The headline reads Kiwi whistleblowers left vulnerable by ‘weak, patchy, and out-of-date’ legislation
How true but then there are also a large number of whistleblowers who are not even covered by this legislation and when it comes to ranking second rate citizens those who blow the whistle on wrongdoing in the public sector are at the bottom of the list .
The whistleblower legislation only relates to employees see Protected Disclosure act
If you are not an employee and report corruption in New Zealand then you are treated as an unreasonable person and the ombudsmen has put out a manual to deal with people just like you .
By being labeled as an unreasonable person no one in government has to listen to you or look at your evidence as you are after all Unreasonable . It is apparently Quite unreasonable in New Zealand to say sorry but I think this is corrupt .
That which is not seen , is not questioned is therefore never unravelled and so New Zealand remains corruption free , all nicely concealed.
The unreasonable conduct leaflet deals with people who get angry and frustrated so all the Public sector agency has to do is throw up brick walls and leave the person banging their head against it. Eventually the person will scream ” my head hurts ” and the agency can then point and say see I knew it all along an unreasonable complainant.
If you visit the page Good administration guides you will note that
Good decision making is 10 pages long
Effective complaint handling 23 pages
and Managing unreasonable complainant conduct is 123 pages long
the ironic thing is that there is no corresponding manual for unreasonable conduct from public sector agencies.
As a Private investigator I have found that the no 1 failing of our public sector agencies is the failure to verify .
- No one checked to see if the animal welfare institute of new Zealand (AWINZ)existed before giving it law enforcement powers ,
- the lawyers prosecuting me for defamation never checked that a trust deed for AWINZ existed or if this was actually the law enforcement trust which they were representing and not a similarly named trust set up with the intention to conceal the fact that AWINZ was fictitious
- The police did not check to see if there was actually an order before charging me with 5 counts of breaching an order made under section 240 Lawyers and conveyancers act .
- and I could go on
The runner up failure goes to failure to stick to the law.
- the law applies to us not the the government agencies they have the ability to make things up.. might is right
And in number three place there is lack of accountability everyone is looking after their mates after all that is what mates are for and in NZ our public service is practically incestuous and funds Transparency International to ensure that integrity is always rated as high.
To understand why this is you have to first accept that New Zealand has adopted a business approach to governance , like a large supermarket installing self checkouts the approach is that the inevitable losses are cost less than the the wages of the staff which would otherwise be employed.
It is therefore better to ignore the corruption than it is to deal with it.. prosecution is not cheap and exposed corruption could damage the nations reputation and affect the share market which we are so focused on .
This aspect is is covered in the UCC manual at figure 1 as can be seen this list is far longer list than the effects on the person with a bit of luck they may commit suicide and the problem will be gone but the $$$ saving is there.
So all you need is for the complainant to be under a lot of external pressure e.g being sued for defamation and being denied a defence of truth and honest opinion , hitting a brick wall with public sector agencies who are determined to cover up the wrong doing and/or neglect of their fellow workers and the whistleblower is left to be attacked for ever more.
When the complainant thinks that the public sector agency is not grasping what is going on and sends in more evidence they are doomed as one of the criteria for listing a person as a UCC is in chapter 4 ,
This document is by no means unique it appears that it was totally copied from the NSW ombudsman’s office. The difference is that there they have a commission against corruption … in New Zealand we don’t and there is no one independent who looks at the complaints of Whistle blowers .. Its all too easy Whistleblowers are deemed Unreasonable complainants and persecuted .
In My case it has been going on for 11 years and it is still going on with unseen cowards beavering away in the background making certain that I stay silent.The police have said it is too serious for them and the SFO say that there is not sufficient capital involved . All along my character has been under attack I am bad and the perpetrator of this massive public fraud (which is now culminating in turning the RNZSPCA’s member societies and branches into one large expectorate ) has been concealed because the lawyer involved is Holier than thou
I recently read a Law society article Censured Lawyer gets name suppression I wrote an article speculating on who this was as due to the circumstances of the events it appeared to me that this was the one and the same person who had sued me for defamation and misled the court over the identity of the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand a law enforcement authority which had no legal existence but which had been given coercive legal powers following a fraudulent application for Approved status under the legislation which this censured lawyer had written. The legislation was initially to fulfill his business plan of creating a inspectorate that could prosecute people for animal neglect, that all sounds pretty good but now that the RNZSPCA has filed its constitution show its objectives as being to give animals a better life . This would mean that i am a prime candidate for prosecution as my cat always believes that what she is getting is not good enough .
The animal welfare bill was initially written by this corrupt lawyer , he later advised on the the two bills which were considered and did not declare his conflict of interest , he created offences which are strict liability and Basically subjective being that they are in the opinion of the inspector . It is an extremely dangerous piece of legislation especially in the hands of a private body .
12 Animal welfare offences
A person commits an offence who, being the owner of, or a person in charge of, an animal,—(a)fails to comply, in relation to the animal, with section 10; or(b)fails, in the case of an animal that is ill or injured, to comply, in relation to the animal, with section 11; or(c)kills the animal in such a manner that the animal suffers unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress.
10 Obligation in relation to physical, health, and behavioural needs of animals
The owner of an animal, and every person in charge of an animal, must ensure that the physical, health, and behavioural needs of the animal are met in a manner that is in accordance with both—(a)good practice; and(b)scientific knowledge.
11 Obligation to alleviate pain or distress of ill or injured animals
(1)The owner of an animal that is ill or injured, and every person in charge of such an animal, must ensure that the animal receives treatment that alleviates any unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress being suffered by the animal.
(2)This section does not—(a)limit section 10; or(b)require a person to keep an animal alive when it is in such a condition that it is suffering unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress.
the real clincher comes in section 13
13Strict liability
(1)In a prosecution for an offence against section 12, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the defendant intended to commit an offence.
Penalties
A person who commits an offence against section 12 or section 14(1) or section 14(2) or section 21(1) or section 21(2) or section 22(2) or section 23(1) or section 23(2) is liable on conviction,—(a)in the case of an individual, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding$50,000 or to both; or b)in the case of a body corporate to a fine not exceeding $250,000.
The act is water tight relies on the opinion of the inspector and has virtually no defence. If you go to a lawyer and make an appointment for next week you are too late as your defence has to be filed within 7 days .
The legislation is a licence to print money , You cannot turn off the life support of a loved one but if you think your dog is comfortable and want to keep it alive you will be prosecuted for not having put him down .
When you have been attacked by a person as long as I have you get to know the way they work and think and I recognise the fact that the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand was the trial for amalgamating the SPCA’s and the things which have been done over the years have been trials to set this one spca in action .
An associate of mine had his horse seized by Sarah Elliott- Warren who had been working for AWINZ , was a lecturer at Unitec teaching animal welfare inspectors, went to the SPCA and took over the management of several SPCA’s. The reoports that I had with regards to the horse was that $3,000 grazing fees were demanded when the horse was grazed by Elliot on family property, when the owner could not find the cash the horse was put down . The protocol for disposing of animals is set out here
Sarah worked on the lord of the rings project for the fictional AWINZ this is the american humane societies letter regarding the investigation where animals were both hurt and died .
The Letter where this excerpt appears is here
it also goes on to say “There appears to be a very unusual relationship between the SPCA and AWINZ. If the SPCA has
‘ tent”. for reward, a warranted inspector to AWINZ and that inspector was present in order to exercise powers under the AWA, then in my view the arrangement is against the spirit of the AWA.”
The fact that the barrister who wrote the legislation and has set the SPCA up for this change ( he states that he was responsible for amalgamating them all under the RNZSPCA ) is less than honest can be found here and here
Waikato Bay of Plenty Standards Committee No. 2 v Mr M [2016] NZLCDT 24 [PDF, 46 KB]Decision on liability (6 September 2016)
Waikato Bay of Plenty Standards Committee 2 v Mr M [2016] NZLCDT 34 [PDF, 42 KB]Reasons of the Tribunal for decision on penalty (24 November 2016)
When you read these decisions you will note that this man is playing the poor “stressed out me” card ,
He did exactly the same in 2008 when he attacked me and has kept up his attack all these years .
In reality reading the decision he ripped his client off to the tune of 20,000 he was wanting to transfer the rest of her assets to his animal welfare charity which did not exist .
He still operates other charities which other trustees believe were wound up .
The one spca is not about better care for animals it is about $$ and this corrupt former Barrister is totally behind this .
I have been blogging about this for years fallen on deaf ears he remains the hero Me the villain even to the extent that I am now charged with 5 offences of breaching a fictional order for suppression .
The connections between AWINZ and the RNZSPCA have always plagued me and the fact that there is now a very desperate attempt to silence me makes me believe that my suspicions are well founded . All I had available to me when I named the Barrister was this
I would love some one to tell me where the suppression order is in the decisions relating to mr M especially the suppression order under section 240, this again is a claim fabricated by the corrupt mr M see here
In 2010 I wrote about the Blurred boundaries RNZSPCA and AWINZ and I also explained the missing funds from the waikato RNZSPCA in various articles
It will come as no surprise that this same bent former lawyer set up the programme for training the Inspectors who are all too keen to take on the role as the SPCA as a law enforcement body . He is still connected Graeme coutts a “trustee” of the the cover up trust AWINZ works alongside the RNZSPCA on the same floor, Tom didovich another trustee worked for the SPCA . Arnja dale who has now been appointed Chief Scientific Officer is one and the same Arnja who took over the Unitec inspector training from the corrupt barrister .
It appears to me that there are a lot of people stuck in jobs with limited financial future , By developing the inspectorate they will be writing their own salaries .The point they miss is that their direction will depend on making animals suffer , there is therefore no $$ incentive for them to teach people to look after animals as they would be out of a job .
I have seen the spin and the secrecy behind this but then I am probably an unreasonable person so lets ignore me and just wait and see .
Leave a Reply