Anticorruptionnz's Blog


Questioning fraud gets higher penalty than those who are convicted of fraud

Filed under: corruption — anticorruptionnz @ 5:47 am

Open letter and Official information act request to  Mr Power and Mr Finlayson.

When Courts  give less rights  to, and are harsher on , those who question Fraud than they are on those who commit Fraud… how do we expect to  discourage Fraud?

In 2006  I asked questions of  Waitakere city council with regards to   a private law enforcement  authority of  which  was  operating  on council premises using  council staff , resources  assets and plant  and  collecting  donations which  went into a private bank account.

I had proved that this organisation did not exist as claimed and I asked questions of accountability to the public for what is defined in the united nations convention against  corruption  as a corrupt practice.  I was taken to court for defamation when all I had done was speak the truth and seek answers. This action was taken   to silence me and keep government agencies from investigating.. it has worked very well.

Rodney  Hyde   asked questions in parliament  and for this I was accused of continuing to defame ( when  there has never been proof that  I  defamed any  one – truth is never defamatory !  .

I was denied a defence and  the cost award of over $100,000 resulted in   excessive stress both  physical and financial which resulted in my marriage breaking down and my family being torn apart.

I reflect today on the penalty  I reflect today on the penalty  Roger McClay a convicted Fraudster  received . I have not committed a criminal offence and  asked the questions which the   public watchdogs failed to ask    and for that I have been penalised   more  than if I had been a  criminal.

Ironically  while I

  1. was denied a defence ,
  2. had no  formal proof hearing separate from the quantum hearing
  3. had my statutory admissible  evidence in mitigation used as  evidence of  further defamation
  4. Had judge trawling the internet for evidence
  5. Was   fined  but never found guilty of defamation   and the  statement of claim was never proved ,  never had any  evidence  presented  plaintiffs  who also avoided discovery.
  6. Was Arbitrarily found guilty  on the  uncorroborated evidence of the   plaintiff whose  fiction and spin  was accepted unquestioningly , the judge even making  excused for the plaintiff where there were  holes.

I took   my complaint to the police the serious fraud office but they were focused on writing the  complaint off despite the fact that  the  person involved

  1. Had a business plan to amalgamate  dog and stock control with Animal welfare work
  2. wrote the legislation to facilitate this plan  and wrote the provisions of approved organisations into the animal welfare act .
  3. As independent advisor to the select committee  and as Legal advisor to MAF   Provided guidance on the  bills which were read conjointly.( the bill which was to facilitate his business plan )
  4. Made a number of false statements as to the nature and existence of the organisation
  5. Made n application for approved status in the name of an organisation which did not exist beyond an undefined name being an impressive string of words being  the animal welfare institute of New Zealand.
  6. Failed to provide verification of the existence of the organisation to the minister of Agriculture when requested.
  7. Worked with a council manager ( his associate )  to mislead MAF as to the consents from  two councils
  8. Used council  staff “voluntarily” whilst they were  being  paid by council
  9. Used the councils  Logo to solicit  donations which were banked into an account only he controlled
  10. Became employed in  a situation described by the  certified fraud examiners associations as  occupational fraud   being “The use of one’s occupation for personal enrichment through the deliberate misuse or misapplication of the employing organization’s resources or assets.”
  11. Used charitable funds to pursue me through court  in a process where he would personally benefit from the outcome.
  12. Misled the court in his evidence to the point that I believe was perjury   but despite   volumes of documentation ( the originals being on file at MAF )    contradicting the   transcripts of   evidence given by the plaintiff , I am told that I have no corroboration.

What it boils down to is that the  level of proof  for criminal charges  has a very high threshold  but  on the other side court action can be taken without any evidence at all   and by people  who have no standing. There is no requirement of accountability to the truth or requirement of he who asserts to prove.

There appears to be an approach  that while you are before the court on civil  proceedings the  various  agencies will not act for fear of  providing you with an evidential edge. This also serves very well for the  other party   who   then uses this time to  cover up  the offending and in some cases  extend the time frame so that the offence is in a time bracket where it is no longer prosecutable thereby avoiding  conviction  .

As an example of how the court is used to beat up     and financially drain  persons one needs only to look at the  matter  involving  Fresh prepared Limited. Terry Hay and Lynne Pryor  , lawyer Peter Spring  of  Keenan Alexander.  Read judge Harrisons judgement.  They then went on to  repeat this  process with me  to conceal the fact that they had fabricated  a  director and Liquidator.

Lynne Pryor   has now been convicted and fined $18,000 . Hay is a fugitive from our laws ( 22 charges fabricating evidence ) , Peter Spring  appears to be  protected by the Law society which will not act on my complaint  and conveniently   did not send me the letter which  gave me  a time frame to  appeal  so that  this time frame had passed before I became aware of the situation.

