Anticorruptionnz's Blog

05/02/2011

RNZSPCA Waikato asks ratepayers to fund their bad bookkeeping.

Filed under: AWINZ,Neil Wells,SPCA / RNZSPCA,Tom Didovich,Waikato RNZSPCA — anticorruptionnz @ 3:58 pm

The headlines read Support swells for stray cats funding

Now there is a call for the residents of Hamilton to all contribute   a few cents a year to   the RNZSPCA, all this because the SPCA cannot   deal with the stray cats.

First of all  Only dog and stock control re the responsibilities of  Council   and unless  there is some  legislation which I am unaware of  it  has actually been ultra vires  ( outside the scope ) for councils to become involved in animal welfare .  Cats   unless  they are a health issue are not  the responsibility of council .

Now I have heard that the SPCA has adopted a no kill policy.. very good humane  wise  but not so good given that some cats  are  not the type of animal you could re home    who would  want a wild cat   ?

So the no kill policy effectively  does  two things..

1.       It fills up the cattery, requires more staff requires more funds, keeps more  friends family and associates employed    ( this used to be done by  volunteers) they spent an extra $100,000   in the past few years

2.       It is a reason to  plead  poverty and ask for more funds

.. Isn’t keeping a cat in a  cage at infinitum would be  cruel  and the animal  is better off being  put down humanely.  Neil Wells    who claims to be AWINZ  has told the charities commission that he has funded studies  on   the stress  suffered by animals  kept in captivity..  Yes he is the same Neil wells  who signed the deed   where the $400,000  was slipped sideways..  do you feel like you are going in circles???

The Waikato SPCA  trust and the Waikato RNZSPCA are two different entities..  One is a trust the other a society.  The trust has the societies fund and appears to act with it as it likes  it was going to be part and parcel of yet another  recently formed trust the Waikato Animal Welfare Foundation   which   was going to build on the  land at wintec  .

The development officer at WINTEC is none other  than the husband of  mayor and chair woman of the RNZSPCA  Julie Hardaker .  Now as a lawyer  you would think that  she would be wanting to look a bit closer at  the $400,000  which has left a visible trail through the  charities commission and   Societies web site.

She wears both the hats which  should be  concerned  about the drain of these resources.   I have covered this story  earlier  in Secrecy breeds corruption

You need only look at the article Update on Waikato shows  who is  who on the   Waikato SPCA  to see who  was on the trust at the time.. How convenient that this proposed  vet school   was going to benefit the vet on the board of the SPCA

It should also be noted by any one looking at the accounts of the Waikato RNZSPCA  that the accounts   several years ago  represented a number of bank accounts, now only the working account is listed.  But it does not hide the fact that there have been significant donations to the  RNZSPCA in the form of bequests over the years.

The ral issue with  bequests is that   those who leave money to the SPCA or RNZSPCA are not specific  as to who should  receive the money  and  there is apparently constant battles   with regards to the terminology  used in the  individual wills as to  where the money should go .. It has the ability to go  anywhere  and  much does not go for the protection of  animals but into investment plans   and side trusts.

There is also no mention in the Waitakere RNZSPCA  accounts of the   money which the government gives to the RNZSPCA  for the  control of animals   . I believe that stays with the   main branch in  Auckland  and    does not   get  distributed to the  smaller societies.. This is so that they  can individually plead poverty  and   tug at the heart strings of the public.

Then there is  section 171  of the  animal welfare act where by the approved organisation , which the  Waikato branch of the RNZSPCA is , is able to  keep  the funds for  prosecutions.. it would appear that  the Waikato  RNZSPCA  dos not prosecute  although it is an approved organisation by virtue of  being a branch under the   RNZSPCA section 190 animal welfare act.

