Anticorruptionnz's Blog


Let’s put the seniors in jail, and the criminals in a nursing home.

Filed under: transparency — anticorruptionnz @ 11:59 pm

I received this email  appears to me that there is lot of truth in this one  and worth sharing.

Let’s put the seniors in jail, and the criminals in a nursing home.

This way the seniors would have access to showers, hobbies and walks. They’d receive unlimited free prescriptions, dental and medical treatment , wheel chairs, etc. and they’d receive money instead of paying it out. They would have constant video monitoring so they could be helped instantly if they fell or needed assistance.
Bedding would be washed twice a week and all clothing would be ironed and returned to them. A guard would check on them every 20 minutes and bring their meals and snacks to their cell. They would have family visits in a suite built for that purpose.
They would have access to a library, weight room, spiritual counselling, pool and education. Simple clothing; shoes, slippers, PJ.’s and legal aid would be free on request. Private, secure rooms for all with an exercise outdoor yard with gardens. Each senior could have a PC, a TV, radio and daily phone calls. There would be a board of directors to hear complaints and the guards would have a code of conduct that would be strictly adhered to.
The “criminals” on the other hand would get cold food, be left all alone and unsupervised with lights off at 8pm and showers once a week. They’d live in a tiny room and pay $3,000 per month and have no hope of ever getting out.

Justice for all.


Does the Government condone misinformation

Filed under: corruption,SPCA / RNZSPCA,transparency — anticorruptionnz @ 12:48 am

Official information act request  Minister of Agriculture – open letter  and for the information of those on the select committee

While I  was  prevented from putting factual material before the select committee it appears that   others took the opportunity to  seriously mislead the  committee.

There  is a significant difference between the committee  believing that there were only 5 full  time animal welfare inspectors  to the reality   which  has  been revealed to me by way of OIA  in which it transpires that there are  441 inspectors and auxiliary inspectors.

Even AWINZ,  an organisation  which  does not exist  as a legal person  and is founded and continued to exist on lies  has 9  animal welfare   officers .

Over the past four years I have  been questioning how a nonexistent organisation can  appoint inspectors  and   have accountability for the inspectors it appoints. In four years all I  have had is  spin and bullshit  which is exactly what it appears  the select committee has been fed as well .In the past   four years the government has proved to me through its in action  that  it condones the provision of   false information  to  ministers and  while  the rest of us are accountable to the truth , it appears that  there is no requirement to be truthful with those in power .

My OIA to the minister is

  1. Please provide all documentation and records which seek to explain  why   the select committee were advised that  there were only 7 FTE animal welfare officers in Maf  when  it is clear from  the OI I have received that  MAF had 9 and   the NZFTA has  254 .
  1. What verification did the  MAF advisors carry out to ensure that the information they provided to the select committee was correct.
  1. Who  were the advisors  who  had input to the advice  documents to the select committee .
  1. I have been advised that  it would be a breach of privacy to  provide names of all those who are animal welfare inspectors, there are  however many registers of people , motor vehicle dealers , private investigators, company directors  , mortgage brokers , lawyers  etc,  But we have  people who are not employed by the government  who  enforce the  animal welfare law  who are completely anonymous and it appears that we are not allowed to know who they are , please provide all discussion papers , documents  reports and notes which discus  or investigate  the need to withhold the names of those who are appointed as animal welfare inspectors under the act  , and how this impacts on privacy  and  transparency .
  1. Please provide copies of  any documentation available to the public  which  would advise the of how they could make a complaint  with regards to any animal welfare inspector and provide directions as to how an animal welfare inspector is identified  since there is no provision in the act for them to be identified or produce evidence of being an inspector unless  they are entering a property without warrant.
  1. Please provide all documents  and notes which gave consideration  by MAF to the accountability of  inspectors who have been recommended for appointment through an organisation which does  not exist  or  of any inspector who cannot be identified  due to  there not being a requirement to give their name let alone the name of their organisation.
  1. With regards to appointment of inspectors recommended  by the RNZSPCA   please provide the  policy which sets out the  what verification process  and requirements for a recommended person to be  appointed as an inspector.
  1. With regards to the RNZSPCA   which is  an approved organisation . It appears that  those who have attempted to become an approved organisation  in their own right  and failed have now   attained that status by coming under  the umbrella of the SPCA , which in my mind is  second tier delegation . please provide all documentation and reports which have considered the implications of  member organisations of the RNZSPCA taking on  subsidiaries  which then in turn come under the RNZSPCA umbrella , Please also provide documents which  show that Maf have considered  howl this  seemingly endless network can be controlled and managed and if  this has been considered please provide the documentation outlining  the  control measures and policies .
  1. I am  referring in particular to the international league of horses  which applied to become an approved organisation and failed.  It now has an inspector  , it changed its name to  SPCA AUCKLAND HORSE WELFARE AUXILIARY INCORPORATED   and comes under the umbrella of the Auckland spca  which is a member  of the RNZSPCA   .
  1. Section 189 Animal welfare act states that The organisation known as the Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Incorporated is an approved organisation for the purposes of this Act. Section 190   of the act relates the  branches and   member societies .  Both these sections come under transitional  provisions.
    1. Please provide a copy of  any MOU  or agreement  that  MAF has with the RNZSPCA
  1. It has now been  10 years   since the act came into existence , Please provide all documents and correspondence between MAF and the RNZSPCA  which  show  the RNZSPCA  advising MAF  of any  changes in member societies  and  branches  in that time .
  1. Please advise how long the transitional  measures are going to continue .
  1. I  am a verification specialist and  notice that there has now be a trend by  MAF to call the RNZSPCA  the Royal new Zealand SPCA , there  appears to be general confusion as to who or what  the SPCA is  .
  1. The RNZSPA   uses the trademark SPCA
  1. A number of charitable trusts also  use the names SPCA  some of these are not listed as  member  societies or branches of the RNZSPCA

