There is a song History never repeats  by  Split Enz  appropriately by a New Zealand band   which like every thing in New Zealand actually belies  the truth .

For history  does repeat I am watching it repeat right now  this time  the  victim is Jami Lee Ross.

AT present  rumours  are flying  far and wide about Jami, there is probably not a woman in the country who he has not  had an affair  with and no matter what he has ever done with  good intention he will be villainized .

Everything in New Zealand hinges on reputation, not on truth or   evidence   but on character assassination, Make Jami the bad guy and all the corruption goes away .

You see New Zealand has  a Whistleblowing act  which   does not protect whistleblowers.  that is because the  act is  very limited as to who it protects.Jami Lee Ross is not an employee of the  National party  and hence receives no protection from the act 

Like Jami  I   am a  whistleblower and  I am 12 years in  from the event  , I simply said   This  law enforcement authority  does not exist  and for that   I was crucified and I can identify  with what Jami is going through.

The current time is the toughest, this is the time when they set out to totally destroy you , with a bit of luck  you may even top yourself  Bit like murder but their hands are  allegedly clean , and if you are not strong enough to cope with the world turning on you watching every aspect of your life being destroyed  and you don’t  top yourself they  lock you up in the middle of a long weekend  .

This week I have heard MPs  say ” I don’t know how he sleeps at night “, “one deluded individual” , such statements  while appearing derogatory  are actually quite true and can never be used for any defamation claim  against their makers  .

Quite true  How  does Jami sleep at night with all this character assassination  and bullying going on


He  was one deluded person  when he believed in  the integrity of those in the national party  .

Jami is no doubt severely depressed  but I doubt that   he is the mental fruit loop who has lost the plot. He  is  at this point in a turmoil where his values have been totally screwed up  and he realises that  honesty is not regarded as a virtue by those he held in high regard and his life is imploding at all angles .

I too felt depressed and  suicidal when it all went down,  but the positive thing for me was a wonderful doctor who refused to give me antidepressants, he said to me  anyone  who had  this  going on in their life would feel the same way.

I took magnesium instead.. fabulous stuff a life saver.

They will however probably pump poor Jami full of  mind altering drugs,  Its a long weekend   and  the timing of this  is just simply too convenient.

Next step will be court action lots of it from all sorts of angles,  I was done for defamation for speaking the truth , I didn’t stand a chance in court as my defence of truth and honest opinion was struck out  through a strategic move  .  vital information was  withheld by Government for  nearly 5 years  , information which proved that I had been right all along. But the lawyers continued to  attempt to bankrupt me  and my  company was even put into liquidation on a false affidavit . even 12 years later I have  Vivienne Holm  still attacking me for saying that she wasnt a lawyer at the time , turns out I’m right but that doesn’t stop her from taking legal action  .

Jami’s marriage won’t stand the strain , his kids  will be alienated from him  all sorts of allegations will come flying  and  as they say  throw enough shit some of it will stick.

Hopefully the focus can  go  from Jami  and the spotlight should go firmly on  the donations.  I some how suspect that all the parties  got under the table hand outs  , that is why  they are all quite . But who will deal with this  It wont be the SFO  as  100,000  is below their threshold

It wont be the ombudsmen  because they have a  massive back log

It wont be the  Labour party as they are probably   equally  guilty .

and while every one is shagging each other  we have secrets which are kept  if one thing comes out  it may all spill out  and  what would happen then..OOps we would see how truly corrupt New Zealand is

Jami  is alone now   He needs the support from each an every  New Zealander who believes that our political parties and those in power should be accountable to the very same laws that we all have to abide by . While we get a ticket for driving in the wrong lane,  unexpectedly  going those few K over the speed limit and parking 5 minutes too long a blind eye is well and truly turned to   the corrupt use of office  by government officials.

we need a country which has integrity and were the laws are applied to all equally  .








Good afternoon Kathryn

Let’s talk about the  elephant in the room

I refer to the newspaper story  One in five NZ lawyers sexually harassed, Law Society survey finds and your letter to lawyers  referring to the  report 

What is particularly disturbing is that  we are looking at a particularly elite group of persons, those who are officers of the high  court  who have an obligation  to uphold the rule of law and to facilitate the administration of justice in New Zealand. and most mportantly  in the words of Justice Winkelmann

There is also another aspect to the adversarial model which depends upon legal
representation. It is the reliance that judges place upon counsel to never knowingly mislead the court in matters of fact or law. This duty of counsel enables the system to function efficiently and maintains its integrity. It frees the Judge from having to conduct his or her own inquiries to independently check the veracity of what they are told by counsel. For counsel this duty flows from the fact that counsel are officers of the court. It is also a manifestation of the obligation on all lawyers to uphold the rule of law, an obligation now given statutory recognition in the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006.

In a country where the adversarial  legal system is the  only system “52% of lawyers have ever experienced bullying (to some degree)”If  lawyers bully  each other  then  what about a survey on the members of the public  who have been bullied by  Lawyers  and perhaps a survey  on the integrity  of lawyers  as those who bully in my humble opinion ,  have no integrity .

In an  adversarial  legal system winning at all costs  is at the  forefront, so bullying, underhanded tactics  and   dubious strategies all come into play. This is the nature of bullies  and this is what  lay litigant and  ethical  lawyers  face.

We cannot pretend that the lawyers who bully in the workplace are  honest upstanding persons in the court.

I have tried to have lawyers held accountable to the rule of law  and the law society came back  in one instance and stated that a lawyers obligation is   to his client!. it is not   his obligation is to the law and then to  the client .

d)the obligation to protect, subject to his or her overriding duties as an officer of the High Court and to his or her duties under any enactment, the interests of his or her clients.