Last but not least  there are the  smaller trusts which  the money is  siphoned off into   in the case of the Waikato RNZSPCA  I have identified the one  above    about which there is more information in  Submission to the select committee where  I  wrote this

Mr Didovich  also plays a key role in the RNZSPCA    and Mr Wells is also a  trustee  of the  Waikato SPCA trust  which  has  taken over  $400,000  charitable funds  from  the Waikato branch of the RNZSPCA , then  dropped the  corporate trustee RNZSPCA off the deed and  then formed an entity in its own right.. Evidence of this is available from public records Societies register and charities commission. I will happily provide more evidence on this if required.

And in More submissions

“Transfers between charities could easily occur and   could be a way for third parties   to circumvent legislation by setting up as a  charity . The definition of  third party needs to be clearly defined.

1. On 15 May  2000 the  Waikato  SPCA trust was established .  This trust had a corporate trustee being the RNZSPCA  Waikato. The other  trustees were Garrick , Dalton Shepherd and Wells .

2. Land  belonging to the RNZSPCA  was  sold  and  as a result $400,000 was transferred  from the  RNZSPCA into the trust. ( this is verifiable through public records )

3. 12 may  2003 the  trust  amends the trust deed  and drops off the corporate trustee .

4. IN 2005   it  applies for  incorporation to  become  an entity in its own right  retaining the $400,000  and then becomes a charity .”

Other   blog postings worth visiting they are

Whats happening in the Waikato RNZSPCA – Parallels with AWINZ? this  article deals with $400,000  that was transferred from RNZSPCA Waikato to a trust which later  becomes a legal entity in it is own right  effectively having taken  $400,000 assets from the Waikato RNZSPCA

Waikato SPCA

The lack of verification -opens door to corruption

See also The role of Tom Didiovich … Trustee of AWINZ and RNZSPCA officer

 

 

Advertisements

08/01/2011

The price of animal adoption

Filed under: SPCA / RNZSPCA — anticorruptionnz @ 9:13 am

In the past week I   spoke to various  people who have expressed their concerns  at the cost of adopting animals from the SPCA. Then today  this article turns up in my in box.

In view of the work that I  have been doing with   animal welfare  I now see  what is occurring. This is a  course of events  which  it appears the spca are on

1.        ensure all animals are neutered

2.       close down puppy farms

3.       adopt a no kill policy

4.       claim poverty due to over loading of animals

5.        Sell animals at a high price  which includes de sexing and microchiping.

6.       By  on selling the animals   there is the ability to maintain an ownership  register.

7.       By being able to identify the animal   and  the owner prosecutions will be more prevalent and successful.. they don’t have to prove  much   forgetting to feed the animal  for breakfast will be enough.

8.       The funds from the prosecution are payable to the   spca ( section 171 animal welfare act ) The animal can also be surrendered to the SPCA.. giving more ” stock”

9.       Therefore more funds higher wages  for the  CEOs. And those at the top.

Never lose sight of the fact that the SPCA is a business.

18/10/2010

SPCA Greed a world wide issue are we going to condone it?

Filed under: SPCA / RNZSPCA — anticorruptionnz @ 10:13 am

Time for a review of RSPCA Animal Charity’s Bullyboy Tactics ?

LINKS TO UK RSPCA INJUSTICES

What happens in New Zealand is generally  something which has happened over seas.   do  look at  this excellent site   and see  what is in store for us.

compare the  posters above  with the poster by Neil Wells  of AWINZ    see a similar trend?

British Columbia The BC SPCA has run itself into a $10 million deficit and fiscal crisis during the past three years, which in my view is an unconscionable abuse of donors’ goodwill.  More

BC SPCA sues AAS for defamation in BC Supreme Court    Nothing new here this is exactly what has  happened to me   for  questioning the non-existent AWINZ    read the   BCSPCA story

Manitoba a great article  on  contracting out of policing   to SPCA’s

Ontario NO OVERSIGHT – NO ACCOUNTABILITY! See how  dogs were put down by the SPCA

USA        Cruelty to Pet Owners? Some Owners Accuse Their SPCA Chapter of Taking Their Pets and Selling Them  …

SPCAs have an image of being animal rescuers. And there’s no question that the many Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals around the country do a lot of good work, rushing in to save animals from abusive people.

But some people who’ve had animals taken away by animal rescuers say some SPCAs have acted like petty tyrants on power trips. They say they use their police powers to take away people’s animals, even when the animals don’t need rescuing…..

see http://animalscams.webs.com/     and see the parallels  of what  is happening here in New Zealand

Time to wake up  New Zealand  the following is a letter to a minister In   Ontario   it   will  fithte bill here too

Dear Minister Bradley

Residents of Ontario are helpless and so angry at the continued lawlessness, arrogance, vindictiveness and ignorance exhibited by Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals’ (OSPCA) inspectors and volunteer agents.   Tell me, where do we go for help?

The  Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services under Minister Bartolucci empowered the OSPCA with extraordinary police powers (Bill 50) which directly violate the Canadian Charter of Rights (warrantless entry in the hands of a self-funded charity – who does that???).

Millions of tax payer dollars have gone to the OSPCA provincially and federally in the form of one time grants.    This in addition to the $15 million they collected in donations in 2009.

None of that would be an issue except that there’s a COMPLETE AND UTTER LACK OF OVERSIGHT, ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY.

You admit, under current legislation your Ministry is precluded from investigating the OSPCA.   How is it that possible?

We can’t go to the Ombudsman for help because the OSPCA although called forth, mandated, empowered and partially funded  by the government is “not a governmental agency”.

Appeals of orders and/or seizures via the Animal Care Review Board are available only if requested during the first 5 days.  After that – nothing.

Truthfully, the only vehicle available to farmers and animal owners with a grievance against the OSPCA are the courts which, realistically speaking, are not an option for the common man or woman.

We are at the mercy of your Ministry’s legislation and we are begging for your help.   We have been begging for help for years.

The law must be changed.  The OSPCA has done as it pleases for far too long.

Issues of improper governance, spending, euthanasia rates & shelter protocol, abuse of enforcement powers, perjury, lack of transparency, charter violations, conflict of interest, allegations of extortion etc.  must be swiftly addressed.  We’ve already had one farmer attempt suicide as a direct result of repeated bullying tactics of OSPCA inspectors.

SOMEONE, SOMEHOW, SOMEWHERE must be able to hold this private self-funded police force accountable for their actions.

Please amend the OSPCA act to ensure accountability, transparency and governmental oversight of the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

Recently well over 2,000 petitions have been distributed to virtually every MPP in the provincial legislature.

We demand that your Ministry review the powers of the OSPCA.

Re-read the province wide Bill 50 Committee hearings in Hansard July 2008.

Do not ignore this issue.  Too many families live in utter fear of the Ontario SPCA.  I do not believe this is what the government’s intent was in passing the Ontario SPCA Act.

30/09/2010

Spca Ontario Today , NZ tomorrow?

Filed under: SPCA / RNZSPCA — anticorruptionnz @ 5:22 pm

I look back on my posts with respect to animal welfare and the SPCA / RNZSPCA

A  comment  has been left on my about page  with a  must see  video   which  I have linked to   below

It is also of significance that  Michael O’Sullivan of Ark angel org  also   located in  Canada  is a trustee in two trusts with Neil Wells . this just shows how those involved in  SPCA ‘s and  alike mix and mingle  globally.

Please watch this video  it is them today  us tomorrow.

18/09/2010

Update AWINZ SPCA

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??

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.

21/08/2010

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.

20/08/2010

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  .

the act refers only to the   ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED section 189

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

Further

  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.

Lastly

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 https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com/

Regards

Grace Haden

Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at  www.verisure.co.nz

http://transparency.net.nz/

03/08/2010

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 http://www.crownlaw.govt.nz/uploads/prosecutionguidelines.pdf

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.

31/07/2010

Did the RSPCA drive a man to suicide?

Filed under: corruption,SPCA / RNZSPCA — anticorruptionnz @ 11:01 pm

An item in the Telegraph today entitled Did the RSPCA drive a man to suicide? Is worthy of taking note of…..

