Anticorruptionnz's Blog


SPCA in Australia

Filed under: SPCA / RNZSPCA — anticorruptionnz @ 11:41 pm

It is Worth seeing this video clip about  what is happening in Australia  the vets comments are worth noting    this corroborates   the issues I raise on this site.

Is it about animals is it about animals or money or is it about milking a cash cow



There is profit in animals

Filed under: SPCA / RNZSPCA,transparency — anticorruptionnz @ 3:29 am

profit in animals poster By author of Animal Welfare legislation NE Wells

Saw last night  that the Wellington SPCA  was giving away cats and kittens.. could the new no kill policy have something  to do with over crowding and lack of  common sense.   There are  animals   which  simply no one will want  and forcing people to take  cats home to look after them will only serve to increase the feral population.

Dont get me wrong  I am a cat lover  but I have had  Toms burst through my cat flap and torment my cats, eat my rabbit  and guinea pigs. There are animals which  are a nuisance.

What I see happening is that while we are giving away we are increasing the number of people  who could be  prosecuted for not  looking after them properly.

For proof of the  focus on prosecution   see this Herald article.

Mean while  I am trying to contact as many  former SPCA & RNZSPCA  officers as possible   we will have information which will help us all.

Its good to see others getting vocal  and also  see  what his honesty cost him   this is the price of  freedom of speech  High legal costs could deter ERA complaints – union


More issues with RNZSPCA

Filed under: SPCA / RNZSPCA — anticorruptionnz @ 4:58 am

The manager of Tauranga SPCA has resigned and is taking legal action against the organisation.

One of the branch’s two animal welfare inspectors, Tania Brook, has resigned and the committee has taken disciplinary action against a third staff member. for more   see

And  also see the article  :Former Tauranga SPCA manager John Esdaile has talked of being pushed out of a job he loved and described the last few months since his departure as “traumatic”.  at

Any information    gladly accepted  please send your  feedback to Grace  at    I am happy to   protect your  identity.


Does the Government condone misinformation

Filed under: corruption,SPCA / RNZSPCA,transparency — anticorruptionnz @ 12:48 am

Official information act request  Minister of Agriculture – open letter  and for the information of those on the select committee

While I  was  prevented from putting factual material before the select committee it appears that   others took the opportunity to  seriously mislead the  committee.

There  is a significant difference between the committee  believing that there were only 5 full  time animal welfare inspectors  to the reality   which  has  been revealed to me by way of OIA  in which it transpires that there are  441 inspectors and auxiliary inspectors.

Even AWINZ,  an organisation  which  does not exist  as a legal person  and is founded and continued to exist on lies  has 9  animal welfare   officers .

Over the past four years I have  been questioning how a nonexistent organisation can  appoint inspectors  and   have accountability for the inspectors it appoints. In four years all I  have had is  spin and bullshit  which is exactly what it appears  the select committee has been fed as well .In the past   four years the government has proved to me through its in action  that  it condones the provision of   false information  to  ministers and  while  the rest of us are accountable to the truth , it appears that  there is no requirement to be truthful with those in power .

