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
- 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 .
- What verification did the MAF advisors carry out to ensure that the information they provided to the select committee was correct.
- Who were the advisors who had input to the advice documents to the select committee .
- 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 .
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 .
- 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 .
- 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.
- Please provide a copy of any MOU or agreement that MAF has with the RNZSPCA
- 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 .
- Please advise how long the transitional measures are going to continue .
- 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 .
- The RNZSPA uses the trademark SPCA
- 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
212301 SPCA AUCKLAND HORSE WELFARE AUXILIARY INCORPORATED INCSOC
885875 THE AUCKLAND SPCA TRUST CHARTR
1589849 THE GISBORNE SPCA CHARITABLE TRUST BOARD INCORPORATED CHARTR
214431 THE GISBORNE SPCA INCORPORATED INCSOC
1701086 THE WAIKATO SPCA TRUST CHARTR
216718 UPPER HUTT SPCA INCORPORATED INCSOC
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 . https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com/
[…] to my OIA request dated 26 May and MAFs reply from 16 July I wish to request further information again pursuant to the […]
Pingback by lack of accountability of the SPCA RNZSPCA or what ever it wants to be caled this week « Anticorruptionnz's Blog — 28/07/2010 @ 9:24 pm
[…] to my OIA request dated 26 May and MAFs reply from 16 July I wish to request further information again pursuant to the […]
Pingback by Anticorruptionnz's Blog — 20/08/2010 @ 5:59 am