Several times in recent years I have reported on the change which has come over one of Britain’s richest charities, the RSPCA. Its officials too often seem bent on harrying genuine animal lovers, luridly misrepresenting alleged cases of cruelty in order to win the publicity which will keep funds rolling in, to the tune of some £115 million a year. MORE..

This comes on top of the call this week in  Australia to have their  powers limited

This is why we need to be concerned with the lack of transparency  of the SPCA/RNZSPCA / Royal New Zealand SPCA.

I remember returning home to NZ many years ago and being thankful that unlike  the UK and many other countries , we had no  beggars, our central cities  had parking  without  fear of  being fined if you were a few minutes  late. But  eventually all that changed and I have learnt over the years that what happens overseas will happen here.. monkey see monkey do.

I can assure you the same  is occurring in New Zealand I have become aware of  people who have lost  their animals  ..which have a good resale value  and  these have been on sold  all to line the coffers of  the organisation which seized the animals all with the pretence  and without proof that the animals were neglected or ill treated.  These raid  come with  publicity which   draw attention to the need for  donations, often the SPCA has been aware of  the situation but has delayed action  so that  the animals are seen in a worse condition, when early intervention could have  mitigated suffering.

Others are raided and given trial by press before they can even go to court , under threat of  massive  bills for  keeping the animals  , owners are asked to sign them over the the SPCA   after whcih they  are sold.

And while the RNZSPCA claims to be one organisation  they   are never one organisation when it comes  to financial  resources and  plead poverty .

I have it on good authority that when money is left to the SPCA or RNZSPCA in a  bequest  the various organisations  fight over it.

There are in reality Many SPCA and RNZSPCA trusts and societies   and  I caution any one leaving or donating money to them   that  by giving it to the SPCA may not   ensure  that it goes where you want it to go.

On the poverty  front  visit the  Charities  register have a look at the various SPCA  RNZSPCA societies   and just see how much   they are worth.. those with   the most, and those with ceo’s and administrative staff  plead poverty more than those with just a handful of volunteers and a un paid inspector who struggle on struggle on in the true spirit of what we perceive the SPCA / RNZSPCA to be.

When those who pretend to care about animals deal with people in such a way that they   bully and intimidate then we have to step back and question   just what the motives are.

Internationally the Animal Welfare $$$$$$ enterprise is riddled with corruption ; this greed puts people’s lives at stake …as much as I love animals I believe that people should be treated fairly and with integrity because if you cannot  deal with your  fellow-man  in this manner then  your dealings with animals  must also be questioned.

WARNING .. IF your animals are seized by  The RNZSPCA  never  sign  an agreement to sign them over to them.  They have no legal right to get you to do this.  They have a court process which they need to go through.

Unfortunately the sympathy of the courts is so much   on the side of the RNZSPCA that they can tell the court almost anything and be believed.

Please don’t hesitate to contact me I can put you in touch with others who can help you prove similar fact evidence.

Whatever happens remember  you are not alone.

28/07/2010

Lack of accountability of the SPCA – RNZSPCA or what ever it wants to be called this week

Filed under: corruption,SPCA / RNZSPCA,transparency,Waikato RNZSPCA — anticorruptionnz @ 9:24 pm

Sent: Thursday, 29 July 2010 9:18 a.m.
To: ‘Murray.Sherwin@maf.govt.nz’; ‘d.carter@ministers.govt.nz’; ‘enquiry@oag.govt.nz’
Subject: Lack of transparency RNZSPCA official information act request.

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  .

the act refers only to the   ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED section 189

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

Further

  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.

Lastly

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 https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com/

Regards

Grace Haden

Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at  www.verisure.co.nz

http://transparency.net.nz/

Documents referred  to   reply from Maf 16 July

This letter refers to attachments as follows

A   overview of mafs animal welfare activities

B   maf letter 19 may

memorandum  of understanding  RNZSPCA inc  and  Maf

performance  and Technical standards for  inspectors of the RNZSPCA

sale and purchase of  animal welfare services

F email from peter Mason regarding the   name of the SPCA ‘s

Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.