My OIA to the minister is

  1. Please provide all documentation and records which seek to explain  why   the select committee were advised that  there were only 7 FTE animal welfare officers in Maf  when  it is clear from  the OI I have received that  MAF had 9 and   the NZFTA has  254 .
  1. What verification did the  MAF advisors carry out to ensure that the information they provided to the select committee was correct.
  1. Who  were the advisors  who  had input to the advice  documents to the select committee .
  1. I have been advised that  it would be a breach of privacy to  provide names of all those who are animal welfare inspectors, there are  however many registers of people , motor vehicle dealers , private investigators, company directors  , mortgage brokers , lawyers  etc,  But we have  people who are not employed by the government  who  enforce the  animal welfare law  who are completely anonymous and it appears that we are not allowed to know who they are , please provide all discussion papers , documents  reports and notes which discus  or investigate  the need to withhold the names of those who are appointed as animal welfare inspectors under the act  , and how this impacts on privacy  and  transparency .
  1. Please provide copies of  any documentation available to the public  which  would advise the of how they could make a complaint  with regards to any animal welfare inspector and provide directions as to how an animal welfare inspector is identified  since there is no provision in the act for them to be identified or produce evidence of being an inspector unless  they are entering a property without warrant.
  1. Please provide all documents  and notes which gave consideration  by MAF to the accountability of  inspectors who have been recommended for appointment through an organisation which does  not exist  or  of any inspector who cannot be identified  due to  there not being a requirement to give their name let alone the name of their organisation.
  1. With regards to appointment of inspectors recommended  by the RNZSPCA   please provide the  policy which sets out the  what verification process  and requirements for a recommended person to be  appointed as an inspector.
  1. With regards to the RNZSPCA   which is  an approved organisation . It appears that  those who have attempted to become an approved organisation  in their own right  and failed have now   attained that status by coming under  the umbrella of the SPCA , which in my mind is  second tier delegation . please provide all documentation and reports which have considered the implications of  member organisations of the RNZSPCA taking on  subsidiaries  which then in turn come under the RNZSPCA umbrella , Please also provide documents which  show that Maf have considered  howl this  seemingly endless network can be controlled and managed and if  this has been considered please provide the documentation outlining  the  control measures and policies .
  1. I am  referring in particular to the international league of horses  which applied to become an approved organisation and failed.  It now has an inspector  , it changed its name to  SPCA AUCKLAND HORSE WELFARE AUXILIARY INCORPORATED   and comes under the umbrella of the Auckland spca  which is a member  of the RNZSPCA   .
  1. Section 189 Animal welfare act states that The organisation known as the Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Incorporated is an approved organisation for the purposes of this Act. Section 190   of the act relates the  branches and   member societies .  Both these sections come under transitional  provisions.
    1. Please provide a copy of  any MOU  or agreement  that  MAF has with the RNZSPCA
  1. It has now been  10 years   since the act came into existence , Please provide all documents and correspondence between MAF and the RNZSPCA  which  show  the RNZSPCA  advising MAF  of any  changes in member societies  and  branches  in that time .
  1. Please advise how long the transitional  measures are going to continue .
  1. I  am a verification specialist and  notice that there has now be a trend by  MAF to call the RNZSPCA  the Royal new Zealand SPCA , there  appears to be general confusion as to who or what  the SPCA is  .
  1. The RNZSPA   uses the trademark SPCA
  1. A number of charitable trusts also  use the names SPCA  some of these are not listed as  member  societies or branches of the RNZSPCA

1237606                OTAGO SPCA CHARITABLE TRUST             CHARTR


885875            THE AUCKLAND SPCA TRUST            CHARTR



1701086                THE WAIKATO SPCA TRUST          CHARTR

216718                  UPPER HUTT SPCA INCORPORATED         INCSOC

  1. Please provide  a copy of all correspondence  between MAF  and the RNZSPCA  which  addresses the  rights that the RNZSPCA    enforces and controls  the  use of the name SPCA  and  any documentation defining how the RNZSPCA  considers and assesses  an organisation to become  a member society.
  1. I believe that this is important as the RNZSPCA can choose not to enforce the use of its trade mark and therefore any one could set up using the name SPCA  and be presumed by the public  to be a member society or approved organisation.
  1. Since the  delegation of  legal   responsibility is done through  the RNZSPCA      what checks and balances  does  the minister have in place with  the RNZSPCA  to ensure that  transparency and integrity is  preserved. Please provide all  correspondence relating to the   guide lines by which  the RNZSPCA  can  recommend inspectors for  member societies and branches.

I request this information  in the public interest to ensure that transparency and accountability is preserved.

A copy of this  will be posted on .


Select committee and press appear to be in the dark about the reality of animal welfare

Filed under: corruption,Neil Wells,SPCA / RNZSPCA,transparency,waitakere city council — anticorruptionnz @ 3:37 am

The first indication I had that the select committee had finished its report was the article in the Sunday star times by Sarah Harvey

Alarm bells rang when I noted the bit  where it said  “there are currently just five fulltime Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) inspectors.” this may be so  but  there are a lot more than 5 inspectors .

The act specifically  refers to inspectors as being  appointed under section 124(1) or section 124(2); and includes every constable

Section 122 (2) provides for approved organisations  and as  such the RNZSPCA  and AWINZ are approved Organisations  and can,  and do recommend  persons for appointment as inspectors.

The RNZSPCA  has under its umbrella , its  various branches  and  the SPCA and it appears  anything  which has the letters SPCA in the name  can  have inspectors  approved  through  the RNZSPCA .

AWINZ  itself has  about 10 inspectors   but the catch there is  that AWINZ does not legally exist –  it is but a name  which an ever changing  combination  of persons  have used, some have had a trust deed  others have not,  but it has never stopped any one from claiming to be AWINZ- or pretending that it is  a legal person in its own right !.. I advise you not to ask about it –  I asked   in 2006   why AWINZ didn’t exist and they  have  sued   me  ever since   using over $100,000    charitable  funds.. so  don’t tell me there is no money for  animal prosecutions..   They could sue me ,financially cripple me ,destroyed my family   for  a simple question of accountability… so much for  concern about animals  they have no concern about humans- they have treated me most inhumanely .