Lawyers Lie and cheat  but seldom do we see a complaint upheld  because the law society itself is conflicted and   the outcome is very much dictated by whose pal we are talking about  rather than  the actual actions of a lawyer .

The law society has protected its own and continues to do so .

Lawyers are not held  accountable to the law  in the same way as  ordinary people are. I have an example of a lawyer who  committed a criminal offence,  and received name suppression.  While   the ordinary Joe Blogs   who does not have  a legislative obligation to the rule of law is prosecuted and or convicted  on the say so of lawyers when there is no evidence , lawyers  are exonerated for  crimes with nothing  more than a slap across the wrist with a wet bus ticket..

Every so often you do make an example of  a lawyer, this is probably because they are   foreign and have challenged the procedures here  or  their adversary has  more significant friends in the law society than  they have.  once every so often you do get it right   but  more often than  not    the chances of  being exonerated  through the law society are much higher than the average person has of being exonerated in court.

Lawyers in  crown law  appear to be particularly  at risk  of  abusing  their position and make statements of fact  when they cannot be supported by law  but  who will challenge them  ?

It is impossible to have a lawyer held accountable to the rule of law  so why  should we waste out time making a complaint  all that does is make us a target for lawyers , bankruptcy is a favourite  it is the closest  they can get to killing  someone and with the pressure  who knows  they may even   jump.. problem solved.   Bullying is at the heart of our so called justice system and while bullying  exists there can be no justice.

Kathryn  there is a simple way  to  clean up corruption in New Zealand    and that is to  enforce section 4 of  the lawyers and conveyancers act  to the letter .

But that will not happen as long as the law society is conflicted and has both the representative and regulatory  functions.

Laws were written by lawyers  and  the lawyers and conveyancers act  is used to  protect  lawyers  and not the public. Lawyers have got themselves in a position of power   and  many  are out of control  .

There is a solution .. It is time we had an independent regulatory authority for  lawyers like every other   group of professionals have .

time for ethics and integrity    lets clean  NZ up  .

We need Lawyers who  are ethical  and have integrity,  the  moral fiber of our society  depends on  it

Grace Haden



Sent: Tuesday, 15 May 2018 11:43 a.m.
To: [email protected]
Subject: Open letter with regard to the lack of compliance with rule of law in New Zealand

Good Morning Minister

I am a whistle-blower on serious government corruption in 12 years I have  never had an independent investigation from a government body and have evidence  that crucial documents were deliberately withheld   for many years  so as to deny me a fair hearing .

The corruption involved a barrister writing and advising on   legislation for his own business plan and the subsequent    fraudulent application for  Law enforcement powers which he achieved by  misleading the crown and lying to the minister.

I was crucified  and have been under attack by these people since.

I am a former police prosecutor  and although I hold no formal legal qualification  have 44 years of experience  in law

Despite having mountains of evidence  from government sources,  the police and SFO have not once looked into the evidence and  have brushed it off as being too serious for the police but not serious enough for SFO .

Last year I read  a law society news item which was so detailed  that from my own experience and knowledge I was able to speculate that this  lawyer was one and the same barrister  involved in the corruption .

I was later  provided with the  decision of  the tribunal

I was able to speculate as to his identity due to the detail  in the news item which aligned with my personal knowledge But  when I speculated as to the identity of a person whose name had been anonymised, I was immediately charged .

The police admitted that they did not have an order  and the prosecutions changed the words of the charge  so that  they did not co relate to the  offence section ( 263 Lawyers and conveyancers act , which requires the existence of an order under 240 of the same act )

The police misled the court and there was never any evidence  that the person I had named was the lawyer who had appeared in a tribunal .

But what has come out of this  and  other matters which I have brought to the law societies attention over the years ,  is the  law societies  tendency to  protect some of its own . It would appear that   those who follow the rules of secrecy are safe, but be a foreign lawyer or outspoken and your for the chop

This barrister, who ever he was,  regardless of   me being right or wrong ,  did not face criminal charges for   theft on top of it his identity was concealed and this  was vigorously defended even though he  would not have been eligible for suppression under the  criminal proceedings act .

My name however was publicly broadcast, I made front page news  , was taken into custody when there are no custodial provisions and was forced to accept bail conditions when I was bailable as of right

The police could have produced an order and once an order was sown to me I would have complied with the order , but since there was no order which could be produced the  police and crown law had to step outside the rule of law  so as to impact on my freedom of opinion  by substituting fact for fiction .

In this and  other matters I have found it impossible to hold lawyers accountable to the rule of law and actually have a letter from the law society which states

The  decision can be found here and in reading the rest of it  it would appear that the law society  uses what is suitable  for them at the time from a decision and totally disregarded

Most Civil lawyers therefore prefer to be ignorant of the criminal  law including section 25 crimes act

It would appear  that the LCRO and the law society  both hold that a lawyers obligation to his her client is paramount.  It has been my experience and continues to be so that

  1. It is impossible to hold a lawyer accountable to the rule  of law
  2. That because of this   lawyers routinely use the court to   conceal crime by acting   for a  person who has much to conceal and uses the court as a  form of  bullying.  He with the most money wins and history is often re written based on decision which are not based on fact or evidence but on submission of lawyers who the judges “ have a duty to believe “ as they  “ must not knowingly deceive “ so lawyers get another lawyer to stand in for them and brief them  accordingly .

A friend happened to refer me to the Q & A programme 6 may, you appeared on Dairy maters and straight after Catriona MacLennan on  lawyers judges and he rule of law. What she said  was pretty much what I had just  written in a  memorandum to the court of appeal on the  S263 charge which not only conflicted with the rule of law but did not comply with the solicitor generals guide lines

I thoroughly support everything Catriona MacLennan  has said on the Q & A programme  and note that she is not the  first lawyer to be dealt to harshly for  pointing out the laws in the system

The law society appears to thrive on secrecy , and where there is  secrecy there is no transparency . As a former private Investigator I certainly  did not get the privilege of confidentiality which lawyers get.  This is  a massive disparity .

It  is Time that  we removed the  conflicting roles of  regulation and representation  from the law society.  They have done so in the UK .  this is becoming an urgent matter  we have the right to demand a legal system which is in line with the rule of law.

In the interest of transparency this letter will be published on the web site of the New Zealand independent commission against corruption


Grace Haden

Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at

Today I received two  emails   the first from Tatsuhiko Koyama, BA, Juris Doctor, PGDipHealSc, MHealSc  the second from Paul Gee

I felt  I needed to   add my experience to theirs,  their respective emails are  , Paul Gee here  and  Tatsuhiko Koyama here

Prime minister   open letter

I fully support the  other  writers

I have great evidence as to how we protect  corrupt lawyers in New Zealand , there by  concealing corruption .

Jacinda  you know my story  we stood for public office together   many years ago  and spoke at the same  venue.

Whistle-blowers need a sporting chance   no one should have to endure what I have had to endure I request a full investigation into the concealment of corruption in New Zealand

In 2006 I  questioned the existence of the  Animal welfare institute of New Zealand(AWINZ ), a fictional organisation which was nothing more than the pseudonym of the man who wrote  the no 1 bill for the animal welfare act.  He was independent advisor to the  select committee  and  was conflicted in that he  intended to use the legislation to facilitate his own business plan for  financial reward .

The fictional AWINZ   was granted law enforcement powers  equivalent to that held by the RNZSPCA , these were effectively the only private law enforcement “ bodies” in New Zealand

No one checked if AWINZ existed, the crown law  solicitor who   basically approved the concept is now the   chief  legal officer for  MPI , he has a need to keep a “ lid “ on this as he himself could be considered negligent for not having  identified that AWINZ  did not exist in any manner or form.

The barrister who posed as AWINZ  sued me  for defamation for questioning the  lack of existence of AWINZ with MAF and   the  council where he used the council resources infrastructure and staff to carry out  the work for his own personal gain  . I was denied a defence of truth and honest opinion   believe me  defamation is  impossible to defend when the court  wont let you defend yourself.

The lawyer who took this matter to court for the fictional AWINZ   was a resource management lawyer , But he was actually instructed  by   two barristers and a JP   who claimed to be  a trust  but  had no legitimate proof of being one .

During the time  this lawyer  was in court he became a committed patient but that did not appear to implicate on his ability to practice .

I had engaged a lawyer, paid him a lot of money  , but  he was Russian and not liked by the court  and considered incompetent, my hard luck   I lost  my appeals judicial reviews etc, he was struck off then allowed to   remove himself from the register, he is now in Panama.

I had later  identified my  lawyer as being involved in international  trust scams, I had actually stumbled on  the  panama papers  years before they  were known as that , the court    here ensured that I  was silenced.

Back to AWINZ ,the  attempts to bankrupt me failed   and my company was  placed into liquidation through   the nonservice of papers ,  this was over turned  and proved  that  document service totally lacks credibility and    that convicts are used.

These lawyers  then worked on my private investigator licence  I was told that if I  blogged and  made complaint about lawyers I would not  ever have a Pi licence again .

I was denied a licence  on renewal  and was labelled a “ conspiracy theorist “

I was a conspiracy theorist  because I said that   I  was suspicious about the complaints that kept on coming up in my life , the  pattern repeated, allegations of defamation, blackmail and harassment  .. never proved . I have since found that the    wife of the  resource management lawyer  has been very busy orchestrating and coordinating events.

While researching penalties that lawyers get for real offences   to compare  to my loss of  ability to  work due to some ones opinion , I came across an article  published by the law society   from which I could identify a  lawyer who had ripped off his client then charged  her to find the missing money .

I had know  of the events as they had happened and  blogged   raising the question as to the practitioners identity .

I named who I thought it was.  I was immediately charged, I asked for the order   which  gave him name suppression but according to the court   orders do not have to be in the public domain or  identify any one in particular before they can be executed.

I was convicted.    Compare this to the lawyer in the   tribunal  matter who committed a criminal offence but was never charged criminally, he additionally had his name supressed .  by the way  if you recognise the  events  and say   that is mickey mouse   you too will be charged   .

As to the fraud  regarding AWINZ,   well it is still being concealed   and I am still being beaten up  to be silent , the police say it too serious for them  the sfo say its not serious enough ,  it is a massive public fraud that has been concealed , but we are very  quick to  prosecute me for a order which cannot be shown to exist  in favour of any one in particular.

There is more than a little disparity here, I had  my name blasted up and down the country and  made headlines, the crime of speaking up and speculating is the fore greater than that of fraud.

This is how we conceal  corruption in new Zealand .

Please note this is an open letter and I will l publish this on  the  New Zealand independent commission against corruption web site


Grace Haden

Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at


Bryce Edwards the online editor for  New Zealand Herald Published  an article  entitled Political Roundup: Lifting the lid on lobbying in politics

He made the statement

 Recent revelations that a lobbying firm owner and director was recruited to work over summer as Chief of Staff for the Prime Minister, with the expectation he would then immediately return to lobbying, barely raised a mention in our media.

and   explores the culture about the silence we have on issues  which in reality should be a ” scandal”

The reality is that this is a culture  ,it is so much a culture that it has its own protective mechanisms where by any one who  sees what is happening and speaks out is dealt to .  this  has  to be done  and is done in the interest of preservings the  perception of   the lack of corruption .

Evidence of this type of event  occurring historically is  with the Animal Welfare act

A good starting point is  ARLAN  “Animal Rights Legal Advocacy Network” Arlan existed  in a legal form from  2008-2013 but had its beginnings as an unincorporated group  from 2001

The 2003 newsletter  of this  now defunct group  records Neil Wells speaking to them   and is headed “ARLAN SEMINAR EXPLORES HISTORY AND INTENTION OF THE ANIMAL WELFARE ACT 1999” Wells stated

“The industry-based Animal Behaviour and Welfare Consultative Committee began lobbying for the new legislation, but progress was slow. Frustrated, the committee wrote to every member of Parliament in 1997 to try to get support for the early introduction of the bill.”

Neil Wells  was himself  a member of The Animal Behaviour and Welfare Consultative Committee  see evidence here

and here 

and here 

Wells  was the person  who wrote to the ministers and Hodgson go him to write the bill see Hansard 

Not only did Wells write the  bill  he also  became the”Independent advisor to the select committee”  see Nzlii

But what was not  disclosed  was that Wells was very heavily conflicted  he had his own business plan in mind and the legislation introduced what was to become known as  Approved Organisations.

Wells began planning the   whole thing in the early 1990s    in  December 1994   he published this  

By 1995 He had developed a method by which he was going to make money out of this venture

an example of how he  was going to profit by this is here  and more at the link Here

He was selling this concept to Territorial  authorities and the plan was to amalgamate central and local  government responsibilities through the  catalyst of Neil Wells  see here 

He provides  training for the inspectors at a cost and sets out the plan of his private venture here 

He goes on to set up a training course with Unitec where he becomes lecturer in the  subject 

Wells has set up the  whole concept at Waitakere city council where he is working with Tom Didovich the then manager to  trial the   concept . Waitakere  dog  control officers are trained to be welfare workers .

However his bill was  so  deficient another bill was introduced and Wells ” approved Organisations”   made it into legislation 

While he is trialing this he is  writing the bill and working with the select committee using the  as yet unpublished information  to suit his own ends.

What happened next  was that Neil Wells  made a formal application  to he minister for the Animal welfare institute of New Zeland to become an ” approved organisation  from the minute the law  came into effect.

There were just a few ethical issues, his application to the minister was a total fraud  see application here 

he falsely claimed that the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand  existed  he had been putting the concept of its existence about since  1998 when the bill was being discussed   see this

Yet in 2006  there was no AWINZ , I with others , proved this conclusively by incorporating an identically named trust

Wells had  lied to the ministers and used  his  inside information to  set up his own business.

Crown law had advised  on the  concept of awinz  the lawyer who supported the concept was 


Peter McCarthy   is now  the lawyer for  the ministry of Primary Industries 

This could  explain why in  12 years  we have not made any progress in  having this  very public fraud  investigated . see law society news 

Crown law  failed to check  is AWINZ existed ,  they have allowed a man to  write legislation for his own business plan , advise on it  and   for 10 years a fictional  organisation  held coercive law enforcement powers.

I have repeatedly questioned the integrity of  this   but  it has been covered up and I the whistleblower have been  under constant attack.. but that is another story .

lobbying notes and links


It is alleged that  New Zealand is the simplest  country to do business in, this is  due to our  lack of  controls  of companies  and  almost anything is possible.  Overseas business men  are  aware of the lack of accountability   and one person   in  our experience  appears to stand out for  his   total disregard of our company laws .

This man is Terry Hay   Last year transparency New Zealand wrote an article  on him  New Zealand companies an international joke ? Terry Hay must think so !

The article highlights the manner in which  foreigners  abuse our companies act  and  attack  kiwis  in our courts from afar, knowing  full well that  there will never be an opportunity to  sue them back  as they are not New Zealand nationals and any cost awards  cannot be enforced.

The  continuing saga  involving Hay’s  company  Pri flight catering   played out in our courts and we have to wonder how  LSG sky chefs got on   getting the costs out of Hay and co . To see the court matters  go to  and type in  pacific flight catering .


Terry Hay   a  business man from Honolulu  he was involved in providing food to the airlines  and was in a business relationship with David Nathan  of the  chamber of commerce.  the story evolves from a number of blogs

May 7 2010 Using the court to conceal corruption

September 8 2010 Pacific Flight Catering what are its ethical values?

September 8 2010 Pacific flight catering blog

September 9 2010 shareholders PACIFIC RIM INVESTMENTS LIMITED

September 10  2010  Lawrence Nathan or is that David Lawrence Nathan

September 27 2010  Alan PFLUEGER the shareholder whose home address is an abandoned car lot

October 2  2010 Does IRD care that dead people are shareholders of pacific flight catering

October 4, 2010 should share holders expect accuracy from their directors?

june 9  2011 How the rich get richer How terry hay and david nathan  ” stole ” a company

21 November 2012 What are the ethics of Keegan Alexander law firm?

April 28 2013  Disparity in crime.. who you know matters

august 14 2014 New Zealand companies a passport to Money Laundering.

Hay came to our attention when he created a fictional director and liquidator , his  business partner at the time.. the  proxy director  Lynne Pryor   took the wrap and was convicted, Hay bought his way  out by claiming he desperately wanted to return to new zealand. An interaction  with   crown law and 22 fraud charges  were dropped.  if  we would all be so lucky 

Hay  is once again living in Honolulu.

After  we blogged about   Fresh prepared limited  and the very novel dirty ticks and harassment we suffered at  Hays hands through his girl friend Gu li  also known as Joune LEE who placed three advertisements  in the mandarin times to ensure that an endless number of chinese people phoned and called   on us. see the advertisement here

Hay  and Pryor took Grace  to court for Harassment but  this  did not prevent  the  national enforcement unit  which  existed at the time  from charging them both with 22 offences of fraud 

I note that the registrar is about to strike off Pri flight catering again.  it changed its name   briefly to LSG SKI CHITS LIMITED  and then to CHEUNG,SHORT,AND VERRY LIMITED

William Donald DRAKE is still the director and despite the fact that he lives in honolulu uses the address of a bed and breakfast  on stewart Island.

The share holder  Gu Li, Hay’s Girlfriend   had all Hays shares transferred to her  and  despite the fact that she uses  her honolulu address and the name  Joune lee  ( same address as Hay )  she  also uses a stewart island address   for the  Pri flight catering    Limited registry  ,

she also turns up   at 10 Ngaiagra Tokanui Highway, Tokanui a property which  trade me has  up for rent 

PACIFIC RIM INVESTMENTS LIMITED   is also in the process  of being  removed from the registry

why is it that overseas  people  can set up companies here and totally abuse our system ?

Does that  give us confidence in new zealand companies ,   who else is using   boarding house / hotel bed and breakfast addresses   to  over come the residency  aspect of companies  ?

PACIFIC RIM INVESTMENTS LIMITED was until  9 august 2016  the  share holder of PRI FLIGHT CATERING LIMITED the shares were transferred to Terry Hay then to Gu LI  the name of this company is now CHEUNG,SHORT,AND VERRY LIMITED it was removed from the register  from 09 Sep 2016 to 12 Oct 2016

PRI FLIGHT CATERING LIMITED was the share holder of PACIFIC FLIGHT CATERING LIMITED  was Registeredfrom 22 May 1996 to 19 May 2015.

Pacific rim investments limited remains on the register with the  bogus  addresses

william drake lives at an accountants office in  anzac  ave , Joune li  lives with Hay  and   in stewart island

Alan PFLUEGER  has been sentenced to jail for  tax fraud  being conspiracy to defraud the United States for the purpose of obstructing the Internal Revenue Service in its collection of taxes, his car yard has long since gone  but   his details remain unchanged on the Nz registry

We wonder where  Terry Hay got his ideas from

If we do not address these issues  then there is no integrity in our companies  legislation  , there has  to be accountability  or our companies are simply not safe

as a parting though we leave  you with this  liquidators report

the fictional liquidator filed this  from Mumbai    witnessed in shanghai   and despite the  court finding that  the liquidator  was fictional the company was still struck off .. so where is accountability for the  missing $$$$ .

One of Hays company had been liquidated before  he knew the tricks of the trade and has used them time and again

A suggested tag line for The companies office “New Zealand companies  where anything is possible, fact fiction and make believe  its totally Ok  we don’t check any way ”

Currently Tamaki Regeneration Limited is running very high on our  corruption potential meter .

Corruption occurs   when there  are

  1. assumptions
  2. Grey areas  being  messy  complicated  structures and  blurred identities
  3. cracks between law and   accountancy

Tamaki regeneration limited ticks all those boxes

Penny Bright who  brought this matter to our attention  has had a response  from Treasury  to her official information act request  you can see it here Official Information Act Response – Penny Bright (20170329)

The document was signed by Tom Hall  manager housing  who is listed on the treasury web site   as being part of the National Infrastructure Unit.It  does not appear that Mr Hall is a lawyer or an accountant and it is  therefore  very  likely that  he assumes  that   what he is saying in his  OIA is correct.the reality would be that he appears to  have  failed to  look at the facts  in the correct time frame.

  1. Tamaki   Redevelopment Company limited was set up by the government  to   receive 2800  state houses  and to redevelop the Tamaki area.
  2. the government  being the major share holder   had control of the   appointment of directors and most importantly the drafting of the constitution seen here  this constitution is 25 pages long
  3. when  the government announced that the   housing New Zealand  properties were to be transferred to Tamaki   Redevelopment Company limited , it  adopted a new web site  Tamaki regeneration and   a new  trading name Tamaki regeneration
  4. Tamaki Regeneration Limited was  set up as   a subsidiary of Tamaki   Redevelopment Company limited owning   100%  of the  shares as shown in the annual return of 23march 2016
  5. From the time of rebranding Tamaki redevelopment company limited  began using letter heads which contained the very confusing   fictional company name Tamaki Regeneration company limited in the footer  see here Holyoake letter
  6. Tom Hall in his response  to Penny goes into much detail   about Tamaki Regeneration limited being a  subsidiary of Tamaki redevelopment company , that may have been true  prior to 14 Apr 2016   but from that date things changed 
  7. on 14 April 2016 new shares were issued to Tamaki regeneration Limited  and Tamaki redevelopment company was removed
  8. this transaction  made Tamaki regeneration a  crown entity  and no longer a subsidiary of Tamaki redevelopment limited .
  9. on 15 April 100  shares were  added in the name of  Tamaki redevelopment limited
  10. once the  crown added its preference shares  the re was no further  amendment to the  constitution .