I am a Former Police officer, a Private Investigator and a member of the certified fraud examiners association. I am a verification specialist and an anti fraud and corruption campaigner.

I Note  that we have simplified the prosecution of many offences, ironically those under the animal welfare act which this   now retrospectively formed ‘organisation” administers.  The offences are generally strict liability   requiring no Men’s Rae. Similar many of our traffic offences are also in this category  and a momentary slip is enough to  attract a fine.

Fraud on the other hand is undefined in our statutes and we rely upon the 1961 Crimes act to deal with such matters.

Britain has similar problems  and   in   THE LAW COMMISSION report  the Lord Chancellor subsequently is quoted at   ( 1.2.) “We recognise that, in recent years, the public has at times felt that those responsible for major crimes in the commercial sphere have managed to avoid justice. Even when fraud is detected, the present procedures are often cumbersome, and difficult to prosecute effectively.”

New Zealand  has similar issues  and Britain’s Fraud ACT 2006  would go a long way to addressing the issues we have here  details of the act is located  at this  link

If we had a fraud act  similar to that of the UK  this man would have been  charged four years ago  with  three charges at least ,  which  are  created  in  section one of the act being

  • false representation (Section 2);
  • failure to disclose information when there is a legal duty to do so (Section 3); and
  • abuse of position (Section 4)

My request for information  under the official information act is

Please provide copies of any research reports or investigations which have been conducted into the ever increasing incidence of   Fraud  ,

  1. its ability to be prosecuted ,
  2. the effect on its victims   and
  3. the  recommendations for  fraud prevention  on a national basis.
  4. Consideration for a fraud act
  5. The cost of fraud on society

Also  have any of the following been considered in any official research if so please provide the documentation.

  1. The number of Fraud victims who suffer depression and or commit suicide.
  2. Victim support for fraud victims.
  3. Consideration to  a  recognised definition   for fraud.
  4. Research into the use of the court to conceal corruption or to silence those who speak up .
  5. Research into depression and   suicide of persons  who  have  suffered financial loss due to fraud scams and  civil and or criminal court action against them.
  6. Efficiency of the  so called public watch dogs  .

With regards to  courts particularly the civil   jurisdiction

  1. What  reports and research exist on the requirement of the court to verify that  the evidence before it is factual
  2. What  reports and research exist on the requirement of the court to verify that  the plaintiffs  have standing.
  3. What research has been undertaken and what reports exist which show that case law and  process are of more significance that  the  rights to fair  hearing,  truth, facts and honesty.
  4. What  research and recommendation have been considered  to    make perjury  easier to prosecute  to ensure  accountability to the truth in   statutory declarations , affidavits and  sworn evidence

Fraud is a growth industry   is New Zealand wants to keep the perception of being least corrupt alive  it needs  to actively  punish fraud  and not allow its courts to  conceal  corrupt practices.

We are part of an international trend  we need to look overseas and see what is  happening.. copy cat  processes occur here and our laws  are not  able to cope with  these scenarios.


Grace Haden

Phone (09) 520 1815

mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at


Will Hoadley expose or conceal corruption?

Filed under: Wyn Hoadley — anticorruptionnz @ 2:08 am

Wyn Hoadley is standing for Thames Ward Thames-Coromandel District Council and Waitemata District Health Board

I  have asked the following questions of her    any one wishing to see the court documents and evidence   can contact me.

Four years ago  I asked questions  about AWINZ ( Animal welfare Institute  of new Zealand ) seeking accountability. Your involvement with  AWINZ is documented   here .

AWINZ is a law enforcement body  just like the RNZSPCA  but unlike the RNZSPCA or any member  or branch it  did not exist beyond a private trust.  See About AWINZ – Animal welfare institute of New Zealand

AWINZ  using  flyers signed by you as chairwoman  ,  collects donations   for the work which it does  in Waitakere  city  using the council dog and stock control officers to  do ” voluntary work ” paid for  by the rate payer, using council plant,  vehicles and resources  .  for this trust whose CEO is also the  manager animal welfare Waitakere  and effectively both parties to the  contract  .

Mr Wells  with  whom you   signed a trust deed  (six months after commencing litigation and in what I see as a  cover up )  contributed heavily to the   writing   and advice on  this  legislation  which  was by all appearances to facilitate  the business plan he had in 1996.

You did not provide any opportunity for resolution outside the court  and  when I spoke to you and requested that the trustees of both trust should meet.  You told me that you were not  the messenger-this was odd due to your supposed designation as chair person, while you have no other proof than your own assertion that you were a trustee at that time .

You sued me and have over the past four year  together with Wells and Coutts not relented, this has  seen  me striped of my family and  life’s savings  and  damaged my   business and reputation .