1237606                OTAGO SPCA CHARITABLE TRUST             CHARTR


885875            THE AUCKLAND SPCA TRUST            CHARTR



1701086                THE WAIKATO SPCA TRUST          CHARTR

216718                  UPPER HUTT SPCA INCORPORATED         INCSOC

  1. Please provide  a copy of all correspondence  between MAF  and the RNZSPCA  which  addresses the  rights that the RNZSPCA    enforces and controls  the  use of the name SPCA  and  any documentation defining how the RNZSPCA  considers and assesses  an organisation to become  a member society.
  1. I believe that this is important as the RNZSPCA can choose not to enforce the use of its trade mark and therefore any one could set up using the name SPCA  and be presumed by the public  to be a member society or approved organisation.
  1. Since the  delegation of  legal   responsibility is done through  the RNZSPCA      what checks and balances  does  the minister have in place with  the RNZSPCA  to ensure that  transparency and integrity is  preserved. Please provide all  correspondence relating to the   guide lines by which  the RNZSPCA  can  recommend inspectors for  member societies and branches.

I request this information  in the public interest to ensure that transparency and accountability is preserved.

A copy of this  will be posted on .


Serious misinformation to the select committee.

Filed under: corruption,transparency — anticorruptionnz @ 2:46 am

While my submissions to the select committee were too hot to handle the select committee did accept  advice from Maf which   led them to report Some of us are concerned that there are only five full-time Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry inspectors in New Zealand to undertake prosecutions for animal cruelty and there are insufficient resources to pursue all cases of cruelty, with 92 percent of complaints made to the SPCA.”

I have previously commented on  this ,  and  decided to make an official information act request  which  came back today

This is what the  director general of  MAF  reported back

“ There are currently 441 animal welfare inspectors and auxiliary officers appointed under the animal welfare act , on a range of dates between 2007-2010 as  follows

95 inspectors and 54 auxiliary officers appointed on the recommendation  of the Royal New Zealand SPCA.

9 inspectors appointed on the recommendation of AWINZ

29 animal welfare investigators employed by MAF

254 animal welfare investigators employed by  the NZFSA “

I have since found a  document produced  By the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry dated which states

“The Government announced on 25 March 2010 that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) and

the New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) will be amalgamated to form a single agency, which

will begin with the establishment of a single legal entity on 1 July 2010.”

It goes on to say the following

Animal Welfare: Besides the intrinsic value associated with animal welfare (that is, protecting animals from harm), it is also becoming an increasingly important aspect in international trade and for gaining market access. We will work to increase the attention paid to animal welfare by the primary sector, supported by a greater effort going into education, compliance and enforcement activities.

What I would  like to  know is why was this information not before the select committee   why did the select committee  believe that there are only 5   full time  animal welfare inspectors when there  are in reality  so many more?

Any one wishing the a copy of the full OIA reply can email me  grace   at Verisure


Do council staff make up the rules themselves?

