Will the politicians continue to turn a blind eye ? lets see who cares!

Sent: Saturday, 20 March 2010 4:26 p.m.
To: ‘ashraf.choudhary@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘colin.kingmp@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘sandra.goudie@national.org.nz’; ‘carol.beaumont@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘cam.calder@national.org.nz’; ‘nathan.guy@national.org.nz’
Cc: ‘john.key@national.org.nz’; ‘david.carter@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘Tony.Illot@ombudsmen.parliament.nz’; ‘Ian Wishart’; ‘lockwood.smith@national.org.nz’; ‘R Hide (MIN)’

Subject: animal welfare act

I am approaching  each of you because of the concerns  which I have with the  animal welfare act and the increase in penalties proposed with the new bill

I have also copied this to others  who should  be interested and this will also be posted on my anti corruption  blog https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com/

I made my submissions  to the select  committee which I believe are  very valid  , only to see them  rejected out right.

My submissions are viewable  at https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/submission-to-the-select-committee/, I have  not posted the prosecution documents  on the  site and should you wish them  I can make them available to you

Issues I raised were

1. The enforcement of the act by   approved organisations  –  In  once case this was  a non existent “ organisation” run by one person   piggy backing off a city councils  facilities , staff and  resources  which left nothing to be done but  collect ( into an account  on he managed )  the   donations and the court  fines which he himself prosecuted  as barrister  for animal welfare offences arising out of  the city  employees  duties which he as a city manager supervised .

1. This man is also the person who wrote the No 1 bill   which  introduced the concept of approved  organisations into the act ,

1. he was also employed as an independent advisor to the select committee for  legislation which was  later to be proved to be self serving and the intent of which I can prove was established  long before the bill was drafted.

1. This activity is   considered  by  the untied nations to be a corrupt practice and  is cover dint eh  united nations convention against corruption  which NZ has signed but not ratified ( I guess I can see why..  apparently we condone  this type of action  only those who question corruption get  dealt to . )

1. There is no requirement of a register for  people who enforce  the legislation  with wide sweeping powers  who can penalise people  and prosecute  in exchanged for  funds  being put into their “ charities” accounts. Unlike a register and strict conditions for  Private Investigators  who have no powers at all.
2. the lack of accountability to the public  for the  funds which are  received through   these prosecutions ,  there is no other  agency  which  can prosecute people and keep the money for themselves.    It is a licence to print money  and while the cost of  lawyers are so high the economics of law enforcement encourages people to  take the economic route and enter a plea of  guilty  to something which they cannot afford to defend.

It is  also of concern that he select committee  apparently  feels that they  can dispose of submissions which   they do not  wish to consider , therefore they  can select the submissions before them , removing those  which should rightfully  be considered .

If New Zealand wants to move closer to ratifying the  united nations commission against corruption  then  people such as myself  should not   have to go through what  I have had to endure  in order to question  corrupt practices, neither  should my submission be struck out  when there is no lawful reason for doing   so.

The  select committee has options available to it  and   removing my submissions point blank is not one of them.

In the interest of a better New Zealand  and in  the interest of transparency and the fight against corruption I ask for your support.

Advertisement