In view of  the manner in which you have dealt with me and  the AWINZ cover up  I was wondering what your views are  with regards to

  1. Dispute resolution  is court the only way  and  why resort to  heavy handed tactics when other avenues are available.
  2. The action against me was funded  through  the public purse by way of charitable funds,  would you  similarly use health board and council funds to    silence any one who spoke up about an issue of public concern.
  3. What  will you implement   to prevent Corrupt practices,  that is The use of one’s occupation for personal enrichment through the deliberate misuse or misapplication of the employing organization’s resources or assets.”  E.g write legislation for your own business plan . will you condone this as you have condoned  and supported AWINZ’s activities?
  4. What are  your views on Whistleblowers –  people  who  try to alert  the authorities to a corrupt practice.. should you listen to them or silence them  with crippling unrelenting court action  or should you meet and listen to them.?
  5. Will you be  looking  at Privatisation of dog and stock control,,  are you working with the RNZSPCA, I believe the local branch has already been  taken over by their head office paving the way for  the next step
  6. What anti fraud and corruption will you be putting in place to ensure that     public money and resources are not  wasted.
  7. What transparency measures will you be putting in place for public private relationships  .

Wyn I look forward to hearing from you I believe that  it is in the public interest that you are consistent with your  actions and your views.


what is the expected standard of an SPCA inspector?

Filed under: SPCA / RNZSPCA — anticorruptionnz @ 5:41 am

On 27 July I requested information from  MAF with  regards to Jim Boyd  a RNZSPA inspector and   member of the Royal New Zealand SPCA national council .

I had been told that there were serious allegations  against Jim Boyd .

I  received the    response from Maf re RNZSPCA Jim Boyd

I  cannot believe  that despite  5 people  voicing their concerns  and  some of them saying they are so appalled   they stopped donating  and  an other  felt they could not become  an inspector that the SPCA has  done nothing.

I have broken the  document down into the various parts   giving transcriptions of the interviews with regards to the actions of  Jim Boyd .

One needs only to read these  statements to  draw their own  conclusions.

this is followed by Jim Boyds explanation through his  lawyer Simon Meikle .

May I suggest that  any one  charged with an animal welfare offence  refers to  these statements.

It would appear that whilst an inspector can accuse any one of anything and have it stand in court –  their accountability to the law is a lot less.

These documents are well worth reading

allegations warranted MAF – inspector ( Jim Boyd ) summary from investigators

transcript informant

transcript Member of Public

transcript past field officer

transcript past office manager

transcript spca worker

transcript past warranted inspector

complaint re dog

and this is the reply by SPCA inspector Boyds lawyer   Simon Meikle

If any one is charged with an offence  under the animal welfare act   please employ me and I will    locate and interview  any of these people  so that they can give evidence on your behalf   so that the standards of animal  abuse can be   judged against the actions  or is that lack of action  of  some SPCA inspectors .

It would appear that   The SPCA  did not forward the detailed information, on which   Simon based  his assessment,  to MAF  for had they done so  it would have been   supplied  to me as part of this OIA.

Jim Boyd is from the Bay of Islands SPCA  he has travelled the country to  take charge of   action against animal owners.


Office of the auditor general is apparently not interested in accountability

Filed under: SPCA / RNZSPCA — anticorruptionnz @ 5:59 am

In  July I requested information   and an investigation into the    structure, accountability of the RNZSPCA      It appears that the office of the auditor general is not interested and won’t even look at it .. such is privatisation  just hand it on to the private sector  and   the OAG   won’t need to worry about accountability.   This is their reply Response from oag re spca I am still awaiting a respnse from  MAF

this is what I  sent  to them

To the Minister of Agriculture the Auditor General   and MAF

The first part is  a request for investigation   by  the minister and the OAG  the latter part a OIA for MAF  they are here in conjunction as both   parts are relevant to all parties. I have hyperlinked   documentation  which I have received from MAF for your reference

I am seriously concerned  with the lack of accountability in the  process of  delegation of law enforcement    and believe this entire process needs to be reviewed for legal accountability  both by the minister and   the office of the auditor general .

I do not believe that any private company in New Zealand would contract out its services   in this manner as  there is  apparently little accountability and  transparency.

A search of international New will reveal issues elsewhere with the administration of the laws  by the SPCA  and in Australia there has been a call to have their powers limited

We are not  talking about contracting just anything we are contracting out  animal welfare services which enables law enforcement   under the act  which in turn will provide   revenue for the  enforcers through prosecution of the public .(  See section 171 of the act )

Therefore the more they prosecute the more revue they will derive from the legislation and so the  SPCA will not be about animal welfare at all but  will become an enforcement unit like the police and councils  except that this body is  private and is not subject to  matter such as the official information act.

What makes it of more concern is that most of the offences require  no intention  ( mens rae)   so the opinion of the  enforcer  is what drives the  prosecution of an animal owner whose only sin has been to have been remiss in the opinion of the enforcer.