Filed under: corruption,transparency — anticorruptionnz @ 1:20 am

Open letter to minister of local government and Mayor of Auckland

This is an official information act request for minister of local government and a LGOIMA request   for the Mayor of Auckland


We have a hierarchy of legislation and below legislation  we have  By laws  which are kept in check by  section 155  of the local Government Act 2002

Determination whether bylaw made under this Act is appropriate

(1AA) This section applies to a bylaw only if it is made under this Act.

(1) A local authority must, before commencing the process for making a bylaw, determine whether a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem.

(2) If a local authority has determined that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem, it must, before making the bylaw, determine whether the proposed bylaw—

(a) is the most appropriate form of bylaw; and

(b) gives rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

I have by way Of LGOIMA to Auckland city council  requested  that they supply  the  references to any legal requirement to have   swimming pools inspected every  three or so  years they have failed to provide this information    but have had  a reply  in which they quote is section  10 and 11 of the fencing of swimming pools act 1987   .


Section 10. Obligation of territorial authorities- Every territorial authority shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that this Act is complied with within its district.

Section 11. Power of entry for territorial authority officers- Without limiting any other powers of any territorial authority, any officer of a territorial authority who has reasonable grounds to believe-

  1. a. that there is on any land within the district of the territorial authority a swimming pool to which the Act applies; and
  2. b. that the pool is not fenced as required by this Act, or any condition imposed under section 6(2) of this Act is not being complied with,-

may at any reasonable time enter on the land and carry out an inspection to determine whether or not there is on the land such a pool that is not fenced as required by this Act, or whether or not the condition is being complied with.

Neither of those sections  provide for the ability of council to schedule inspections , however  section 11 does provide for council to be able to enter  If and when they have  reasonable grounds to believe that the pool does not comply.

To be subjected to  inspections  when there is no reasonable  grounds to suspect that the pool   does not comply with the act  is an abuse of   power and  contrary to  Section 21 of the bill of rights    states  Unreasonable search and seizure

  • Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure, whether of the person, property, or correspondence or otherwise.

I have now  been threatened by Auckland city   that if I do not comply with their demand  to  enter my property they will seek a warrant , I have not been given  any reason as to  why they suspect that my pool does not comply with the   legislation   ,they have inspected it in the past have signed it off as complying  , so why do they think things have changed?

To that end I would ask the  mayor of Auckland  to advise me  why a warrant is being threatened   to force me  to comply with what I believe to be an unlawful order and please provide me with the policies which  give the council staff the  right to make such a threat.

It appears to me  that Auckland city in,   trying to enforce  regular pool inspections  are not  relying on any  law or by law and are actively  ignoring people’s rights by  “making up rules “.

I seek information as to  how councils can seek to enforce something which is not backed with legislation or By law , even to the extent of  subscribing a charge for the services ( being $210  for repeat   inspections ) and therefore request from

  • the Mayor Of Auckland  documents relating to any  By laws which  enable   rules and  enforcement issues  and charges to be made up and  the process by which this is done. And please also  provide    documentary evidence of how these  particular rules regarding swimming pools  were formulated and came about, who was involved in the decision making and when these were passed though council. ( that is the inspection and the charging ) I would also like  documentation in which council   examined  and questioned  the impact of these rules on the  bill of rights  and  any evidence that the bill of rights was considered in formulating  these  rules .
  • The minister   if there are any  provisions which enable  council officers to make up  rules  without the involvement  and  direction of councillors and which do not rely on any statute or by law , I request all documentation which  relates  to any discussion  enquiry , investigation or correspondence which  either prohibits, endorses or facilitates the ability or  council staff to  make up their  own rules and specifically the   rule with regards to inspections  and charging for pool inspections made subsequent to  any unlawful  search procedure. And also any exemption from complying  with the provisions of the bill of rights

For the record I have never denied the council  access to my pool , I have only asked  for them to  show that  they had a right of inspection , they have as yet  not provided any legal  grounds on which they have a right to enter my property for inspection  and until they do , I will not consent to an inspection  .

It appears to me that many people are being bullied into   compliance ( by threats of warrants )  when there is a  have a statutory right to  be secure  against  unreasonable search and council has the ability to enter the property and inspect the  pool in any case if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that the pool does not comply with the legislation .

