Good afternoon Gabby
I am a former police prosecutor and former Private Investigator and have through events become involved in what I call corrupt practices of the RNZSPCA .
On this web site you will find the history of my involvement and the incidents which gave me cause for concern . I note that in the news release https://www.spca.nz/news-and-events/news-article/newceogabby you took on the role as CEO from 5 September
I also note that you are currently Trustee of the Waitemata Community Law Centre and Mentor University of Auckland Business School Women’s Mentoring Programme. I hope that this means that you know a thing or two about company structure and incorporated societies .
I note that the opening statement in the press release makes a very vital misrepresentation it states “The appointment marks the first incoming CEO since the charity’s national amalgamation in 2017, and the first appointment in the role in over seven years.”
I take issue with the word amalgamation . There was an amalgamation of assets but other than that the various entities which existed 7 years go were not amalgamated but rather dissolved .
A good place to start is with the constitution of the RNZSPCA see here as you will see on the final three pages there were nearly 40 branches and 7 member societies . Each had their own board constitution, these organisations were never ” amalgamated ” for more explanation please see my complaint to the minister with regards to revision of the suitability of the RNZSPCA to hold approved status under the animal welfare act see here
When the One SPCA formed former members of the branches and member societies were assured that they could become members of the new incorporated society . The new rules require applications to be made annually and each year the membership lases and requires renewal .
This brings up the question as to who holds the reins how many people are now in control of the organisation which used to be a national organisation supported by many members through its branches and member societies if all the members cease to exist who decides who can be a member ?
My complaint to the minister has resulted in MPI directing the investigation back to the RNZSPCA and it appears to me that Andrea who was in a position to provide answers may have left a gap and questions unanswered .
In my request to the Minister I included a number of official information act request ,I have just received the response MPI , it proves that MPI very much lack oversight of what is happening in the RNZSPCA . see here and the attachments here mou 29 November 2021 and here Systems Audit Team report
The Audit Report in itself raises a number of questions and the response by MPI illustrates the fact that there appears to be no accountability to the public by way of OIA . The following is my further oia to MPI and raises issues in particular with the Wallace Glover matter which has been very badly managed and will prove to be evidence of corrupt practices on the part of RNZSPCA if it is condoned.
my new OIA is as follows
Thank you for your response OIA 22-0654 I note the audit report raises some issues which bring about a further request under the OIA copy to ministers for MPI
First of all there is no key to abbreviations and we need to know what the various abbreviations are short for please provide a key to the audit report which explains the abbreviations
I note that the audit is for the Royal New Zealand Society for the Protection of Companion Animals (RNZSPCA).
The approved organisation is Royal New Zealand Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Animals (RNZSPCA)
If we cannot get the name right how can we ever sort out the issue that the RNZSPCA claims to have amalgamated its branches and member societies when in reality they have ceased to exist and a large membership has been replaced by a small group of persons who have total control of the organisation and the associated statutory powers
Please provide any documents which have been provided with regards to the restructure of the RNZSPCA
Could you please provide copies of the documentation which was referred to for the audit and provided for this audit I note that the Performance and Technical Standards for Inspectors and Auxiliary Officers 2021 released during the audit which would suggest that the new standards were assessed and that the audit has been on the perception relating to policy as opposed to reality in compliance and practice
Surrender
“Persons in charge of animals are given 24 hours to consider surrendering an animal and many elect to keep it.” Against a back drop of threats of prosecution and lack of any transparency this gives a very good opportunity for inspectors to obtain high value animals which do not necessarily find their way back to the SPCA. There is a need for proper recording of dogs seized and body worn cameras should be reviewed to ensure that there is no coercion .
This was highlighted in the Wallace Glover prosecution, it is a massive incentive for any one being visited by the SPCA to hand over animals on demand or suffer their fate . Their dogs were disposed of before charges were filed and also puppies were unlawfully disposed of and MPIs reaction is to say get a lawyer.
Please advise what policies provide for the protection of the public against an inspector making up an allegation and using the threat of prosecution to coerce surrender of an animal .
What provision is ther for e overseeing the manner in which these surrenders are being conducted ? should there be a review process by the senior inspector ? an appeal process ?
OIA
The SPCA is not subject to the OIA and proof of the lack of compliance with the MOU is the fact that our request for information resulted in being advised that the MPI did not hold the information yet the MOU states “
MPI’s nominated lead will consult with SPCA’s nominated lead in responding to requests under the Official Information Act 1982 that concern information about SPCA. “
With respect to that clause I ask that my OIA is revisited and any information requested which is not in the hands of the MPI is obtained from the SPCA through compliance with that clause.
Please advise by way of OIA if with respect to my request that the prescribed consultation occurred or not and if not why not.
Prosecution .
It would appear that the Solicitor-General’s Prosecution Guidelines are being ignored and while there are policies and MOU’s no one is actively being held accountable to the requirements of these documents and there is no consequence for totally ignoring the requirements.
As such the public have no protection at all and as can be seen in the Wallace Glover case these private prosecutions have been passed off to the court as being crown prosecution this effectively means that the organisation with a few people on its membership and holding legislative power also has the ability to use crown solicitors and the crowns name contrary to statutory requirements of the criminal procedure act .
Please advise if the MPI Lawyer has been asked to review the ability of the SPCA to secure crown solicitors and represent the prosecution as a crown prosecution ? this aspect directly related to accountability to the public and the rule of law. This is at all time a private prosecution and unless taken on through the proper channels as a crown prosecution it does not qualify as a crown prosecution .
Currently there is no requirement for the SPCA board to be involved in the consent for prosecution, this appears to fragment the statutory powers away from the organisation and totally leave the inspectors in the hands and control of those who also function as revenue generators within the charity .
Taking High value dogs is more lucrative than baking cup cakes and the door to corruption is wide open without accountability to an outside body.
Search warrants
The audit states 2.7.4.1 Search Warrant Procedure “outlines the grounds for applying for a search warrant, please ensure that a copy of this is provided . It must be remembered at all times that his is a private organisation which employs persons as inspectors who appear not to have any independent oversight or accountability .
In sharp contrast with this I was a police officer and then a private Investigator as a private investigator I had no legislative powers only a lot of accountability , SPCA inspectors have coercive powers and apparently no real oversight or accountability and are believed by the court due to the position they hold.
Private investigators have high accountability to the private security licencing authority Please advise if oversight of animal welfare inspectors to a similar statutory body has been considered and if not why not .
Exhibits
The dogs which were taken in the Wallace Glover matter are prime evidence of lack of evidential chain of evidence. The Body worn cameras show the inspectors declining to scan the microchips of the dogs and taking unidentified dogs into custody . some seized dogs were later claimed to be un microchipped and were microchipped at the SPCA . these dogs were all microchipped why were they re microchipped or was it not the same dog and why did some dogs go to the pound for two weeks before being seen by a vet when the claim was that the animal was taken because it was ill .
By way of OIA could you please advise if the auditor Mr Burke was aware of this case and why these factors have not bene included into the audit as this should be basis for recommendations at the very least if we cannot learn from the past the same doors to corruption will remain open
Leave a Reply