  1. the constitution makes no reference to preferential shares  and  does not   specify  any rights  or lack of rights attributed to those shares  .
  2. unlike the constitution of the  Tamaki redevelopment company limited where the  crown  interest are limited to 20 million through a loan, and  extensive references are made in the constitution to the crown and ministers  , no such mention occurs other than  as a subsidiary of the crown entity Tamaki redevelopment company Limited .
  3. With  public assets  of 2800  houses and land being transferred into Tamaki regeneration limited  with documentation which is vaguely  entitled     “Tamaki Transaction ” and  companies which have been introduced at the 11 th hour and  the use of  confusing   trade names and fictional   names you have to wonder if this was executed as intended or something   got lost in thee translation leaving the door open for a massive public fraud.
  4. the crown entity in this case appears to be  no longer the parent company  and crown assets have been signed over to  a company which has no  mention in the constitution of what  voting rights are afforded to   the classes of share holders .  the  very scary part of he tamaki regeneration limited’s constitution is the extent to which it appears to over ride the companies act 




In the Treasury document  at point 25   much  fuss is made of having to change things with the change in  circumstances  , but  there is no change made at all with the  company who actually gets to own the  vast government assets .   If the shares are indeed preferential shares and  require conversion   we would  expect to see some evidence in the constitution and  have confidence that the constitution has been   evaluated by crown law. Item 34 of  the  official information act  attachment makes it very clear that   only the directors of Tamaki redevelopment company had input into the constitution of tamaki regeneration limited. yet there are mega millions of  public funds in this company and the government had no input in the constitution.. doesn’t that seem odd ?

Its time  that we had a full investigation into the company which owns 2800  state houses   but is  running under the radar and not recognised as a crown entity in its own right


I am firmly of the opinion that our New Zealand laws  are sufficient to protect us from corruption , but unfortunately the law is  administered in a  very adhoc  manner, and whether or not you are prosecuted depends on who you are  or who your mates are

Entire statutes have been put on ” ice ” and the first of the   legislation which requires accountability is the companies act , to illustrate that need we go back  11 years .

In 2006    our  attorney general David Parker  found himself in hot water with the  companies  act legislation  his actions were to  admit to  the fact and resigns  See I’m ashamed says minister who resigned a month later he  was back in cabinet Parker heads back into the Cabinet after  crown law  concluded ”  no case “whatsoever” for a prosecution existed, not even at prima facie level. ”

First of all  I find it very commendable that a lawyer  who is no less a minister admits to anything , but what is interesting is that this whole incident revolved  around the simple  consent of  other shareholders to appoint  an auditor .Much has changed with our companies office since then .

That was 2006  there was  a national enforcement unit  within the companies office who investigated  and prosecuted offences  relating to the   the companies act.

on 19 November 2008  the fifth labour government  was dissolved and after the elections National came to power .

One of the last big cases the  national enforcement unit was involved with was that of  Lu Zhang Company director with alleged arms links in court.

Lu was what is called a proxy director  some one  whose name is put to a company   and gives a fiction a reality    in this case the   chinese girl  despite  breaking our laws brought  flack from the chinese government 

At that Time I worked with Evgeny Orlov  what I saw  scared me so much I just packed up and left , By tracing the companies his  wife  Lilya SOBOLEVA I discovered what  transpired to be  a set up  connected with the panama papers .  I blogged   about them but was  silenced by the courts , it appeared overwhelmingly  to me that  the foreign trusts, fictional  directors  and fictional liquidators are a no go   area I can only Guess that this is because New Zealand has no corruption and to acknowledge the dealings of  our companies in   these goings on tarnished our reputation  see   this  news item Bankrupt’s NZ connection

In early 2015 I was contacted by a young chef  who had  paid $64,000 for a 70% shareholding , within Months his business partner  had  transferred all these shares to himself without any legal basis . The young chef went to a lawyer and was  scalped to the tune of  a further $50,000, the company    has   defaulted on his IRD payments   and the  company is now in liquidation  but not  before the director   plundered the assets and the  name and commenced a phoenix company.

We know what evidence exists   and we know that the liquidators and  companies office  have this evidence but despite this the phoenix company  keeps on trading  .

We asked the liquidators what the state of play was and were totally gobsmacked  when they responded that  prosecution  would depend on creditor funding . it is a well known fact that the victim of a financial crime is  significantly  less well off than the perpetrator.

The moral of the story  is that   it is apparent that in New Zealand   you can set up a company and

  1. use proxy directors
  2. have fictional directors
  3. have fictional  liquidators
  4. use fake  addresses
  5. swap  name and trading name of companies
  6. have a generic or false  address for service .and even . a post office box

Those of us who have children  know that a child  has no legal  ability to enter into a contract  until they are 18  but a company set up over night , with the token  New Zealand director   can operate  from day one .

New Zealand companies are a fabulous vehicle for fraud , there is legislation  but it is in our experience not enforced   this is the latest companies office policy 

The companies act is grossly abused  and  one sector which  abuses it more than any other are our lawyers  perhaps that is why it is left untouched.

more on this later


There is a lot of confusion with regards to Tamaki Regeneration limited and Tamaki Redevelopment  Company limited  that is  because the  the    two have spawned  ”  off spring”  which  is neither one nor the other   but serves as a  tool of confusion which appears to be very successful, and probably for someone’s  hidden agenda .

This child is Tamaki regeneration company limited abbreviated to  TRC and often refereed to as Tamaki regeneration company  I mark it in red as there is no such company 

so what you may ask, well over the years I have learned that  identity fraud occurs  in corporate identities  more than it does with real  people.