With costs  for lawyers on an hourly basis  being  round the $300-500 mark   few will be able to defend  themselves  and  paying the fine and possibly  surrendering their   loved animal  becomes the most economic  measure.   An example of this is a pensioner in the UK who was prosecuted when   they probably needed help .

The RNZSPCA and the SPCA  hold on to their  bequests and  investment funds   and have been known to fight over who has the right to claim the money.  This makes it clear  it is NOT one organisation .  They have been given Money and Donations  to Help animals  .

It is a misconception that  The RNZSPCA is One organisation  each is a society or trust  and exists as an individual legal person.

I  have set out my concerns below  and the matters relating to the official information act request  is for  Mr Sherwin. The reason  I take so much interest in this  is because I once asked a totally innocent question  with regards to the existence of  an approved organisation (AWINZ)   and because it did not exist  and needed to cover up   the writer and advisor for the animal welfare act sued me.  This has cost me not only $100,000  it has potential of costing  me  a further $100,000 and has destroyed my family .This has now gone on  for over 4 years .  I do not believe that anyone else should  suffer what I have   and therefore  request that  MAF and the government ensure that this process of delegating law enforcement to a private organisation  is  fully transparent and  legally   defendable.

Further to my OIA request   dated 26 May and  MAFs reply from 16 July I wish to request further information  again pursuant to the official information act

Point 1 you have supplied me with overview of mafs animal welfare activities Please advise why the select committee was not  given the total number of animal welfare officers   who  have powers under the animal welfare act.

Point 2

  1. Please provide details of whether or not the select committee was advised of the contact   for provision of  animal welfare services to any third parties.
  2. With regards to the  document Agreement for  sale and purchase of  animal welfare services Please provide  copies all  such contracts  which  have been issued for these services to any  party

Point 3-

Point 4.  I had requested the names of all   Inspectors appointed   by the RNZSPCA   its member societies and branches  . I had requested that    each appointee be shown   with the  branch  or  member society  who had  requested that appointment.  That information was refused.

I subsequently asked for   papers which require the withholding of this information and  was advised that it is decided on a case by case  basis.

  1. Please provide all documentation which led to the decision to withhold this information  I this case.
  2. In the event that the above cannot be supplied I request that In the interest of transparency and  as a right of the public to be fairly informed as to which  private  individuals  being non government  employees can enforce the law under this act , I  request that you  please provide a list of all inspectors  recommended for appointment by  any RNZSPCA society or SPCA trust or society and any other  inspector not employed by Government. . I request that this documents   Identifies who the inspector is and which  entity recommended their appointment  and the date of appointment and  the  district to which they are affiliated.

Point 5

  1. Please provide a copy of the certificate of appointment which   the inspectors carry   so that   we know what it looks like  and that  a certificate produced is genuine.
  2. You state that MAF anticipates  that in the vast majority  of cases a description of the background to the complaint would be sufficient  to identify  the  individual  involved, without difficulty.. please provide the research and discussion papers  which led to this statement being made.

Point 6

You say that the information requested  does not exist  yet I have made you aware that AWINZ   did not exist as a legal person  and  is in my opinion based on the evidence I have ,  a sham trust .  If you look at the trust deed  which was supplied to  you in draft form  in 1999  and  an unverified  copy of which was supplied in 2006    you will note that   the deed states that  the trustees are appointed for 3 years only.

This means that the deed signed on 1.3.2000 expired  on 1 March 2003.  I have  evidence  from Mr Coutts trustee and the other two trustees  that they only met in 1998 or 1999 . Therefore   by the time the MOU with MAF was signed in  December 2003 no valid trust existed and Mr Wells, the writer and advisor of the act which he was now using to promote his own business venture ,  could not have signed as trustee  of a nonexistent trust.

Despite this MAF have defended their actions and the  auditor general  simply stated they wouldn’t do anything because I was being sued for defamation . I wish to point out  that  through an over sight  in law   no one has ever proved that what I have said was defamatory, in fact all my statements  have been proved to have been  true. Truth is never defamatory.

You also  state in an audit report that the current trustees of AWINZ (  who  do not have a MOU with  you )   have offered to relinquish their  approved status. One has to ask how they can relinquish something they never had?

It therefore means that  inspectors appointed   on the recommendation of  a nonexistent AWINZ   did not have  any one to  be accountable to  and there is no one  to make a complaint to with regards  these  inspectors.

Please advise if   MAF has at any time  considered  this aspect or given any consideration to

  1. The lack of trust deed
  2. The lack of proof of existence of a trust
  3. The need to  receive and accept only verified information
  4. Seeking verification of existence of a trust  .. even after I brought it to your attention
  5. The validity of any  action of inspectors   recommended for appointment and responsible to AWINZ

Please provide all  documents which relate to    this  aspect

Point 7

There is much confusion in referring to  the RNZSPCA  .


Section 190 of the act refers to “Any incorporated society that is a branch or member of the Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Incorporated may, through that royal society (in its capacity as an approved organisation) “

I have not yet found any legal document which defines   the branches  or members  or process by which   branches and members  are approved. Nor have I seen any  evidence other than inference that  an organisation is a  member or a branch other than by being referred to a web site.

Through this statement in the act  it is apparent that   the “ royal society “   is ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED  which is one society    with the registration number 218546 other SPCA’s  have gone through  name changes  some  having  gone to  a branch then back to  being a SPCA. There are  branches and    members  which  pre  exist the “ royal society “

The memorandum  of understanding Defines the RNZSPCA   as THE  ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED its branches and  member societies

The national  council   is defined as “ the body of elected  members from the branches or member societies who are constitutionally  responsible  for he workings of the RNZSPCA

The national executive  is the administrative body of the  of the RNZSPCA  national council

The performance  and Technical standards defines SPCA as THE  ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED an approved organisation  for the purposes of the act.

The national  council   is defined as a body of elected persons who are constitutionally responsible for  the working of the SPCA

The national executive  is the administrative body appointed by  the national executive

The  Agreement sale and purchase of  animal welfare services is between  THE  ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED trading as the royal new Zealand SPCA  and its permitted successors and assigns.

However  nothing in the contract indicates  what its “its permitted successors and assigns”  are and these are not defined.

This indicates that there is much confusion as to  who is what and in the absence of further proof the only  organisation empowered to  carry out    work under the contract is between  THE  ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED identified  with  unique number 218546

  1. Please supply all correspondence and documentation which show who the  member societies are and who  its branches are and  all documentation  identifying the “its permitted successors and assigns”
  1. Please provide  details as to what  formal structure the” national  council” is ..  is it a trust  is it a group of people    is it a society? Is it identifiable as a legal person or is the national  council   the name of an informal committee?  What is it a committee of   ie which    legal person/ persons ?                       Please provide all documents which you hold which identifies who or what the national council is.
  1. Please provide  documentation  which MAF relied on  in treating the  national council as   a legal or  natural person  capable of   entering into an agreement  such as an MOU.
  1. Please provide  all documents discussion papers which  considered the legal enforceability of  an MOU
    1. When it is signed with a natural person or legal person
    2. When it is signed on behalf of  a trading name or undefined group of persons.

Point 8

It would appear that  your MOU  is inconsistent with the act

I am referring to the  fact that the act specifies that  only  the  ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED (with  unique number 218546 )   can  recommend   persons for appointment  and that  member societies  and branches can   recommend through it. Yet the MOU  defines RNZSPCA as being The  ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED its branches and   member societies .

There appears   to be  no legal ability for your MOU to be   with   branches and  member societies  as the obligations under the act are with the RNZSPCA  Inc   and   the  individual  societies and members  come below it.

This structure has opened the back door  for   previously declined applicants   for approved status  such as the international  league of horses to simply change  its name and become  “ approved “  by affiliating with the SPCA  , since the role  involves law enforcement this has to be of serious concern .

Please provide all documentation

  1. which  considered the application  of the international league of horses in it application for approved status.
  2. Which identifies the inspectors  which  now makes this organisation an approve organisation in the name of SPCA AUCKLAND HORSE WELFARE AUXILIARY INCORPORATED previously known as INTERNATIONAL LEAGUE FOR THE PROTECTION OF HORSES (NEW ZEALAND) INCORPORATED previously known as HORSE PROTECTION SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED unique number 212301
  3. Al correspondence from  the RNZSPCA   Inc  showing that this  organisation is now a member society or  branch

Point 9

You have supplied  a copy of  an agreement for sale and purchase of  animal welfare services between  the crown and  The  ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED.

  1. Please provide any contracts and agreements  which  that society has  with other  societies ,  trusts  ,companies or legal persons for the provision of these services.
  1. Please provide copies of all legal opinions and reports which  MAF has sought  to clarify the  dealings with a number of   incorporated societies who  have  provided no real proof of  belonging to  one umbrella organisation other  than by inference.

You state in your letter (reply from Maf 16 July)  that the RNZSPCA as a whole  is an approved Organisation under section 189 of the act .

I believe that Maf    since day one has never grasped the concept of   legal persons    and the importance of correctly identifying who you deal with   Your statement conflicts with  the act which you administer      at section 189 (1) states

(1)    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.

That organisation is  Number      218546 Name     THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED   Incorporated   11-SEP-1933

There  are  many other societies   named as branches  and others  names SPCA  which  exist . Please look up the societies web page   and search in the key word search using the words cruelty and animals  you will find that  some 80   societies  come up both  current and historic  .

You will notice also that many of these societies are only run by Robyn Kippenberger  ,  What are the implications of branches being run and administered only by one person.  Each of these “ branches’ is a legal person a society in  their own right. They have assets and should have 15  people .

  1. What  records  does Maf hold on these societies which are  currently only being run by one person , what enquiries has MAF made with the register of societies  to ensure  that this is  a legally   viable option  please provide all documents which have considered the validity of such organisations  which could effectively be employing   inspectors  yet  exist only as a paper society.
  1. For the record I wish you to consider that   these   societies  frequently own land which has been bequeathed to them  , I have had  members of  such defunct  organisations contact me advising me that they have been removed from office  as Mr. Wells   so accurately states in his poster there is money in animals Please  advise  what anti corruption measures the   Ministry has considered by giving such wide scope of power to a group of private  individuals  who  through their contract to   the crown  have unlimited ability to raise funds .
    1. Please further advise what controls  and audit systems MAF has considered for the  income generated though prosecutions  and the ability for such money to be moved sideways into trusts  and be whittled away  through various payment  streams to the  high paid executives.

There are now trusts called SPCA  which have sprung into existence   and it is no longer clear as to which is a member society   or a branch or not affiliated  other than by inference  that  the name  provides membership.

There is also nothing in the public arena  which   shows any affiliation of the various organisations .

We are talking about the  delegation of   law enforcement here and we appear to have no chain  of authority and we  have apparently left it wide open for any organisation  to  call itself SPCA and come under the umbrella   of what is New Zealand’s only private law enforcement   authority.

MAF was similarly   negligent when it approved AWINZ as an approved organisation  when  you were not even in possession of a trust deed. I questioned the existence of that organisation and was sued  because MAF had been incapable of verifying the  organisations existence before sending it to the minister for the  pproval.

Transitional provisions

There appears to be nothing in the act  which  stipulates the duration of the transitional provisions   , as MAF appear to be continuing to use these transitional provisions for  the delegation of animal welfare enforcement they must be aware of the working so f the act.   It would appear from your answer  and action that the transitional    measures are  permanent unless  MAF has an application from  the RNZSPCA INC  to become an approved organisation.

  1. What consideration has Maf given to   treating  each individual  society as an approved organisation   rather  than allowing the RNZSPCA inc   to   continue to appoint which ever  organisation they wish  as a branch or  member . please provide all discussion papers .
  1. Please provide  any documents you have which shows  how the  RNZSPCA can appoint members or take on new branches.
  1. If there have been any other applications for  organisations including  member  societies or branches of the  SPCA  to become approved organisations  please provide these.

Point 10

There is general confusion and blurring of organisations because of the conflict of using   RNZSPCA  and SPCA  and now royal SPCA  , I respectfully request that MAF seeks legal advice from a suitably qualified lawyer on this issue  as   the real names and trading names    appear to become mixed and this does not allow  for proper identification  of the parties.  This would be  akin to identity fraud if it is done  intentionally  .( I am not saying that this is the case ) But  the public have  the right to know which entity they are dealing with and at present that is not  possible.

There is much missing in the   transparency of the RNZSPCA inc and its  branches and  member societies  this is an issue which is of public significance  for accountability reasons and  MAF should ensure that we know at all times  who in the private sector is entitled to enforce the law.  Lack of  transparency breeds corruption

Point 11.

The issue which  I  am trying to clarify is that the delegated authority to   individuals     is done as follows

  1. RNZSPCA inc is  an approved organisation
  2. There are member society and branches  by  inference but there is no documented proof- perhaps a  flow chart may exist which you can supply  to clarify this
  3. These  member societies branches  .. called local SPCAs   are all separate legal persons and have separate  society and  trust registration numbers  -each   can  select candidates for training  and then make recommendations to the  national office  which presumably again by inference  is the approved organisation
  4. The approved organisation   recommends the person to Maf
  5. Maf approves /declines
  6. If approved the inspector is warranted and works  for the member society  or branch
  7. By virtue of section 190 (2)  that organisation then becomes an approved organisation  and can retain any  fines from its prosecutions by virtue of section 171

It is  therefore  very lucrative for a society to have  an inspector as the inspector through prosecutions can generate revenue especially now that the penalties have been increased.

It is therefore  essential that the   all steps in the delegation process and all legal names are transparent and accurate.

It is my concern that MAF  have  not  properly considered the implications of the contracts  between parties  and the ability to expand  the branches and  member societies without  consultation with  Government.

The  MOU  dated 16 march 2006  claiming to be  between the minister and  THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED      and branches and member societies  is  signed only  by Barry O’Neill through delegated authority   and Peter Mason  national President.

  1. I  therefore request information pursuant to the official information act so  as to complete the chain of evidence  of  delegation and accountability  with respect to this process  As  mentioned above
  2. I also request any  documents  which may  discuss a limit to the growth of the   number of member societies and  branches and  the limit on numbers of inspectors who may be appointed.

