Here with the latest exchange from the select committee. I have not made any comments I have merely supplied evidence of real events . If we do not wish to accept that such things can occur how can we legislate to prevent it from occurring? or do we as a nation through those who make our laws condone corrupt practices
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990
14 Freedom of expression
-
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.
We should not live in fear of speaking the truth , if New Zealand had ratified the united nations convention against corruption false claims of defamation could not be brought least of all succeed without any proof.
I would like you to look at this clip , I wonder if our “ watchdogs will get such a reprimand one day. Why is one persons reputation so valuable when hos own actions have tarnished it.
I have a simple philosophy if you don’t like people speaking the truth about your actions then perhaps you need to look at your actions. Don’t do that which you feel is a blot on your good name.. Those who act corruptly need to be exposed not protected.
From: Andy Gardner [mailto:Andy.Gardner@parliament.govt.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 23 March 2010 1:15 p.m.
To: ‘Grace Haden’
Subject: RE: submission re higher penalties in animal welfare act rejected.. is it because I question the corrupt practices in animal welfare?
Ms Hadden,
The committee’s decision to return your submission was due to its determination that the issues you raise are not relevant to the bill, and that the risk of harm to an identified person’s reputation exceeds the benefit of the committee hearing your evidence.
In returning your submission, it is not possible for you to make an appearance before the committee during its consideration of this bill.
I also note in your email below that you say that you have posted your submission on your blogsite. To do so is entirely your decision, but you should be aware that the submission is not protected by Parliamentary privilege and that you are liable for any statements contained within it.
Yours sincerely,
Andy Gardner
Thank You Andy
I have trouble comprehending that my submissions are not relevant to the bill and it would appear to me that 232 does not give the ability for my submission to be thrown out .
The Bill calls for higher penalties for animal welfare offences. Is it then not appropriate to look at who enforces the legislation and who profits by it. There are dangers associated with increasing penalties if the issues I have raised are not considered.
You cannot mitigate the unforeseeable but when something is known to have occurred and makes an impact on the legislation you are looking at changing , then the good and the bad need to be considered.
My life has been devastated by the fact that I sought accountability of an “organisation” which enforced animal welfare legislation. There was no transparency or accountability But the select committee are prepared to go ahead and consider this penalty change without looking at the dangers of doing so.
I have brought factual matters to the attention of the select committee , without comment, All I have done is brought the physical evidence yet that is not enough. We would rather pretend that this does not occur and allow it to continue than to take notice of it and consider the loop holes and legislate to ensure that there is transparency and accountability .
Those who enforce a law should be accountable to the law and there should not be an ability for a private prosecuting authority to have such wide sweeping powers and have no accountability.
New Zealand wishes to ratify the united nations convention against corruption and to do so they have to consider issues such as those which I have raised , It appears that the select committee are prepared to turn a blind eye to the fact that they have employed a person to advise them in an “ independent “ capacity who then put the legislation he advised on for his own use. I realise that it has to be an embarrassment to admit that this has happened and that is why it is easier to stand by an see my life devastated than to act responsibly.
It is not as if Mr Wells set up his approved organisation was an after thought , the evidence shows that the idea came first and that he wrote the legislation to accommodate it , what was done was premeditated and planned.
The “organisation” which was set up as an approved body uses council employees , paid for through the public purse to Volunteer their paid time to enforce the law which you are seeking to increase the penalties for .penalties which ultimately could be awarded back to the “ organisation” which took the prosecution.
The animal welfare Inspectors have wide sweeping powers but have no transparency and accountability and I have illustrated this by using the example of my own profession which has no powers yet has extreme accountability. Their accountability should be at least the same as we are subjected to ensure that they are properly accountable to the law they enforce, laws which call for significant periods of imprisonment.
I would have thought that it would be negligent of all those considering this legislative change to cast aside submissions which suggest that the increase of penalties may be unsafe to the public.
The select committee has to be aware that the legislation was written by some one who had a vested interest in seeing the legislation pass with as little accountability as possible and that that person was an advisor who as it turned out was not independent at all.
I request under the urgency provisions of the Official information act to be advised of the names of those who were present when the decision was made to throw my submission out without giving me an opportunity to rewrite the submission. I hope that they appreciate the fact that had I written the submission without any evidence they would probably not have believed me , I would be happy for them to consider my submission but not put the matter on the public file , truth is truth, I cannot change it and when people cannot bring truth to a select committee it is time for us to take a long hard look at ourselves.
I would also lie to know what legal advise was provided by crown law with regards to this submission , please provide a copy of that advice.
I believe that this is required in the interest of openness and transparency.
Regards
Grace Haden
Anticorruptionnz's Blog 