Anticorruptionnz's Blog


RNZSPCA Waikato asks ratepayers to fund their bad bookkeeping.

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

The headlines read Support swells for stray cats funding

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

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

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

So the no kill policy effectively  does  two things..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And in More submissions

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

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

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

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

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

Other   blog postings worth visiting they are

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

Waikato SPCA

The lack of verification -opens door to corruption

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





Update on Waikato

Filed under: Waikato RNZSPCA — anticorruptionnz @ 5:48 am

The WAIKATO ANIMAL WELFARE FOUNDATION is now listed on  the  societies web site  having been  registered on the 28th April   its trust deed is  available through this link New Incorporation Other Entities

The trustees are  as shown with other  connections

Julian Mc Donald Elder

WEL POWER LIMITED (507170) – Director

WEL ENERGY GROUP LIMITED (507164) – Director

(previously known as WEL NETWORKS LIMITED 12 Apr 2001 )


previously known as WEL ENERGY GROUP LIMITED (15 Jul 1991)

WEL GENERATION LIMITED (462176) – Director

previously known as RUNYMEDE EIGHT LIMITED (15 Nov 1990)

SEAVIEW PROJECTS LIMITED (1001315) – Ceased Director

previously known as HUTT VALLEY CONSTRUCTORS LIMITED (22 Dec 1999)

THE ELDER GROUP LIMITED (1390219) – Director

CH2M HILL AUSTRALIA PTY. LIMITED (658878) – Ceased Director

NATIONAL BUILDING PRODUCTS LIMITED (304967) (Struck off) – Ceased Director

previously known as MANSELL & ASSOCIATES LIMITED (17 Mar 1994)

PEDERSEN READ LIMITED (141713) – Ceased Director

previously known as PEDERSEN & PARTNERS LIMITED (02 Feb 1999)

PEDERSEN READ (DUNEDIN) LIMITED (504220) – Ceased Director

previously known as THE POWER EXCHANGE LIMITED (05 Nov 1999)

WEL RESOURCE LIMITED (475551) – Director

previously known as RUNYMEDE TWELVE LIMITED (15 Nov 1990


previously known as RUNYMEDE SEVEN LIMITED (15 Nov 1990


previously known as WEL CADE LIMITED (25 Aug 1997)

At the end of this article I will show you some interesting   things with the names of these companies.. no wonder people get confused.

David Matthew Waine

New Zealand Institute of chartered accountants

David Waine(Trust SIG Convenor)

Lions Club, contact Hamilton CBD Lions President David Waine 07 829 7084.

Group Manager Project Management Office ministry of Health

Shelly Marie Slade Gully

Barrister & Solicitor since 17/02/2006 she is a trustee and also took  the statutory  declaration .. Is this not a conflict of interest?

She works for Norris Ward McKinnon

University of Waikato Legal Advisor,

Jan Thomson

Director and share holder  NRA LIMITED  with  husband Neil Andrew RICHARDSON

Trustee Waikato Branch Of The Royal New Zealand Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Incorporated

The Richardson Foundation a charitable trust  co trustee with Neil Andrew Richardson & Claire Thomson Richardson is that Husband  and daughter?

Alistair William Hart

Investment Manager at Hart Capital Partners

Director and shareholder HART CAPITAL PARTNERS LIMITED

A Masters graduate of Waikato Management School, Alistair Hart is a Hamilton-based portfolio manager. For more information, contact

The trust was kicked off with $10  so you have to wonder how they can offer to buy property and as claimed in the new paper items  have bought property ,  before  the trust was even formed  .

the news items to date   are as follows.

30 Mar 2010 The Waikato Animal Welfare Foundation announced today its intention to develop the country’s first major animal welfare education initiative

30 Mar 2010 The Waikato Animal Welfare Foundation has purchased a block of buildings and land on Wintec’s Avalon Dr Campus in Hamilton.…/New-home-will-be-animal-haven

Animal Welfare Education Initiative A First for New Zealand HAMILTON — The Waikato Animal Welfare Foundation announced today its intention to develop the

Animal Welfare Education Initiative A First for New Zealand HAMILTON — The Waikato Animal Welfare Foundation announced today its intention to develop the

Show more results from

23 May 2010 The two organisations have partnered with the Waikato Animal Welfare Foundation, a charitable trust, which has secured 10 acres of property

Animal Welfare Education Initiative A First for New Zealand. The Waikato Animal Welfare Foundation announced today its intention to develop the country’s

The Waikato Animal Welfare Foundation has announced its intention to develop the country’s first major animal welfare education initiative.…/general-news?…4Cached

in the mean time the  SPCA  has announced who their  committee  now is that the RNZSPCA or the SPCA trust ?

Your Executive Committee is:

Director of







Trustee  of

St Peter’s School Trust Board

Habitat For Humanity (Central North Island) Limited

Director of




Director of















H.D.R.C. LIMITED (1967168)












those listed on th charites web site are linked by their name  others do not appear on the charities register John Gilmour appears on the charities commission but  not on the  minutes.

the news item indicates that   the new chair .. who is standing for Mayor  is the wife of Steven Perdia who is
Director, Planning and Enterprise at WINTEC, member of the Waikato Aviation Cluster Advisory Board and the Regional Governance Group.

any one else getting dizzy?isnt that the place where the new building is going to go  and   doesn the article int he paper mention that there will be a vet school there .. what a coincidence that  one of the   committee has   such a great connection with the vet industry.

As a by the way

back to   Mr Elder   trustee of the  waikato animal welfare foundation   he   directs the Wel group of companies  with John Lewis SPENCER

as I have already  shown many have previous names but look at this  does this not make for confusion?  the company number is what actually  dictates the   entity  the names  can change  and they have .


  • now company number 507164 previously known as WEL NETWORKS LIMITED (12 Apr 2001)   has been the name of two other companies
  • 403863 now WEL NETWORKS LIMITED previously  WEL ENERGY GROUP LIMITED (12 Apr 2001) previously WAIKATO ELECTRICITY LIMITED (06 Jun 1991)
  • company number 462173 now WAIKATO ELECTRICITY LIMITED previously known as WEL ENERGY GROUP LIMITED (15 Jul 1991)  previously RUNYMEDE FIVE LIMITED (15 Nov 1990)


  • Now company number 462173 previously known as WEL ENERGY GROUP LIMITED (15 Jul 1991)  previously RUNYMEDE FIVE LIMITED (15 Nov 1990)
  • company number 403863 now WEL NETWORKS LIMITED previously  WEL ENERGY GROUP LIMITED (12 Apr 2001) previously WAIKATO ELECTRICITY LIMITED (06 Jun 1991)


  • Now company number 403863 previously known as WEL ENERGY GROUP LIMITED (12 Apr 2001) previously known as WAIKATO ELECTRICITY LIMITED (06 Jun 1991 )
  • company number 507164 WEL ENERGY GROUP LIMITED previously known as WEL NETWORKS LIMITED (12 Apr 2001)


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

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

Sent: Thursday, 29 July 2010 9:18 a.m.
To: ‘’; ‘’; ‘’
Subject: Lack of transparency RNZSPCA official information act request.

To the Minister of Agriculture the Auditor General   and MAF

The first part is  a request for investigation   by  the minister and the OAG  the latter part a OIA for MAF  they are here in conjunction as both   parts are relevant to all parties. I have hyperlinked   documentation  which I have received from MAF for your reference

I am seriously concerned  with the lack of accountability in the  process of  delegation of law enforcement    and believe this entire process needs to be reviewed for legal accountability  both by the minister and   the office of the auditor general .

I do not believe that any private company in New Zealand would contract out its services   in this manner as  there is  apparently little accountability and  transparency.

A search of international New will reveal issues elsewhere with the administration of the laws  by the SPCA  and in Australia there has been a call to have their powers limited

We are not  talking about contracting just anything we are contracting out  animal welfare services which enables law enforcement   under the act  which in turn will provide   revenue for the  enforcers through prosecution of the public .(  See section 171 of the act )

Therefore the more they prosecute the more revue they will derive from the legislation and so the  SPCA will not be about animal welfare at all but  will become an enforcement unit like the police and councils  except that this body is  private and is not subject to  matter such as the official information act.

What makes it of more concern is that most of the offences require  no intention  ( mens rae)   so the opinion of the  enforcer  is what drives the  prosecution of an animal owner whose only sin has been to have been remiss in the opinion of the enforcer.

With costs  for lawyers on an hourly basis  being  round the $300-500 mark   few will be able to defend  themselves  and  paying the fine and possibly  surrendering their   loved animal  becomes the most economic  measure.   An example of this is a pensioner in the UK who was prosecuted when   they probably needed help .

The RNZSPCA and the SPCA  hold on to their  bequests and  investment funds   and have been known to fight over who has the right to claim the money.  This makes it clear  it is NOT one organisation .  They have been given Money and Donations  to Help animals  .

It is a misconception that  The RNZSPCA is One organisation  each is a society or trust  and exists as an individual legal person.

I  have set out my concerns below  and the matters relating to the official information act request  is for  Mr Sherwin. The reason  I take so much interest in this  is because I once asked a totally innocent question  with regards to the existence of  an approved organisation (AWINZ)   and because it did not exist  and needed to cover up   the writer and advisor for the animal welfare act sued me.  This has cost me not only $100,000  it has potential of costing  me  a further $100,000 and has destroyed my family .This has now gone on  for over 4 years .  I do not believe that anyone else should  suffer what I have   and therefore  request that  MAF and the government ensure that this process of delegating law enforcement to a private organisation  is  fully transparent and  legally   defendable.

Further to my OIA request   dated 26 May and  MAFs reply from 16 July I wish to request further information  again pursuant to the official information act

Point 1 you have supplied me with overview of mafs animal welfare activities Please advise why the select committee was not  given the total number of animal welfare officers   who  have powers under the animal welfare act.

Point 2

  1. Please provide details of whether or not the select committee was advised of the contact   for provision of  animal welfare services to any third parties.
  2. With regards to the  document Agreement for  sale and purchase of  animal welfare services Please provide  copies all  such contracts  which  have been issued for these services to any  party

Point 3-

Point 4.  I had requested the names of all   Inspectors appointed   by the RNZSPCA   its member societies and branches  . I had requested that    each appointee be shown   with the  branch  or  member society  who had  requested that appointment.  That information was refused.

I subsequently asked for   papers which require the withholding of this information and  was advised that it is decided on a case by case  basis.

  1. please provide all documentation which led to the decision to withhold this information  I this case.
  2. In the event that the above cannot be supplied I request that In the interest of transparency and  as a right of the public to be fairly informed as to which  private  individuals  being non government  employees can enforce the law under this act , I  request that you  please provide a list of all inspectors  recommended for appointment by  any RNZSPCA society or SPCA trust or society and any other  inspector not employed by Government. . I request that this documents   Identifies who the inspector is and which  entity recommended their appointment  and the date of appointment and  the  district to which they are affiliated.

Point 5

  1. Please provide a copy of the certificate of appointment which   the inspectors carry   so that   we know what it looks like  and that  a certificate produced is genuine.
  2. You state that MAF anticipates  that in the vast majority  of cases a description of the background to the complaint would be sufficient  to identify  the  individual  involved, without difficulty.. please provide the research and discussion papers  which led to this statement being made.

Point 6

You say that the information requested  does not exist  yet I have made you aware that AWINZ   did not exist as a legal person  and  is in my opinion based on the evidence I have ,  a sham trust .  If you look at the trust deed  which was supplied to  you in draft form  in 1999  and  an unverified  copy of which was supplied in 2006    you will note that   the deed states that  the trustees are appointed for 3 years only.

This means that the deed signed on 1.3.2000 expired  on 1 March 2003.  I have  evidence  from Mr Coutts trustee and the other two trustees  that they only met in 1998 or 1999 . Therefore   by the time the MOU with MAF was signed in  December 2003 no valid trust existed and Mr Wells, the writer and advisor of the act which he was now using to promote his own business venture ,  could not have signed as trustee  of a nonexistent trust.

Despite this MAF have defended their actions and the  auditor general  simply stated they wouldn’t do anything because I was being sued for defamation . I wish to point out  that  through an over sight  in law   no one has ever proved that what I have said was defamatory, in fact all my statements  have been proved to have been  true. Truth is never defamatory.

You also  state in an audit report that the current trustees of AWINZ (  who  do not have a MOU with  you )   have offered to relinquish their  approved status. One has to ask how they can relinquish something they never had?

It therefore means that  inspectors appointed   on the recommendation of  a nonexistent AWINZ   did not have  any one to  be accountable to  and there is no one  to make a complaint to with regards  these  inspectors.

Please advise if   MAF has at any time  considered  this aspect or given any consideration to

  1. The lack of trust deed
  2. The lack of proof of existence of a trust
  3. The need to  receive and accept only verified information
  4. Seeking verification of existence of a trust  .. even after I brought it to your attention
  5. The validity of any  action of inspectors   recommended for appointment and responsible to AWINZ

Please provide all  documents which relate to    this  aspect

Point 7

There is much confusion in referring to  the RNZSPCA  .


Section 190 of the act refers to “Any incorporated society that is a branch or member of the Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Incorporated may, through that royal society (in its capacity as an approved organisation) “

I have not yet found any legal document which defines   the branches  or members  or process by which   branches and members  are approved. Nor have I seen any  evidence other than inference that  an organisation is a  member or a branch other than by being referred to a web site.

Through this statement in the act  it is apparent that   the “ royal society “   is ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED  which is one society    with the registration number 218546 other SPCA’s  have gone through  name changes  some  having  gone to  a branch then back to  being a SPCA. There are  branches and    members  which  pre  exist the “ royal society “

The memorandum  of understanding Defines the RNZSPCA   as THE  ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED its branches and  member societies

The national  council   is defined as “ the body of elected  members from the branches or member societies who are constitutionally  responsible  for he workings of the RNZSPCA

The national executive  is the administrative body of the  of the RNZSPCA  national council

The performance  and Technical standards defines SPCA as THE  ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED an approved organisation  for the purposes of the act.

The national  council   is defined as a body of elected persons who are constitutionally responsible for  the working of the SPCA

The national executive  is the administrative body appointed by  the national executive

The  Agreement sale and purchase of  animal welfare services is between  THE  ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED trading as the royal new Zealand SPCA  and its permitted successors and assigns.

However  nothing in the contract indicates  what its “its permitted successors and assigns”  are and these are not defined.

This indicates that there is much confusion as to  who is what and in the absence of further proof the only  organisation empowered to  carry out    work under the contract is between  THE  ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED identified  with  unique number 218546

  1. Please supply all correspondence and documentation which show who the  member societies are and who  its branches are and  all documentation  identifying the “its permitted successors and assigns”
  1. Please provide  details as to what  formal structure the” national  council” is ..  is it a trust  is it a group of people    is it a society? Is it identifiable as a legal person or is the national  council   the name of an informal committee?  What is it a committee of   ie which    legal person/ persons ?                       Please provide all documents which you hold which identifies who or what the national council is.
  1. Please provide  documentation  which MAF relied on  in treating the  national council as   a legal or  natural person  capable of   entering into an agreement  such as an MOU.
  1. Please provide  all documents discussion papers which  considered the legal enforceability of  an MOU
    1. When it is signed with a natural person or legal person
    2. When it is signed on behalf of  a trading name or undefined group of persons.

Point 8

It would appear that  your MOU  is inconsistent with the act

I am referring to the  fact that the act specifies that  only  the  ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED (with  unique number 218546 )   can  recommend   persons for appointment  and that  member societies  and branches can   recommend through it. Yet the MOU  defines RNZSPCA as being The  ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED its branches and   member societies .

There appears   to be  no legal ability for your MOU to be   with   branches and  member societies  as the obligations under the act are with the RNZSPCA  Inc   and   the  individual  societies and members  come below it.

This structure has opened the back door  for   previously declined applicants   for approved status  such as the international  league of horses to simply change  its name and become  “ approved “  by affiliating with the SPCA  , since the role  involves law enforcement this has to be of serious concern .

Please provide all documentation

  1. which  considered the application  of the international league of horses in it application for approved status.
  2. Which identifies the inspectors  which  now makes this organisation an approve organisation in the name of SPCA AUCKLAND HORSE WELFARE AUXILIARY INCORPORATED previously known as INTERNATIONAL LEAGUE FOR THE PROTECTION OF HORSES (NEW ZEALAND) INCORPORATED previously known as HORSE PROTECTION SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED unique number 212301
  3. Al correspondence from  the RNZSPCA   Inc  showing that this  organisation is now a member society or  branch

Point 9

You have supplied  a copy of  an agreement for sale and purchase of  animal welfare services between  the crown and  The  ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED.

  1. Please provide any contracts and agreements  which  that society has  with other  societies ,  trusts  ,companies or legal persons for the provision of these services.
  1. Please provide copies of all legal opinions and reports which  MAF has sought  to clarify the  dealings with a number of   incorporated societies who  have  provided no real proof of  belonging to  one umbrella organisation other  than by inference.

You state in your letter (reply from Maf 16 July)  that the RNZSPCA as a whole  is an approved Organisation under section 189 of the act .

I believe that Maf    since day one has never grasped the concept of   legal persons    and the importance of correctly identifying who you deal with   Your statement conflicts with  the act which you administer      at section 189 (1) states

(1)    The organisation known as the Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Incorporated is an approved organisation for the purposes of this Act.

That organisation is  Number      218546 Name     THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED   Incorporated   11-SEP-1933

There  are  many other societies   named as branches  and others  names SPCA  which  exist . Please look up the societies web page   and search in the key word search using the words cruelty and animals  you will find that  some 80   societies  come up both  current and historic  .

You will notice also that many of these societies are only run by Robyn Kippenberger  ,  What are the implications of branches being run and administered only by one person.  Each of these “ branches’ is a legal person a society in  their own right. They have assets and should have 15  people .

  1. What  records  does Maf hold on these societies which are  currently only being run by one person , what enquiries has MAF made with the register of societies  to ensure  that this is  a legally   viable option  please provide all documents which have considered the validity of such organisations  which could effectively be employing   inspectors  yet  exist only as a paper society.
  1. For the record I wish you to consider that   these   societies  frequently own land which has been bequeathed to them  , I have had  members of  such defunct  organisations contact me advising me that they have been removed from office  as Mr. Wells   so accurately states in his poster there is money in animals Please  advise  what anti corruption measures the   Ministry has considered by giving such wide scope of power to a group of private  individuals  who  through their contract to   the crown  have unlimited ability to raise funds .
    1. Please further advise what controls  and audit systems MAF has considered for the  income generated though prosecutions  and the ability for such money to be moved sideways into trusts  and be whittled away  through various payment  streams to the  high paid executives.

There are now trusts called SPCA  which have sprung into existence   and it is no longer clear as to which is a member society   or a branch or not affiliated  other than by inference  that  the name  provides membership.

There is also nothing in the public arena  which   shows any affiliation of the various organisations .

We are talking about the  delegation of   law enforcement here and we appear to have no chain  of authority and we  have apparently left it wide open for any organisation  to  call itself SPCA and come under the umbrella   of what is New Zealand’s only private law enforcement   authority.

MAF was similarly   negligent when it approved AWINZ as an approved organisation  when  you were not even in possession of a trust deed. I questioned the existence of that organisation and was sued  because MAF had been incapable of verifying the  organisations existence before sending it to the minister for the  pproval.

Transitional provisions

There appears to be nothing in the act  which  stipulates the duration of the transitional provisions   , as MAF appear to be continuing to use these transitional provisions for  the delegation of animal welfare enforcement they must be aware of the working so f the act.   It would appear from your answer  and action that the transitional    measures are  permanent unless  MAF has an application from  the RNZSPCA INC  to become an approved organisation.

  1. What consideration has Maf given to   treating  each individual  society as an approved organisation   rather  than allowing the RNZSPCA inc   to   continue to appoint which ever  organisation they wish  as a branch or  member . please provide all discussion papers .
  1. Please provide  any documents you have which shows  how the  RNZSPCA can appoint members or take on new branches.
  1. If there have been any other applications for  organisations including  member  societies or branches of the  SPCA  to become approved organisations  please provide these.

Point 10

There is general confusion and blurring of organisations because of the conflict of using   RNZSPCA  and SPCA  and now royal SPCA  , I respectfully request that MAF seeks legal advice from a suitably qualified lawyer on this issue  as   the real names and trading names    appear to become mixed and this does not allow  for proper identification  of the parties.  This would be  akin to identity fraud if it is done  intentionally  .( I am not saying that this is the case ) But  the public have  the right to know which entity they are dealing with and at present that is not  possible.

There is much missing in the   transparency of the RNZSPCA inc and its  branches and  member societies  this is an issue which is of public significance  for accountability reasons and  MAF should ensure that we know at all times  who in the private sector is entitled to enforce the law.  Lack of  transparency breeds corruption

Point 11.

The issue which  I  am trying to clarify is that the delegated authority to   individuals     is done as follows

  1. RNZSPCA inc is  an approved organisation
  2. There are member society and branches  by  inference but there is no documented proof- perhaps a  flow chart may exist which you can supply  to clarify this
  3. These  member societies branches  .. called local SPCAs   are all separate legal persons and have separate  society and  trust registration numbers  -each   can  select candidates for training  and then make recommendations to the  national office  which presumably again by inference  is the approved organisation
  4. The approved organisation   recommends the person to Maf
  5. Maf approves /declines
  6. If approved the inspector is warranted and works  for the member society  or branch
  7. By virtue of section 190 (2)  that organisation then becomes an approved organisation  and can retain any  fines from its prosecutions by virtue of section 171

It is  therefore  very lucrative for a society to have  an inspector as the inspector through prosecutions can generate revenue especially now that the penalties have been increased.

It is therefore  essential that the   all steps in the delegation process and all legal names are transparent and accurate.

It is my concern that MAF  have  not  properly considered the implications of the contracts  between parties  and the ability to expand  the branches and  member societies without  consultation with  Government.

The  MOU  dated 16 march 2006  claiming to be  between the minister and  THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED      and branches and member societies  is  signed only  by Barry O’Neill through delegated authority   and Peter Mason  national President.

  1. I  therefore request information pursuant to the official information act so  as to complete the chain of evidence  of  delegation and accountability  with respect to this process  As  mentioned above
  2. I also request any  documents  which may  discuss a limit to the growth of the   number of member societies and  branches and  the limit on numbers of inspectors who may be appointed.

Further with respect to the Memorandum  of Understanding supplied

  1. Point 11 please provide All  discussion documents, reports and correspondence  which considered the implications of delegating law enforcement authority through an unenforceable  document.
  1. Pont 20 & 22  Please advise how many RNZSPCA  inspector applicants have been interviewed by MAF
  1. Point 53  Please advise   whether MAF considered the fact that the RNZSPCA is a private  society and therefore not subject to the official information act   when it directed that an  inspector should advise  a district if they are working outside their jurisdiction.  What consideration  did MAF give to the  availability of information to the public who  may wish to question the jurisdiction of an inspector.  .. Please provide all documents  which discussed this aspect before having it included in the  MOU
  1. Point 66  please provide copies of all newsletters


  1. Please provide all correspondence  to MAF with regards to the new facility being  built at WINTEC  in Hamilton being  built by a  group of persons calling themselves the Waikato Animal Welfare Foundation ( but otherwise unidentifiable as this organisation  does not exist  beyond perhaps a well concealed  private trust deed )  the trustee named Jan Thomson   is on the executive  of the Waikato RNZSPCA  and she is talking about leasing he building back to the Waikato SPCA  which is  exactly the  same organisation which  Jan Thomson  is an executive of.  Some of the money being used is  $4000,000  which  came from  the Waikato RNZSPCA and has been used   to set up the Waikato SPCA trust. .. It is such creativity and lack of transparency which  opens the door to corruption and fraud.   This is preventable  and therefore MAF should take all steps to ensure that  those who they allow to enforce the law  are transparent.
  1. I believe that Unitec secured the training  for  inspectors fate  it had been included as a requirement  in the act. The training was provided  by Mr Wells the author of the bill  who  obtained  employment at Unitec to   facilitate the new legislation. Unitec  won the contract   please provide the names of  all those who tendered for the  supply of this service .
  1. who is the current  training provider   contracted to MAF  and  please advise who the providers were since the act   commenced. Pease supply copies of all these contracts.
  1. I  request all documents  which  relate to any consideration given to changing the  current service provider or to any consideration to implement a new provider  at Wintec to train the new influx  of  animal welfare inspectors.


There have been a number of long term  RNZSPCA  & SPCA officers  inspectors and  committees  from various legal entities which are branches or  member societies  that have been laid off . It would appear that there are changes afoot in the running of the SPCA which has brought about the  need to remove the old to make room for the new.    Has Maf  investigated  these changes  and have they been notified   regarding any of these changes. Please provide any   or  all correspondence which  relates to  the   takeover of  administration of branches,  dismissals of inspectors  and  officer in the past 2 years.

This will be posted on my blog


Grace Haden

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

Documents referred  to   reply from Maf 16 July

This letter refers to attachments as follows

A   overview of mafs animal welfare activities

B   maf letter 19 may

memorandum  of understanding  RNZSPCA inc  and  Maf

performance  and Technical standards for  inspectors of the RNZSPCA

sale and purchase of  animal welfare services

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


Secrecy breeds corruption

Filed under: corruption,Waikato RNZSPCA — anticorruptionnz @ 1:15 am

The Waikato Animal Welfare Foundation claims  through news paper reports to be a charitable trust.

Look it up on the charities  commission web site and you won’t find  it.

Look it up on the societies  web site and it is not there , neither is it on the companies register  . Simple conclusion it is a bullshit name made to look impressive by the people who are hiding behind it.

We know that if something does not exist as a person in the natural or legal form then it cannot hold assets or land.

So how can a string of  words have an intention ? Buy land develop it?  Transparency is what is encouraged and when   we have secrecy   there is always a reason  and in my experience it is not for any  good reason.

Thre are lots of news items about this mysterious  nonexistent body.perhaps the people involved should come clean and show  who  or what the Waikato Animal Welfare Foundation is  other than  an impressive sounding   group of words strung together .

Why is wintec a  public body dealing with a non existent group   how can it even contract or have an agreemnt with somtheing which  has no legal standing?

News itesm  found are  below

Scoop: Animal Welfare Education Initiative A First for NZ

5 Jun 2010 The Waikato Animal Welfare Foundation announced today its intention to develop the country’s first major animal welfare education initiative

Animal Welfare Education Initiative A First for New Zealand …

30 Mar 2010 The Waikato Animal Welfare Foundation announced today its intention to develop the country’s first major animal welfare education initiative

New home will be animal haven |

30 Mar 2010 The Waikato Animal Welfare Foundation has purchased a block of buildings and land on Wintec’s Avalon Dr Campus in Hamilton.

Animal Welfare – The Gaea News

#pet; colley1962 Animal Welfare Education Initiative A First for NZ|The Waikato Animal Welfare Foundation announced today its ..

The business of philanthropy | Scope Magazine

23 May 2010 The two organisations have partnered with the Waikato Animal Welfare Foundation, a charitable trust, which has secured 10 acres of property

Articles by hmc communications

26 Nov 2009 The Waikato Animal Welfare Foundation announced today its intention to develop the country’s first major animal welfare education initiative

Scoop Archives: Legal Issues

The Waikato Animal Welfare Foundation announced today its intention to develop the country’s first major animal welfare education initiative.

Wintec (New Zealand) | hamilton | RadarFarms

The Waikato Animal Welfare Foundation has purchased a block of buildings and land on Wintec’s Avalon Campus in Hamilton … Foundation, Jan Thomson, s.


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


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.


Waikato SPCA

Filed under: transparency,Waikato RNZSPCA — anticorruptionnz @ 4:04 am

There must have been a sense of  Déjà Vu at the Waikato RNZSPCA meeting  the occasions we refer to are to are the times in the 1970’s  when bus loads of supporters turned up  to  ensure that  one party would be victorious – one such event is described in the

Star Weekender  December 2 1978 most of the page right side page  bottom page 13

more on

The connection being  that Neil Wells was a former director of the RNZSPCA   he  wrote the animal welfare  bill and acted as an independent advisor  to the select committee to see the bill become law.  he then set up his own SPCA type organisation in Waitakere city  where Tom Didovich was  manager animal welfare of the council- they called  their service animal care and control .

Tom   was closely associated with one of the  ladies  in Hamilton and  the  concept of animal care and  control  was also  set up in the Hamilton Council  . Neil Wells became a trustee of the trust which was  gifted $400,000  from the RNZSPCA Waikato  . A trust which he was a trustee of  three years alter  when  the corporate trustee the RNZSPCA was removed from the deed  see

Great to see  Close up  having a look at  the Waikato RNZSPCA.  what we  find  unusual is that   $400,000  was given from the RNZSPCA to a trust which then became  the Waikato SPCA  and that the   incorporated society  also used  the name Waikato SPCA on its annual returns ( )- it appears tobe  blurring of boundaries.. confusionary tactics  like AWINZ and Waitakere city .

Keep your eye on the money    some how $400,000 of the RNZSPCA’s money has been taken  and is being used by the SPCA.   I’s time some one clarified    who and what the RNZSPCA is and what associations the SPCAs have   and why some   drop the RNZ bit.

see previous articles Waikato RNZSPCA


Submission to the select committee

Animal Welfare Act. A private prosecution service with a licence to print money. Increase accountability of approved organisation  before  increasing penalties to  the public

Submitted By Grace Haden Licenced Private Investigator

Four years ago I asked questions about an approved organisation Animal welfare institute of New Zealand (AWINZ)as a result  I have  been hauled through the court  it has  potential of costing over $250,000  and it has  destroyed my family. In the words of transparency international.. corruption ruins lives  fight back .. I have   but corruption in animal welfare   funded by the  public purse  and private prosecutions  has  been a task too big for me.


In 1999 Mr Neil Edward Wells  Barrister who wrote the first bill for animal welfare Act 1999 and had seen its passage into law   through his employment as independent advisor to the select committee , applied to the minister of Agriculture for   the Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand  (AWINZ ) to become  an approved organisation by virtue of section 121 Animal welfare act 1999.

Mr Wells applied on behalf of  AWINZ ( the  trading name for a group of people ) but there was never  any evidence  that these people  were  aware of their responsibilities, the legislative implications  ,that they consented to this application for approved status or that they even existed as  an “ organisation “

When I questioned the existence of AWINZ  ( following  the  euthanasia of a cat named Chloe and an inspector voicing her concerns ) I was promptly sued to keep me quite, Funds were raised from the  public  purse  in the guise of a charity  and used to pursue me through the court  ( this  is proved by invoices I have and  the financial statements  on the charities web site for a trust which  did not exist when litigation commenced )

I am a former Police Sergeant and am now a Private Investigator and member of the  Certified Fraud examiners association.

In obtaining evidence for my defence   I have obtained documentation which proves the following documents are attached as they appear below.

  1. Mr Wells a former  RNZSPCA director  had a business concept to utilise territorial dog and stock control  officers as SPCA type inspectors ( animal welfare inspectors ) he set up a pilot programme which he initiated in Waitakere city (letter dated 26 August 1994)
  2. In  1996 he wrote to the  then manager  Waitakere City Animal Welfare  division Tom Didovich  and expressed intent to take the concept nation wide 1/1/1996
  3. Mr Wells volunteered to write the animal welfare bill  and in so doing  wrote  in sections to  facilitate his business venture  and to that end   there was a clause pertaining  to territorial bodies   No 1 bill
  4. Whilst Mr Wells was  employed as an independent advisor to the select committee he continued to communicate with Tom Didovich  and  passed on information which was  not in the public realm, to over come the hurdles   which would prevent  territorial bodies  form having an animal welfare role  17 September 1998.
  5. 5. The intention of the act was to exclude territorial bodies so Mr Wells came up with a concept of a trust. A good independent summary of what AWINZ and its back ground is  in this letter by MAF 24/12/1999 “To overcome legal and policy issues that  preclude local authorities having an animal Welfare role , Mr Wells has promoted the formation of a charitable trust called AWINZ, the trust deed states that its “principal purpose is to promote animal welfare”
  1. In  August 1999 Mr Wells   advises the   director general MAF of  his intention to apply for approved status for the trust which he states has been formed  by way of trust deed 22.8.199
  2. On 22 November 1999 Mr Wells makes an application for AWINZ to become an approved organisation again stating that  A charitable trust has been formed by Deed of Trust as the “Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand(AWINZ). It is being registered under Part II of the Charitable Trusts Act 1957”
    1. The significance of    registration under the charitable trust act is that it makes the  trust  which other wise   no more than a group of people with a common purpose  using a trading name , into a  body corporate( legal person )   which has perpetual existence , can sue and be sued .
    2. It should be noted that it takes just a few days to register a trust under the charitable trust act if the application complies with the act.
    3. In the period between August and November the trust   would have been incorporated if the statement in the August notice of intent was true.
    4. Mr Wells on this application makes out that AWINZ is a legal person in its own right (not even a trust deed exists at this time )
    5. In 2006 neither MAF nor Waitakere city council  had  a copy of the trust deed  for AWINZ  and  there as no record of it being incorporated  under any act.
      1. With others I formed a trust  called the animal welfare institute of new Zealand  and we succeeded in  registering it under  the  charitable trust act  there by proving that no other legal  person by that name existed.
      2. When Mr Wells   became aware of our existence a deed was produced it was dated 1/3/2000 which proves that the statements in August and November to the minister were untrue. ( this was the first time MAF had had a copy of  a deed )
      3. We were threatened with legal action   and were told to give up the name and our web site which expressed our concerns about the   unidentifiable   law enforcement agency which had   wide sweeping powers.
      4. We asked if we could meet trust to trust to resolve the issue  but Mr Wells and   two other persons  who were  not the same group as those named on the deed  ,sued me in an  attempt  to silence me and  make us give up the name so that   they could  commence a  cover up .
        1. These three people later combined with Mr Didovich the former manager animal welfare Waitakere City ( who had  witnessed and collected the signatures of the   trustees  for he alleged 2000 deed )  to sign a trust deed and  form a charity in 2007.
        2. Mr Didovich  also plays a key role in the RNZSPCA    and Mr Wells is also a  trustee  of the  Waikato SPCA trust  which  has  taken over  $400,000  charitable funds  from  the Waikato branch of the RNZSPCA , then  dropped the  corporate trustee RNZSPCA off the deed and  then formed an entity in its own right.. Evidence of this is available form public records Societies register and charities commission. I will happily provide more evidence on this if required.
        3. I have been held in the courts for  nearly  four years now  the court has been misled and manipulated and I was denied a defence, no evidence has ever  been presented by Mr Wells  who has used  his  victory in court to  portray me as a person who is obsessed in pursuit of him . My pursuit has been for justice and the fact that I questioned what I saw as a corrupt practice and I have been persecuted for it.
        4. I have  evidence which shows  that
          1. Mr Wells is manager animal welfare Waitakere city  Council
          2. As manager Animal welfare he is  both parties in an MOU with AWINZ .
          3. The dog control officers “volunteer” their services to AWINZ while on full council pay. ( 5 Jan 2000 ) Most are not aware of the significance of their double role.
          4. AWINZ operates  from  council premises  but council deny this   email 8 May 2000 wells claims  he leases the premises for $1 per year but the council letter 11 march 2009  par 13.AWINZ  claims they do not operate from the premises.
          5. AWINZ uses the same logo as displayed on the  council building for   public fundraising sent out with  dog registration except that it has the words institute of New Zealand written below the  animal welfare  sign.
          6. AWINZ undertakes animal welfare prosecutions , I have   documents for two such  matters  the latest one  came to my notice in the past few weeks
          7. Prosecution 1. As relayed to me  by the  person charged

This lady inherited her mothers elderly dog it had arthritis. Her mother had passed away tragically one month before Waitakere dog control officers picked it up from her back yard.

Without being contacted the dog was Euthanized because it was deemed to be suffering  due  to  arthritis

She phoned dog control in an attempt  to recover the dogs body so that she could  have   it cremated  and  interred with her  mother.

  1. The matter was reported to AWINZ Mr Wells who approved the matter for prosecution.
  2. Mr Wells passed it  on to AWINZ barrister   Mr Wells
  3. Mr Wells Barrister sought diversion   for a donation to a trust which neither existed nor was charitable   and money  was paid into a bank account in the name of Animal welfare institute of New Zealand, which was  under the sole control of Mr Wells.
  4. Prosecution 2    As relayed to me  by the  person charged

This young man     had a dog with Mange. He went to the vet and got medication. The dog had a relapse and he went back to the vet who would not give more medication due to the boy’s lack of funds.

When he arrived back  home the dog jumped  out of the car  and  sought refuge under a nearby house.  When the boy could not get the dog out Waitakere dog control were called .

  1. The matter was reported to the manager Animal welfare Waitakere city Mr Wells
  2. Mr Wells  council officer  passed it To Mr Wells CEO of the  now  newly  covered up AWINZ trust ( But not  being the  same  persons who were supposedly  the approved organisation )
  3. Mr Wells of AWINZ passes it to their barrister Mr Wells who prosecuted the matter before the court and   had $398 reparation ordered.

Issues relating to both these prosecutions

  1. I have  good reason to believe that these are not the only prosecutions  however these are two  which I can conclusively prove , it should be noted that in both cases   the time of the offending is over allegedly a two month period and  prosecutions were commenced 6 months after the  last date of the alleged offence.
  2. The offences under the animal welfare act are strict liability  ,  so even if the persons had a good defence   it is hard to produce evidence  after 8 months after the first date I, it is ironic  that   in  two prosecutions so far apart the  pattern is so similar.
  3. There is  no knowing  how many prosecutions actually occur and how many “ diversions” for donation are given , nor is there any ability to see where the money goes.

Strict liability

  1. Animal welfare legislation is already harsher than anything pertaining to  abuse of children. I use the following example.
    1. A mother who happens to be a  GP  went skiing  her son complained of a swore leg after a fall.  Because he could weigh bear on the leg he could ski on it.  The following week it was discovered that the leg was in fact fractured.
    2. Had this been a dog she would have been banned from owning another animal   and she would not have had any defence open to her. The offence being complete when she failed to recognise that the leg was broken.
    3. Animals   should not have greater protection than children and  there should  be an “intent “ ingredient brought back in the legislation .
    4. Most pet owners who see their animal   hobble in won’t dash off to the vet,  just as parents  whose child complains of an ache  won’t  necessarily dash off to a doctor.
      1. The injury    is often assessed over time and frequently by the next day the animal is fine.
      2. The risk for pet owners is that if an over zealous animal welfare inspector seeking to line the   pockets of their “ charity “ intervenes the owner  is  charged   on the  sole basis that the inspector   thinks the animal is  suffering.
      3. There is also the matter of costs of vet bills. The charity which we had set up, which Mr Wells effectively destroyed through litigation, was set up with intent of helping owners of injured animals  with  financial assistance  which could be repaid  later.
        1. People bond with their animals and just as you would not put your child down if their leg needed amputation or pinning it is often a decision which cash strapped owners face.
        2. There was a time  when  the RNZSPCA used to help with such matters  now     with  the  “ charities”  being run as businesses  it appears to  be  about collecting money and  not about providing service  .
        3. Mr Wells has  probably the best set up of all   unlike SPCA’s  he  has no overheads  , he uses the councils premises, staff ,vehicles ,resources  and even uses  council phones and email addresses and logos.  He Sends out donation form with dog registration and possibly   also prosecutes in council time.  The only administrative task left over is counting money and depositing it in the bank account he in 2006 had sole control of .
        4. Several RNZSPCA   volunteer inspectors have confided in me that they are concerned with the wealth that is being acquired  within the RNZSPCA and the corporate wages being paid at the top.
          1. I believe that  animal welfare has become not a matter of service  but a money making venture and I support this  with a poster which Mr Wells had on file in Waitakere city  .There is profit in animals .
          2. I am a former Police prosecutor and am aware of the economics of prosecutions.  A lawyer charges $350 per hour   so any penalty or diversion of less than three hours lawyers wages is more economical to pay than  to  defend . In our cash strapped society it is money which dictates the  plea.
            1. Middle income New Zealand have no right to justice to defend a simple animal welfare matter would cost several thousand dollars.
            2. Added to this is the fact that there is no   defence is possible any way because it is the opinion of the welfare officer if the animal was suffering.
            3. Suggested   action for the  animal welfare amendment bill
              1. More transparency and accountability of approved organisations -those who do the enforcing should be squeaky clean.
                1. i.       This is the only legislation which is enforced by private citizens.
                2. ii.      There needs to be independent assessment of every animal welfare charge   before it is sent to the court no one   should be able to wear all the hats as in the case of Mr Wells.
                3. iii.      Authority to prosecute should be obtained through MAF .
                4. iv.      Auditing and spot checks by independent assessors to evaluate those prosecutions are not being taken unjustly. Heavy penalties for abuse of this process.
                5. v.      Those who enforce need to be held accountable to truth honesty and transparency.
  2. Giving Private trusts the ability to enforce the law is like giving an open cheque book especially when   they cannot be held accountable as in the case of AWINZ where the “approved organisation” effectively does not exist .
  3. Penalties for making   false claims as to approve status.
    1. i.            The penalty for making a false statement for the purpose of establishing an approved organisation  should be a prison  term  .
    2. ii.             No organisation should be approved unless a  statutory declaration  has been  filed,( Which would  bring its own legal protection ).And some one has  checked to see if it exists beyond paper.
  1. Animal welfare is the only law enforcement   sector where  civilians , non  government employees  are entrusted with   wide powers
    1. It is effectively a private prosecution and law enforcement service but there is  no register of  animal welfare inspectors and who they are responsible to ,
    2. Private investigators and  security Guards do not have powers more than an any civilian  , in fact Private investigators have less rights than the average person  ( we cant take photos or record  voice recordings )   yet we have
      1. to advertise our intention to be Licenced each year,
      2. we have to be re apply and pay a licence fee
      3. we have to be approved by  the registrar
      4. we have to have a security clearance
      5. we are subject to a  hearing if  some one  objects to our renewal
      6. we appear on a publicly available database so our licence can be verified at any time.
  2. But   animal welfare inspectors  who have wide powers are not subjected to these controls  and have no real process of individual accountability other than to the approved organisation which recommended them  and the average person would  no know   where to begin to look.
  3. There is no independent accountability of  animal welfare officers , no process for  disciplinary hearings  and it would appear that as law enforcers  and being  civilians  they  have all power and very little  accountability.
  4. As has been shown in the case of AWINZ , there is no transparency  or accountability to the enforcers and consideration should be given to  a complete review of the  way animal welfare legislation is enforced.
  5. I have further concerns with respect to the confusion of the SPCA and he RNZSPCA , those in the RNZSPCA claim that the SPCA is different  and the SPCA claim that they are not the RNZSPCA, so where do they get their   legal powers from, only the RNZSPCA is an approved organisation . Every one of them is chasing the  dollar  if they really cared about  animal they would  provide  treatment  and assistance to those who love their pets but are financially embarrassed.
  6. Because these organisations are private enforcement authorities, all with  people at the top  wanting corporate wages ,   it has  become  a nest feathering exercise  for all but the  volunteers , those  who need the money do without  ,  which in this day and age makes them a dying breed,
  7. The  current system  is easily be abused  and there is no accountability for the  fines  which  can  very easily disappear into personal accounts and  to that end  all animal welfare fines  should  be paid into a  public purse   so that those who care about animals    act  for their concern   for the animal  and  not act out of pecuniary advantage.

I am happy to make personal submissions on this matter and assist you  with  information for any investigations  you  deem necessary.

I am a verification specialist  and will be happy to assist in  setting up  a system which will make the enforcement of animal welfare   more transparent accountable and just.

Thank you

Grace Haden

Licenced Private Investigator


Blurred boundaries RNZSPCA and AWINZ

Filed under: Lord of the rings,Neil Wells,SPCA / RNZSPCA,Tom Didovich,Waikato RNZSPCA — anticorruptionnz @ 1:44 am
  1. Have a look at this  document  click here you will see who the author is and the references made to the RNZSPCA.
  2. Then there was also an issue when it came to AWINZ giving the Lord of the rings  a false end title than no animas were hurt in the production of the movie see AHA report.
    1. MAF wrote  a report  and expressed its views  see the report
    2. It confirmed that  SPCA  staff  and  resources  were used   on  an AWINZ enterprise.
  3. Now we have the link  Between Neil Wells and the Waikato RNZSPCA
  4. The  connection of Tom Didovich  a Trustee Of AWINZ,  also being in a position of authority in  the RNZSPCA  and employed by the RNZSPCA
  5. Sarah Elliot   who was a lecturer with Wells at Unitec and worked for AWINZ on the Lord of the rings, ( now Sarah Elliot-Warren) is now the RNZSPC inspector at Waihi .
  6. Neil Wells was  a formerly  RNZSPCA December 2         1978 see news clippings    most of the page right side page       bottom      & page 13

We have to ask the question   Are the RNZSPCA aware   of all of this ?


The lack of verification -opens door to corruption

I have been working with members of the RNZSPCA Waikato branch, where things are not at all well and  an overwhelming  similarity  exists between  its branch and what has happened in Waitakere city with AWINZ.

I have been supplied with a list of members   who  were voted on to the executive of the  incorporated society   and have compared that to those listed on the charities web site  – you would  expect the two to  co relate   but   they don’t

So what is going on   and why can’t elected members   be on the executive  and  why  do the executive have to sign a confidentiality agreement.. These are public funds which they hold

I have also noticed that the lawyer  who  processes the trust deeds Brian Adams   shows  a conflict of interest in that   he is also a trustee.

I also hear that the   officer listed as  Keith Houston    is the vet to which the society contracts

I am disappointed that the charities commission  does not require  certified copies of the  minutes of the AGM  to validate the names of the people put on the Charities  web site.

It appears  that if you make it up  its fine  there is no verification no cross referencing  and this  firmly closes the door on transparency and opens the door to corruption.

This ties in  with the larger picture  of AWINZand has surprising parallels

In 1999 Neil Wells  who had previously  expressed his intent of setting up a territorial animal welfare service  and had written  the  first bill for what was to  become animal welfare act 1999 to facilitate it , applied to the minister for  AWINZ  which did not exist at  the time to become an approved  organisation  to facilitate council  employees to be used as SPCA type officers.

In Hamilton  at this time the RNZSPCA Waikato branch was told that the land would be rezoned and that they needed to sell  so their property   at Higgins road  sold to  Mr & Mrs Kettle and  the  Hamilton City council  facilitated   the RNZSPCA in the same building as their dog  and stock control officers.

Back in Waitakere city  the pilot  programme  which Neil Wells had set up  in 1995 was still ongoing  despite the fact that  MAF had revoked the licences of the inspectors ( this information passed to me by a former inspector  who I have no reason to doubt.)

Waitakere take on   the dog control for North shore  and  call the contract Animal care and control.

Hamilton city   also uses the name animal care and control , I have as yet not identified any other  cities  who  use that name .. most call it dog control or the pound.

In 2000 Nearly $400,000  is GIFTED  from the RNZSPCA Waikato  to a newly set up trust  of which Neil Wells is a trustee . ( he does not live in the Waikato  he  lives in Waitakere city )

By 2003 the deed is amended and  the RNZSPCA which was a trustee  is dropped off.

No wonder I was  sued.. for speaking  the truth  this iceberg keeps getting bigger. I will not  stop chipping away at it  until I get it down to an ice cube.

History  does repeat  you only need to  read  the Star Weekender  December 2 1978    most of the page right side page  bottom    &

page 13

Create a free website or blog at