Transparency New Zealand

 The Opening words of Anne’s Report  could well be my own  with a minor  change, hers are with regards to Phil Taueki  and mine With Neil Wells

“The crime I discovered is serious. Why the cover-up? It piqued my curiosity. No self-respecting “Investigator” can resist the temptation to ferret out the facts! “

Anne makes this comment on her web page which   provides a down load for her latest book   a man of convictions http://www.annehunt.co.nz

the only difference between Phil and Neil is that Phil is a victim of   this type of fraud and Neil Wells is a  corrupt  former barrister who perpetrated this identity fraud on the public .

I have spoken to Anne many times  she was a fabulous  support  while I was going through the darkest days  of my AWINZ journey( Neil Wells )  .

There is a strange bond between  those of us who have gone through the mill  so to speak and we have all learned a lot about injustice , the  tricks played in court  and  the dirty tactics.

So when  Anne  sent on an email  with regards to Philip Taueki’s plight  I couldn’t help but get involved. I  smelt a rat  .

I asked Anne to keep my involvement quite   so I worked in the background as I feared that if I was to be connected with the  matter then it would blow up  out of proportion as other matters  which I have  been  seen to be connected with have. Its all over now  so I can come out of the wood work  , but you  can appreciate that Neil wells would not like to think that this was again another   fake trust and once people cotton on to the use of fake trusts his own might be looked at .

This trust however was  allegedly a Maori trust  so I  completed a crash course in Maori trusts  and identified the fact that there were a number of  court actions which had been  brought against Philip by fictional trusts.  It was  the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand all over again.

Much of the court action had been brought by “HOROWHENUA 11 (LAKE) PART RESERVATION TRUST” My investigations showed that  it  had no claim on the land, it was  a trading name which  has not been defined.   It has no standing before the court and cannot  seek to have a lawful  owner removed from his own  land . Basically it was  just a group of people  hiding behind a BS name .

Fortunately there is no corruption in New Zealand  we just have systems  where checking is the last thing that is done and  we  operate entirely on assumptions .Lawyers  will take instructions from any one with dosh which means at the worst  that   someone living overseas using a fictional name can make your life hell here on a bogus claim.

It is time that lawyers who do not check if

1. their client has standing  and

2. that there is a valid claim

If neither exist then the lawyers  should be charged with  offences under the  lawyers and conveyancers act .

Anne acknowledges my work  in the tributes, strangely enough I have  have just been removed s a PI for not acting in the public interest .. My crime  I told  David Abricossow  to act  impartially for his client the  muse on Allen  and  directed him to the provisions of the lawyers and conveyancers act  ….makes you wonder  doesn’t it  .

Download the book its free    and promises to make good reading

The world justice forum is currently  under way  the forum is being attended by a colleague who will be distributing the following

 It is time New Zealand woke up  to the corruption which is occurring, ignoring it does not make it  go away . cancer ignored will kill you and so will corruption     https://worldjusticeproject.org/our-work/engagement/events/world-justice-forum

A whistle-blowers story from New Zealand

A short introduction by Grace Haden for the World Justice forum 10 July 2017

New Zealand is supposedly the least corrupt country in the world on the perception index.  This is probably because New Zealand excels in Perception.

New Zealand still lives in the Victorian era, front parlour looks great but in the back we hide things from  view.

I am a former Police Sergeant, I work as a private investigator, I am currently before the court on 5 counts of breaching a suppression order.   I was charged six weeks ago and today received the first publicly available copy of the order which I have allegedly breached. My crime was to identify the Barrister who has made my life hell for 11 years as the lawyer who was given name suppression for ripping off his client  and old lady who I know he has been targeting for years.

The police were quick to move on charging me but in 11 years they have never looked at the serious corruption which I uncovered. They even charged me before they even knew an order existed.

I run a web site called www.transparency.net.nz, I do this because transparency International in New Zealand is all about keeping the “ least corrupt “ perception alive   so that they can attract more business to New Zealand. They receive funding from the public service sector so they  can  boast how well  they do and because there is no corruption in New Zealand we don’t need the usual safe guards

New Zealand is reputedly the country that is easiest to set a business up in, it is also a country in which the same simple companies structure will see you cleaned out.  No one checks and the registrar seldom prosecutes. I am currently dealing with a company where   the person who invested lost all their   funds with a stroke of a pen

In my time as a private Investigator I have seen false companies, false liquidators   and   the big one that I am being prosecuted for  is for  identifying a corrupt  barrister who  wrote legislation for his own business plan, advised  on it as “ independent “ adviser to the select committee then  made a fraudulent application   and told lies to get it past the post . He operated this from a local council’s premises which he rebranded to look like his fictional trust.  In 11 years no one has looked at the mountain of evidence   and when he was recently   found guilty of serious offences under the lawyer’s legislation he was given name suppression.   I recognised the scenario as being him speculated and am being prosecuted despite never having seen and order.

One law for all is not what you get in New Zealand, you must pitch your offending just right     be certain it does not include injury, no speeding or breaching any unseen orders.  But you can successfully use false identities and rip people off for any sun under two million dollars and get away with it.

I  presented evidence for a petition  for a  commission against corruption  , the petition was thrown out because the  evidence disclosed corruption  see it here http://www.anticorruption.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Evidence-in-support-of-the-Petition-of-Grace-Haden-and-others-5-11.pdf

Please keep tabs on   our web site and you will see how the law does not work in New Zealand, the structure is there, the perception is there but then perception is not reality

Grace Haden

Grace@verisure.co.nz

www.Transparency.net.nz

www.anticorruption.co.nz

www.civiljustice.co.nz

Dear Sirs .

There is one fundamental  issue with the   complaints system in New Zealand .. it is  out of date  and does not appear to  comply with   the   standard for complaints AS/NZS 10002:2014

I note that the Good administration guides  are all about 5 years  old and probably out of  line with the  Changes to the Ombudsmen Act and official information legislation  document dated   May 2017.

Just recently I blogged  about  the reliance  by authorities on the   unreasonable complainant conduct manual 

and commented that this manual was pretty much identical to the one used in  New South Wales  , the fundamental difference is that  here in New Zealand whistleblowers  are often  labeled unreasonable complainants, in an attempt to  drive home the message the  complainant will  provide more evidence  and where the toll of whistleblowing   is starting to show the whistleblower may resort to highlighting text,  bolding it and  in conversations may raise their  voice due to frustration .  the  easy course to take is to   say AHAH  an unreasonable complainant.

In New South wales the  complainant  can go to the  Independent commission against corruption  who will   independently  investigate the   matter .

In New Zealand you go to the Police who  say it is too serious  and the   SFO  who say sorry not serious enough .

It appears some  australian states have adopted  the  standard for complaints AS/NZS 10002:2014 and have published a document    in 2015 and 2016 which guides Public sector agencies through   the complaint process.

The publications can be found at these links

[PDF]complaint management framework – Ombudsman SA     www.ombudsman.sa.gov.au/wp-content/…/Complaint_Management_Framework.pdf

[PDF]Complaint management framework and model … – NSW Ombudsman https://www.ombo.nsw.gov.au/__…/Complaint-management-framework-June-2015.p…

[PDF]Good Practice Guide to Handling Complaints – Parliament of Victoria  https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/…/Tabling_copy_VO_Report_A_good_practice_g…

[PDF]Effective complaint handling guidelines – International Ombudsman … www.theioi.org/downloads/…/Effective-complaint-handling-guidelines-Third-edition….

and the company registration   also has  its policy

[PDF]Complaint management policy – ASIC   download.asic.gov.au/…/complaint-management-policy-for-external-publishing-final….

In New Zealand  we appear to be hell bent on ” writing complaints off ”  covering up   and doing what it takes to preserve our corruption free image .

As a whistleblower with over 11 years experience of  banging my head on a brick wall I have also noted that   identity fraud in New Zealand  is only dealt with by the  department of internal affairs .  the companies office on the other hand unlike ASIC  , looks at compliance and does   nothing   about the use  of “trading names ” and   similar names

My complaint about the   approved organisation  Animal welfare institute was   thrown out by your office because no  one identified the fact that  the court had been seriously misled  through the introduction of a  trust  which bore the same name as the   fictional  law enforcement authority .

the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand ( AWINZ )   was an undefined trading name    it was a  falsely portrayed as being  a legal entity  by a lawyer who has now been proved to be corrupt .

He set up a trust with the identical  name   and misled the court and MAF   by switching one for the other  and thereby  pulled off the perfect fraud .

MPI never checked if AWINZ existed  and processed the   application with an unsigned trust deed.  they didn’t even question  why  the subsequent deed that was provided to them 7 years later  differed from the signed copy which i was given for court.

Nor did they question why  The minister had been told on the  25th march 2000 that the  deed had been sent on for registration    when in reality  it had never  been incorporated in any  way .

Also   a simple check of the trust deed  would have revealed the out right lies as   there is no 20 (a)  in the   deed.

MAF at the time were clearly out of their  depth  and had not the faintest idea what a legal entity was  and how  they should deal with an unincorporated trust . They relied on Mr Wells  experience as a barrister and was prone to drafting documents for the ministry 

Mr Wells who  wrote  the  No 1 bill for the  animal welfare act and inserted the provisions of an approved Organisation to fulfil his own business plan in to the  new legislation on which he advised as “independent advisor “to the select committee without apparently  declaring his conflict of interest.

He made a fraudulent application to MaF  claiming that AWINZ existed as a trust  and was in the process of being registered  quite clearly this was a lie  as the trust deed showed  the trust was formed after this date   and   AWINZ was never incorporated  it was at all times an undefined trading name which  was given  legal existence without  actually having any  . What made this  so  important was the fact that this  was  a  Prosecuting authority under statute .  

It would have been impossible for anyone  to  hold AWINZ accountable ,  new trustees were  magically switched in in 2006   to   give it a pseudo appearance of legitimacy . I say magic  as  no real or legitimate process was involved . But MAF was very happy to  cover it all up  .

I  Brought it to the attention  of the council , Maf  and  a multitude of government  departments  and 11 years on I am still being persecuted . Government departments  like the companies office  look for compliance  they don’t prosecute that is  why it is so  open to abuse .

Whistleblowers in New Zealand  are treated very poorly     to blow the whistle means to devastate your life.  it is therefore  essential that we have proper  complaint procedures and   staff who know what they are doing and  don’t ask the alleged  offender for  guidance.

I may have forwarded one or two of her very early Emails for Mr Wells’ awareness/comment/response.

they also state that MAF needed to   provide assurances to the minister that  AWINZ accountability  met  requirements of the act.. how could they possibly have achieved this  when the organisation was a total fiction  ?  This is Wells  OIA request

The significance of the  existence of an entity also goes to the heart of  any agreements .Here Joanne Tuckwell states

the MOU is here 

and it  states “This Memorandum of Understanding between the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand
(AWINZ) and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) ”

definition ” “AWINZ” means the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand.     – this shows that MAF clearly thought that AWINZ was a legal person in its own right  But Neil Wells signs as trustee  and conceals the reality that   the application was not made by any trust (  there was no trust meeting  which  would have allowed him to  sign for the other trustees, the trustees of he 200 deed never met  )   and that AWINZ is not a legal person in its own right .

Now that  Neil Wells has been proved to be deceitful and a person  who is less than honest in his roll as barrister ,  I hope that    this may be used to  test out a robust complaint procedure.  11 years  of  victimisation for whistleblowing is enough  .

Please  implement the   standards adopted by australia and enforce them .

It is unreasonable to treat whistleblowers as unreasonable complainants no one should have to go through what I have been subjected to  .

I look forward to  finding some Fairness  .

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 .

1. No one checked to see if the animal welfare institute of new Zealand (AWINZ)existed  before giving it  law enforcement powers ,
2. 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
3.  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  .
4.  and I could go on

The  runner up failure  goes to failure to  stick to the law. 

1. 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.

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 .

Many years ago a lawyer asked me to help him locate a director and liquidator of a firm called  fresh prepared limited 

The director was allegedly   Sanjay Patel 133 Captain Springs Rd, Onehunga.  Consent of Director

Sanjay Patel appointed a liquidator Babuhai Patel who happened to use the PO box right next to  that of the former proxy director  Lynn Pryor

Both Sanjay and Babuhai  were fictional   and  Terry Hay and  Lynne Pryor  were both charged with  fraud offences  .

The 22 fraud offences for Terry Hay are here 

Hay  skipped the country and  Pryor was convicted of one charge  as the blame was shifted onto Hay .The news items are here Charges over alleged fake liquidator and Boss invents accountant to escape $60k debt.

Hay being well connected   got the  charges dropped  21.1. 2013 see here 

He wasted no time promoting himself as a successful  business man  no doubt including  teaching the tricks of  the trade  with regards to the  NZ companies office

Today I  discovered that  Hay has featured in the New Zealand courts again,  funding  litigation again .

This  time in   employment matters where  LSG sky chef  inherited  employees from the  firm   one being  Terry Hays brother in law.

the employment court  matter can be found here

The registrar is once again   looking to remove the company from the  register ..  for  rich foreigners our company office is nothing  more than a useful tool  to  use  and abuse  from a safe distance away .

While Mr Hay was  comfortably ensconced in his Honolulu home  he sues the arse off unsuspecting Kiwis , some how that is so  wrong .

Its time we did more than register  companies .. how about checking and  stringently enforcing the company rules .

Companies  , trusts and societies are totally abused .   No one checks  and whistleblowers get shot  .. so    wonder why its so open to abuse.

There is an old Hatchet that has been in our family  for many years , it  has been handed down from father to son and has served  loyally each generation . The head was sharpened a few times and then the handle broke  so  it had a new  handle  , then the head   was beyond sharpening and it  got a new head , I think it has had five new Handel  now and three new heads.  But its still the same old trusty Hatchet.. despite the fact that the handle is now  varnished and the head is blue .

What has this got to do with the SPCA.. well everything

Look up Wikipedia  this is the definition shown

A Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) is a common name for non-profit animal welfare organizations around the world. The oldest SPCA organization is the RSPCA, which was founded in England in 1824. SPCA organizations operate independently of each other and campaign for animal welfare, assist in the prevention of cruelty to animals cases, rehabilitation and finding homes for maltreated and unwanted animals that can be reestablished into new homes. Policies regarding animal euthanasia, handling feral cats, and similar issues vary by organization.

As you can see this fits in pretty closely with the old constitution purpose which has existed since 1995

The Objects for which the Royal Society is established are:
(a) To prevent cruelty to animals by:(i) Encouraging and sustaining an intelligent public opinion regarding man’s duty to animals;
(ii) Enforcing where practicable the laws which exist for animals’protection;
(iii) Promoting further legislation for the protection of animals, as may be appropriate;
(iv) Any other ways and means as the Royal Society may deem appropriate.
(b) To co-ordinate the activities of the various Branches and Member Societies;
(c) To promote Branches in districts where there is no Branch or Member Society in existence;
(d) To generally do all such acts and things as shall or may be for the benefit of Branches or Member Societies or in the interests of animals and their welfare

the new constitution which has just been adopted MJC-101622-1-4205-1 RNZSPCA Constitution Final Adopted 17 June 2017

4. Purposes
4.1 The purposes of SPCA are to create a better life for, and prevent cruelty to and neglect of, Animals and in particular to:
a. be the lead organisation for Animal welfare in New Zealand;
b. educate New Zealanders about their Animal welfare responsibilities including developing and delivering programmes and activities;
c. establish and maintain facilities and provide services primarily throughout New Zealand and, if it considers it necessary to do so, also Australia and the Pacific Islands, to improve the welfare of Animals using standards, policies and practices based on best practice and scientific knowledge;
d. promote and advocate for Animal welfare legislation and standards;
e. act as an Approved Organisation under the Animal Welfare Act 1999, including taking action against those who fail to comply with their legal obligations relating to the physical, health, and behavioural needs of Animals.

the proposed branch constitution   is also has the objects   changed  MJC-101622-1-4206-1 RNZSPCA Branch Rules Final 17 June 2017  but   since they  are looking at winding up the   branches  the  wording of the constitution is   basically irrelevant as  once   this is adopted the  branch will be wound up and  cease to exist  under the  one policy  following this transition MJC-101622-1-4207-1 RNZSPCA Transition Regulations Final

A new CEO  is being recruited Final Position Description CEO SPCA to do the  dirty work  of  transitioning from a society which exists to prevent cruelty  to animals to one which    rely on  animals suffering for an income stream.

To me this appears to be a juxtaposition , as the stated  aim of “act as an Approved Organisation under the Animal Welfare Act 1999, including taking action against those who fail to comply with their legal obligations relating to the physical, health, and behavioural needs of Animals”   cannot occur  unless  animals are harmed  and since there is a financial benefit in enforcing  the act the SPCA may no longer act  to PREVENT   cruelty  as  from an accountants point of view   the $$$  occurs when animals are harmed.

Mr Trainer is an accountant,  ex  Ernest and Young , is he going to spend  some of the 25 million on educating people and  prevention methods or is he  going to make  $$$ for the society by prosecution  ?   What would an accountant  do ????

Of course  they would “promote and advocate for Animal welfare legislation and standards;” as this will ensure more  stringent levels of compliance   and more $$$

I have to wonder why  Andrea Midgen  wore two hats for this time, was it because  her two hats suited this part of the transition , despite it  being a gross  conflict of interest, why not    advertise for an  independent CEO  10 months ago  ????All too contrived my  my sense of comfort.

So if you are the   applicant  for the position of  the new CEO  responding to this email please be aware that you will be  assisting in the destruction of  what was once a  trusty old society .

From: RNZSPCA Board Secretary <Board.Secretary@spca.nz>
To: Gordon Trainer <Gordon.Trainer@spca.nz>
Cc: Kira Schaffler <kira.schaffler@spca.nz>
Date: 23 June 2017 at 14:06
Subject: Message from Gordon Trainer, RNZSPCA President – Recruitment: RNZSPCA CEO

Recruitment – RNZSPCA CEO

To: Centre Managers/CEOs, Chairs
CC: National Office staff and RNZSPCA Board

 Please forward this email to your Committee/Board and to the staff/volunteers in your Centre

 Dear all

Following the strong vote in favour of the One SPCA entity at the AGM on Saturday 17 June, the Board has decided to initiate the process for the recruitment of a permanent CEO for the RNZSPCA. As you are aware Andrea Midgen has been ‘double-hatting’ for the past 10 months as both the CEO of Auckland SPCA and the Acting CEO of RNZSPCA.

The CEO of RNZSPCA is probably the most critical role in our new structure and it would be highly advantageous to have a confirmed CEO in the role during the months leading up to “Day 1” (1 November 2017) to ensure strong and focused leadership during the transition phase to One SPCA.

We have made a decision that, in the first instance, we will open this role to applications from internal candidates only, i.e. employees within the SPCAs across the country. If we are unable to find a suitable candidate from amongst our ranks we will then go to the wider external market.

As you can see from the attached position description this role requires (amongst other things):

–          Strong leadership skills and proven experience in managing and developing leadership teams

–          Experience in leading change

–          Good all-round management competencies

–          Strong financial and commercial acumen and experience, and

–          A collaborative working style with a track record of building effective relationships.

We have asked Kira Schaffler as the Project Manager for the One SPCA project to coordinate the initial steps of the internal recruitment process. Kira has extensive experience in the recruitment and appointment of executives and will provide a strictly confidential coordination point for initial applications.

Our planned timetable for this process is as follows:

Internal candidates submit their CVs to Kira Schaffler. All applications will be treated in the strictest confidence	By 14 July
Remuneration, People Dev & Nominations Committee (sub-Committee of the Board) interviews short-listed candidates and recommends preferred candidate to the Board	By 28 July
Appointment of CEO	By 11 August

Please forward this email to your staff and volunteers in your Centres. It’s important that all employees are kept informed about the recruitment process for this key leadership role in our future SPCA.

If you have any queries about the process please contact Kira Schaffler on 021 924 845 or kira.schaffler@spca.nz who will be able to answer your questions on a strictly confidential basis.

Regards

Gordon Trainer

RNZSPCA President

I wish to file this formal complaint with the charities Services  

on the grounds

• significant financial loss to the charity, or the illegal or corrupt use of the charity’s funds or resources;
• serious harm to beneficiaries (especially to vulnerable beneficiaries);
• charities deliberately being used for private pecuniary profit or to abuse New Zealand’s tax laws;
• where a charity’s independence may be compromised;
• serious wrongdoing by a charity, its officers/trustees or employees, that damages or has the potential to damage its reputation and/or the reputation of the charitable sector;
• serious non-compliance in a charity which could constitute serious risk to  public interest;
• damaging public trust and confidence in Charities Services  as an effective regulator

I am a  member of the Hawkes bay  branch of the RNZSPCA ,  That branch is one of  the many members which make up the RNZSPCA.

Recently I attended a meeting of  Taupo residents  and Taupo branch members who were concerned   about being disenfranchised  from  their  society  .

What the Taupo  members and I have in common  is that as members  we have not been able to vote on  the one SPCA proposal

It appears  that there is a group of people who  have taken upon themselves to promote  the one SPCA concept  but have manipulated the   branches and  member societies in such a way as to ensure that their  objective of   disestablishing the   smaller society and taking their   assets is achieved.

Andrea Midgen  has now filed a new constitution which was allegedly passed last week in circumstances  which stretch  the  concept of democracy  as delegates  for at least 15  societies   had no mandate  from the members who  they purported to represent .

The new constitution for he RNZSPCA  which went  live today   differs entirely from the   previous  constitutions and  has  adopted new objectives for  the society  this now reads

4.1 The purposes of SPCA are to create a better life for, and prevent cruelty to and neglect of, Animals in New Zealand and in particular to:

a. be the lead organisation for Animal welfare in New Zealand;

b.educate New Zealanders about their Animal welfare responsibilities including developing and delivering programmes and activities;

c.establish and maintain facilities and provide services throughout New Zealand to improve the welfare of Animals using standards, policies and practices based on best practice and scientific knowledge;

d.promote and advocate for Animal welfare legislation and standards;

e.act as an Approved Organisation under the Animal Welfare Act 1999, including taking action against those who fail to comply with their legal obligations relating to the physical, health, and behavioural needs of Animals

Since the  objectives of the society  have changed  they may now  no longer qualify for charitable status

I note that   in particular they wish to provide a better life for animals  ..  this probably needs to be read in conjunction with this  you tube recording which  demonstrates the   wastage of   donated charitable funds.   Providing a better life could include buying a better car for the owner of the  animal  something which according to this  recording  has happened in the past .

To be the lead Animal welfare  organisation .. sounds like empire building, in the other  hand Andrea Midgens boss, Gordon trainer has already registered a company called  SPCA Aotearoa.  this brings about a potential of conflict of interest for her  as acting CEO of the RNZSPCA and raises the question  is she acting for the RNZSPCA or for her employer  the  Auckland SPCA and sole  share holder of  SPCA Aotearoa  Ltd

Gordon Trainer  is the sole director  of SPCA Aotearoa  Ltd  he  is also the only person  from the Auckland SPCA  who   has  control of some sort of the   25 million dollars which unsuspecting benefactors have left the the SPCA and which has found its way to the   Auckland SPCA. In  the mean time  smaller branches burdened by extra financial  commitments by being billed to take on an employee of the RNZSPCA choosing , have been   wound up

educate New Zealanders about their Animal welfare responsibilities  , they are currently  euthanizing more animals than ever before  , they  are spending more on   human  resources  and corporate wages  particularly looking at getting the inspectorate   going and prosecuting more new  Zealanders.    so is education  going to be through prosecution ?  It has to be of note that it is the SPCA   and not the RNZSPCA  who have the team of lawyers on board .

.establish and maintain facilities and provide services throughout New Zealand to improve the welfare of Animals, since the one spca movement began a number of  local SPCA”s have  been  disestablished , their buildings sold  and   as a result  there are fewer SPCA’a than before , e.g. Te Kuiti, Waikato  , Te Awamutu  etc

promote and advocate for Animal welfare legislation and standards  again their objectives appear to be more in line with a law enforcement authority than a charity  whose beneficiaries are animals

act as an Approved Organisation under the Animal Welfare Act 1999, The government  has responsibilities for animal welfare this is primarily   performed through the MPI and the police .   A former  RNZPSCA  president , Neil Wells ,who was also a barrister wrote the bill for  animal welfare act and was  Independent adviser  to the select committee  and  did not declare his conflict of interest when he included  the provisions for the concept  of  Approved organisations.

Mr Wells went on to   set up his own ” approved organisation  The animal welfare institute of new Zealand   which in reality did not exist and was just a trading name for himself.  He relied on  what I have found to be a fraudulent application, followed by misleading information to the minister there is more just search this site  using the  key word AWINZ

The persons who have been behind this drive for the  SPCA to develop the inspectorate just happen to former  MPI inspectors . this   whole concept is not about  being a charity but  about starting a law enforcement group  using  the 25 million or so ,this has been   side lined into trusts.

These funds  which were given to the SPCA have been deprived  from the true  beneficiaries , the animals.   there appears to be a massive misappropriation of charitable funds  because  people dont realize that the SPCA  has been hijacked.

The new powers are equally   frightening

establish a Board, commissions, committees. forums, and other groups, including consultative groups,and to delegate its powers and functions to such groups;

be an Approved Organisation under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 with such powers and .authority as specified under that Act

invest, lend, advance or otherwise deal with monies and secure the payment of such monies with or without charges, or guarantees; ( these are charitable funds ! )

produce, develop. create, own, licence and otherwise exploit. use and protect Intellectual Property;

purchase or otherwise acquire all or any part of the property, assets and liabilities of any one or more companies, institutions, trusts, incorporated societies or organisations whose activities or objects are similar (in whole or in part} to those of SPCA, or with which SPCA is authorised to merge or amalgamate,or for any purpose designed to benefit SPCA;

And this is the bit where   I believe SPCA aotearoa comes in

establish, acquire, carry on or participate in any business or enterprise which fulfills the Purposes of SPCA (in whole or part);

q. be a member of, affiliate or be associated in any other way with, any organisation which has objects which are similar, in whole or in part, to the Purposes of SPCA; and.

With the   change in the objectives   the transformation is complete   below is the  former purpose  for comparison

OBJECTS

5. The Objects for which the Royal Society is established are:

(a) To prevent cruelty to animals by:

(i) Encouraging and sustaining an intelligent public opinion regarding man’s duty to animals;

(ii) Enforcing where practicable the laws which exist for animals’protection;

(iii) Promoting further legislation for the protection of animals, as may be appropriate;

(iv) Any other ways and means as the Royal Society may deem appropriate.

(b) To co-ordinate the activities of the various Branches and Member Societies;

(c) To promote Branches in districts where there is no Branch or Member Society in existence;

(d) To generally do all such acts and things as shall or may be for the benefit of Branches or Member Societies or in the interests of animals and their welfare.

Evidence  that the RNZSPCA has not  been acting  in accordance with its former objectives  can be found   by looking at

1. the increase of euthanasia this is not in the interest of animals
2. the closure of branches which could have been saved  with charitable funds which according to this recording have been misappropriated 
3. the   replacement of volunteers with paid RNZSPCA staff and then passing  the   costs on to the branch so as to  cause financial hardship  which is then used to  wind up the   society
4. the unlawful ” administration of  incorporated societies “
5. by denying members the right to contact  other members and by  calling only a SGM when it suits the RNZSPCA but not  calling a  AGM in three years ( Taupo) or allowing  new people to become members.  This is not  acting in the benefit of branches
6. there is a gross conflict of interest between the  Auckland SPCA   and the RNZSPCA  . there has been a  historical    fight for power , it now appears to me ,  that the  Auckland SPCA   which has posed as the SPCA see here   has succeeded   in taking control of money and is now taking over the  RNZSPCA  and  will pass that control   through to   itself  by virtue of  this new constitution .

all that is required is  for the  smaller branches to   wind up and the Auckland SPCA will   take over  the RNZSPCA  and put it under the umbrella of SPCA aotearoa.  Public money  corporate wages private gain and a private law enforcement power  with strict liability offences and a  licence to print money .. certainly not  acting charitably  in my opinion

Constitutions  for branches taken into administration , (for which there is no legal provision) , have been unlawfully filed  to ensure that the latest constitutions  state  that on winding up or dissolution the assets go to the RNZSPCA.

I have been told that  well over 2 million dollars of charitable funds have been used for this restructuring. Money which could have been put to good use  by saving branches which have been closed down   by  people other than the members.

The new constitution allows for the   new organisation , (that is what it is   as the  whole constitution appears to have been replaced in one go) to pick and choose its members

the emphasis is  on   the inspectorate   and it is  not  coincidental that   Mr Wells who wrote the legislation also set up the training program at Unitec for inspectors,  so by  becoming inspector focused there is a financial spin off for others  but what has been forgotten is that before a prosecution can occur  an animal has to suffer . so the  society for prevention of  cruelty no longer fulfills its   traditional  role  having instead become an enforcement agency  and therefore by definition is no longer a charity .

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I therefore request an urgent revue of the RNZSPCA   with regards to its charitable status, misappropriation of charitable fund and the grounds stated above

I have posted this on transparency in the interest of transparency .

From: Compliance <Compliance@dia.govt.nz>
Sent: Thursday, 13 July 2017 3:19 p.m.
To: ‘Grace Haden’
Subject: RE: complaint with regards to the new uncharitable constitution of the RNZSPCA

Dear Grace

Thank you for your email regarding the Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Incorporated (RNZSPCA), registration number CC22705.

The concerns that you have raised have now been reviewed, however Charities Services has determined not to initiate an investigation into the RNZSPCA.  We will only consider exercising our legislative powers under the Charities Act 2005 when there is evidence of:

•          the charity no longer meeting the requirements for registration;

•          a breach of the Charities Act 2005;

•          ‘serious wrongdoing’ in connection with a charity.

Serious wrongdoing is defined under section 4 of the Act as:

(a)  an unlawful or a corrupt use of the funds or resources of the entity; or

(b)  an act, omission, or course of conduct that constitutes a serious risk to the public interest in the orderly and appropriate conduct of the affairs of the entity; or

(c)  an act, omission, or course of conduct that constitutes an offence; or

(d)  an act, omission, or course of conduct by a person that is oppressive, improperly discriminatory, or grossly negligent, or that constitutes gross mismanagement

Charities Services is unlikely to investigate disputes that relate to the governance of an entity or service delivery matters. We will also not become involved if your concern is about a decision made by the officers of the charity that is within the law or within the rules of the charity. Charities Services is unable to overrule a decision made by officers that is within their powers to make, simply because others do not agree with it.

The decision of the SPCA delegates to form one national organisation from it 45 independent centres is one that the organisation is able to make, and not one that Charities Services has the legislative mandate to overrule.

You may wish to contact the SPCA New Zealand directly, or seek independent legal advice, in regards to your concerns.

Kind regards

James Lathan | Assistant Investigator

Charities Services | Ngā Rātonga Kaupapa Atawhai
Extn: 4846 | DDI: +64 4 382 3946

120 Victoria Street, Wellington 6011 | PO Box 30112, Lower Hutt 5040

www.charities.govt.nz | www.dia.govt.nz | Follow us on Facebook  

Charities Services is part of the Department of Internal Affairs Te Tari Taiwhenua

Do

If you are a member of  any of the following  then you  need to  read this

and listen  to this  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHcgXhoBlf0

The first  column is the date  of incorporation of your society

the second is the legal name of your society

All of the  above are deemed by the Legal persons in their own right  and the sole control of each is by its respective  members .

The legislation which is relevant is the Incorporated Societies Act 1908

An incorporated society must have at least 15 members , the members   file their constitution and run their  society according to the constitution.

As can be seen by the dates of formation  various communities had  individuals who came together and formed the   intention of  forming a local SPCA for the common good of the community

Often farmer brown gave a corner paddock  and  the  local  trades men go together and constructed a premises for the  volunteers to  work out of    . The societies were names  the  “what ever”  society for prevention of cruelty to animals, the assets  came from the community and were for the benefit of that community .

Each society acted independently  until  a federation was  formed which lent a common voice and  support structure to all .

Neil Wells  was involved in action which appears to have substituted the  Federation  for the RNZSPCA , possibly by  a name change which is no longer recorded  at the   registry  of societies.He also wrote the animal welfare act and made the provision for inspectors to  be employed by the RNZSPCA  and  introduced  offences which are almost impossible to  defend ( strict liability )

The federation  disappeared and the RNZSPCA became the national body  effectively having    one representative from each of the  member societies.

A move then occurred  to change member societies into branches  and a number of branches were taken over by stealth by  a group of persons  whose objective was to   disenfranchise the members and substitute   their own  constitution for that previously  accepted and passed  by the members.  Hence the members no longer   had control of their own society  it was some one else’s rules

The  particular victims of this mover   are  the following branches

Persons posing as   officers of these  societies did so without any mandate from the members , they effectively took over the assets of that society  and dealt with them as though they had  a right to do so. In some instances property   including real estate was sold , there is no evidence as to where the   funds went .

There is no provision in law which would support this action and in reality I believe that  these persons are  committing  fraud  by holding themselves out  as having legitimacy over the asserts and running of the   societies they have taken over.

These persons  who include the following  have had absolutely no legal    right to act in the manner  which they have  yet have bamboozled volunteers  and members alike , taking advantage of the  fact that most  ordinary citizens don’t know  that the  people  from  the so called Head office  who they trust   were actually setting them up to take over  their society and asset strip the local community .

those  above have been assisted by  those who should know  better  Geoff Sutton employed by the RNZSPCA  is a former MPI man and he  and his mate Alan Wilson ( also x MPI)  are very keen  to see the  inspectorate kick into play as this would ensure them a position in the new  order. These persons  have a vested interest as they have been assured a position in the new order and are looking after their own financial interest in the new structure

It has to be remembered that the” P” stands for prevention     not for prosecution  and by the time prosecution occurs  the animal has already suffered .

so essentially   the  SPCA  is no longer functioning  as the society it was set up  for   and instead  being a society which relies on animal abuse for its existence.

In Britain the  SPCA  is out of control   a great   face book page to follow on that one is the shg

an article on the  dangers of the SPCA inspectorate is https://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/02/off-the-leash/#  Does the RSPCA think it’s the FBI?

Dozens of ordinary householders have been convicted, fined and even tagged for offences such as killing squirrels in their gardens, or not arranging adequate veterinary care for a sick pet. Those animal owners who fall foul of the RSPCA include the elderly, sick, bewildered or poor. Some of the prosecutions have been little short of farcical. Householders who kill garden pests have been convicted on the basis that the only humane way to dispatch a squirrel is to take it to the vets for a £70 lethal injection. Worse, there is a growing suspicion that not all RSPCA evidence of cruelty is what it seems.

an other article sent to me was  this What’s gone wrong with the RSPCA? How a cherished charity which symbolised Britain’s love for animals has been hijacked by zealots who care more about pets than humans (and has now lost its third chief in five years)

Wake up NZ    we need to   educate  people and care for  the animals  . Those taking control are lawyers and accountants    it is a power game  and   more animals than ever will be put  down and   caring owners will be the target of prosecutions.

If you do nothing  then you are part of the problem , Please  help prevent cruelty  not make  cruelty the  aim of  financial gain.

Please contact me   we are working  on something  that will hopefully restore integrity to the  SPCA’s nation wide

You can help by speaking out    please do not remain silent on this one ! 

While assisting some people with their dilemma of the local branch of the RNZSPCA, I came across  a company called  SPCA AOTEAROA LIMITED (5343361) Registered

The company is allegedly owned by The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Auckland Incorporated   but  despite  the fact that it was incorporated  30 June 2014  no mention of this company can be found in the annual reports    2015 annual report   or the  2016 annual report.

Mr Trainer files his own  directors form , showing that he is self appointed   he does this through the auspices of his  own company Lomond group limited

Having noted that  the  Auckland SPCA  prefers to use the  generic name SPCA and  its  chairman  Gordon Trainer is also the national president of the RNZSPCA

Gordon trainer was co opted to the national board  September 2015  and it would appear  on what I can see , that he became  president   when he had already set the wheels for  SPCA aotearoa in motion .

What is  the difference you may well ask   well it is an important one  summed up on the RNZSPCA web site

There are  some 40  incorporated societies which are  members or branches of the RNZSPCA , The RNZSPCA  is the national body    on which all of the individual branches and member societies have  a representation  . Those persons who are the appointed members to the RNZSPCA  then select  their  office bearers from their number.

But what so often happens   is that one  person  becomes  entrenched in the role  and that is where the propensity for going off the rails occurs.

For many years Bob Kerridge has been   both the  chairman of the Auckland SPCA and the  national  president of the RNZSPCA  , he was  followed by Gordon Trainer.

Now the SPCA Auckland would be the  first one to admit that  throughout the country there is much confusion about   the number of SPCA’s  many think there is only one.

The reality is  that the Auckland SPCA is  the equivalent status of any of the branches, it is a member society which just happens to  hold the reins through its chair man.

Further confusion arises though the RNZSPCA’s own web site  where  the royal society refers to itself as  SPCA and  has actually registered the  a logo  

The donate page on the RNZSPCA web site makes you  think that you are donating to the SPCA   and in the mean time   the   Auckland SPCA  which is  now apparently driving the take over bid   registers documents at the  Registrars office as 

this is simply achieved by leaving the  real  name off by dropping the word Auckland.

This particular  example was signed By Andrea Midgen  who is now travelling the country and telling societies  that once amalgamation takes place they will have to change their names if they are not part of the one SPCA.

So  simply put the  confusion as to the entity “SPCA”  is no accident  and people  who leave   funds to  the SPCA   in their will  do so with the best of intentions and frequently with the expectation that it will support the  SPCA activities  where they live . Instead   the  funds go to  the Auckland SPCA and  are   shuffled off into Auckland SPCA trust

The wording of trust deeds is important   and in this case the wording of the SPCA trust is such that  the  funds do not have to go to the  the Auckland SPCA, RNZSPCA branches   etc  but   simply for the  purposes as set out here 

This means that the  funds can also go to Community Cat Coalition Incorporated or New Zealand Companion Animal Council Incorporated but apparently it does not go to  RNZSPCA branches which have felt the financial burden of having a paid employee thrust upon them by   the national body .

Financial hardship  is one way of making    groups change their view  on autonomy and by   creating financial pressures  on a society   control can be gained.   the Te Awamutu  Branch   reportedly  was wound up  in this manner   and Waikato closed its doors despite that  fact the $400,000 appears to have  shifted sideways from a trust where the RNZSPCA branch was once a trustee .

So the  whole one SPCA thing  looks very much as a  being contrived and driven by The SPCA,  Millions of dollars which shoul dhave gone to animal s have gone on corporate wages fro this restructuring.

The SPCA’s which have been closed could have  survived if the money paid to consultants had  found  its way to the  volunteers who  were using it for de sexing and  re homing of animals

INSPECTORATE

In March this year    an article appeared in the law society news  Anita Killeen: SPCA Auckland Pro Bono Panel of Prosecutors

In the New Year, I met the Chairman and the Board of the SPCA Auckland and gave a presentation that included a proposal to take charge of developing an initiative I believed would save the organisation money and further its goals. The Board appointed me as a Director in early 2009, and, shortly after, I implemented the strategy which is now known as the Pro Bono Panel of Prosecutors for the SPCA Auckland.

Note that this is only For Auckland.

But the   appointment  of inspectors is through the  animal welfare act   to the RNZSPCA

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.

Rumour has it that  the   one SPCA is all about  developing the inspectorate and apparently also about giving  work to a lot of  well meaning lawyers who have been sold half a story .

The animal welfare act  is a very dangerous piece of legislation a  law paper can be found here

The author of the paper   was also  apparently fooled with  the SPCA/ RNZSPCA  concept as only the SPCA gets a mention

What the author points out  about strict liability offences is   a very serious point.  In a strict liability offence the  Inspector only needs to think that your  limping Moggie needs to have gone to the vet and you  could  well be up for a massive fine .

Run with a team of lawyers  and  over zealous  inspectors  no animal owner will be safe and I fear that more animals than ever will be put down .

It will be a licence to print money  by the  monopoly which   appears to be being set up  by  bullying the  volunteers who have been  the very fabric of society out  to set up their own  organisations in their area   but will live in fear of  being  be wound up by  the    inspectors of the  mighty monopoly.

Corruption = Monopoly + discretion – Accountability

The SPCA  will be the only   private law enforcement authority .  I know the problems well I saw it with AWINZ.

Why cant   SPCA staff simply call on  MPI or Police to  take action  and prosecute .The SPCA has a vital role in education and  support services for animals

The whole fact of SPCA is about to change and as one person said

THIS WEEKEND ANIMAL WELFARE IN NZ DIED

There is nothing open and transparent about this Take over  , it is contrived, manipulated  and deceitful . There is no ability for   whole societies to be taken over  by a group of people   and those   who are posing  as  members of a society taken over by stealth should be held  accountable  to the full extent of the law , they have no legal right to file constitutions   on behalf of the members and   run  up financial burdens for the society , each should be personally responsible..  Isn’t that what Andrea Midgen said ? So why should she not be responsible for the actions on the half dozen or so  incorporated societies she claims to have  rights over when  there is no  mandate from members.

The SPCA is being corporatised ,  its  going to be  big business  , it will kill volunteering, community  groups and  will make animal lovers live in fear of persecution .   the funds which  have been given to local communities  to set up shelters  will be liquidated into corporate   wages for  accountants lawyers and consultants .

The animals will be  just  a commodity  and  in my opinion  it will be a fundamental abuse of animals to use them for the $$$ game

This is of national importance and   I certainly hope that  there will be a public investigation into this as  to me it appears that there is a gross misappropriation of charitable funds .

I also hope that  the charities commission  will  remove the charitable status of an organisation so apparently  driven for profit.

There have been power games between the SPCA and the RNZSPCA   since    Adam was a boy  the

222889 THE SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS AUCKLAND INCORPORATED  formed  19/10/1926

218546  THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED formed 11/09/1933

I have already  covered off the in fighting in  the  late 70’s  and the fact that   the law enforcement powers of the inspectorate was   only given the the RNZSPCA and speculation has been that the SPCA,  a member society has always wanted to take over the RNZSPCA . From what I have seen in this last week that appears to be very much the  case.

There is significant blurring of boundaries between the SPCA and the RNZSPCA, this I believe is intentional with $$$$$ in mind

The  legal name of the Auckland  member society is  The society  for the prevention  of cruelty to animals Auckland  yet you refer to yourselves as  .

 You , Andrea signed as CEO for this  entity on  the latest rules filed at the  companies office

you  use the logo  which is in reality registered to the  Royal society  see here  

On Thursday night I attended a meeting  and was confused when I heard that you would be there  as you are the CEO of a member society of the RNZSPCA  and without providing any evidence as to your lawful appointment  as  acting CEO of  the RNZSPCA, you addressed a group of  Taupo people about the RNZSPCA  amalgamating into one.   I suspect the reality is   that this about the SPCA  taking over the  RNZSPCA and its  member societies and   branches.

The locals who attended expressed concerns that  despite the fact that a number of them had been volunteers at the SPCA they had been denied the opportunity to become members  and had been told that  no new members were being accepted  until after the one SPCA vote had been taken.

It appears that the person in charge of the Taupo SPCA and in control of the membership list is One Geoffrey Sutton who is actually a paid employee of the RNZSPCA .

I  also noted that  you  had become an alleged officer of the  Taupo SPCA  by  the  filing of  a document  just days before  the meeting claiming that you had been an officer of the Taupo  society since September 2016. The method of your appointment is to say the least  dubious   as we were  discovered that the society had not  had a meeting of members  in three years so I have to question  how you could possible have a mandate from the members .

The unique thing about incorporated societies is that   the members are always  in control  of their society  yet it appears that the RNZSPCA and the SPCA have taken over the governance and control  of various  societies without  any  formal mandate to do so .

Constitutions have been filed with the registrar , circumventing  both  the prescribed formal processes and the resolutions of the members

Further you are the CEO  of the SPCA   and  now claim to be the acting CEO  of  the RNZSPCA, is this not a conflict of interest as the SPCA  appears to be paying your wages . I have always found that  who ever  pays a person has their loyalty   so who are you acting for  and how are you legally  appointed for  the RNZSPCA

I also note that Jennifer Temple , project and change  Co ordinator mentioned here  is  also actually  an employee of SPCA  . so my question is  who is driving this One SPCA ?

On 5 September 2016   you not only became  a  Officer of the  Taupo SPCA but also  the  Thames , Wairarapa, Te kuiti, central King country  branches and on  23 January 2017  the Waikato branch. This may require  some explanation  and you may have to provide a legal basis  for these appointments  as there certainly does not appear to be any provision under the   Incorporated societies act which would have allowed for such an event.

You claim that

you   have association with these branches due to the fact that they are under administration,   could you please  advise where under the   Incorporated society act you have any power to  disenfranchise the members of an incorporated society and take charge of their assets.  You may wish to follow this link  following  to be  informed as to the apparent lack of  legitimacy of ” administration

I also need to point out that the  constitutions which you appear to rely on   generally  appear to have been filed  with the registrar by  means other than the formal requirement of being accepted  by  a AGM  and the process of filing  these constitutions  may  actually be  in  breach of the  act and you and your  associates may be committing fraud by  pretending that you have the lawful capacity to file these  documents.

It was pointed out at the meeting that  The Taupo branch  Operated  in a positive financial manner  until the  RNZSPCA ” placed the branch into administration ” Since then the number of staff have increased and the results have dropped back and   losses occurred.

I am personally aware  that  such tactics have been used on  societies which have been wound up   and when they were wound up they were not wound up by the members, but  by the persons who  posed as members and arranged for the assets to be taken out of the district in which they were gifted and used for SPCA functions else where.

This brings me on to the “poverty “which the SPCA pleads    this does not take into account the  25 million in The Auckland SPCA Trust.

I note that the trustees are

Mark Vickerman    Barrister

Bob Kerridge  Former  director

Benjamin D’Arcy Palmer    Life line  director

Gordon Trainer   current director SPCA  and sole  director of  SPCA Aotearoa Limited

Donald Brian  Bendall   accountant

While   small SPCA’s  struggle on this massive pot of money is   increasing annually   should some one not see where this money comes from, are these bequests which are  being made   from all over the country and ending up in the coffers of  this trust which appears  not to  share. Given the confusion that you yourself have introduced  in the  companies register as shown above it is  of no surprise that the general public and the lawyers and trustees of bequests are also confused.

The annual report is of significance it shows  the trust funds 

It also provides this blurb about the  donations 1 million a year is certainly generous  when   the income form legacies is well in excess of this  

 and what is up with SPCA Aotearoa Limited   formed 30 Jun 2014

Why is there  no mention  of this in the 2015 annual report   or the  2016 annual report and why  were the societies  lawyers not involved in setting it up  and  just Mr Trainer  a director  with the SPCA  Auckland sole share holder .. Odd I thought

Back to Taupo

Geoff has now called a SGM to   give a perception of  legitimacy to the  resolution to become  one SPCA yet  in three years has  not called an AGM and has  actually been  obstructive in allowing members to contact each other  so that the members  themselves could  arrange for an AGM and elect a new committee.

It appears that  with all these  high  flyers involved   that  the SPCA  is actually the   entity taking over the RNZSPCA  branches and its member societies . I personally  believe  that this is to expand the  Inspectorate   and  enforce the  strict liability offences under the act.  It will be licence to print money .

At the meeting  Andrea,  You attempted to  strike fear into the  gathering by telling the  people that   as employers of inspectors the  individual societies would have to mitigate  significant  health and safety issues  , but why have an inspectorate at all  ? the police can be called up on to assist in any instance of animal welfare  concerns

Every constable is, by virtue of his or her office, deemed to be an inspector appointed to act generally throughout New Zealand for the general purposes of this Act.

It appears to me  that this is all about money, the   involvement of   former Ernst and young Tax accountants  and their lawyer friends prove  this  to me   and   from a personal perspective I am concerned that funds that  have been given to a local SPCA’s  for  animal welfare in the area  are  being misappropriated for  uses other than   for which it was donated. I  therefore believe that this  is not about  animal this is about power and control .

It is not as if the  SPCA is broke  the money has been shifted side ways into  trusts another example is  the Waikato SPCA  has been closed yet its money has been moved side ways

On the other hand  the local branches are  being lumbered with financial   obligations by the RNZSPCA  such as the wages of   the likes of Geoff Sutton   and work which was previously done by Volunteers.

Waikato has  had a trust which  had the Waikato branch as a trustee, it was later removed  and that trust has been  struck off and  presumably transferred its funds to a similarly named trust  see THE WAIKATO SPCA TRUST  and SPCA WAIKATO TRUST BOARD some where in this transaction  some $400,000  has   been  whisked  away from the  branch  see There is profit in animals .. or why is the RNZSPCA restructuring and what is Neil Wells connection. and The Waikato SPCA is being forced to close as it struggles with financial woes.

How much of the 25 million  sitting in the  Auckland SPCA account was actually given to Waikato , but because lawyers were unaware the money has ended up in the one and only nest egg

I think it is time for a massive audit  before you start   winding up smaller  entities  due to financial pressures.

As the person who  is  fronting this  ” amalgamation ”  I am asking you Andrea to make certain that   it is all   above board. There is no rush, by creating   urgency you could be   the whole country up for one massive  financial scam.

I will be happy to publish any explanation you give.

The future  of animal welfare in New Zealand hinges on your integrity  will you do the right thing ?