I would  further  like to know from both the Mayor  and the minister of local government  if this action, which I consider to be  bullying , is sanctioned by them  and what other  matters  which are not set in legislation are being  enforced by council  by coercion  and what they are going to do to ensure that  councils are  not acting outside their  scope of powers.


Grace Haden

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


Using the court to conceal corruption

Filed under: corruption,Fresh prepared Ltd,Lynne Pryor,Neil Wells,Terry Hay — anticorruptionnz @ 9:08 am

It has been an interesting week in court   Monday started with a 10 day trial  for Lynne Pryor   the former manager of Fresh prepared Ltd, the trial did not go ahead  – a guilty plea on some of the charges   was entered.  Terry Hay the co accused and Major share holder of Pri flight catering Ltd  however   is  still in Honolulu  seeking refuge  from our law. See Charges over alleged fake liquidator.

I was involved in this case n the  beginning , when a client asked me to locate  the new director of Fresh Prepared Ltd   Sanjay Patel   and the  Liquidator Bahubhai  Patel.

Lynne had purportedly sold the business to  Sanjay  and when I rang to  speak to him she asked if she  could take a message. Believing through her actions that he  existed   and as he did not return my calls,  I kept trying to get hold of him .When I called at  his residential address , which  was also the business premises of  fresh prepared Ltd  at 133 Captain springs Road Te  Papapa  , Lynne and her boss  Terry Hay  became nervous.. for good reason.. Sanjay  was   fictitious and so was the liquidator.

Easily solved..  First they  sued me  for  harassment , even though I had never seen  , been near, spoken to  or enquired after Terry Hay  and had only  spoken to   Pryor  while attempting to locate  Sanjay Patel . They also laid a complaint against  my PI licence  and  also made a complaint to  MAF alleging that I had passed myself off as a Maf inspector. As if that was not enough  Hay  through his chinese girlfriend   placed three advertisements in the Mandarin times  which saw my phone lines  swamped and  my house  flooded with  would be renters.

MAF proved their incompetence in pursuing the claim. When I had called at the premises of Fresh prepared Ltd  to look for Sanjay I was told  that the company was now Salad foods Ltd.  I mentioned that the documentation on the wall was   in the  name of fresh prepared Ltd  and   commented on a  MAF transitional facility document  stating that MAF would be interested . ( I even  passed this information on to MAF .)

After a  lengthy investigation  and  A two inch thick file , Maf concluded ,  that I was  guilty  this was on the basis of one  person saying, “I can’t remember who she said she was but I remember that she was from MAF “    and so I was warned   for impersonating a MAF officer.

This suited    not only those who had something to hide but  it  also   worked in well  for  Neil Wells ,  legal  adviser  to MAF – who    could now point at my  tarnished reputation  to vindicate himself. (I have evidence which  connects Neil Wells  with  these   other litigants between the two of  them  they played me like a ping  pong ball between courts  of law ,   hoping that I would  break.) It was strange too that both these cases came up before the same judges.

Lynne comes up for sentence in JULY   , she still has active proceeding out against me, Proceedings  which she has not progressed  since the High court determined that   she and Terry Hay had to  provide discovery.  Now that she is officially guilty of  a crime , it  has become obvious that  she  sued me  to  keep me  away and silent   , unfortunately for her  the ministry of Economic developments  have  a very competent team.

It should be noted that David  Nathan   is the director Pri flight Catering and long time  co director with Terry Hay  .Nathan is  also  a  Director of the Auckland chamber of commerce, he has been aware and  has  been involved in the litigation against me , I  can only presume that he condones this type of behaviour. I  have also questioned this  action with the chamber of commerce   but I have been ignored  by Michael Barnett.

Wells was in court on Wednesday    when I appealed to the court of appeal. In time I will also be shown to be the   innocent party , it’s a hard battle when  you have to take on the old boys network  .  But in the end  I  have the evidence  and I will keep on  making as much noise as I can  until   this corruption is exposed.


Select committee and press appear to be in the dark about the reality of animal welfare

Filed under: corruption,Neil Wells,SPCA / RNZSPCA,transparency,waitakere city council — anticorruptionnz @ 3:37 am

The first indication I had that the select committee had finished its report was the article in the Sunday star times by Sarah Harvey

Alarm bells rang when I noted the bit  where it said  “there are currently just five fulltime Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) inspectors.” this may be so  but  there are a lot more than 5 inspectors .