Further with respect to the Memorandum  of Understanding supplied

  1. Point 11 please provide All  discussion documents, reports and correspondence  which considered the implications of delegating law enforcement authority through an unenforceable  document.
  1. Pont 20 & 22  Please advise how many RNZSPCA  inspector applicants have been interviewed by MAF
  1. Point 53  Please advise   whether MAF considered the fact that the RNZSPCA is a private  society and therefore not subject to the official information act   when it directed that an  inspector should advise  a district if they are working outside their jurisdiction.  What consideration  did MAF give to the  availability of information to the public who  may wish to question the jurisdiction of an inspector.  .. Please provide all documents  which discussed this aspect before having it included in the  MOU
  1. Point 66  please provide copies of all newsletters


  1. Please provide all correspondence  to MAF with regards to the new facility being  built at WINTEC  in Hamilton being  built by a  group of persons calling themselves the Waikato Animal Welfare Foundation ( but otherwise unidentifiable as this organisation  does not exist  beyond perhaps a well concealed  private trust deed )  the trustee named Jan Thomson   is on the executive  of the Waikato RNZSPCA  and she is talking about leasing he building back to the Waikato SPCA  which is  exactly the  same organisation which  Jan Thomson  is an executive of.  Some of the money being used is  $4000,000  which  came from  the Waikato RNZSPCA and has been used   to set up the Waikato SPCA trust. .. It is such creativity and lack of transparency which  opens the door to corruption and fraud.   This is preventable  and therefore MAF should take all steps to ensure that  those who they allow to enforce the law  are transparent.
  1. I believe that Unitec secured the training  for  inspectors fate  it had been included as a requirement  in the act. The training was provided  by Mr Wells the author of the bill  who  obtained  employment at Unitec to   facilitate the new legislation. Unitec  won the contract   please provide the names of  all those who tendered for the  supply of this service .
  1. who is the current  training provider   contracted to MAF  and  please advise who the providers were since the act   commenced. Pease supply copies of all these contracts.
  1. I  request all documents  which  relate to any consideration given to changing the  current service provider or to any consideration to implement a new provider  at Wintec to train the new influx  of  animal welfare inspectors.


There have been a number of long term  RNZSPCA  & SPCA officers  inspectors and  committees  from various legal entities which are branches or  member societies  that have been laid off . It would appear that there are changes afoot in the running of the SPCA which has brought about the  need to remove the old to make room for the new.    Has Maf  investigated  these changes  and have they been notified   regarding any of these changes. Please provide any   or  all correspondence which  relates to  the   takeover of  administration of branches,  dismissals of inspectors  and  officer in the past 2 years.

This will be posted on my blog


Grace Haden

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


Read the emails that may take down the chief justice

Filed under: corruption,transparency — anticorruptionnz @ 5:26 am

The NBR have released the emails which  show  what really goes on in the back ground  of New Zealand’s judiciary .

The NBR article  revealed that top commercial lawyer Jim Farmer QC and retired Court of Appeal judge Sir Ted Thomas were in regular contact during an appeal of a decision Justice Wilson was part of.

I have posted a reply as follows  “For too long NZ had hidden behind the facade of being the  least corrupt    I  Like Vince am a victim of  a justice system which   does not require truth or  evidence   and  happily denies  those  exposing corruption  the right to a defence.

The corrupt with connections to the old boys club  can  mislead the court and no matter  how much evidence you have there will never be enough to prove  perjury  .

You need only look at the data which  I have obtained by OIA and posted on my web site  under the  same title as this NBR  article, to see that we are soft of  truth.

White collar criminals are actively using the court to conceal corruption, last week a woman was convicted  and fined $18,000 for  fraudulently running a business.   Her false claims against me   cost much more to defend . Her associate a business partner of a Director of the chamber  of commerce  financed the proceedings  , he has skipped the county  avoiding 22 charges of  fabricating evidence which have been brought  by the MED.

I found it impossible to complain about the lawyers who   facilitated the court action and who were criticised by  judges on several occasions.  The law society is actively protecting them and refuses to investigate.

For any one  , especially those  well connected to the old boys network  it is  worth  while suing the person who could expose you   and that will give you  many years   to cover up .

When there is no accountability to the truth   there  is no justice

Our Government by refusing to ratify the  UN  convention against corruption is unwittingly condoning corruption  . Hope fully this will become an election issue.

Grace Haden

Transparency New Zealand”

It will no doubt be removed  which is what  appears to happen to  my posts of late  which can only suggest that the NBR has given little thought to corruption.

The data which I refer to is perjury data

From my calculation   and leaving out the figures on obstructing justice   there is one prosecution  every four days   for telling lies.

According to statistics NZ there are currently 4,371,442 people in New Zealand   which means that  your chance of being prosecuted for  lies  is   only  1 in 17,485,768.

Compare this to  your chance of winning lotto as being 1 in 3,838,380 see source

Hope that puts it into perspective.


