Anticorruptionnz's Blog



Filed under: corruption,Neil Wells,SPCA / RNZSPCA,Tom Didovich — anticorruptionnz @ 9:54 am

Some time ago  I made an official information request to MAF see Lack of accountability of the SPCA – RNZSPCA or what ever it wants to be called this week ” these questions were based on  a letter which they sent me whis is  within the post.

MAF have repeatedly stalled    and now wish to charge well over a thousand dollars for the information.

Through my past experience with MAF I have learnt that  they have very slack  checks and balances( if any at all ) .  They  allowed a non existent organisation to become an Approved organisation.. meaning  it has law enforcement abilities  and the ability to  appoint  inspectors and auxiliary inspectors ,  these  come under the under direction of Director-General MAF.

It is therefore  strange that   MAF cannot supply a list of  who these persons are

The inspectors  appointed under  these provisions

1.       Can demand name and address of persons who they believe are offending against the act .

a.       Persons who do not comply can be sentenced to 3 months or to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to both

2.       Have  legislative protection for  their acts

3.       can Apply for search warrants

4.       can Issue infringement notices

5.       can  prosecute people and appear in court themselves and the “ organisation can  keep the  funds .

6.       Sell  animals which have been seized  and apply the proceeds to the cost of prosecution, and   expenses incurred in caring for that animal before the sale;

7.       Have powers with regards to Powers in relation to injured or sick animals

Approved organisations   have obligations set out by statute

The animal welfare institute of New Zealand still is such an approved Organisation .

The man  who  calls himself the CEO   Neil Wells also wrote and advise on  the legislation  which  give the above powers. This was  legislation was written by him  subsequent to   his business plan   for integration of   animal welfare officers with  council  duties of dog and stock  control   see the document and  how to write legislation for your own business plan

At the  end of 2009  those who claim to be the current trustees of AWINZ asked to relinquish their  approved status, despite this  the   dog and stock control officers in Waitakere city have continued to  hold warrants.

The whole AWINZ thing has been a non sense

1.       In November 1999 Neil Wells applied to the minister for approved status stating  that the  organisation existed

2.       He made a number of claims that    documents would be forwarded but never did

3.       In 2006  I questioned why the organisation  did not exist  on any register.. for this I have been sued for the past  four years.

4.       A trust deed was supplied  in 2006  no  further evidence of the trusts existence has  ever been produced. We can only speculate as to the   truthfulness of this document, it certainly  was never seen before 2006  by the official bodies which should have held a copy on file.

5.       If you read the deed  point  7 a term of  office   you will note that it states that the term of appointment is 3 years. This means that by  1.3.2003  there were no trustees.

6.       Maf entered into an agreement with AWINZ  giving no further definition of what AWINZ was on 4 December 2003 .  what is the validity of this agreement   when the” trustee “  Neil Wells  without any further evidence is deemed to have stopped being a trustee   8 months earlier   .

a.       There is also no evidence that   any of the other so called trustees continued  and  if there were others who these persons  are.

b.      For all intents and purposes MAF signed and agreement for law enforcement with one person who   was trading with a name  which sounded impressive.

7.       In 2006  three people  (  note the trust deed states there will be no less than four trustees )  purporting to  be the trustees but  not having any evidence that they were  took me to court –  Wyn Hoadley barrister , Neil Wells  Barrister and Graeme Coutts JP.

8.       In December of that year these three people sign a deed with Tom Didovich the previous manager animal welfare who had made representation on behalf of two councils to MAF.

9.       These are the people  who according to MAF have now asked  for the approved status to be relinquished .. but apart from sharing the same trading name    are they the same as the approved organisation?   And what accountability has there been??


Because of  the overlap with the RNZSPCA   and  involvement with Neil Wells   with the Waikato SPCA trust I asked questions  of the RNZSPCA and the SPCA   which  still appear to be  operating under the transitional   part of the act  and   appear to be taking on approved organisations through the back door.

I have also been approached by many of the older inspectors   who are being pushed  out of the job , I have given my time freely and willingly  but it appears that  Maf  sees me as a bit of a villain    mainly because their incompetence has cost me so much.

They now refuse to give me the time of day     so that they can cover up their  incompetence.

I am certain that the docuemtns I have asked for a refused because they simply don’t exist. Maf does not   do its work  and is thereby allowing corruption in the  animal welfare sector to flourish.

Openness and transparency is  supposed to be  part of our democratic system   what is transparent about a system where by  people are charged  huge sums of money  for information  relating to accountability issues in the private law  enforcement sector.


Blog at

%d bloggers like this: