registered charity

Dangers of Family Planning Association and Rainbow Youth Sex Ed Agendas Highlighted to School Boards nationwide

August 27, 2012 by SPCS Leave a Comment

Family First NZ, a registered charity and lobby group, has highlighted to school boards nationwide the dangers of the agenda behind the sex education programmes run in schools by two registered charities that are lobby groups – the New Zealand Family Planning Association Inc (FPA) and Rainbow Youth Inc. Its Media Release issued today “Schools Informed Of Agenda of Sex Ed Groups”, highlights that these lobby groups, along with the registered charity/lobby group – the New Zealand AIDS Foundation – are “perpetuating the myth that as long as you use a condom, you can pretty well do what you like in terms of promiscuity, experimentation, and fringe behaviours …” The Media Release dated Monday 27 August 2012 states:

Schools Informed Of Agenda of Sex Ed Groups

Family First NZ as sent a DVD presentation entitled “YOU’RE TEACHING MY CHILD WHAT? Sex Education: A Psychiatrist Calls Foul” to every school principal and every Board of Trustees in New Zealand, highlighting the dangers of Family Planning and Rainbow Youth’s sex education programmes, resources and websites which fail to tell the full facts and which compromise the concerns and wishes of parents, and the safety of young people. The presenter, Miriam Grossman, M.D., is a US-based board certified child, adolescent, and adult psychiatrist.

“Dr. Grossman’s mission is to highlight the dangers of the anything-goes, condom-based approach to sexual health. With examples from cutting edge research, she proves that sex is a serious matter, and can never be ‘casual’, especially for girls. In the DVD, she also reports on her examination of NZ-based educational resources and websites hosted by groups such as Family Planning, Rainbow Youth and others – many funded by the government, available to schools, and targeted at students,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

Family First is especially concerned about websites such as curious.org.nz, theword.org.nz, getiton.co.nz and a number of Family Planning pamphlets. Interestingly, the curious.org.nz website has been offline since Dr Grossman’s visit.

“The current approach in NZ sows confusion about right and wrong and says the moral absolute is – use condoms. The government should fund evidence-based education resources which are approved by parents rather than saying one thing to parents and another to their children. Family Planning receives more than $11m from the government of which $2.6m is for education,” says Mr McCoskrie.

A survey of parents in 2010 found that three out of four parents of young children want the abstinence message taught in sex education – with 69% of kiwis overall supporting the ‘wait’ message.

“Judging by the current approach’s results – which is a good place to start – sex education has been an utter failure. New Zealand has one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in the OECD, our STD rates are out of control, and the number of teenage girls having abortions is tragically high.”

“Groups like the Family Planning Association and the AIDS Foundation are perpetuating the myth that as long as you use a condom, you can pretty well do what you like in terms of promiscuity, experimentation, and fringe behaviours – with little or no information on the physical or emotional ramifications or prevention of disease.”

Family First NZ is calling for the government to withdraw funding of Family Planning and Rainbow Youth’s sex education programmes, resources and websites.

ENDS

Please note: Some of the material highlighted by Dr Grossman can be seen here

http://familyfirst.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Slides.ppt (Warning – contains offensive material)

For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

Bob McCoskrie – National Director

AWINZ – a registered charity spends $126,850 on defamation proceedings over four years

August 21, 2012 by SPCS 2 Comments

The Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand (“AWINZ”), an unincorporated charitable trust, allegedly “established” by Deed of Trust on 1 March 2000, was registered as a charity (Reg. No. 11235) with the Charities Commission on 28 September 2007. This charity (henceforth referred to as “AWINZ”), spent a total of $126,850 [ref. 1] in legal fees over four years (1 July 2006 to 30 June 2010) in bringing defamation proceedings against a ‘whistleblower’ – Private Investigator, Mrs Grace Haden of Auckland, who has been raising serious complaints since March 2006 with the Charities Commission and other enforcement agencies over the alleged corrupt practices of Auckland barrister Neil Edward Wells [to right], Settlor of the AWINZ Trust Deed, and AWINZ the “Approved Organisation” (as defined under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 – henceforth referred to as “AWINZ – AO“).

It is critical to grasp the distinction between “AWINZ-AO”, which was never constituted as a trust, and AWINZ the unincorporated charitable trust, allegedly established on 1 March 2000 by means of an executed Deed of Trust (after an amendment to the AWINZ deed and the appointment of other trustees in 2006 it was later granted charity status in 2007 – Reg. No. CC 11235).

AWINZ -AO, a private law enforcement authority which operated in Waitakere City using the council’s staff, infrastructure and resources, was run by Neil Edward Wells – at that time manager of dog and stock control. Its expenses were paid through rates but its profits were private.

Neil Edward Wells has sought to convince the Courts and those he has sought funds from, that the unincorporated charitable trust AWINZ and AWINZ-AO are one and the same entity and that AWINZ arose from AWINZ-AO via a seamless transition involving Ministerial approval. He put it this way when soliciting for funds on behalf of AWINZ in 2004 and 2005 from “Beauty With Compassion” (BWC), an organisation (dissolved by 2006) which campaigned against the use of animals for testing of cosmetic products:

“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 is the SPCA…. [Emphasis added]

“AWINZ would be happy to take on any residual funds from BWC and The New Zealand Fund for Humane Research [of which Wells was a founding Trustee – see later discussion].”

In a plea for money sent to all Waitakere City Council dog owners in June 2006 under the Council logo and AWINZ logo, Chairperson of the Board of Trustees of AWINZ, Winifred (Wyn) Hoadley QSO [appointed 10 May 2006] wrote:

“The Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand established in 1999, is partnering with Waitakere City Council to provide the very best of services for our animals …….. HELP THE WAITAKERE ANIMAL WELFARE FUND ….. [Coupon details] … here’s my donation ….. Tick box $10 …. $250 or other etc. Please return to PO Box 60 208 Titirangi, Auckland… AWINZ is an “approved organisation” under section 121 of the Animal Welfare Act 1999.”

A similar pitch for donations was made by AWINZ to dog owners in 2007.

AWINZ-AO was first notified of its “approved organisation” [AO] status, under section 121(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 1999, in a letter dated 19 December 2000 from the Minister of Agriculture, Hon. Jim Sutton, based on an application made by Neil Wells only, dated 22 November 1999, which was after the Act was passed in October 1999, and before the Act came into effect on 1 January 2000. More importantly, the official application was lodged before the unincorporated charitable trust “AWINZ” was allegedly “established on 1 March 2000“.

The Minister’s decision concerning AWINZ-AO was first gazetted on 18 January 2001, nine months after the AWINZ Deed of Trust had been allegedly duly executed on 1 March 2000, and 14 months after the formal application was made. Therefore the Minister’s decision did NOT relate to AWINZ at all. Minister Sutton made it clear is his letter of 19 December 1999, that his granting of “approved organisation” status was to the applicant AWINZ-AO, (“AWINZ” being at that time only the trading name of an an animal enforcement agency), which made its first and only application for “approved organisation” status in a letter dated 21 November 1999, addressed to Minister of Agriculture the Hon. John Luxton. The application was written and signed and submitted by Mr Neil Edward Wells and no one else.

Whistle-blower Mrs Grace Haden has pointed out publicly that a clear case of identity fraud was involved in this application to the Minister because Neil Edward Wells signed himself as “Trustee – AWINZ”, when in fact no such trust had been established at that time. Therefore the unincorporated charitable trust AWINZ – allegedly established on 1 March 2000 was NOT the applicant for “approved organisation” status, and could not have been the “approved organisation”.

Sutton made it clear in his letter that this granting of “approved organisation” status was conditional upon AWINZ -AO, the animal enforcement agency operated by Neil Wells, fulfilling certain requirements and it had until 30 March 2001 to fulfil these.

In 2006 when questions of the independent legal existence of AWINZ-AO arose, Mr Neil Wells made an attempt to use the court to prove that which normal business practices could not prove, alleging that the “Approved Organisation” (AWINZ-AO), a law enforcement agency with coercive statutory powers, was in reality the charitable trust. He did so despite the fact that no other person apart from himself had ever had dealings with the application, administration or functions of the “Approved Organisation”. His letter of application and accompanying documents sent to Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. John Luxton, dated 22 November 1999, on behalf of “AWINZ-AO” contained the signatures of no other persons and no consent was given jointly or severally by the alleged trustees of the not yet established trust.

Through measures normally reserved for identity fraud, it was alleged in Court by the plaintiff Neil Edward Wells, in defamation proceedings he began against Grace Haden and her company Verisure Ltd, on 18 July 2006, that AWINZ-AO the “approved organisation” was in reality a charitable trust (“AWINZ”) established by deed three months after it purportedly made the application to Minster of Agriculture, the Hon. John Luxton, on 22 November 1999, for “approved status” (under the Animal Welfare Act 1999).

However, no charitable trust with the name AWINZ had ever been established prior to 1 March 2000 and the applicant for “approved organisation” status could not have been made by the unincorporated AWINZ charitable trust, which later went on to gain approval as a registered charity with the Charities Commission on 28 September 2007.

The total income of AWINZ over the four period 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2010 was $106,639 and it was able over these four years to fund the $126,850 legal case mounted by the Settlor of the Trust’s Deed, Mr Neil Edward Wells, and two of his fellow trustees, as well as make payments totalling $31,249 to a part-the employee of the unincorporated “charitable trust” – Christine Raewyn Wells, wife of Neil Edward Wells, for her “film monitoring wages (including PAYE)”.

At the AWINZ Board meeting on 10 May 2006, Neil Well’s wife, Christine Wells, who was not a trustee, was appointed treasurer of AWINZ and she was authorised as a signatory to sign cheques on behalf of AWINZ. Two signatures were required for all outgoing payments. Three trustees were authorised to sign cheques plus Christine.

AWINZ failed to provide its original signed Deed of Trust (supposedly dated 1 March 2000 – if it ever existed) to the Charities Commission and yet it was granted charity status on 28 September 2007. Its stated “charitable purpose” is “to promote the welfare of animals exclusively in New Zealand”. However, there is no evidence, according to ‘whistle-blower’ Grace Haden, that it is has achieved anything of “public benefit”, and/or engaged in any activities that serve some “charitable purpose””, since it became a registered charity. Its small income comes from the “monitoring of animals in movies” to prevent ill-treatment: a business venture that provides an income for Christine Wells, wife of the Settlor of the Trust – Neil Wells.

The AWINZ “Deed of Trust and Revocation” dated 5 December 2005, the only AWINZ Deed of Trust document available on the Charities website, states in section 4 that “in furtherance of this [charitable] purpose” AWINZ is “To “apply all funds and assets of the Trust within New Zealand towards furthering the exclusively charitable objects, aims and purposes…. (b) To prevent ill treatment to and assist in the relief of suffering of animals. {c) To provide animal welfare services…” etc.

Funding personal defamation proceedings using funds from a registered charity which is unincorporated and which has as its sole stated purpose – the “promotion of animal welfare”, is a flagrant misuse of charity funds, especially when: (1) the legal action was directed by the Settlor of the Trust, Auckland barrister and plaintiff Neil Edward Wells, AND the named charity (AWINZ), which is not a legal entity, (2) the defendant was Grace Haden who had raised numerous complaints with the Charities Commission since 2006 concerning the alleged corruption involving AWINZ (Haden later pointed out to the Commission that the trust is being used in a manner akin to money laundering – that is converting charitable funds to the private income of one person), and (3) charity money was used to secure a ‘win’ for the plaintiff and none of the award costs, which have been paid out, have been returned to the charity, as evidenced by AWINZ financial statements.

The Trustees have chosen to categorise the “Grace Haden legal costs” incurred by “AWINZ” over the four years (2006-10), as “Service Provision Costs” in their official explanation to the Charities Commission. Such recorded costs involve no other items other than the costs incurred by Mr Neil Edward Wells and his fellow trustees in pursuing a defamation claim against Grace Haden. In recent weeks the litigation has involved Trustee Neil Edward Wells seeking to force Haden’s company Verisure Ltd into liquidation.

In law, defamation proceedings can only be taken by real legal “Persons” – that is named individual[s] and or legal entities, and NOT by unincorporated bodies such as unincorporated trusts. Despite this legal prohibition, Mr Neil Edward Wells took defamation proceedings in his own name, and claims of passing off and breach of fair trade in the names alleged fellow trustees, and yet all the tax invoices issued by Brookfields Lawyers of Auckland for this defamation case were sent to their client (the plaintiff) identified only as “AWINZ” located at the private P.O. Box of Neil Edward Wells, Titirangi.

All of the $126,538 of legal costs for which we have invoices for , were issued to AWINZ C/- Neil Wells, by Brookfields and paid for by AWINZ “charity funds” for actions which predate the signing of the 2006 trust deed that is registered with the Charities Commission. And yet “Legal costs – Haden” appear as expenditure items in the AWINZ Financial Statements in each of the years (2007-2010)

Former Charities Commission employee Mr Chris McIntyre, Senior Analyst – Monitoring and Investigatons – dealt with a number of the complaints raised by Mrs Haden against AWINZ over the period 2007 to 2012. But no action was ever taken against AWINZ by this employee of the tax-payer funded Crown entity – The Charities Commission – throughout the prolonged legal proceedings funded by AWINZ “charity money”. McIntyre, who no longer works for Charities, received full documentation from Mrs Haden relating to her serious allegations against AWINZ of corruption and money-laundering and no action was taken.

The oldest set of AWINZ Financial Statements registered with the Charities Commission are those for 2007, and these record total assets of $110,226 as at 30 June 2007. The bulk of these funds ($98,208) constitute the so-called “Lord Dowding Fund” [“LDF”] which, according to Haden, Mr Wells solicited from a now defunct incorporated society called Beauty With Compassion which gave in excess of $100,000 to Mr Wells in 2005. As at the 30 June 2008 total AWINZ net assets were $105,148 and this included $90,000 in the LDF. By 30 June 2009 the LDF had been reduced to $44,000.

The Lord Dowding Fund is mentioned in s. 4. (“Purpose”),s. 5. (“Powers”) and s. 18 (“Interpretation”) of the AWINZ “Deed of Trust and Revocation” dated 5 December 2012. S. 18 defines it as having been:

“… established by the New Zealand Fund for Humane Research on 14th August 1981 for the purpose of sponsoring or otherwise supporting research directed to the discovery of viable alternative techniques to replace living animals in scientific investigations.”

These funds can only be used for the charitable purposes and these do not include funding the personal defamation proceedings entered into by the Settlor of AWINZ, Neil Edward Wells/ against Mrs Grace Haden.

Neil Edwards Wells was a founding Trustee of the New Zealand Fund for Humane Research which was incorporated as a charitable trust on 14 August 1981 under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 (Reg. No. 212230). Wells remains trustee of this allegedly defunct trust which has not yet been deregistered and Haden points out that in the meantime, as the sole remaining trustee, Neil Edward Wells, persists in operating it as those it is very much ‘alive’.

