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??
RNZSPCA
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.
Anticorruptionnz's Blog 