There are moves afoot to Privatise Dog and stock control which has been the role of councils.
Auckland city already contracts dog control out to animal control services and many dog owners have experienced the diligence with which this private enterprise enforces the legislation.. there Is no secret in this as to why.. it is because it is lucrative.
Imagine then if this service is extended to give the dog control officer powers such as the SPCA inspectors have, the dog control officer is suddenly not limited
- To Dogs
- Public places
- Offences relating to dog control
The extension of their powers would mean that
- There is enforcement of strict liability offences.. You own the cat they claim it is suffering.. Therefore you are guilty.
- Yes you can try to defend it but the $150 fine will need to be weighed up against the $350 per hour which you’re your lawyer will cost you .
- Any prosecution undertaken will result in the fines returned to the complaint “approved organisation “Section 171 Animal welfare act- this has to be easier than competing with other charities.
So who are the approved Organisations.
The RNZSPCA by virtue of section 189 is an approved organisation , under its umbrella come the various branches of the RNZSPCA and the various SPCA societies which are members.
When an SPCA member society or RNZSPCA Branch recommends a person to the RNZSPCA be appointed as an Inspector and that person is appointed then that member society or branch also becomes an approved Organisation section 190 .
There is one other approved organisation this is the animal welfare institute of New Zealand (AWINZ) It resulted from a Pilot programme which a previous RNZSPCA director set up in Waitakere city, AWINZ unlike the RNZSPCA societies and trusts is not a legal person and is nothing but a trading name to facilitate a concept which was documented in 1996 territorial animal welfare authority , effectively it is a fiction to which the central and local government have contracted without checking to see if it did exist.
At that time of writing the above document Mr Wells was located at No 1 Rankin avenue, the same building as the RNZSPCA.
Mr Coutts a recruitment manager was also in the same building , he was later to become a “trustee” of AWINZ and when the RNZSPCA shifted he also relocated and remains today in adjoining offices in Great north road
AWINZ “ contracted” to Waitakere city through the manager of animal welfare Tom Didovich , who collected and witnessed the signatures on the trust deed for AWINZ
Mr Didovich is now national education and branch support manager for the RNZSPCA .
Only one other organisation has ever applied to become an “ approved “ organisation this was the INTERNATIONAL LEAGUE FOR THE PROTECTION OF HORSES (NEW ZEALAND) INCORPORATED . It applied to become an approved organisation through MAF and failed but has over come the issue by changing its name to SPCA AUCKLAND HORSE WELFARE AUXILIARY INCORPORATED , it is now under the umbrella of the RNZSPCA and has an inspector making it an approved organisation by virtue of section 190 of the act.
And so it appears that there will be limitless possibilities for non existent organisations “ such as AWINZ” and for any organisation who will change its name and ( possibly for a fee or return on earnings ) to come under the umbrella of the RNZSPCA and start enforcing animal welfare.
I suspect that It will not be the serious stuff which will be enforced , but they will approach the broken windows concept with the pretence that making people aware of the rights of animals .. its been done before.. speed cameras traffic wardens , swimming pool charges.
It is already happening over seas http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/Pensioner-banned-from-keeping-pets.6187161.jp
It will not about helping animals it will be about $$$$$$
But worst of all there is no accountability for animal welfare Inspectors, there is no register , they are not accountable to a tribunal and there is no clear cut complaints procedure which holds them accountable.
So the scenario will be that the more they bring in by way of prosecution the more the society they represent will earn, the higher their wages will be..
Mr Wells promoted the AWINZ concept using a flyer http://www.verisure.co.nz/profit%20in%20animals.pdf there is profit in animals… He wrote the animal welfare act , to facilitate this concept he was independent legal adviser to the select committee and adviser to MAF during the time the legislation was being considered.
To privatise Dog and stock control without reviewing the animal welfare act would be extremely dangerous.
Anticorruptionnz's Blog 
People, legislators and authorities in New Zealand – Do not allow your Dog and Stock control duties to be privatised or delagated to commercial bodies, by law, right or sub contract.
You will open the floodgate to an industry that will seek to make and extend it’s abilty to profit by cutting corners.
You will then have inadequately trained and incompetent personel carrying out duties that affect public life and animal welfare because the companies that employ them do not wish to invest in proper training facilities or programs.
You will have private companies who will constantly seek to increase their profits by charging councils more for public services.
You will have such people and companies seeking greater powers to increase their opprotunities for profit by taking on a larger proportion of enfocement.
Your councils and taxpayers will find they are being ripped off but will not be in a position to do anything about it without expending large sums fighting their way out of contracts and setting up in house facilities again.
This is what has happened in the UK, where many councils took up the option to privatise dog warden services. Many of those that did are regretting it. Even in the case of statutory fines collected on their behalf, many councils are paying 10 time the amount in charges levied by companies imposing these fines than they are raising in income from the fines.
Some are fighting cases of incompetence or claims for damages where animals have been siezed or adversly treated in error by poorly trained employees of private contractors.
Don’t let it happen to you.
There really is no place for ‘profit’ in enforecement of legislation. This is a matter for government controlled authorities.
It goes contrary to logic that anyone can believe that by putting a third party in a chain or infrastructure, and with that third party taking its profit from the system, this will be more economic and efficient than keeping that system in house.
You cannot get more for less without cutting corners and that is what will happen.
If your sums tell you that sub contracting duities to someone else makes it cheaper and more efficient to do a job than doing it yourself, in house and with your own staff, then it reflects badly on you as organisers and management and frankly suggests you should stand down and allow someone more competent to do your job.
It suggests that your own infrastructure needs a good overhaul to make it more efficient and cost effective.
Comment by Mike Cooke — 25/04/2010 @ 9:31 am
Thank You Mike It has been our experience that there is never a cost benifit analysis ,this privatisation move began 15 years ago it has been carefully planned , ironically we are going to get a public discussion paper on it next year so that the appearance of democracy can be upheld.
Grace
Comment by anticorruptionnz — 25/04/2010 @ 11:05 am
[…] Animal Welfare Prosecutions – all $$$ no accountability […]
Pingback by Spca Ontario Today , NZ tomorrow? « Anticorruptionnz's Blog — 30/09/2010 @ 5:23 pm