The channeling of charity money from the Lord Dowding Fund into AWINZ occurred prior the AWINZ being registered as a charity with the Charities Commission or in the period after it was registered when it was not required to submit financial statements. The allegations of corruption that Mrs Haden has made include the unlawful use of this money to fund a defamation case, taken by an unincorporated trust, AWINZ, which is not a legal entity in its own right.

All of the $126,850 of legal costs for invoices that have been cited, were issued to AWINZ by Brookfields and paid for by AWINZ “charity funds” for actions which predate the signing of the 2006 trust deed. There is also the serious allegation that none of the costs awarded against the defendent (Mrs Haden), and paid out by her to AWINZ Trustees Neil Wells and Wyn Hoadley, have been disclosed in the Financial accounts of AWINZ. Mrs Haden contends that Mr Neil Edward Wells benefited financially from the tens of thousands of dollars paid out in costs, exemplary costs and damages, in a legal case that was funded entirely by charity money.

References

1. Legal Fees Haden: $32,312 (2007), $12,904 (2008), $60,150 (2009), $21,484 (20010). Total: $126,850

Source: Financial Accounts www.charities.govt.nz (2007 to 2010)

2. In the donation solicitations by Wells he claims to be administrating the Lord Dowding fund for the New Zealand Fund for Humane Research, but this trust has ceased to exist despite it still being shown on the Register of incorporated charitable trusts. It was Mr Heather’s wife Lucille who ran Beauty With Compassion. Her society was wound up. She gave the money, some $100,000 used for litigation, through to Wells on 15 March 2005. The three previous trustees of the NZ Fund for Humane Research are all very elderly or dead. Wells is the only one who is continuing to pretend this trust continues.

3. Letter from Neil Wells (AWINZ) to Lucille, Secretary of Beauty With Compassion, headed “BWC and The Lord Dowding Fund”. dated 14th March 2005.

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

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

6. http://www.anticorruption.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/R-communications-with-Maf.pdf

7. 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

Notes.

Constitution of AWINZ charitable trust board. Quoted from AWINZ Board Meeting Minutes 10 May 2006.

Clause 7.2 (a) of Deed [dated 01/03/00]

“The [AWINZ] Board shall consist of not less than 4 nor more than 8 members, provided that where a vacancy occurs the remaining trustees may act until a replacement Trustee is appointed. The initial members of the Board shall be the four signatories who signed this Deed as Trustees.”

Clause 7.2 (b)

“The Trustees may appoint up to 4 additional Trustees. Before appointing additional Trustees under thisclause the Board wil consult with its strategic partners and have regard to the needs of the Trust…”

Composition of Board 2000 to 2006.

1 March 2000 AWINZ Deed of Trust supplied by AWINZ to MAF

Trustees recorded
Neil Edward Wells (“the Settlor”) – of Auckland, barrister. Founding Trustee.
Nuala Mary Grove – of Auckland, retired. Founding Trustee
Sarah Catherine Giltrap – of Auckland, company executive. Founding Trustee
Graeme John Coutts – of Auckland, recruitment consultant. Founding Trustee

(collectively referred to as the “Trust Board”)

Minutes 10 May 2006 AWINZ Board Meeting

In attendance

Neil Edward Wells – Trustee from 01/03/ 2000 (Settlor)
Wyn Norien Hoadley – appointed as NEW Trustee on 10/05/06 – intended appointment notified to MAF as required in Memorandum of Understanding with MAF. Appointment agreed to by MAF. Appointed as per clause 7.2(b) of the Deed of Trust as “an additional Trustee”. Wyn Hoadley appointed Chairperson.
Nuala Mary Grove Trustee from 01/03/2000 – appointed secretary
Graeme John Coutts – Trustee from 01/03/2000
Christine Raewyn Wells – appointed treasurer on 10/05/06
Priya Sundar

Apologies: Sarah Catherine Giltrap Trustee from 01/03/2000

Minutes 14 August 2006 AWINZ Board Meeting

Nuala Mary Grove and Sara Giltrap – both founding trustees, resigned. Giltrap resigned in writing 22/05/06. Grove resigned in writing 4/07/06.
Thomas (Tom) Stanley Didovich appointed as Trustee. No record that appointment approved by MAF.
Neil Edward Wells -Founding Trustee appointed as secretary
Tom Didovich appointed as signatory to cheque book
Neil Edward Wells and Christin Raewyn Wells prohibited from signing cheques together.

AWINZ “Deed of Trust and Revocation” dated 5 December 2006 supplied to Charities Commission

Trustees listed

Neil Edward Wells – appointed 01/03/2000
Wyn Norien Hoadley – appointed 10/05/06
Thomas Stanley Didovich – appointed 14/08/06
Graeme John Coutts – appointed 01/03/2000

AWINZ Officers – Registered Charity CC11235 – registered 28/09/07

Application for charity status under the Charities Act 2005 was made on 19/05/07

Neil Edward Wells – effective 27/06/07
Wyn Norien Hoadley – effective 27/06/07
Thomas Stanley Didovich – effective 27/06/07
Graeme John Coutts – effective 27/06/07

AWINZ [Charity] street address and postal address

1308 State Highway 3, RD5 Te Kuiti 3985

AWINZ National Bank Account Number: 06-0968-0067477-00

Further Reference

The Vegan Society of Aotearoa – a registered charity serving the “public good”

August 21, 2012 by SPCS 2 Comments

“The Vegan Society of Aotearoa” was registered as a charity with the Charities Commission on 15 September 2010 (Charity Reg. No. CC45333). However, there has never been any legally incorporated entity by this name in New Zealand (e.g. incorporated charitable trust or incorporated Society etc.). “The Vegan Society of Aotearoa” is an unincorporated “Trust” with its “Trust Deed” dated 1 May 2010 specifying three trustees on its “Board”, available on the Charities website (www.charities.govt.nz). Two of the founding trustees are still current officers for “the Trust”, two two new trustees were appointed in 2011.

Under section 15 of the Charities Act 2005, if the Commission is to register any legally constituted entity as a charity, it must only do so under the applicant’s full and correct legal name (see Appendix I below).

It is important to understand that “Veganz the Vegan Society of New Zealand Charitable Trust“, a Charitable Trust (Reg. No. 1230157) incorporated on 31 July 2002, is legally distinct from “The Vegan Society of Aotearoa“- an unincorporated “Trust”. The former is NOT registered with the Charities Commission.

One must wonder whether the Charities Commission Registration Team ever accessed the “Search Other Registers” on the Companies Office website (www.companies.govt.nz) to determine whether or not The Vegan Society of Aotearoa was a registered incorporated legal entity. It is not.

“The Vegan Society of Aotearoa” was granted “charitable status” under charity law in 2010 and was assessed by the Charities Registration Team as “benefiting the public, or a section of the public”, in a manner that was “identifiable”, “clear”. and “related to its charitable aims”. Its Purpose is set out under s. 3 of its “Trust Deed” dated 1 May 2010:

“The purpose of the Trust will be to promote veganism as an environmentally friendly, healthy and compassionate way of life. In particular the Trust will….”

3.1 further the knowledge and interest in sound nutrition and veganism, and in vegan methods of agriculture and food production as a means of increasing the agricultural potential of Aotearoa, to the physical, economic and moral benefit of all living beings.

3.2 provide a means of social contact and exchange of information for new and existing vegans by way of regional social support and provision of resources.

3.3 develop and maintain positive relationships with organisations sharing similar aims.

3.4 encourage the research, study and use of alternatives to all products derived wholly or partly from animals.

3.5 take any action consistent with this charitable purpose.

After a thorough inquiry into the activities, ‘doctrines’ and objects of this [unincorporated] “Trust”, the Charities Commission accepted that the exclusive primary “beneficiaries” of this charity were “vegens”, who are all required to pay membership fees.

According to section 2 of the registered Trust Deed dated 17 July 2002 of Veganz the Vegan Society of New Zealand Charitable Trust (an incorporated entity which is not a registered charity):

“A Vegan is a person who knowingly chooses not to consume, use or wear any products produced from animals or which contain animal by products; and avoids products that have been tested on animals or involves cruelty or abuse of animals in their research or production stages. Veganism stands for respect and compassion for animals (including the human animal).”

The Vegan Society of Aotearoa provides a list of all the animal items prohibited for vegans: “meat (fish, shellfish, livestock or poultry) eggs, dairy products, honey, gelatine or use of leather belts, fur silk, wool, cosmetics or soaps derived from animal products.” (Source: www.vegansociety.co.nz)

The Charities Commission has graciously granted The Vegan Society of Aotearoa permission to vastly extend the official public record of the “beneficiaries” to their Society’s “charitable activities” to effectively include: all animals used as a source of meat and/or other food product by man, and all those used as a source of health products and/or clothing materials. Many of these animals are indeed true “beneficiaries” of the charity as they owe their very lives to the charitable work of Vegans, who actively persuade fellow New Zealanders to desist and abstain from their “moral crimes” against the Animal Kingdom (e.g. eating animals and using their by products), and jump on board the Vegan lifestyle bus to help green the planet and save its bio-diversity.

The Vegan Society of Aotearoa promotes “protection of animals”, “conservation” and “the environment” according to the Charities Commission website. Such broad activities have been ruled by the Commission to be “charitable purposes”.

In a sense, all its “charitable activities” can be viewed as detrimental to much of our New Zealand farming industry that forms the backbone of our export trade. Urging people to desist and abstain from eating meat and all other animal products would be viewed by most New Zealanders as detrimental economically to the “public good”.

Most ordinary and reasonable New Zealanders would reject the view that providing vege recipes and information of Vegan food outlets on a website to Vegans and sponsoring vegetarian family fun-days where vegan charity members and friends can delight themselves in the partaking of vege food, constitute “charitable activities”. They would see no “public benefit” in allowing paid up members of to pursue their own private lifestyle choices.

Everyone has the right to pursue a vegan lifestyle, or for that matter naturalism, as a lifestyle choice, or any indeed other private hobby. Both vegans and naturalists claim to offer health rewards to those who embrace their respective lifestyle choices. Both claim a vast body of research evidence supporting the superiority of their respective lifestyles compared to normal lifestyles (eating meat and wearing clothes).