The act specifically  refers to inspectors as being  appointed under section 124(1) or section 124(2); and includes every constable

Section 122 (2) provides for approved organisations  and as  such the RNZSPCA  and AWINZ are approved Organisations  and can,  and do recommend  persons for appointment as inspectors.

The RNZSPCA  has under its umbrella , its  various branches  and  the SPCA and it appears  anything  which has the letters SPCA in the name  can  have inspectors  approved  through  the RNZSPCA .

AWINZ  itself has  about 10 inspectors   but the catch there is  that AWINZ does not legally exist –  it is but a name  which an ever changing  combination  of persons  have used, some have had a trust deed  others have not,  but it has never stopped any one from claiming to be AWINZ- or pretending that it is  a legal person in its own right !.. I advise you not to ask about it –  I asked   in 2006   why AWINZ didn’t exist and they  have  sued   me  ever since   using over $100,000    charitable  funds.. so  don’t tell me there is no money for  animal prosecutions..   They could sue me ,financially cripple me ,destroyed my family   for  a simple question of accountability… so much for  concern about animals  they have no concern about humans- they have treated me most inhumanely .

The Police too  are inspectors under the act  but I was with a friend a week or so ago  when   the police were  still investigating a brutal sexual assault on  children then aged 14 and 15-years-old   by a known offender- their father . We were advised that the matter would be   another 6 months away before charges were laid  and court  in the event of a Not guilty  would be  a further three years.  the 15 year old  will be 21  then   lets  keep the wound raw!!! –Animals can be put down.. these kids  have to live with their abuse and justice for them is not swift either .. they are walking away from it as it is simply not right to  have this linger for that obscene period of time.

And while I sympathise with  the  costs of prosecutions little has been said  about the ability   for the prosecuting  “ approved organisation”  to recover  costs   section 171  of the act  allows  for this. I  know that is done because I have details of an AWINZ prosecution    incredibly  it received  reparation for vet services  which  Waitakere city  council paid out for. .. yes I have the evidence.

Neither is the RNZSPCA  short of funds ,I have  taken time to see  what assets   the RNZSPCA, its branches and its member societies hold , it is substantial , there is no reason that   some of  the “ investments ‘ can’t be used as  a  prosecution pool  which is repaid and replenished  after prosecutions.

But  there are stranger things afoot  as in the  in the  case of  the Waikato branch of the RNZSPCA   where some $400,000 have been  siphoned off  through use of trusts , name changes  and transferred to another entity   which is now going to use it  for a building project using another bullshit name for another  secret trust –   again the same of the  players of AWINZ are involved.

In looking  closer at the submissions which  had been placed before the select committee and the advice which it was given   ( these can be  located  on this page  at the parliament web site follow the links ·  View all advice ·  View all evidence (including submissions) to  obtain the individual  documents.) I   feel that the  committee  considering the legislation  appears to kept in the dark  and  I can see why  my  submission had to be  removed.

My  submission would have brought too many questions out    and  issues which have now conveniently been   circumvented. E.g.  Questions raised are answered but  not  completely. ( I have had 4 years of this  from MAF  and Waitakere city )  There is no indication given at all that   AWINZ and the RNZSPCA  have undertaken prosecutions and the number of inspectors that each  have, these I believe are material  facts .

I wonder too if  the select committee had the advantage of an  independent advisor  like they had last time? See article How to write legislation for your own business plan

Mr Anderton is  aware of AWINZ ,  he was minister  when I questioned their  existence  and the lack of  accountability , he appears to have  condoned it , even after  I pointed out that   MAF  did not have a trust deed on file  and there was no evidence  of any one other than Mr Wells ( the witer of the  original legislation ) having consented to becoming an “ approved Organisation”

Of further concern is the structure of the RNZSPCA and SPCA.  While it is true that the RNZSPCA  has a MOU with MAF ( as did AWINZ )  the RNZSPCA  has a number of  branches and  member societies  , the  agreements  between these  bodies are not of public record  and it appears  from the recent example that the back door to appointment of  Inspectors is wide open.

Bearing in mind that these people   enforce the law and have powers of search and seizure   the  chain of  command  is very loose indeed.

I still maintain  that before  we look at   greater  penalties  we have to look at  our ability and quality of  enforcement  while keeping it consistent  with the  penalties  , rights and abilities to have  matters pertaining to cruelty to Humans   dealt with , we cannot even contemplate doing that  when the wheels within the  animal welfare are so buckled.

Create a free website or blog at