The dangers of SPCA law enforcement

Filed under: Uncategorized — anticorruptionnz @ 1:47 am

The legal fraternity has taken up animal rights activism with payments for whistleblowers, writes Michael Duffy.…. You can tell a cause is getting serious when the lawyers become involved. This is now happening with animal rights, where growing legal interest plus a healthy fighting fund – including the whistleblowers’ fee – look like producing a new era of court action.”

There has to be a lesson in this   whatever happens overseas will soon be occurring here or is already happening but is being concealed through  all sorts of methods.

There are several good sites which show  just  how long this has been going on overseas  especially the UK  one of them is   which list  the following

TIME FOR A REVIEW OF ANIMAL CHARITY’S BULLYBOY TACTICS ? this site is regularly updates and  very worthy of a visit  t  see the reality of what is occurring



The RSPCA have a conviction for Perverting the Course of Justice

Make Money the RSPCA way

Birds were ‘sexually frustrated’ court told Parrot owners cleared of mistreating birds

Two years and £50,000 later, ordeal of policeman who put dying cat out of its misery is finally over

The SHG The Self Help Group for Farmers, Pet Owners and Others
Experiencing Difficulties with the RSPCA (The SHG) are also  worth referring to .

My Question

Do we wait until it is too late or do we  look at the changes which are happening  here right now and say Oh my gosh  things are changing  into the beast which exists in  the UK .

The UK SPCA  has no special powers according  to these sites  , but ours have  . The legislation was written by a former RNZSPCA president  and a man who wrote the legislation with his  own SPCA type organisation in mind.  The legislation is dangerous  and all pet owners  should be concerned.


The dangers of private enforcement authorities.

Filed under: corruption,SPCA / RNZSPCA — anticorruptionnz @ 5:45 am

OIA reply from Police on prosecution of Police *555 calls

I refer to my earlier blog where I was prosecuted on the say  so of a person who was engaging in road rage  , the police charged me  when they had no  evidence and relied on the say so of  this person  spoken to  only over the phone.

A reply has been received from the police   as follows

“I refer to that part of your email of 17 June 2010 to the Hon Judith Collins and others in which you request all policies, General Instructions, directions and codes of conduct relating to:-

1. The handling of *555 calls

2. The minimum requirements of proceeding to prosecution based on information obtained by complainant.

3. The need for a signed statement before laying a charge against a person based on the allegation of a member of the public .

4. What protocol the police have in acting or not acting on the say so of one person against another, why are some instances filed and why are incidents of the same evidential proof proceeded with

*555 calls reporting traffic incidents are dealt with as general traffic complaints and no information specific to their handling has been located .

No instruction that requires that a signed statement be taken from a complainant prior to prosecution being initiated has been located .

Accordingly, items 1 and 3 of your request are declined under section 18(e) of the Official Information Act in that the document alleged to contain the information requested does not exist or cannot be found .

In relation to items 2 and 4 of your request, Police rely on the Solicitor General’s Prosecution Guidelines when making decisions as to whether or not a matter should be the subject of prosecution. This document is available online at

My concern is that  if the police were able to prosecute me without evidence in this  instance   a private law enforcement body can  do likewise.

What saved the day for me  in this instance was the ability to request information from the police under the official information act.

Private  organisations  such as the SPCA  RNZSPCA are   not  subject to the OIA and this information would not have been available  and a defence would  be more difficult .

The offences under the Animal Welfare Act are largely Strict liability offences  meaning that no intention is required.   when the police prosecute the  fines  go into the f\governemt  coffers  when the SPCA  prosecute  the money  goes into their own pockets.

I believe this is extremely dangerous and leaves the system open to abuse.


Politics explained

Filed under: corruption,super city — anticorruptionnz @ 10:06 pm


Start with a cage containing five monkeys. Inside the cage, hang a banana on a string and place a set of stairs under it. Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and start to climb towards the banana.

As soon as he touches the stairs, spray all the other monkeys with cold water. After a while another monkey makes the attempt with same result, all the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water. Pretty soon when another Monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys will try to prevent it.

Now, put the cold water away. Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one. The new monkey sees the banana and wants to climb the stairs.

To his shock, all of the other monkeys beat the snot out of him. After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs he will be assaulted.

Next, remove another of the original five monkeys and replace it with a new one.

The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked.  The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm.

Likewise, replace a third original monkey with a new one, then a fourth, then the fifth. Every time the newest monkey takes to the stairs he is attacked.

Most of the monkeys that are beating him up have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs OR even why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey. Finally, after replacing all of the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys have ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approaches the stairs to try for the banana.

Why not?

Because as far as they know, that is the way it has always been done around here.

And that, my fellow monkeys, is how Government and Local Governemnt  operates – And precisely why we need to REPLACE all the original monkeys next election.

Blog at