Anticorruptionnz's Blog


email to the editor NBR- lets have the truth

Filed under: corruption,transparency — anticorruptionnz @ 4:41 am

I would  like to   take this opportunity to   advise you of  the inaccuracy of the reporting of Jock Anderson on the defamation issue relating to  myself and Mr wells

I have posted replies on your site only to see them taken down again. What has happened to me has to be of concern to the average new Zealander .. the right to speak the truth.

Jock Anderson is apparently being  sued By Eugine Orlov  My lawyer.. that has nothing to do  with me  and I do  not wish to be involved.

Jock in his second article starts off “Flames of a bitter defamation which accused Waitakere city councillor and animal loving lawyer Neil Wells of conspiracy, fraud, misappropriation and embezzlement were fanned again in the High Court at Auckland.”

  1. Mr Wells is not a city councillor
  2. I  have not been  taken to  court for  accusing Mr wells of conspiracy, fraud, misappropriation and embezzlement.
  3. The contents of the statement of claim in so far as the    statements I made have in fact all been proved to be true.

Also the three people who claimed to be trustees of AWINZ had no proof  at all that  they were .  Much  of the background information  in the Statement of claim is fictional and is not reflected  in the documents I have  since obtained from MAF.

The miscarriage of justice is that   I have never been found guilty of defaming Mr Wells  , My defence was struck out  by careful legal manipulation  and Mr Wells never proved that what I said was  untrue or   that I knew   that my statements were untrue.

I questioned corruption  being  that a  person in public office    contracts to himself  using the staff under his control to  obtain funds for his unseen trust  to which only he   controlled the bank account.

While   my truth was  called lies    Mr  wells uncorroborated statements   have been accepted  simply on his say so . It appears that  being a barrister is enough to be believed  but  as an Investigator & former police sergeant armed with  mountains of evidence  I    am considered a liar.

I have  further proved that this man  had a business plan   and  wrote legislation  for it  even advising  the select committee and MAf  during the transition of the bill  into law .   I have a lot of FACTUAL information   on my blog  including how to  write legislation for your own business plan How to get your litigation funded through the public purse and

I would imagine that many new Zealanders would be shocked to find that you can have your life devastated because you  question the   activities of something which  appears not to exist. And when that nonexistent trust  enforces the law   we have  a duty to ask.  If we all turn a blind eye then corruption will surely flourish.

But apparently if  you  re create a trust and take legal action to discredit the person  who raises the questions  you are home and hosed.  The proof  in civil cases is  far less than in criminal cases  and in my case the proof that I defamed  Mr Wells is non existent.   Truth is never defamatory  If you don’t like people  speaking the truth  try acting  differently .

Your articles are far more defamatory of me  than what I ever said about Mr Wells    all I invite you to do is to   have a reporter contact me and I  will take them through the shocking evidence which I have.. all obtained from official sources.

The truth will  come out    and I invite your paper to   ensure that it is reported   truthfully and accurately .

I will be posting    this  email to you on  my blog

I hope the NBR is as interested in facts as they  should be .


Grace Haden



reply to NBR article

Filed under: corruption,transparency,waitakere city council — anticorruptionnz @ 3:11 am

Both  transparency International   and united nations  encourage people  to speak out against corruption.   One definition of  corruption is  the use of public office for private gain.

Mr Wells manager of   dog and stock control Waitakere contracts to AWINZ  ( animal welfare institute of new Zealand ) for animal welfare services . AWINZ is akin to the RNZSPCA and has law enforcement powers. But unlike the RNZSPCA, AWINZ  does not employ inspectors  it  uses the  council staff  under Mr Wells supervision  who “ volunteer “ their  council paid time while  enforcing dog and stock control  and while using the  council resources while Mr. Wells administered the bank account into which the fines and donations were banked..

Wells applied for AWINZ to become an “approved organisation”   under the animal welfare act 1999  a statute which he had written the bill for ,He was further an advisor to MAF an independent advisor to the select committee which  discussed the legislation

In 2006  I innocently questioned the existence of AWINZ  which   did not  appear on  any register despite  Mr Wells having assured the minister in 1999 that  the trust had a deed and was in the process of being  registered under the charitable trust act. In further communication in 2000 he told the minister he couldn’t send him a copy of the deed because  it was  being sent off for registration .

I proved categorically that these claims were false. There were no trust deeds on file and no record of an “organisation “ called Animal welfare institute of New Zealand .

My  investigations   in 2006 showed that AWINZ was no more than a trading name for Mr Wells . Since that finding never before seen documents came to light   and a trust has been created with new members to  give legitimacy  however they  refuse to give proof of  any  legal basis for their  claim as to being a trust  prior to  December 2006 .

Defamation is very hard to defend when your defence is struck out   and your truth is considered defamatory  you   simply stand no chance.

Defamation notoriously precede the discovery of many of our great frauds world wide   it is a well known  tactic to silence those who  hold the truth.

The cost for speaking the truth is far more than any criminal would   suffer. And when  you are attacked  using charitable funds    it becomes  very expensive to  defend   the truth.

Whatever happened to the freedom of speech and our right to question?  Corruption will surely flourish.

Corruption will flourish when good men stand by and do nothing.  A copy of this  will be published on my blog


abuse of the *555 system Police failing to investigate filing court action without evidence.

Filed under: corruption,transparency — anticorruptionnz @ 1:27 am

To the Minister of Police , Minister of transport , Minister of Courts and Minister of Justice   Official information act requests

Urgent  request for review of    the *555  system  and review of the  ability to use the process of the  court  for corrupt purposes .

I am a Former Police  Prosecuting Sergeant , now a Private Investigator.

In January I was  returning to Auckland  when  I experienced an incident of road rage.

As I had the faster  car I managed to  get myself out of the situation  and placed  a vehicle between the other  vehicle and myself

What I was un aware of  was that the   driver of  the  offending vehicle  chose to involve the police to extract revenge on me  for escaping his   torment.

When I was pulled over by Constable Connors   of the Thames  traffic unit   I was told that there had been two *555 calls about my driving.  I stated that that would have been impossible, then I remembered the white van  and told  him that if there had been a call it would have been from that vehicle  and I  told him why.

The constable  claimed  that there had been two calls, I replied that they   would have both come from the same van and that they were malicious.

He said he would get back to  me  and  several days later phoned to say he had taken statements from both drivers and I was going to be issued with an infringement for passing dangerously and I was lucky I was not to be charged with dangerous driving.  He added that he had  discussed this with his supervisor .

When the ticket came I  filed an official information act request to  obtain  the   statements, the recording and relevant documentation.

The documents were supplied outside the time frame of the OIA -the constable claiming he had been on leave. Surprisingly the statement from the  *555 caller had only just been obtained and was dated 6 weeks after the alleged offence, this was the only statement on  file .

I noted that   there was no evidence for  the  offence   with which I had been  charged. I brought this to the attention of the senior sergeant traffic unit and asked for a review, especially as the time of the alleged  offence was   two minutes after I had been stopped by the   officer.

There was strong determination by police  to go ahead with the   charge  .  I elected to   enter a plea of not guilty.

I am  grateful to Senior sergeant Rex Knight for ensuring that I  did not have to drive to Thames twice  one to enter the Not guilty plea and  another for the  hearing. Instead I proceeded straight to the  hearing.

I was disappointed that   no one could take the time to review the file . I  fortunately received the voice recording  four days before the hearing  and I was able to play that in court and   use it  in my defence.

It would have been more economical for me to have paid the $150  fine  and I am sure many would  have done so as  a defence is time consuming  and those who do not have the experience would have to engage a lawyer at  in excess  $250  per hour . I have no doubt  that many   pay up  because it is the  easy  and  economic   option. There by serving he police  with  positive statistics and clearances  and the  rash approach that there is no need for evidence.

We had the  hearing on the 16th June  before Two justices of the peace  who concluded that the  charge had not been proved.

I was staggered to hear from the officer that

  1. he  did not   take statements
  2. record  drivers explanations
  3. that a  ticket had been issued  on the uncorroborated say so of  a driver who had earlier tried to push me off the road
  4. That the uncorroborated verbal allegations of a third party was sufficient to  have me charged.

I was  disappointed  that

  1. Despite my  many requests for review of the case   no one compared the statement of the  *555 caller  with the original phone calls .
  2. There appeared to be bias on the part of the police  , Constable Connors  supervising sergeant, Jim Corbett  had been involved in a  police complaints authority complaint , made by me , many years ago
  3. That the court  system can be abused  by the laying of information’s which are not accompanied  by affidavit.
  4. That  even  if there is  an affidavit  that no one is kept accountable to the truth.

I raise these last points as in my experience  in recent years I  have  had personal experience with  the abuse of process in the courts.

There is a real danger  when   the law can be  used to extract revenge  and in the case of the *555  system I believe that   it is  very  susceptible to abuse as the police appear to   accept unchallenged the allegations of the  caller.

Constable Connors admitted that  with the number of tickets he does  he is simply too busy to take statements. This does not serve justice it does build resentment against the police for unfairness.

From the minister of Police and  Minister for Transport  I   request by way of  official information act  request All policies general instructions , directions and  codes of   conduct relating to

  1. to the handling of *555 calls
  1. the   minimum requirements   of  proceeding to prosecution   based on information obtained  by complaint
  1. The need for a signed   statement before laying a  charge  against a person based on  the allegation of a member of  the public
  1. What protocol the police have  in acting or not acting on the say so of one person  against  another   , why are some instanced filed and why are  incidents of the same evidential  proof proceeded with , I realise there is  discretion of police officers  but  the discretions should never be  to such an extent that a person is charged without evidence    beyond the uncorroborated say so of one person existing

From the minister of Courts and  Minister for justice   I   request by way of  official information act  request

  1. All policies general instructions , directions and  codes of   conduct relating to the commencement of proceedings in  any court  especially with regards to  any provisions which would ensure that the  claims made to the court are  made by  a person in their true identity  and  the claims made have a  factual basis.
    1. I am particularly concerned with Identity fraud  and it appears to me  that  there are no mechanisms  for proving that a plaintiff in  a matter is a real person or a person using their real name , this not only pertains to natural persons  but also to legal persons.
  1. What  are the  guide lines    by which unincorporated trusts    can be represented in court and  file proceedings in the court ,  what criteria of poof  of existence of a trust is required in relation to  those who claim to be trustees.
  1. The  number  of prosecutions  we have had in the past  three years for  perjury
    1. In  court evidence
    2. In an  affidavit
    3. For a statutory declaration .

For the  information of all ministers I wish to point out that I am a verification specialist and I  am extremely concerned with the lack of  verification of facts    and accountability to the truth  in   enforcement and in   justice.

It is my experience that   the only  justice there is  is the size of a wallet  truth and honesty play  little or no part at all.

Our courts  spend more time arguing process and law  than   looking at the cold hard facts and making a finding on facts.

It  has been my experience this week that JP’s    have the ability to discern fact from fiction  probably because they are not distracted  by legal arguments  and I wonder  if perhaps  all claims to the court  should follow the   following process.

  1. All material is  submitted with  sworn affidavits
  2. JP’s  have a preliminary hearing  to ascertain the at the affidavits  set out the facts of the matter
  3. If the facts stack up  the matter goes to a judge   for decision on legal issues
  4. If the claim is malicious or fictitious  it is sent to the  police to  be  investigated  by the police for perjury

I wish to point out that I have had a perjury file with  the police for  some 6 months , it has not progressed  it appears ironic that a fully prepared perjury file is  not  acted upon but a malicious telephone call  can  instigate a court process.

I was also with a mother of two children whose father forced them into a sexual act. The police in  3 years have not progressed the matter.  Another client   has lost his  property, I am working  for him pro bono as the police in three years have ot progressed  the obvious fraud.

Policing in my day was a service  one  which kept  us safe .. now it is a business ,…used for   revenue gathering  and the protection to the public is no longer there.

White collar criminals are using our courts to silence  those who can expose them

Those  engaging in road rage    use the police to extract vengeance on the other driver

The innocent  have only  two options  pay up  and shut up    or risk another  beating.

I look forward to your replies  I will be filing an IPCA  complaint with regards to the  Traffic  incident

Only when  we have accountability to the truth in our courts  will we  find justice.

When we allow our courts to be used to extract vengeance on other  we  reduce our courts to the level of a thug   who helps   in beating up  an innocent  person.

Something has to change   I hope that  you can   help make New Zealand  the lest corrupt  by  making  it difficult for  those who use the court  to extract vengeance to  do so.

I will be posting this  and the replies on my blog



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


Let’s put the seniors in jail, and the criminals in a nursing home.

Filed under: transparency — anticorruptionnz @ 11:59 pm

I received this email  appears to me that there is lot of truth in this one  and worth sharing.

Let’s put the seniors in jail, and the criminals in a nursing home.

This way the seniors would have access to showers, hobbies and walks. They’d receive unlimited free prescriptions, dental and medical treatment , wheel chairs, etc. and they’d receive money instead of paying it out. They would have constant video monitoring so they could be helped instantly if they fell or needed assistance.
Bedding would be washed twice a week and all clothing would be ironed and returned to them. A guard would check on them every 20 minutes and bring their meals and snacks to their cell. They would have family visits in a suite built for that purpose.
They would have access to a library, weight room, spiritual counselling, pool and education. Simple clothing; shoes, slippers, PJ.’s and legal aid would be free on request. Private, secure rooms for all with an exercise outdoor yard with gardens. Each senior could have a PC, a TV, radio and daily phone calls. There would be a board of directors to hear complaints and the guards would have a code of conduct that would be strictly adhered to.
The “criminals” on the other hand would get cold food, be left all alone and unsupervised with lights off at 8pm and showers once a week. They’d live in a tiny room and pay $3,000 per month and have no hope of ever getting out.

Justice for all.


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 .


Serious misinformation to the select committee.

Filed under: corruption,transparency — anticorruptionnz @ 2:46 am

While my submissions to the select committee were too hot to handle the select committee did accept  advice from Maf which   led them to report Some of us are concerned that there are only five full-time Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry inspectors in New Zealand to undertake prosecutions for animal cruelty and there are insufficient resources to pursue all cases of cruelty, with 92 percent of complaints made to the SPCA.”

I have previously commented on  this ,  and  decided to make an official information act request  which  came back today

This is what the  director general of  MAF  reported back

“ There are currently 441 animal welfare inspectors and auxiliary officers appointed under the animal welfare act , on a range of dates between 2007-2010 as  follows

95 inspectors and 54 auxiliary officers appointed on the recommendation  of the Royal New Zealand SPCA.

9 inspectors appointed on the recommendation of AWINZ

29 animal welfare investigators employed by MAF

254 animal welfare investigators employed by  the NZFSA “

I have since found a  document produced  By the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry dated which states

“The Government announced on 25 March 2010 that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) and

the New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) will be amalgamated to form a single agency, which

will begin with the establishment of a single legal entity on 1 July 2010.”

It goes on to say the following

Animal Welfare: Besides the intrinsic value associated with animal welfare (that is, protecting animals from harm), it is also becoming an increasingly important aspect in international trade and for gaining market access. We will work to increase the attention paid to animal welfare by the primary sector, supported by a greater effort going into education, compliance and enforcement activities.

What I would  like to  know is why was this information not before the select committee   why did the select committee  believe that there are only 5   full time  animal welfare inspectors when there  are in reality  so many more?

Any one wishing the a copy of the full OIA reply can email me  grace   at Verisure


Do council staff make up the rules themselves?

Filed under: corruption,transparency — anticorruptionnz @ 1:20 am

Open letter to minister of local government and Mayor of Auckland

This is an official information act request for minister of local government and a LGOIMA request   for the Mayor of Auckland


We have a hierarchy of legislation and below legislation  we have  By laws  which are kept in check by  section 155  of the local Government Act 2002

Determination whether bylaw made under this Act is appropriate

(1AA) This section applies to a bylaw only if it is made under this Act.

(1) A local authority must, before commencing the process for making a bylaw, determine whether a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem.

(2) If a local authority has determined that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem, it must, before making the bylaw, determine whether the proposed bylaw—

(a) is the most appropriate form of bylaw; and

(b) gives rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

I have by way Of LGOIMA to Auckland city council  requested  that they supply  the  references to any legal requirement to have   swimming pools inspected every  three or so  years they have failed to provide this information    but have had  a reply  in which they quote is section  10 and 11 of the fencing of swimming pools act 1987   .


Section 10. Obligation of territorial authorities- Every territorial authority shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that this Act is complied with within its district.

Section 11. Power of entry for territorial authority officers- Without limiting any other powers of any territorial authority, any officer of a territorial authority who has reasonable grounds to believe-

  1. a. that there is on any land within the district of the territorial authority a swimming pool to which the Act applies; and
  2. b. that the pool is not fenced as required by this Act, or any condition imposed under section 6(2) of this Act is not being complied with,-

may at any reasonable time enter on the land and carry out an inspection to determine whether or not there is on the land such a pool that is not fenced as required by this Act, or whether or not the condition is being complied with.

Neither of those sections  provide for the ability of council to schedule inspections , however  section 11 does provide for council to be able to enter  If and when they have  reasonable grounds to believe that the pool does not comply.

To be subjected to  inspections  when there is no reasonable  grounds to suspect that the pool   does not comply with the act  is an abuse of   power and  contrary to  Section 21 of the bill of rights    states  Unreasonable search and seizure

  • Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure, whether of the person, property, or correspondence or otherwise.

I have now  been threatened by Auckland city   that if I do not comply with their demand  to  enter my property they will seek a warrant , I have not been given  any reason as to  why they suspect that my pool does not comply with the   legislation   ,they have inspected it in the past have signed it off as complying  , so why do they think things have changed?

To that end I would ask the  mayor of Auckland  to advise me  why a warrant is being threatened   to force me  to comply with what I believe to be an unlawful order and please provide me with the policies which  give the council staff the  right to make such a threat.

It appears to me  that Auckland city in,   trying to enforce  regular pool inspections  are not  relying on any  law or by law and are actively  ignoring people’s rights by  “making up rules “.

I seek information as to  how councils can seek to enforce something which is not backed with legislation or By law , even to the extent of  subscribing a charge for the services ( being $210  for repeat   inspections ) and therefore request from

  • the Mayor Of Auckland  documents relating to any  By laws which  enable   rules and  enforcement issues  and charges to be made up and  the process by which this is done. And please also  provide    documentary evidence of how these  particular rules regarding swimming pools  were formulated and came about, who was involved in the decision making and when these were passed though council. ( that is the inspection and the charging ) I would also like  documentation in which council   examined  and questioned  the impact of these rules on the  bill of rights  and  any evidence that the bill of rights was considered in formulating  these  rules .
  • The minister   if there are any  provisions which enable  council officers to make up  rules  without the involvement  and  direction of councillors and which do not rely on any statute or by law , I request all documentation which  relates  to any discussion  enquiry , investigation or correspondence which  either prohibits, endorses or facilitates the ability or  council staff to  make up their  own rules and specifically the   rule with regards to inspections  and charging for pool inspections made subsequent to  any unlawful  search procedure. And also any exemption from complying  with the provisions of the bill of rights

For the record I have never denied the council  access to my pool , I have only asked  for them to  show that  they had a right of inspection , they have as yet  not provided any legal  grounds on which they have a right to enter my property for inspection  and until they do , I will not consent to an inspection  .

It appears to me that many people are being bullied into   compliance ( by threats of warrants )  when there is a  have a statutory right to  be secure  against  unreasonable search and council has the ability to enter the property and inspect the  pool in any case if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that the pool does not comply with the legislation .

I would  further  like to know from both the Mayor  and the minister of local government  if this action, which I consider to be  bullying , is sanctioned by them  and what other  matters  which are not set in legislation are being  enforced by council  by coercion  and what they are going to do to ensure that  councils are  not acting outside their  scope of powers.


Grace Haden

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


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.

« Previous PageNext Page »

Blog at