The ministry of internal affairs deals with  human identity but here is no one dealing with company identities. Our companies office and  our government departments are totally slack with corporate identities  as  are our lawyers   see here

In 2006 I  questioned the existence of a private law enforcement authority  the animal welfare institute of new zealand, an impressive name which had no  legal structure or  any existence behind it, other than the man who had written the legislation under which he personally was going to  acquire law enforcement powers through a pseudonym.    I was  taken to court for defamation and for good measure was denied a defence of truth and honest opinion  and so  I became a “defamer ” in the eyes of the ignorant   but a whistle lower in the eyes of those who see clearly .

Company names have been my thing ever since , recently  Phil Taueki  had court proceedings dropped against him when I  pointed out that the alleged trust which was taking the action  had no legal existence you can read  about it through the link Man of Convictions :By Anne HUNT a Must read for all New Zealanders.

 Tamaki regeneration company was brought to my attention  in this case it  appears to me that it a name that is being used to    deal with  2800  former housing corp homes and a 200,000 million dollar  state  loan  

I personally would like to see people in authority  dealing with this type of transaction  to    check the details  but  the one thing no one ever checks is the name, near enough is good enough   we trust and often we trust wrong.  this is the background

in 2012  a company is set up   having the Auckland Council and the crown as the shareholders this company was TĀMAKI REDEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED (3937662) Registered

Its stated objective is to transform  Tamaki, this is reflected in  its web site

This process had been started  by Housing New Zealand and is reported here  and the  Housing corp buildings are taken over by the new company So the government spent mega thousands putting  the people in place , the structure in place and  drafted a robust constitution 

let’s look at things in chronological order and we can see what has happened  slight of hand  occurs   through the gradual  change  this appears to fit that bill

Tamaki redevelopment company Limited  existed in its  former   form  until the announcement on

17 June 2015     Finance Bill English and Minister of Housing Nick Smith announced that the Tāmaki Redevelopment Company will take over ownership of approximately 2800 properties currently owned by Housing New Zealand (HNZC) in the Tāmaki area.

30 June  2015  Statement of Performance Expectations (SPE) for the Tāmaki  Redevelopment Company Limited (TRC)

TRC will, in partnership with HNZC, execute the transfer of HNZC assets within the Tāmaki
area by 31 March 2016.

you will note that every page has Tāmaki Redevelopment Company Limited written on it

2 october  2015  web site    registered  following a closely guarded secret rebranding, the old web site is abandoned. the logo changes


at  about the same time  the building is painted  and   a new  so called trade mark emerges 



4 November  2015 John Holyoake  the ceo of  Tamaki  Redevelopment company Limited sends a letter to the ministers advising them of  of the intention to set up a subsidiary see  Holyoake letter

Note that the  new branding is shown on the letter and  at the footer  the  company name is shown as Tamaki regeneration company limited. Not meaning to split hairs but  legally   section 25  of the  companies act states

A company must ensure that its name is clearly stated in—(a)every written communication sent by, or on behalf of, the company; and(b)every document issued or signed by, or on behalf of, the company that evidences or creates a legal obligation of the company.

so where is the  company name  ?   Tamaki Regeneration company limited is not   the legal name of the company  this  letter to the crown is   by a fictional company   and therefore does not  comply with the crown entities act where the crown entity has to notify any change .

While this  particular letter head  states  Tamaki Regeneration company limited   it is taken a step further  in later letter heads and the   name at the bottom  simply becomes Tamaki regeneration Company

On some occasions Kris Lal the    external relations manager    adjusts the   footer to read 


So what is in a name .. well  if you are transferring 2800 homes into  another  entity would it not be great to know where  they are going.

The web site Tamaki regeneration  is copy righted to  © Tāmaki Regeneration Company 2017

Nowhere on the web site  does it state  who Tamaki regeneration company is  , but  there is a page which claims that the fictional  Tamaki regeneration company is subject to the official information act . We asked  for information but  were refused  guess  Kris Lal could not answer without tying himself in knots or giving away daming information .

11 November  2015   THA GP limited and TĀMAKI REGENERATION LIMITED are  incorporated both  100% owned by Tamaki redevelopment company limited .

12 November 2015    news item Auckland Council has appointed a new director to the Tāmaki Regeneration Company (TRC). the article  refers in reality to  Tamaki Redevelopment company limited  but  the name for the fictional entity is used

14 January 2016   Gazette notice  “gave approval under section 160(1)(b) of the Crown Entities Act 2004, in relation to section 162 of that Act, for the Tamaki Redevelopment Company Limited to borrow up to $200 million from the Crown.”

19 January 2016 The tamaki housing association limited partnership is set up  New Limited Partnership Registration

16 February 2016  web based articleTāmaki Regeneration Company (TRC) is leading New Zealand’s first community-based urban regeneration programme. We believe that this  serves to set up the confusion between tamaki redevelopment company Ltd and tamaki regeneration Limited

10 March 2016 Parliament release of   2014/15 ANNUAL REVIEW OF TĀMAKI REDEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED

On 31 March 2016, the company will take over ownership of about 2,800 properties in the Tāmaki area. These properties are currently held by Housing New Zealand Corporation and are valued at about $1.3 billion. The company told us that it has been preparing for the transfer since it was announced in April 2015 by building its management and operational capacity.

the questions which were asked pre hearing are addressed here  while the new web site which was set up n the 2015/16  financial year is mentioned there is no mention of the rebranding and  the setting up  to tamaki regeneration limited but the confusion with regards to entities is commenced  ” Tāmaki Regeneration Company (TRC) has funded the Tāmaki Community Patrols Charitable Trust”

24 March 2016 Tamaki Regeneration Company prepares for transfer of 2800 state houses  the article  links to a previous news item In April 2015 the Government controversially announced it would be transferring the ownership and management of 2800 states houses to the Tamaki Regeneration Company (TRC).  But the earlier news item states that the properties would be going to Tamaki Redevelopment Company (TRC).  .

To add to the confusion  the news item  incorrectly states ” TRC, previously known as the Tamaki Redevelopment Company, is a joint venture between the Government and the Auckland Council.” but they are not  alone in the confusion . The reality is that Tamaki Redevelopment Company limited still exists  and has never changed its name .

31 March 2016 Beehive press release which is totally confusing

The ownership and management of about 2800 Housing NZ properties in Tāmaki will today be formally transferred to the Tāmaki Regeneration Company (TRC), which is jointly owned by the Crown and Auckland Council.

“The Tāmaki Housing Association, a subsidiary of TRC, will tomorrow become the new landlord for Housing NZ tenants who live in the areas of Glen Innes, Point England and Panmure,” Housing New Zealand Minister Bill English says.

The properties were transferred to Tamaki regeneration  Limited.  Not a single property went to Tamaki redevelopment company Limited.

Tamaki Housing is a limited partnership  with a  subsidiary of Tamaki Redevelopment company  limited  and is not  connected legally in any way  to tamaki regeneration Limited ( whihc owns the houses )  except through perhaps contract which they are refusing to give under OIA

3 April 2016 Tāmaki Regeneration Company excited about transfer of homes

Tāmaki Regeneration Company (TRC) is excited about the opportunities that come with owning and managing all the social houses in the Auckland suburbs of Glen Innes, Point England and Panmure from 1 April 2016.

But    if Tamaki redevelopment   company  limited  is Tamaki regeneration company TRC , then they are not the   owners.. ownership of the properties is with  Tamaki Regeneration limited  which is in crown control but we are not  sure if he crown knows that because it became a crown entity through the back door and not through any legally recognisable process.

Also the constitution of tamaki regeneration Limited is only 7 pages long   and has never been approved by the  share holders .. the crown. Where as the constitution of tamaki redevelopment co Ltd   was   worked on for years and was very comprehensive.

These were later updated to   this for  tamaki regeneration Ltd  updated without share holder in put

and this for Tamaki redevelopment company limited

Government shares are transferred into   Tamaki regeneration limited   and by  definition of the companies act it is now no longer a  subsidiary of tamaki redevelopment Company limited  and  is a crown entity in its own right . .. except no one   thinks much of  2800  sitting in a company  under a cloak of confusion .

Even in treasury papers  the transfer of  the housing stock  is  acknowledged as to having been transferred to  Tamaki Regeneration Company (TRC)

“The first major milestone in the Treasury’s work related to social housing in the Tāmaki region of Auckland with 2,873 properties transferred to the Tamaki  Regeneration Company (TRC) in the Auckland suburbs of Glen Innes, Panmure and Point England. TRC
established a community housing provider which is now managing these properties and tenancies.”

“The first major milestone in the Social Housing Reform Programme relates to social housing in the Tāmaki region
of Auckland. The Government transferred ownership and management of 2,873 properties in the Auckland
suburbs of Glen Innes, Panmure and Point England to the Tamaki Regeneration Company (TRC) on 31 March
2016. A new, Non-departmental, capital expenditure appropriation was established to reflect the Crown
withdrawing capital from HNZC and injecting equity into TRC for the amount of $1,631.161 million, representing
the market value of the housing stock being transferred. The Crown advanced a loan to TRC for the amount of
$8.5 million to enable the continuation of the Social Housing Reform Programme by enabling supply of both social
and affordable housing in Auckland.”

TRC in the report is defined as the fictional Tamaki regeneration  company  as we have seen  Tamaki redevelopment Company limited got the 2oo million loan  and  Tamaki regeneration  Limited got the  assets .


In 2015/16, the dividend was $88 million lower than budgeted. The corporation paid $30 million to the Crown, compared with $108 million in 2014/15. The dividend was lower because of additional expenditure commitments arising from the transfer of properties to the Tāmaki Redevelopment Company Limited. 

To WHOM !!!!!!  does  any one in our public service know where   2800 houses went ? 

then to top it all off this from Treasury  

the annual report of  Tamaki redevelopment company  Limited is similarly   confusing  on page 2 it defines TĀMAKI REGENERATION COMPANY (TRC)   and in the margins throughout The document the reference is  TRC 2016 annual report , indeed the cover of the document states Tamaki redevelopment company limited annual report , so with the statement  being that TRC is tamaki regeneration company then  if follows that tamaki regeneration company  cold be a trading name   for   tamaki redevelopment company limited .  whihc makes the  following statements in the report are manifestly   false  at the worst and incredibly confusing  at the least

So   why the confusion   about where our houses have gone, why the introduction of a new company through a   letter head   of  fictional company at the 11th hour, why have confusing conflicting names  and  why cant Kris Lal provide answers  in my  experience when this happens  there is something fishy going on ,  at the very soonest  the   constitution of   Tamaki regeneration limited which owns the properties should be  examined     and the  whole project should be put on hold until  we all know which company has what and we stop hiding behind undefined confusing trading names .


This needs a public enquiry now  where is the accountability and where are our assets  ending up  ? 

who is making the $$$$$$$ and who are their buddies ?