The Police too  are inspectors under the act  but I was with a friend a week or so ago  when   the police were  still investigating a brutal sexual assault on  children then aged 14 and 15-years-old   by a known offender- their father . We were advised that the matter would be   another 6 months away before charges were laid  and court  in the event of a Not guilty  would be  a further three years.  the 15 year old  will be 21  then   lets  keep the wound raw!!! –Animals can be put down.. these kids  have to live with their abuse and justice for them is not swift either .. they are walking away from it as it is simply not right to  have this linger for that obscene period of time.

And while I sympathise with  the  costs of prosecutions little has been said  about the ability   for the prosecuting  “ approved organisation”  to recover  costs   section 171  of the act  allows  for this. I  know that is done because I have details of an AWINZ prosecution    incredibly  it received  reparation for vet services  which  Waitakere city  council paid out for. .. yes I have the evidence.

Neither is the RNZSPCA  short of funds ,I have  taken time to see  what assets   the RNZSPCA, its branches and its member societies hold , it is substantial , there is no reason that   some of  the “ investments ‘ can’t be used as  a  prosecution pool  which is repaid and replenished  after prosecutions.

But  there are stranger things afoot  as in the  in the  case of  the Waikato branch of the RNZSPCA   where some $400,000 have been  siphoned off  through use of trusts , name changes  and transferred to another entity   which is now going to use it  for a building project using another bullshit name for another  secret trust –   again the same of the  players of AWINZ are involved.

In looking  closer at the submissions which  had been placed before the select committee and the advice which it was given   ( these can be  located  on this page  at the parliament web site follow the links ·  View all advice ·  View all evidence (including submissions) to  obtain the individual  documents.) I   feel that the  committee  considering the legislation  appears to kept in the dark  and  I can see why  my  submission had to be  removed.

My  submission would have brought too many questions out    and  issues which have now conveniently been   circumvented. E.g.  Questions raised are answered but  not  completely. ( I have had 4 years of this  from MAF  and Waitakere city )  There is no indication given at all that   AWINZ and the RNZSPCA  have undertaken prosecutions and the number of inspectors that each  have, these I believe are material  facts .

I wonder too if  the select committee had the advantage of an  independent advisor  like they had last time? See article How to write legislation for your own business plan

Mr Anderton is  aware of AWINZ ,  he was minister  when I questioned their  existence  and the lack of  accountability , he appears to have  condoned it , even after  I pointed out that   MAF  did not have a trust deed on file  and there was no evidence  of any one other than Mr Wells ( the witer of the  original legislation ) having consented to becoming an “ approved Organisation”

Of further concern is the structure of the RNZSPCA and SPCA.  While it is true that the RNZSPCA  has a MOU with MAF ( as did AWINZ )  the RNZSPCA  has a number of  branches and  member societies  , the  agreements  between these  bodies are not of public record  and it appears  from the recent example that the back door to appointment of  Inspectors is wide open.

Bearing in mind that these people   enforce the law and have powers of search and seizure   the  chain of  command  is very loose indeed.

I still maintain  that before  we look at   greater  penalties  we have to look at  our ability and quality of  enforcement  while keeping it consistent  with the  penalties  , rights and abilities to have  matters pertaining to cruelty to Humans   dealt with , we cannot even contemplate doing that  when the wheels within the  animal welfare are so buckled.


Animal Welfare Prosecutions – all $$$ no accountability

There are moves afoot to Privatise Dog and stock control which has been the role of  councils.

Auckland city already  contracts dog control  out to animal control services and many dog owners  have experienced the diligence  with which this private enterprise enforces the  legislation.. there Is no secret in this as to   why.. it is because it is lucrative.

Imagine then  if  this service is extended to  give the dog control officer  powers  such as  the SPCA inspectors have, the dog control officer is suddenly not limited

  • To Dogs
  • Public places
  • Offences relating to   dog control

The extension of their powers would mean that

  • There is enforcement of strict liability offences.. You own the cat they claim it is suffering.. Therefore you are guilty.
    • Yes   you can try to defend it  but the  $150  fine will need to be weighed up against the $350 per hour which you’re your lawyer will cost you .
  • Any prosecution undertaken  will result in the  fines  returned to  the complaint  “approved organisation  “Section 171 Animal welfare act- this has to be easier than competing with other charities.

So who are the approved Organisations.

The RNZSPCA by virtue of section  189   is an approved organisation , under its umbrella  come the various branches of the RNZSPCA and the  various SPCA societies which are members.

When an  SPCA member society  or RNZSPCA Branch  recommends a person to the  RNZSPCA be appointed as an Inspector  and that person is appointed  then that  member society  or  branch also becomes an approved Organisation   section 190 .

There is one other approved organisation   this  is  the animal welfare institute of New Zealand  (AWINZ)  It resulted  from a Pilot programme  which a previous RNZSPCA director set up  in Waitakere city,  AWINZ   unlike the RNZSPCA  societies and trusts  is not a legal  person  and is nothing but a trading name to facilitate a concept  which    was documented in 1996  territorial animal welfare authority , effectively  it is a fiction to  which the central and local government have contracted without  checking to see if  it did exist.

At that time of writing the above document  Mr Wells   was located  at No 1 Rankin avenue, the same building as the RNZSPCA.

Mr Coutts   a recruitment manager was also in the same building , he was later to become a “trustee” of AWINZ    and when the RNZSPCA shifted  he also relocated   and  remains today in adjoining offices in Great north road

AWINZ “ contracted” to  Waitakere city  through the manager of animal welfare   Tom Didovich , who  collected  and witnessed the signatures on the trust deed  for AWINZ

Mr Didovich is now national education and branch support manager for the RNZSPCA .

Only one other  organisation  has  ever applied to become an “ approved “ organisation   this was the INTERNATIONAL LEAGUE FOR THE PROTECTION OF HORSES (NEW ZEALAND) INCORPORATED . It applied  to become an approved organisation through MAF and failed     but  has over come the issue  by  changing its name to SPCA AUCKLAND HORSE WELFARE AUXILIARY INCORPORATED    , it is now  under the umbrella of the RNZSPCA    and has   an inspector making it an approved organisation by virtue of section 190  of the act.

And so it appears that  there will be  limitless  possibilities  for   non existent organisations  “ such as AWINZ”   and  for  any organisation   who will change its name and ( possibly for a fee or return on earnings ) to come under the umbrella  of the RNZSPCA   and start enforcing animal welfare.

I suspect that It will not be the serious  stuff which will be enforced , but they will  approach the broken windows  concept  with the pretence that   making people aware of the rights of animals .. its been done before.. speed cameras traffic wardens , swimming pool charges.

It is already happening over seas

It will  not about  helping animals  it will be about $$$$$$

But worst of all   there is no accountability for animal welfare Inspectors, there is no register , they are not accountable to a tribunal  and there is no  clear cut   complaints  procedure which holds them accountable.

So the scenario will be  that the more they  bring in by way of prosecution  the more the society they represent will earn, the higher their wages will be..

Mr Wells    promoted the AWINZ concept using a  flyer there is profit in animals… He wrote the animal welfare act  , to facilitate this concept  he was  independent legal adviser to the select committee  and  adviser to MAF  during the time the  legislation was being considered.

To privatise Dog and stock control  without reviewing the animal welfare act would be extremely dangerous.


Who can be an approved Organisation.. Back door wide open to legislative powers.

Filed under: corruption,SPCA / RNZSPCA,transparency — anticorruptionnz @ 10:24 pm

The Animal Welfare Amendment Bill is  currently being  considered by the Primary Production Committee, with view of reporting back to parliament or before 30 April 2010.

I made a submission to this  bill pointing out that we  currently had organisations  such as AWINZ ( which is a legal fiction ) administering  the Bill. But my  submission was too embarrasing to them  (because it pointed out  the lack of independence of their  independent advisor) and was   thrown out.

The other approved organisation   is the RNZSPCA  but  just exactly who or what is the RNZSPCA

I have a very serious issue with regards to  what an approved organisation is  and how simple it  is to become one,apparently just by knowing the right people  and without involvement of MAF or the minister.

First we have to understand what an approved Organisation is

An approved organisation – means an organisation declared, under section 121, to be an approved organisation for the purposes of this Act( animal welfare Act)

The act   by section 189 provides for transitional provisions and states   “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.”

The act  does not define the RNZSPCA  but Section 190 of the animal welfare act states “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) recommend persons—

  • (a) for appointment under section 124 as inspectors; or
  • (b) for appointment under section 125 as auxiliary officers.”

It  is interesting that this  is in the act when in the discussion papers of the select committee at the time of considering the animal welfare act they said this ..

We have some concern that SPCA member societies  are not directly accountable to the national body ( unlike branches ) this means that there is no direct line of accountability from member societies to the crown. The bill addresses this to some extent  by requiring that  inspectors of member societies can be appointed only under the recommendation of the RNZSPCA. Further  member societies will only continue to be deemed” approved “ organisations under the act if they  continue to be affiliated with the RNZSPCA  and while the RNZSPCA itself  remains an approved Organisation . we accept that to go further  and require affiliated societies to merge with the  RNZSPCA would not be appropriate. “

In the document written by Neil Wells and used as a training manual for inspectors he states “ Inspectors have considerable  coercive powers, and it is  important that such powers are exercised in an impartial and informed way. In deciding whether to recognise an organisation the bill provides that the minister must be satisfied that an organisation meets specific criteria ……”

There are  two wasy to become an  approved organisation

1. Through application to the minister Like AWINZ did   and succeeded  despite not  existing in reality

Or 2  by being affiliated or a branch of the RNZSPCA.

But who is affiliated and who is a branch.. Look at  the RNZSPCA web site and  they all appear  as Branches   but   they are not all branches  many are SPCA’s    and  according to the   official sources as quoted above are not directly accountable to the RNZSPCA .

And why  does the RNZSPCA  call itself  SPCA  and  its  branches SPCA branches ?  is it because it is trying to look like one organisation  when in reality  it is   a whole group of  societies .

If there is a document which  combines the  societies  why  is  it not publicly available, when was it signed  who were the parties to  it , how do    societies become affiliated? How are new ones   set up  can any one start a new SPCA ?

Can you change your name   and become an SPCA and become an approved organisation through back door , it would appear so

In 1999  when AWINZ( a trading name )   applied in that name to  become an approved Organisation   and succeeded without proof  that  the organisation  actually exists, there was another organisation  which also applied  , it  at least was  an incorporated society    this was the INTERNATIONAL LEAGUE FOR THE PROTECTION OF HORSES (NEW ZEALAND) INCORPORATED

I believe it now It  now has its own inspectors  , and attained this through   a simple change of name  on 11-NOV-2008  when it  became the SPCA AUCKLAND HORSE WELFARE AUXILIARY INCORPORATED   . It apparently  comes under  the umbrella of the  e SPCA   Auckland  which  is a member society  of the RNZSPCA , but the RNZSPCA uses the   logo which  it has trademarked being SPCA.

Will this mean that   any group  changing its name to  SPCA   and affiliating  with the RNZSPCA can  employ its own  animal welfare inspectors    who in turn  can use the  wide sweeping  powers that the animal welfare act  gives them    so that they can prosecute  people    for strict liability offences and  collect the  money for  doing so paying up will be  cheaper than trying to defend it .

Is this a possibility for the likes of  dog  contractors to   Auckland city council  to become  member societies of the SPCA and be  appointed  inspectors under  the act?

Looks like a good money making venture to me. section 171 allows  for   the penalties to be paid to  the organisation which prosecuted now we are calling for greater penalties, which is not something I oppose  but   before we increase penalties  we have to  ensure that the structure and integrity is there, we are setting up a law enforcement service with very little accountability .

Is law  enforcements as a primary duty of the RNZSPCA , its member societies and  branches in the best interest of the relationship  between people and animals?

Do we need to   prosecute   those who  through poverty ,illness or lack of intent  neglect their  animals… those people  need help  not  fines… see   the example of what happened in Britain recently

Where was the SPCA  when people brought their attention to  animals which were suffering  ? see and    the issue  where Waikato  branch had failed to address  dying animals

There is  such a thing as   economy in   law enforcement, where it is cheaper to pay up than to defend the matter     will this be practiced by the  RNZSPCA., branches  and  SPCA’s ?     Got to be a better fundraiser than cold calling.

And where is the accountability ?????    It would appear approved organisations  can grow  disproportionately  all without any  in put and control of   central government.


How to write legislation for your own business plan

Filed under: Neil Wells,SPCA / RNZSPCA,Tom Didovich,Waikato RNZSPCA,waitakere city council — anticorruptionnz @ 2:44 am

I have recently become  aware of the word Kaisen  , it means to   bring about change  gradually, a bit  like boiling a frog,  you start heating the water slowly and  he doesn’t realise  he is done for until it is too late.

And so it is with the animal welfare legislation. To illustrate this I will focus on one person Mr Neil Wells .  A short chronology according to his own   CV .

It shows Mr Wells as being a key player in the RNZSPCA joining in 1971  , becoming president of the  Royal Federation of NZRNZSPCA in 1976  .

It is believed by  some that  he became a barrister in animal welfare law because the RNZSPCA paid for his degree, I have not been able to confirm this either  way.

In 1984 he was a founding member   of a “National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee” and “Animal Welfare Advisory Committee”   the status of these bodies   is unknown to me but it would appear that they lobbied   for an animal Welfare advisory Committee to be set up by Government . This occurred in  1989 when Colin Moyle acceded to the submission of lobby groups.

I believe Mr Wells to have been part of the animal advisory committee due to the acknowledgment by Mr Falloon in a discussion paper “A review of the animal protection act 1960” as being a contributor.

Neil Wells had  already  set up a pilot program in Waitakere with his mate  Bob Harvey ( Bob and Neil worked in advertising and  had been responsible for  getting the   Kirk labour  government  into power ) .

Tom Didovich was the manager of the Waitakere  council dog pound  which  during the  early association with Wells changed its name to Waitakere Animal Welfare  .

In 1996 Wells shares his vision for  a territorial animal welfare service with Didovich , there is no doubt  in my mind that this is a business plan for Wells own venture one which needed legislation   to facilitate it.

As luck would have it the Lobby groups ( many of which include Mr Wells in some capacity )  push for a new animal welfare Act and Neil Wells volunteers to write it. This will become the No 1 Bill or the other wise known as the Hodgson bill .

Concurrently Wells  sets up a training program to  train dog and stock control officers, his fees  to train the dog and stock control officers   are $2500 + GST and there are  fees of $1250 + GST p.a. per council .

He takes the training program to Unitec   and  works with them and NZQA  to  facilitate a course  in anticipation of his plan going nation wide.  He was actively   approaching councils for interest at this time.

I firmly believe that  due to this  he had a vested  interest in the legislation he was writing and  consulting on

It was going to provide him with an income stream for   his territorial animal welfare service and the  lecturing at Unitec  and through the prosecution of animal welfare offences.

A significant  change in the new act  is that  offences now became strict liability offences,  that is  no intent needs to be shown , the offence is complete if you are the owner of an animal found to be suffering.

But  most significant  part  is  section 171 of the animal welfare act  is that  the   fines could be paid to the organisation  brining the prosecution.

Every thing   you would ever need for your own business   all in the legislation which you have  helped write.

The legislation  was passed when a second bill was considered with the no 1 bill

But when a second was bill was introduced    and the primary production  committee  took 39 hours and 22  minutes to consider both the bills after  hearing 15 hours and 22 minutes of  submissions.

Fortunately they had assistance and I quote form the animal welfare legislation booklet which Mr. Wells himself wrote   –  the committee recorded  “ we Received advice from the ministry of Agriculture and forestry ( MAF ) we also employed Neil Wells as an Independent specialist adviser who assisted our consideration. Neil Wells , a barrister who specialises in animal welfare legislation , had earlier been involved in the draft Hodgson bill

Of note again was that   Mr Wells was a legal adviser to MAF during this time and it appears to me that he had more than one finger in the pie . I cannot find anything  anywhere where he declared his conflict of interest to the  Primary production committee  although I did  find a reference  that Mr. Wells   told MAF that he had verbally told some one  of the conflict, I have been unable to prove or disprove this.

And so the  act   became law  an act which gave  inspectors wide sweeping powers, , the ability to become a private prosecution  authority with  little or no accountability  and  to keep all funds arising out of their action.

The select committee is currently looking at increasing the penalties for offences under the animal welfare Act .

In an interesting twist  Tom Didovich  who worked with  Mr Wells so closely with in  setting up the integration of dog and stock control with  SPCA  duties, is now well placed in the RNZSPCA  ready to  turn the  RNZSPCA into a  prosecution authority instead of the  helpful   and service it once was.

Didovich is also a “ trustee” of a trust named the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand which bears the  same name as an approved organisation which gained “ approved status from the labour cabinet after  the  president of  the labour party at that time, Bob Harvey  was consulted. The fact that there was no evidence of the  of an organisation by the name of  the animal welfare institute  existing  was  apparently not important … Untill I asked  and then I was sued.

See diagram of the  interactions


Open letter Official information act request and privacy act request Minister of local Government.

Open letter      Official information act request  and privacy act request Minister of local Government.

This week I was told that I could not meet with you with regards to the issues relating Waitakere city council  ,I was told that this would be a conflict of interest with your port folio  and it was suggested to me that I should speak to some  other MP’s out west  even though you are also my   local MP.

The circumstances are that Waitakere city council is allowing their dog and stock control officers  to volunteer their   services  ( council  paid time ) to  an “organisation”  which I believe  does not have any legal standing.


In 1999 , Neil Wells, who is now the manager of the dog pound at WAITAKERE council   , made an application to the minister of agriculture for  a trust (which he claimed existed   , but in reality had no signed deed  )  , to become an approved organisation under the animal welfare act , an act which he himself  had  had significant in put in.  ( he wrote the bill ,  was independent  advisor to  the select committee and legal advisor to MAF )

The “ trust “ for want of a better word was   given approved status, but none of the trustees  had any  legal accountability  because  only one person ( WELLS)  without any verifiable evidence of his ability to act for and on behalf of  the others,  made the application in their names.

And so it was that  the animal welfare Institute, a trading name  purportedly for  Neil Wells, Nuala Grove, Sarah Giltrap and  Graeme Coutts  became an approved organisation  without    checking to see if the  latter three had any idea of the responsibility they were taking on or even consenting to it.

In 2006 I asked who or what AWINZ was, I was promptly sued   to  stop me from asking   revealing  questions.  But it did flush out a trust deed  in fact it  flushed out two  despite   Mr wells claiming in 2000  that here was only one copy and this had been sent to the  registrar for  the purpose of registering the trust  under the charitable trust act  1957  ( this  obviously never happened ) I  do wonder how the original trust deed came to be returned  when the registrar had no record of having received it( only certified copies are sent   usually )

When the   deed surfaced in 2006 Two Trustees allegedly resigned , again this was all hearsay and no  documentary evidence .

A new trustee came on board   again   no  documentation and no signed deed , this alleged trustee was   Wyn Hoadley.

Imagine trying to collect a debt from AWINZ  , who would pay you?  Who would be accountable?

I can assure you that if it was a debt you were collecting  you would  not have  been able to hold any one accountable  except perhaps Mr Wells  who  was the only real person identified in the transaction.

Incredibly then   Three people  who were not the same people as those who were give approved status then sued me ,  to do this  they used the charitable funds  which were raised  amongst other means   by using  council logos and sending solicitation letters  out with dog registration  papers.

Together  with  former manager of animal welfare Waitakere city ( who witnessed the original  trustees signatures)  joined those who were suing me   and  in December 2006 these people formed a trust  which they also named Animal welfare institute of New Zealand.

But these people  using the same trading name  were not the same   “ trust “ as the people  who had  obtained approved status.

Think of it these terms  , if these people had bought a  house ,  the name  which would have been on the  title  would  have been those of the trustees.  Each trustee would have had to have signed the real estate papers and  the transfer papers.

The  trustees who resigned  would have had to have had their names removed from the title  and  any new ones entered onto the title before they could  lay claim to being a trustee holding interesting that property.

I wish to make it clear that we are not talking about a family trust we are dealing with a  law enforcement agency  capable of  seizing peoples pets and prosecuting people   for what in extreme circumstances could  be their inability to afford vet fees.. a law enforcement  agency  which assured the minister that  it  would have accountability to the  public  by virtue  of  its registration  as a legal person by virtue of the charitable trust act.   ( this process takes  a mater of d ay  yet AWINZ claimed to be in the process  from August 1999  to March2000  and by 2006  was still not registered, Mr wells did manage to  register at leats  four other trusts in that same period )

What is more the legislation which was written   by  Mr Wells  was written   with intent to facilitate his  own business venture and   provides  for  “ approved “ organisations  to  receive the   fines  back into their own coffers ( section 171 Animal welfare act).

The inspectors  are not subject to the   vigorous regulations which e.g. private Investigators  who have no  law  enforcement powers at all  are subjected to and  given the fact that the “ organisation “ to which they are accountable  does not  in reality exist  there can  be no accountability at all.

The whole concept of   approved organisations comes from Mr wells a former RNZSCA director, I   have been told that the RNZSPCA paid for his law degree.  He and Mr. Didovich established the  scheme in Waitakere, Mr Didovich is not  well established in the hierarchy  of the RNZSPCA

Official information request  Minister of local Government.

  1. Your office  has advised me that a  public discussion paper is going to be published in February next year. I have been told by SPCA officers that  Dog and stock control is to be privatised ,  Please advise  If this paper  is with regards to the privatisation of  dog and stock control currently undertaken by councils.
  1. As it is obvious that something is contemplated and that  those in the animal  welfare sector are aware of  what  is in the pipe line   could you please advise  if there is a policy which   allows  certain people to become aware of impending  changes  before public consultation has even begun.( and is still so distant )
  1. Please also advise if it is appropriate that some  sectors of the community are for warned about  such policy changes.
  1. The Waikato animal welfare foundation , which  I believe has close connections with  the Waikato SPCA trust  which Mr  Wells  was a foundation  trustee of (  taking  charge of $400,000  of the RNZSPCA’s money)  has  announced  developments  at WINTEC.  Please advise if  you have been communicating with Wintec or any one involved with this foundation  with regards to the facilitation of training for the council  staff   and  others  to  be trained to replace the council  dog  and stock control officers.
  1. I would  like to mention here that UNITEC  tendered for and won the contract  at the time that the animal welfare Act became law, it was no surprise that Mr Wells who had written the act was also lecturing at Unitec and had written the course to   go hand in hand with the act.  Many would say that this is using inside information and it  appears to me that history is about to repeat.
  1. If you believe that it is a conflict of interest to   speak to me  with regards to lack of accountability of the animal welfare  institute of New Zealand   ,its involvement in Waitakere  city and use of the  public funds obtained through council connections, do you then  condone  such practice  or is  it simply that you do  not wish to   be formally aware of the situation  because that would throw a spanner in the works  for privatisation  which I am aware Act supports.
  1. I  wish to draw your attention to  the fact that you were helping me with this mater before  you became  a minister, you disapproved of the  practice then,   has your status as minister made this practice acceptable? Why do you  seemingly condone this action now  when  previously  you were pro active about exposing   this conflict of interest?
  1. Please provide  copies of all documents, correspondence , notes and  jottings  with regards  to and from  any  approved organisation, to and from  Maf , SPCA, RNZSPCA, AWINZ,  training   establishments such as Wintec, Unitec and the Waikato animal welfare foundation   with regards to
    1. Privatising  dog and or stock control
    2. Amalgamating council   dog and stock control with  animal welfare.
    3. Reviewing animal welfare  services
    4. Reviewing dog and stock control services.
  1. What cost benefit analysis  have been undertaken  and what conflict of interest precautions do you  have in mind.

Further   as per the provisions of the Privacy act    I would  like you to supply all correspondence which  the  minister of local government  and  his department  holds which pertains to me personally  and to my company Verisure Investigations Limited.

And I was  also wondering if you could please provide me with some inside information too so that I can set up a business venture based on   information which is not yet in the public realm so that I can be ahead of others   in the tender process.. I do believe that this is an equal opportunity country  if it  good enough for some   to be in the know  then it must be good enough for all .

I will be posting this letter and   the reply on my Blog   at, I hope you can treat this reply with urgency so as not to keep the readers, which will include all SPCA’s and local bodies ,in suspense.


Grace Haden

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


Breaking news Privatisation of dog and stock control

Filed under: corruption,Rodney Hide,SPCA / RNZSPCA,Tom Didovich,Waikato RNZSPCA — anticorruptionnz @ 11:15 pm

This week I  was told by Rodney Hides office that  he could not meet with me due to a conflict of interest  due  to a public discussion paper which is going to be released  next February… all I knew  was that it has not yet been written   .

I have been questioning  why a local  government  contracts  animal welfare services to a trading name for an undisclosed  trust  and there are no documents  which contract council to a  legal person . What complicates this is that the person representing the trust  ,   is also the council manager   and effectively contacts public services  to himself .

Rodney Hide  is the minister of local Government and he is my Local MP and it looks as though   he is planning his next move after  he has the super city  set up .The council manager who   in my opinion has made false statements to the crown   and  has worked with a pretend trust  then set another trust up to  give it some  substance  is also so the man who wrote the legislation which now appears to me to be being used to privatize dog and stock control, legislation which has  wide sweeping powers and little accountability for the  enforcers   and  will be a licence to print money.

We are not supposed to know   what is next on the  menu  but it appears that some already know and are actively planning     and this  is one year  before the  public discussion paper is going to come out .  so why are some already in the know    and How democratic is  al of this?

From information I have received from various sources  I am  of the belief that  Dog and stock control will be taken from councils and the SPCA will take over this role.   The SPCA  and the RNZSPCA  will take on extra inspectors , actually I believe that the RNZSPCA will be   wound up  and new SPCA’s  with new constitutions take over.

Royal New Zealand SPCA’s National Chief Executive, Robyn Kippenberger and Rodney Hide are well connected as Robyn was none other  than Robyn Mc Donald   who  was in parliament with  Rodney  when she was a NZ First list MP.

Despite millions of dollars stashed in  trusts, the RNZSPCA is pleading poverty ,this lack of funds  was brought about by tactical measures which moved  significant sums into  other trusts as with the Waikato branch of the RNZSPCA . A recent  example of   shifting of  funds can be seen at SPCA: benefactor’s cash safely invested |

In the mean time  more branches are popping up  the  International league of  horses , which  tried to become an approved organisation and failed  has now   become a branch of the SPCA

Many RNZSPCA Inspectors volunteer their time and get little support while the Business  of the SPCA grows using the legislation written by a former director  and gives them much power and  little accountability or transparency.

Few see the significance of the  blurring of boundaries   with the SPCA and the RNZSPCA   much confusion is occurring here and  no one seems to  be asking questions.

What is significant is the   select committee is  currently looking at increasing the penalties  for animal welfare offences.  My  submission was rejected and I believe this to be   so that   the conflicts of interests  and the  fact that these penalties  are payable to  the  enforcement authorities can remain out of public view.

While this is going on preparations have already commenced for the training of the extra officers  and I am picking that this is going to be done through  the Waikato Animal Welfare Foundation, which  just like  AWINZ  is just a name and not a  legal person .

See  news items

Hands up who would  like to write the  legislation for their own business venture, then   with as little accountability as possible   enforce offences  which are strict liability  and  collect the   fines yourself  all set in motion  without  consultation to the  public.

Looks to me  like  an open door to corruption.  So why Won’t Rodney speak to me ?  does he support corruption? or does  he not grasp  that  councils  should not allow managers to contract to themselves and avail themselves  of public money by  using council staff for   their private purposes or fundraise  for services provided  by council staff  and  put money in a private bank account  held in a  trading name  for undisclosed persons.

Perhaps its time Rodney looked up the definition of corruption as provided by the  United Nations convention against corruption  and   if New Zealand is at all  serious about ratifying the convention then  turning a blind eye  takes us further from that objective.

« Previous PageNext Page »

Create a free website or blog at