Both have followers that actively expose themselves to the public to win over public empathy and support and recruit new members to the ‘faith’. There are many vegans who are “animal rights activists” and take part in protests ‘baring all’. Yes nudity is regularly their favoured tool to win recruits and lobby for their political views. Who can forget those grim animal rights promotional photos of nude men and women hunched over in foetal positions confined within battery hen cages?

The six million dollar question is:

Should groups of naturalists and/or vegans be granted “charitable status” based on their claims that their lifestyle choices positively impact society or a group within society, to such a significant extent that they provide “public benefit” and “the moral benefit of all living beings”?

The Charities Commission has clearly given a positive answer to this question, ruling that the purposes of The Vegan Society of Aotearoa are “charitable” and come under one of “the four charity heads” (e.g. presumably “advancement of education”).

The Vegans website states:

“The society is a friendly, informative and professional organisation. It offers resources, information, event notifications, product advice, vegan role models, recipes and support systems. We put out a quarterly magazine and advise on many things via the website.”

Its homepage mouth-watering articles include: …. “OUR TOP PICK: Navigating the ethically treacherous waters of chocolate.” and “Veg-Yummy Places .. [re] vegetarian-friendly or vegan restaurants.”

http://www.vegetarians.co.nz/vegetarian-info/vegan-society-of-aotearoa/

The 20010/2011 financial accounts of The Vegan Society of Aotearoa that were required to be filed with the Charities Commission no later than 30 September 2011, have yet to be filed and are now almost twelve months overdue. And yet Despite this very serious breach of the Charities Act 2005, this unincorporated Society has not been deregistered or removed from the Charities Register.

The former Chief Executive of the now disestablished Charities Commission, Mr Trevor Garrett, was recently reported by The Hutt News as saying

“… charitable organisations registered with it [the Commission] that had not filed returns six months after the end of their financial year were sent a reminder letter. They get a more “strongly worded” reminder a month or two later and at around three months overdue – which is where HMCT is – “we get to the stage where we look at de-registering. That’s how seriously we take it.”

Mr Garrett had been asked for comment by the paper’s editor, Mr Simon Edwards, on whether or not “The Hutt Mana Charitable Trust’s persistent late filing of financial returns risks it being struck off by the Charities Commission, losing its tax exemption status.”

Dr Carolyn Corderoy, a senior lecturer in Victoria University’s School of Accounting and Commercial Law, who has been engaged in a detailed research investigation into the compliance failures of charities being ‘monitored’ by the Charities Commission with respect to their financial returns, and who was referred to in The Hutt News; has concluded that the levels of non-compliance by charities in New Zealand raises serious concerns.

According to the Charities website (www.charities.govt.nz), The Vegan Society of Aotearoa last filed its financial accounts with the Charities Commission for its financial year ended 31 March 2010. These accounts, uploaded onto the Charities website on 6 October 2011, reveal that its total gross income was $2,950 – sourced from $935 donations and $2,015 from membership fees. Its total expenditure in the year was $306 and the net surplus was $2,644.

It is run with the services of five voluntary staff involving an average about 20 hours of combined work from them, on average each week. There are no paid workers or employees.

It appears that the Charities Commission Registration Team have seen fit to grant The Vegan Society of Aotearoa charitable status under the “third head” [“Advancement of education”] of Lord Macnaghten’s four heads of charity. It recognises its primary charitable contribution is to be “Community Development” in the specialist roles of “education/training/research”).

Vegan recipes have niche and no-doubt financially lucrative markets on a global scale. Animal activism and vegan charities go hand in paw.

Vegan education is advancing thanks to the Charities Commission, fostered and nurtured via the promulgation of vegan lifestyle teachings and practices.

The “public benefit” gained from New Zealanders embracing the doctrines, teachings and lifestyle patterns of vegans or coming under their influence has been positively grasped in full by the Charities Commission. The uptake by true believers of the vegan lifestyle will undoubtedly issue in a more holistic, green and animal friendly planet… surely a truly charitable goal for any charity registered by the Charities Commission.

References:

1. Charitable Trust late again with returns, agm

The Hutt News. 3 April 2012. By Simon Edwards

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/local-papers/hutt-news/6682643/Charitable-trust-late-again-with-returns-agm

“Dr Carolyn Cordery, of Victoria University’s School of Accounting and Commercial Law, took a quick look at HMCT’s trust deed last week and said to be four months’ overdue on filing and holding an annual meeting was “poor”. ”

2. Trust Deed of VEGANZ: The Vegan Society of New Zealand Charitable Trust dated 14 December 2004.

3. Application For Incorporation Of A Society As A Board. Dated 17 July 2002. Received from VEGANZ by National Processing Centre 31 July 2002.

4. Trust Deed of VEGANZ dated 17 July 2002

5, www.vegansociety.co.nz

6. www.vegetarians.co.nz

7. www.charities.govt.nz

8. www.companies.govt.nz

APPENDIX I

15 Name of entity

The name of an entity complies with this section if—

(a) the entity is incorporated under that name under the Incorporated Societies Act 1908; or

(b) the entity is incorporated under that name under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957; or

(d) the entity is established, or constituted, by an Act under that name; or

(e) in any other case, in the opinion of the Board, the name is not—
- (i) offensive; or
- (ii) liable to mislead the public.

Section 15(e): amended, on 1 July 2012, by section 16(1) of the Charities Amendment Act (No 2) 2012 (2012 No 43)

“The Vegan Society of Aotearoa” – a lobby group and registered charity and its “political advocacy”

August 21, 2012 by SPCS Leave a Comment

“Veganz: the Vegan Society of New Zealand Charitable Trust“, was incorporated on 31 July 2002 as a charitable trust. But was it ever registered as a charity with the Charities Commission on 15 September 2010 (Charity Reg. No. CC45333), under another name: “The Vegan Society of Aotearoa” (an unincorporated Trust formed on 1 May 2010)?

There has never actually been any incorporated entity by the name “The Vegan Society of Aotearoa” in New Zealand and yet it is now a registered charity – registered on 15 September 2010 (Charity Reg. No. CC45333).

Under the Charities Act 2005 all entities registered as charities by the Charities Commission must be registered under their correct legal name if they are a legal entity such as an incorporated charitable trust.

The Vegan Society of Aotearoa is not an incorporated entity and it was registered as a charity with the Charities Commission under this name, which is permitted under section 15 (e) of the Charities Act 2005.

The “aims and objectives of the the Vegan Society of New Zealand Charitable Trust (“Veganz), an incorporated body, are set out in section 3 of its five-page Trust Deed dated 14 December 2004 and include the following:

3.1 To offer support and information to people interested in veganism in order to assist vegans and others to maintain a healthy, balanced diet.

3.2 To promote and increase the awareness of veganism as a compassionate, healthy and environmentally beneficial lifestyle choice.

3.3. To raise awareness of the cruelty and exploitation involved with the production of animal based products and that it is unnecessary to inflict suffering and death on animals in order to lead to healthy and happy life.

3.4 To research information relevant to a vegan lifestyle and where appropriate to publish this information.

3.5 To lobby for manufacturers to use non-animal based materials in their products.

3.6 To support ethical alternatives to animal based and/or environmentally harmful research and production and when appropriate to lobby governmental and non-governmental bodies to change such practices.

3.7 Promote respect and compassion towards all animals and he environment by appropriate means.

3.8 To develop and maintain positive relationships with organisations with similar aims and objectives, and to offer such organisations support where appropriate.

In 2010 the Charities Commission approved “charitable status” to the unincorporated “Trust” (The Vegan Society of Aotearoa) which has clear links to the political “lobby” group – VEGANZ: The Vegan Society of New Zealand Charitable Trust, as defined by the latter’s two “aims and objectives” (3.5 & 3.6).

S. 3.6 clearly states that the targets of Veganz lobbying crusades to be “governmental and non-governmental bodies to change such practices [as] animal based/ or environmentally harmful research and production”.

When the Charities Commission granted The Vegan Society of Aotearoa charity status, it effectively affirmed this object (s. 3.6) as a “charitable” – lobbying against almost every “animal based …. research and production” activity involved in our primary production sector, as well as any and every other research activity that Veganz judge to be “environmentally harmful”.

The means of changing the harmful, and “morally wrong practices” specified by Veganz, based on their activities, entail campaigns lobbying for law and policy changes (“political advocacy”).

The Vegan Society of Aotearoa, a registered charity, has as one of its “charitable purposes” – To “take action consistent with … promot[ing] veganism as an environentally, friendly, healthy and compassionate way of life.”

Society members under the cover of this apparently innocuous “charitable purpose” are in effect free to pursue all the objects set out in the Veganz Charitable Trust Deed – as they too promote veganism.

Veganz has been committed to a clearly defined political agenda since its incorporation. This involves lobbying “manufacturers” (s. 3.5), “government and non-government bodies” (s. 3.6) so that certain laws and policies relating to animal treatment and welfare can be changed and substituted with ones that are approved by Veganz members and the wider “animal rights” campaign networks, a number of which are also registered charities (e.g. SAFE – Save Animals From Exploitation).

A founding trustee of The Vegan Society of Aotearoa, Ms Amand Sorrenson, is currently Promotions Manager for SAFE (Save Animals from Extinction), an “animal rights” campaigner/lobby heavily involved in “political advocacy”. (See: http://www.safe.org.nz/Contact-Safe/).

Notes:

The charitable trust “Veganz” was incorporated as a Trust on 31 July 2002 (Reg. No. 1230157).

References:

Trust Deed of VEGANZ: The Vegan Society of New Zealand Charitable Trust dated 14 December 2004.

www.charities.govt.nz

www.vegansociety.org.nz

www.vegetarians.co.nz

AWINZ – The Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand – an unincorporated “charitable trust” under investigation

August 1, 2012 by SPCS Leave a Comment

How did The Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand (AWINZ), an unincorporated “charitable trust”, manage to gain charity status with the Charities Commission on 28 September 2007?

