the information transparent will be welcomed – but earlier yesterday Dr Smith was on the wrong side of public opinion, after insisting that he give evidence behind closed doors to a select committee hearing evidence on MPs’ perks and conditions.

Dr Smith’s evidence related to legislation giving an independent authority greater control over perks and follows moves to tighten up the rules around travel.

The legislation is supposed to provide greater transparency around pay and perks.

But after the Government administration committee advertised Dr Smith’s evidence as open to the public, it shut out the media and members of the public.

Prime Minister John Key, who has driven the push for transparency, said he was “surprised” by Dr Smith seeking secrecy and made it clear he was unhappy, given the commitments he had made on MPs’ perks.

“We’re trying to add more transparency to the process.”

THE LIST

Nicholas Albrecht – government relations manager for infrastructure company Vector.

Tim Clarke – law firm Russell McVeagh

Peter Conway – Council of Trade Unions

Helen Kelly – CTU

Daniel Fielding – law firm Minter Ellison Rudd Watts

Charles Finny – lobbyists Saunders Unsworth

Barrie Saunders – Saunders Unsworth

Mark Unsworth – Saunders Unsworth

Tony O’Brien – Sky TV

Phil O’Reilly – BusinessNZ

Leigh Pearson – former TVNZ journalist turned lobbyist

Jordan Williams – law firm Franks & Ogilvie

Rasik Ranchord – Parliamentary Breakfast Group

Philippa Falloon – former MP’s widow

Lady Jane Kidd – former MP’s spouse

Source:

The Dominion Post, July 26, 2012, p. 1.

Story by Tracy Watkins

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7349759/Lobbyists-with-free-access-to-Parliament

 

Filed Under: Political Advocacy Tagged With: ,

Registered charities and the proposed Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct and Register of Lobbyists

July 26, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Under legislation proposed by Green MP Ms Ms Holly Walker, people who receive pay for lobbying MPs about laws or policies and who fail to register with the Attorney-General as paid lobbyists, could face criminal charges. The Lobbying Disclosure Bill, drawn from the parliamentary ballot on 21 April 2012, seeks to bring transparency to the activities of all paid lobbyists who attempt to sway and influence legislative processes by communicating with MPs. The bill proposes that the Auditor-General be empowered to investigate any alleged breaches of a Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct, which all paid lobbyists must agree to and sign, before they can lawfully engage in the lobbying of MPs. The Auditor-General will also be empowered to remove or suspend persons from a Register of Lobbyists if they breach the Code of Conduct.

Ms Walker wants regular statistics to be gathered on all paid lobbyists and the data regularly collated and reviewed, so the public, government officials and a host of enforcement agencies can closely scrutinise all their activities.

If her proposed bill, as drafted, passes into law, charities registered with the Charities Commission, such the the New Zealand Aids Foundation (NZAF), that are heavily engaged in political advocacy and lobbying AND receive significant government funding (see below); will need to have all and every one of their paid lobbyists sign a Lobbyists’ Code of [ethical] Conduct and register their personal details on the Register of Lobbyists.

Failure to do so prior to watching a rugby match from a NZAF-sponsored corporate box, or watching a NZAF-sponsored modelling pageant, alongside any MP or MPs, regardless of their gender, age, race, religion, political affiliation or sexuality; might lead to an unauthorised NZAF lobbyist having criminal charges being laid against him or her. Such unauthorised lobbyists attending a Big Gay Out event or a Hero Parade, who might be photographed or filmed arm-in-arm with an MP, whilst indulging in “political advocacy,” may face the prospect of being charged with criminal activity (lobbying).

Once charged, the NZAF charity worker accused would be required in make a credible defence to the Attorney-General, disclosing the range of presumably “gay” friendly legislative issues discussed with the friendly MP, and the methods used in the lobbying campaign, if any.

Authorised NZAF lobbyists who face charges over alleged breaches of the Code  will have to rely on the official records made of their lobbying encounters as recorded by the friendly MPs as well as their own diary records and any corroborating evidence provided by Big Gay-Out/Hero Parade participants/witnesses.

(NZAF, a registered charity [CC22230], which received $4,112,376 in government funding/contracts, and $342,029 in other grants/sponsorship in the financial year ending 30 June 2011, has “40-something staff throughout the country” according to one NZAF official. No figures have been provided as to how many of these are paid lobbyists. $2,564,846 was spent by NZAF on salaries/wages in 2010/2011. See www.charities.govt.nz ).

The Auditor-General would need to scrutinise the lobbying activities of registered charities like NZAF, if the latter’s paid staff were charged with unlawful lobbying, and refer offending paid charity workers to the police if they breached the new law. The Bill requires a report on any suspended or deregistered paid lobbyist to be reported to Parliament, as well as all investigations of such breaches to be undertaken.

Given that the Auditor-General is an MP, he or she will have to be very, very, careful in all dealings with undercover paid lobbyists, particularly when attending highly-visible social events, if the bill passes into law.

Reference: Lobbying Disclosure Bill. In the name of Green Party MP, Ms Holly Walker.

http://www.greens.org.nz/bills/lobbying-disclosure-bill

Note: The article”Registered charities and the proposed Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct and Register of Lobbyists” was first published on the SPCS Blog on 13 June 2012

Filed Under: Political Advocacy Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Challenge Weekly – owned by registered charity – highlights “University ProLife Win”

July 26, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Challenge Weekly Newspaper, owned by a legal entity that was incorporated in 1975 and registered with the Charities Commission as a charity on 30 June 2008, runs a story on its front page this week “Prolife elated with win: University [Prolife] club survives expulsion bid.”

A student-run prolife group is celebrating a vote by its peers at the University of Auckland not to disaffiliate the club.

Prolife Auckland won the vote 227 to 125 at a special general meeting attended by a large and noisy crowd on July 18 and club president Amy Bowers is pleased with the result for a number of reasons.

“We had support from many students who are not members of our club and have no intention of joining. But clearly they recognised that freedom of expression is a right worth protecting for everyone, in particular in a university setting where academic freedom must be paramount.”

After a single anonymous complaint regarding the club’s ‘Right To Know’ pamphlets that were distributed around campus, the Auckland University Student Association (AUAS) executive put forward a motion to deny ProLife Auckland the right to exist as an affiliated club.

“The club ran this campaign in May which promoted a women’s right to know the facts when faced with a crisis pregnancy, which included the health risks of abortion and full statistics. Ironically, this attempt to shut us down has given us the chance to reach a far wider audience with our message, and that’s the whole reason that we exist as a club,” says Ms Blowers.

Prolife Auckland’s sister club at Wellington’s Victoria University is also thrilled with the result.

“Freedom of speech is a vitally important right in a society that truly claims to be open, free and democratic,” says LifeChoice Victoria president Mary-Ane Evers.

“University is the perfect place for discussion of controversial issues. Student Associations should encourage free and frank discussion and not shy away from these topics.”

Celebration has continued throughout the wider prolife community in New Zealand.

Right to Life spokesperson Ken Orr was delighted at the resounding victory for the right to free speech upheld by the students. “We congratulate the members of Prolife for its defence of free speech…” said Mr Orr.”The battle for recognition of the inalienable right to life of every human being from conception to natural death will be won or lost in our universities.”

Source: Challenge Weekly. July 23, 2012, Vol. 70 Iss. 27, p.1.

Filed Under: Abortion, Pro-life Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Challenge Weekly – owned by registered charity – applauds ProLife’s pamphlet upholding “sancity of life”

July 26, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Challenge Weekly Newspaper, owned by a legal entity that was incorporated in 1975 and registered with the Charities Commission as a charity on 30 June 2008, has just published the following “Publisher’s Letter” dealing with ProLife issues, including “the sanctity of human life … made in the image of God”…….

The Power of One: by John Massam [23 July 2012]. It seems incredible that a complaint from one anonymous student, about the distribution of a pamphlet, ‘Right to Know’, at Auckland University, would propel the Auckland University Student Association (AUSA) executive to ban ProLife from affiliation as a club on campus.

But rather than accepting the decision the group challenged it, and at a special meeting called to consider their right to exist as a club, won a resounding victory. The vote was 227 for to 125 against.

What is hard to fathom is how a pamphlet advocating the right of women to know about health risks associated with abortion and the alternatives available to them, so they can make an informed decision, should provoke such a reaction. Particularly when the material used came from peer-reviewed academic studies with medical statements which were supported by footnote references to reputable journals.

It is proper that philosophy student Amy Blowers. President of ProLife Auckland, would be elated by the support given by students, many of whom, she said, had no intention of being members of their club. Beyond that she sees freedom of expression as a right worth protecting, particularly in a university setting, where academic freedom must be paramount.

Sadly, we are seeing values that we have taken for granted being replaced and worse still, denigrated. The very people who demand the right to promote alternative values appear to believe that they have the right to silence anyone who holds a different view. They very cunningly picture those who oppose their view as driven by phobia.

What is needed are more people committed to addressing a particular issue, such as William Wilberforce did with slavery. People who are passionate and determined about something they commit themselves to, believing that it is non-negotiable and recognising that if they present the truth then the truth will speak for itself. What is hard to fathom is that so many are blind to the truth.

Those in the pro-life movement are committed to upholding the sanctity of life. They see it as a God-given gift to be valued and upheld. They believe that we denigrate and disrespect it at our peril. In bold terms, they regard the taking of human life as murder, which has disastrous effects on both the perpetrator and society.

Even if upholding the sanctity of life is not the issue we are personally dedicated to uphold, we must affirm our support for those, particularly young people committed to doing so.

One thing we can do, however, is refuse to use weasel words like abortion, fetus and unborn that are intended to lull people into a false acceptance of murder, the killing of a child conceived in the image of God.

Source: Challenge Weekly, 23 July 2012, p. 2.

http://www.challengeweekly.co.nz/editorial.html

Filed Under: Abortion, Pro-life Tagged With: , , , , , , ,
«Older Posts
%d bloggers like this: