Transparency New Zealand

Today I received the attached court decision from the Superior court of Justice  Ontario    Decision-19-01-02 Ontario

It was reported in the Ontario press https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/ontario-judge-strikes-down-enforcement-powers-of-ospca-as-unconstitutional-1.4239169.

I see this  decision as impacting  on the Approved organisations  which  currently enforce the animal welfare law in New Zealand, the ontarion SPC has a lot in common with the  RNZSPCA  and  their legislation  is  pretty similar to ours ONTARIO SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

By way of back ground

I am a former police prosecutor and became a mother then a private investigator . In my role as Mother  I stumbled across  a fictional “Approved organisation”  being the animal welfare institute of New Zealand ( AWINZ ) .

MPI’s own  documents record that  this “ organisation “ was never incorporated under any legislation, this actually means that the application for approved status was fraudulent , it was compounded with  false and misleading statements to the minister . I discovered he fraud and on blowing the whistle was immediately crucified , 12 years later I am still suffering the fall out,  this time at the hands of a Financial markets authority Lawyer  *.see foot note

What makes the impact of this even more significant is the fact that  the only person to  operate this “ approved organisation “ was none other than Neil Edward Wells the barrister who had written the No bill for the legislation  and  then become  “ independent advisor” to the select committee when the bills became Law . see his cv here

His purpose for writing the  bill was   his own business plan see the a copy of which you have on your files here   and  a copy which I have forwarded to your staff many times here   , it has to be noted that these  were dated 1996   an predate his  drafting of the legislation  He inserted the approved organisations into the bill to facilitate his business plan .

IN 2006  I raised Questions  with regards to  AWINZ   and found that this was totally covered up by  MPI  officials  who were  on friendly terms with  Wells. The  current MPI  chief   legal officer Peter  McCarthy was the  crown law solicitor  who  gave advice  in the approval stages  and failed to pick up the  lack of any  legal existence of AWINZ see  document here ,  His own conflict  has  in my opinion  jeopardised any investigation into the  public fraud which existed for  some 10 years.

I raised question with regards to accountability  as in my mind a fictional organisation cannot have accountability .

Relevance of the Ontario  decision

 The Ontario decision impacts on  the only two   Approved organisation  which have existed   in   different ways

1. AWINZ    .. was MPI  negligent in allowing AWINZ   to continue as an approved organisation   until 2010 despite a whistle blower.. (me) correctly  identifying that the organisation had no legal existence ,this  point  was  recognised by MPI  in 2007 see here    . MPI  met with people claiming to be  the AWINZ trust but these people informally came together in   may 2006 a  month after we had proved that AWINZ the approved organisation was a fiction .  the gazette notices with regards to  AWINZ are here
2. RNZSPCA   I see that the case with the RNZSPCA  reflects the same issues as the  judge identified with the Ontario SPCA.  Ours  however is compounded by the fact that  the RNZSPCA  has never been given approved status  but was given approved status under  Transitional provisions. Mr Wells was a former  director of the  RNZSPCA  , his law degree had been paid for  by the RNZSPCA   and  he  continued to have associations with the RNZSPCA  after   AWINZ lost its approved status.

Wells was proved to be a   corrupt barrister  the organisation he misappropriated funds for the RNZSPCA.

When the RNZSPCA  was given  provisional approval  in the legislation  it had a constitution  1995 constitution which was  very different to its current constitution 2017 constitution . There is also reference to branches, but  there is  a move to  remove branches and the entire structure and integrity of the RNZSPCA has changed  with the  Auckland SPCA ( a member society ) effectively taking over the RNZSPCA

The  Ontario decision   in particular paragraph 84  to 91 impacts on the AWINZ matter  specifically  i the fact that the application  for   approved status for AWINZ   was fraudulent in that it  claimed to be an organisation when  the  only person applying for approved status  an  involved in running the approved organisation under the fictional name  AWINZ was the author of the legislation

There was no transparency then  and those involved in the  cover up     being  Wyn Hoadley, Graeme Coutts  ,  Tom Didovich , the FMA lawyer and MPI staff  whose actions    sought to conceal the fact that AWINZ , the approved organisation ,had no legal existence as determined  by  the ministry of economic development  see here  . have  continued to be fine upstanding persons  while I hve had to endure 12 years of  orchestrated attacks on my reputation    so as to discredit me and the facts of the substantive issue   ignored.

Itis time that  MPI  takes steps to  ensure  transparency , integrity to protect itself  from  fraud and  demonstrates that such  falsehoods will not be condoned,  this is particularly serious as it involved law enforcement   through fraud

With regards to the RNZSPCA   in light of the Ontario decision mPI must  review the search and seizure powers Section 21 Bill of rights  and section s 127 -130 Animal welfare act  as discussed in paragraph 12 of the Ontario decision  paragraph 31  to 61

In particular  it needs to be considered that Paragraph 24 of the decision  refers to distress,  the definition in the   Ontario act is distress” means the state of being in need of proper care, water, food or shelter or being injured, sick or in pain or suffering or being abused or subject to undue or unnecessary hardship, privation or neglect; (“détresse”)24 ,

 Our  legislation does not define  distress which means it takes on dictionary meaning and  can  include “ discomfort , despair, worry  anxiety’ My cat suffers from this  frequently when she doesn’t get a hit of “treats”   and with  the RNZSPCA constitution change incorporating  the requirement to “create a better life for animals “  I am  in danger of causing distress to my cat .. she certainly puts up a convincing show

• this means that inspectors subjective  opinion could determine that  I am causing my cat  distress  when she does not get her fix of her favourite treat on time

To quote but amend the wording from the  Ontario decision

“By granting police and other investigative powers {including search and seizure powers under the animal welfare act  )to a private organization? In the alternative, if it can be constitutional to grant such powers to a private organization does the animal welfare  Act never the less breach sections 21   25   and 27  of the bill of rights by granting these powers to the RNZSPCA, specifically, without any or adequate, legislatively mandated restraints, oversight, accountability and/or transparency?”

Ontario decision . Just like the  Canadian legislation our animal welfare act carries  imprisonment  penalties (section25  37 AWA) and therefore  are “ criminal in nature “  people  who are charged with animal welfare offences  are liable to lose their employment  such as in the case of nurses  and  teachers.

Many of the offences are strict liability  and the   “unreasonableness” in compliance or noncompliance is  only evaluated  subjectively “ in the opinion” of the  Inspector of the private  enforcement organisation which  co incidentally  appears to have changed its constitution to   target  enforcement as a means of income and is  involved in significant   recruitment and training of new inspectors   see here

Like the Canadian provisions  many of our criminal acts require  intent ,  however intent is not an ingredient in the animal welfare  act  and a person acting in accordance with their  traditional  standards  could well become guilty under the act. If suffering is in” the opinion” of any party  it is the opinion of the  RNZSPCA that counts. The RNZSPCA  is targeting fines as a source of income

It is of specific note that  you are automatically guilty  of an offence under the animal welfare act unless you file a defence  under  restricted terms , within 7 days . section 13 animal welfare act.

It is also of note that the legislation was  written and advised on by a Barrister who   was closely associated with the RNZSPCA  under its old constitution  and one who was  intent on using this  very legislation to derive an income for himself.

The discussion  Paragraph 62 onward   in the Ontario decision is  very relevant

we require an urgent  review of the RNZSPCA and the  animal welfare Acts’ compliance with the  bill of rights  and Official information  act

1. • section 21 BORA   given that all it requires for an  search and seizure is the opinion of an inspector  who  is  employed by a charity whose  purpose is to “taking action against those who fail to comply with their legal obligations relating to the physical, health, and behavioural needs of Animals.’

• • Section 25 C Bora  “the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law:”   and section13 Animal welfare act  , there was a case where a nurse had  horse which contracted  a  disease distributed by pukeko’s, her horse rapidly deteriorated and  died.   The laboratory tests  were not back within 7 days  and her defence  failed because the SPCA proved that her horse died in her care .

• • Section 27  does the ability of the RNZSPCA  to enter and search without warrant impact on  the right to justice

• • Unlike the police  or government body  prosecution  the RNZSPCA is not subject to the  official information act  and therefore lacks transparency

It is further of note that the  RNZSPCA   trades as the SPCA  , the  staff and directors of the former  Auckland SPCA which was a separate legal entity appear to have taken over the  RNZSPCA which was the only body to have  approved status.  Their  new  constitution allows for other names , this    brings about confusion and  opens the ability of any one to pass themselves off as an approved organisation  and  gives scope for another  fraudulent  law enforcement organisation  such as AWINZ.

I  sincerely hope that  the Ontario decision provides clarity and direction for our own animal welfare legislation