The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) which became part of the Ministry of Primary Industries on 30 April 2012 published a booklet entitled “Animal Welfare in New Zealand” in 2009 (available on-line) which states on page 17:

“MAF enforces the animal welfare legislation and audits the activities of the approved organisations (RNZSPCA and the AWINZ) which assist it in the role. MAF and these organisations investigate complaints made about possible non-compliance with the legislation. While the vast majority of such complaints are dealt with through consultation and education, successful prosecutions against persistent or blatant offenders are undertaken routinely. A number of private sector organisations have signed Memoranda of Understanding with a commitment to collaborate on animal welfare issues, including situations where an animal welfare complaint has been made.”

AWINZ (The Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand) was first notified by the Hon. Jim Sutton that it had been granted “approved organisation” status under section 121(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 1999, in a letter dated 19 December 1999, before the Act came into effect on 1 January 2000. This decision was first gazetted on 18 January 2001, almost one year after the AWINZ Deed of Trust had been allegedly duly executed on 1 March 2000. Sutton made it clear is his letter of 19 December 1999, that his granting of “approved organisation” status to AWINZ was conditional on it fulfilling certain requirements and the Trust until 30 March 2001 to fulfil these.

AWINZ had no legal status at that time it applied for “approved organisation” status in 1999 as it was at best just a “trading name” at that time. used by an Auckland barrister, Neil Edward Wells, [photo: to right] who rendered services to the Waitakere District Council relating to animal control.

According to its Settlor, Neil Edward Wells, the “charitable trust” named Trust “The Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand” (AWINZ) – , was first established with the creation of a Deed of Trust on 1st of March 2000. That founding Deed of Trust dated 1st of March 2000 is referred to in the AWINZ “Deed of Trust and Revocation” dated 5th December 2006, first registered on the Charity Commission’s website on 3 November 2007.

“Approved organisation” status under the Animal Welfare Act 1999, was therefore granted to “AWINZ” by the minister based on an application which had been made on 21 November 1999, over four months prior to the trust allegedly being formed. On 1st March 2000 the “charitable trust” AWINZ was established, but it had no legal identity separate from its trustees.

AWINZ has never been incorporated as a charitable trust under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 and has never had any legal status in its own right and could therefore not sue or be sued in its own name.

So then how did Neil Edward Wells gain “approved organisation” status for AWINZ in 2000?

He achieved this by writing to Ministers of the Crown, John Luxton and Jim Sutton, as well as MAF officials, and persuaded them that AWINZ was an actual organisation – a “charitable trust” that was in the process of applying for incorporation with “The Ministry of Commerce” [sic]. When challenged by officials to produce evidence that AWINZ had been incorporated under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957, Wells misled officials by pretending that the process of application for incorporation was well underway or that documentation proving incorporation had been mis-filed (lost).

On 28 September 2007 the Charities Commission granted AWINZ charitable status. The “Deed of Trust and Revocation” dated 5th December 2006 remains the only ‘documentation’ available on the Charities website, as ‘evidence’ that the Trust was ever established as a “charitable trust”. At various points the 2006 Deed refers misleadingly to the Charitable Trusts Act 1957, and the Trustees’ obligation to comply with this legislation. However, AWINZ has never been incorporated under this Act.

In 2011 AWINZ lost its “approved status” with MAF. All four Trustees (Graham John Coutts, Neil Edward Wells, Wyn Hoadley [Chair] and Tom Didovish) wrote to the Hon. David Carter, Minister of Agriculture on 7th October 2009 stating:

We write to formally request that you, as responsible Minister, revoke the accreditation of The Animal Welfare Trust of New Zealand as an approved organisaton under section 123 of the Animal Welfare Act 1999.

The Trustees have not taken the decision to seek revocation lightly, but we are no longer willing to be subjected to the intrusion to which MAF Assurances and Risk Directorate has subjected AWINZ over the past 16 months or so, nor are we willing to meet the standards that MAF Assurance and Risk now seek to impose ten years after we came into existence.

The Notice of Revocation of AWINZ as an “approved organisation”, issued by Hon. David Carter, was published in the NZ Gazette dated 16 December 2010 (No. 173, p. 4250) and took effect 28 days after this date.

It is clear that this revocation was requested in part because the Trustees of AWINZ did not wish to be subject to the level of scrutiny and accountability of their accounts etc. that they were receiving from the MAF officials and in particular an Auckland private investigator who had for some years accused the Settlor of the Trust of fraud. As an “approved organisation” AWINZ was required to demonstrate a level of transparency and accountability which did not fit well with the Trustees.

AWINZ, a registered charity, continues to submit its unaudited Financial Statements to the Charities Commission. It is not at all clear how its activities could in any way be regarded as charitable and of public benefit.

References

The AWINZ/Ndeil Wells application for “approved organisation” status was dated 21 November 1999 , The approved status was confirmed when it was gazetted on 18 January 2001 http://www.dia.govt.nz/MSOS118/On-Line/NZGazette.nsf/0/d17d9eba142be79ccc256d26003f878f?OpenDocument

Approval from the Minister as attached on the recommendation of MAF http://www.anticorruption.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/18-december-2000.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

« Previous Page

Bob McCoskrie – National Director

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: