This site is an archived version of Indymedia prior to 5th November 2012. The current site is at

Animal welfare institute of New Zealand


Ever wondered  why New Zealand is the least corrupt in the OECD , well this is why.

In 2006 I questioned the accountability that the Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand (AWINZ) had  to the public

AWINZ is an approved  Organisation  under the Animal welfare act and has law enforcement  powers. Neil Wells who wrote the bill for the act  with  his own ambitions  for a Territorial animal welfare authority in mind , made the application on behalf of AWINZ to the minister in 1999 and in so doing made several false claims  including the false allegation that a trust deed existed  and that  it was being incorporated.

Wells a former head of the the SPCA, intended to  make his money  by providing   local governments  with  the resources to extend  dog control and stock control ( both statutory responsibilities of council ) to include the duties  traditionally carried out by the SPCA.

Local government New Zealand objected   to  territorial authorities being involved in a central government role,  but despite this Wells tried to keep his ambition  alive by creating the concept  of a trust and made an application to the minister .

The reality is that  his claims were no more and no less what John Davies was found guilty of  and Mary Anne Thompson is facing  fraud charges for.

But such as it was it was not Wells  who was had up  for  making false claims, it was me the  whistle blower  who was executed.  Defamation   charges were filed to sielnce me  and so  with my  statutory defence of truth and honest opinion  denied Judge Roderick Joyce ordered me to pay costs in the vicinity of $140,000  for speaking the truth . The learned  Judge  came to the conclusion that mr " wells had  got ahead of himself .His honour was forced to go on line to find  evidence to substantiate his stand against me. ( ironically Joyce has reprimanded jurors for exactly this )

I appealed the decision  in February 2009  but  the wheels of justice   have failed to deliver a decision  as yet but never mind with lawyers bills of  round the $100,000  mark   the  cost judgemnt still  hovering inthe background and a now broken marriage  I have to  be  grateful that I live in a democracy  a civilised society  where openness and transparency  exists in  governance and justice.

This week  an official information act release  arrived  as  here with   it states “  The trustees of AWINZ have subsequently made a voluntary decision, which has been advised to the Minister of Agriculture, to relinquish AWINZ's status as an approved organisation under the Act. "

But  apart from this  document ,which  is now 3 months old, there is no indication  that anything has changed  and  my sources reveal that  AWINZ  still operates as it has done for the past  9 years  being that   this trading name  contracts to Central and local Government. Wells  is now the manager of animal welfare Waitakere  and  effectively  " contracts" to himself.

The concept is ingenious- an SPCA  which operated  from council premises, uses  council staff , vehicles and resources , prioritises animal welfare work over  council work   and all that was left for Wells to do ( apart from collecting his council wages )  is to collect  the public donations ,solicited in  council paid envelopes  sent out with  dog regsitration , and banking them into a bank account which bearing  the name " animal welfare institute of New Zealand " over which only Neil Wells  had control over.

This is a classic example  as to the lack of transparency  in New Zealand and  serves as a warning to any one  who questions what they believe to be a conflict of interest in a public private relationship .  How many more AWINZ’s  are there out there , why is it so difficult to question corruption – Oh that’s  where  we came in  New Zealand is the least corrupt in the OECD  I know  because the statistics   show it.  Don’t look under the rug  that’s where we smother the  whistle blowers.   









corruption in New Zealand

We need more people to remove the rugs.  However I know just how brave and tough people have to be to do this.  They also need a huge financial base because the ones doing the corruption victimise the ones speaking out by taking them to court - therein abusing the justice system.  That's why they keep getting away with it. 

Not a surprise here.

No surprises here!  It is because animal rights activism within Aotearoa is so bourgeois that nothing changes, so no wonder McDonalds, Burger King, abattoirs, factory farms, animal circuses and animal testing laboratories are allowed to operate and Samoans are permitted to eat dogs. 

Poor Jumbo!


Megan the Vegan, it is disgusting your comment is hidden because you are spot on: animal rights activism within New Zealand is bourgeois!!!  (I think it is because the movement has been hijacked by Greenpeace, Safe, the Green Party, etc which are very mainstream groups that are run by middleclass individuals)  This is just another case of the editors being oversensitive and pooh-poohing anyone that is not a part of their mediocre attitude and being inflexible and dogmatic with a policy, which can be easily changed or ignored.  By hiding your statement and others like it they are only turning this avenue of expressing opinions into a humdrum and middle-of-the-road channel, just like John Campbell’s Live (really brain-dead) TV show!!!

its not about animals it is about humans

How can  animals have rights  when people are denied the fundamental  right of freedom of speech , freedom of expression and the right to justice . 

The animal welfare act was written by a vegan   who has been an animal  rights activist  see

If Humans have  no rights to freedom of speech and expression  where does that leave the  rights of animals ?

If people can't speak up then  animals are  vulnerable.

If a so caled humanitarian has to tell lies to get an animal welfare  group set up  what other lies  are being told ?

AWINZ also claimed  that no animals  were hurt in the making of the lord of  the rings    see

So if they say  no they do not shoot dogs at the back of the   animal welfare compound in Waitakere    can you beleive them?


Actually I hid that for it's

Actually I hid that for it's racist comment, not to do with anything else.

Kerry A-IMC ed

mixed standards Friday

mixed standards

Friday October 9 2009 - 10:12pm


First we had the fake qualifications of john Davies, then there was Mary-Anne Thompson who tried presented a fraudulent CV but  they are not alone. Whilst the government acts in some cases a blind eye appears to be turned to far greater frauds.

Imagine making an application to the minister of Agriculture  so that your "organisation"  could become  an animal welfare organisation  such as the SPCA.  You make the application by making false claims to  the minister that your "organisation"  a trust has been formed  by way of trust deed and is being incorporated  by virtue of the charitable trust act 1957 . Without any one checking to see if the organisation actually exists or if any of the statements made are true, the application is approved  and as a result   a new animal welfare law enforcement agency is born.

The Trading name of this “organisation " contracts to a local council  (through the manager of animal welfare division  who effectively contracts to himself as head of the "organisation")

The “organisation” operates from council  premises leased for $1 per annum according to documents MAF holds ( although the council will deny this)  uses  the dog  control and stock control officers as staff( in their voluntary capacity but they don’t know this  they think it is a requirement of the job  ) and collects donations from the public  which disappear into a bank account  controlled only by the manager / organisation head .

It is a perfect concept, all the income  without any  outgoing  effectively a leach on a public  resource and there is no danger of being  sued, because a trading name cannot be sued and the people who now claim to be the " trust" now are not the ones who  were " named" on the application to the minister.

So if false Cv's are worthy of prosecution   and Taito Phillip Field was be prosecuted for  his deceit, why is the government not acting on false applications to the minister and allowing a law enforcement  authority which has no legal standing and has origins in fraud to continue to exist.  Why is this being condoned and why was some one who questioned these circumstances sued to ensure   silence.  What else is being covered up ?

We know that  the “animal welfare Institute of new Zealand”  has strong labour connections  but why is National  allowing it to continue to operate  when the circumstances have been brought to their attention.

Good information

This is good information Grace and it is great to see it published!

It is yet another example of how complacent the public has become and how the burden of information and its prosecution can be left as dependent on a private citizen.

There is a level of reprehensible cowardice associated with main stream media where you can get left to carry the financial burden for investigating for the rest of us (the public interest) and we pay them handsomely (TVNZ & RNZ) for their interpretations of the most significant local and international affairs.

Kind regards,

Benjamin Easton

LAOS New Zealand


Freedom of speech

Thank you  Benjamin   , very few realise just how much our  rights to question  corruption  are suppressed , Kiwis  don’t question, they prefer to see   the old New Zealand that was  and not the corrupt society we have.

If we cannot question corruption it will only spread  , if there is no openness and transparency  then  what we have is only an illusion and not reality.

Those  in power prefer  to hammer those who question  rather than make those  who have transgressed accountable. Take Vince  for example   why are they  attacking him  just because he  questioned  the suppression of Judge Winkelmanns decisions  which  threw out 6 of the 9 search warrants on the basis that  there was "No reasonable grounds for issue of (the) warrants".

What is  being done with regards to  those  who issued the warrants   and obtained them without reasonable grounds .. why is it condoned  and why  is the public not allowed to know  that  a judge made this finding.

Has it got something to do  with  the new legislation which seeks wider powers  for search and seizure? It appears that If the police can't act  within the law  we amend the law.

I was a police sergeant 20 years ago and  have been a PI for 5 years , this world is different to the police service  I served in , so much so that I think I  am on a different planet .

So we give the Police  Greater powers of search and seizure but  we restrict   Private investigators  ability to collect  evidence for  the defence  by  continuing to deny  them the right  to take  Photographs and make recordings.

And  with  what has been  illustrated in the AWINZ matter - I don’t  even have the right  to   question  what many  new Zealanders   see as   Fraudulent  behaviour.  Where are the guide lines  what is the law  when it is not upheld equally for all and whether you are prosecuted or not  or have a fair  hearing  through the courts depends on who you are and what connections the  other parties have  to the " old boys net work"

It is time for New Zealanders to wake up .  who will tomorrows target be?  Hear no evil  speak no evil  see no evil.. lets all pretend   that   we live in the perfect society.. corruption free.

Right to remain silent

Just briefly on the point you have raised, it was raised with me last night in political conversation while busking on the street. The man I was talking with directly drew my attention to this legislation. Maybe you or anyone else would have an idea if he was right without my having to dig under any more rugs where I have more than enough on my plate at the moment.

What powers do new provisions have in respect of the police questioning? Is the right to remain silent in anyway under threat? If it is then I will put some energy into it…

As you know Vince is in Court on Thursday I think. I am in the Court of Appeal in Wellington on Wednesday so cannot get there. However, I plan to file an affidavit to his proceedings sharing the burden of his publication by replicating it in part in the affidavit.

If we have a public prepared to flag self esteem allowing their liberty to be kicked to oppression, then that public should feel the shame as deep as any who do the kicking.

the right to silence

Police have lost the  ability to investigate , they are after quick  clearances  and therefore   we should not   throw  obstacles in their path where  by  citizens  could remain silent.  , many offences now days  including the ones  written into the animal welfare act are  now  have become strict liability  this means  that your moggy only needs to become  ill and you ca  be had up  for  negligence…    takes care of the need for any   guilty intentions  and  has a quick turn over of revenue.

You have to remember that sometimes  silence by an accused can  be taken as a sign of  guilt  .  But every one has the right not  to  incriminate themselves .But if an explanation is called for   consideration is  to be given to the acceptable  levels of truth.

The acceptable levels of truth are set by politicians, lawyers and spin doctors and I strongly recommend that you follow their  standards for to be more truthful than that  is ecxtemely expensive. Look at what  truth cost  me   , It cost Vince Siemer $940,000  when he spoke out  about the  ethics of Stiassny and Bob  Moodie aka  Alice  had a similar story to tell when she wandered into wonder land.

Truth is but a perception don’t be fooled by your own definition of it  adopt  the  illusion of truth  and she will be right,  that concept is  apparently  the  accepted norm.

To clarify this   Neil Wells  in 1999 declared to the minister   “a trust has been formed by way of trust deed and is being incorporated under the charitable trust act" .  No  trust deed existed   and  it was  never  incorporated.  MAF has defended Wells  statement  ( as they  dont want to be seen lacking in verification)   , the court has defended it  ( although they did say Mr. Wells got a head  of himself - try that  with the tax man or winz )  Previous ministers have defended it.

Wells is a barrister and  by me proving  with  facts and  factual documents,  that this statement  was not true I  was severely punished .

Therefore   his  statement to the minister must have been true   even though there is no evidence of it being true , the only conclusion I can reach is that  my concept of truth is wrong.

I have learnt the truth  hurts  and  truth must therefore  be  avoided at all times.

The truth is  that there is corruption in New Zealand  and our statistics say there is not.. We all know that Statistics cannot be manipulated or wrong.

Eating dogs is wrong.

What is racist about Samoans eating dogs?  It is a fact and it happened in August this year in Auckland.


To a Vegan is there a

To a Vegan is there a difference between a person eating a cow or a person eating a dog? The comment I hid was collectivising an individual case and generalising an entire culture in the process. To me this is racist and that is why I hid it.


Kerry A-IMC ed.


I can't speak for other parts of government, but the regulation of animal welfare is riddled with corruption.  The Animal Welfare Act was not started by a vegan; according to Senior Lecturer in Animal Law Peter Sankoff, it was started by farmers' groups, concerned, not with animals, but their image overseas.  MAF olicy documents confirm that they see animal welfare as a market access issue.  Ie animals only count when European customers are looking.

The codes of so-called welfare are written by the industry, and I have documents from a high powered lawyer employed by the Egg Producers Federation, threatening legal action against the supposedly independent MAF appointed body NAWAC, if NAWAC or MAF dare to interfere with "their" code, giving hens freedom from cages. Naturally MAF stood up to the threat for about the same amount of time as a walnut stands up to a sledgehammer.

Animal Rights groups took the code of so-called welfare for battery hens to the Regulations Review Committee, and the committee agreed that keeping hens in cages, did not meet the requirements of the Animal Welfare Act.  Then minister of agriculture Jim Anderton was shamelessly lobbied and threatened by the Egg Producers Federation, and as a result he totally ignored the Parliamentary Select Committee recommendations.

Animal Activists played the game by the government's own rules, and won.  The government responded by changing the rules.  The same happened with the Colin Kay piggery (the one exposed by Mike King).  It was found to be clearly in breach of the code of so-called welfare for pigs.  I was at MAF meetings when the MAF staff admitted this.  But after being given clandestine lunch dates with the Pork Board, MAF simply retrospectively changed the rules to suit the industry.

It is no wonder animal activists resort to illegal or semi-legal actions when all avenues for legitimate legal action are blocked by dishonest and corrupt politicians and their industry bosses.



To qualify changing rules to suit a common practice

Mike this is slightly off topic against animal welfare but I was in proceedings recently with the Broadcasting Commission (NZ on Air) and the Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA). I had an argument that under duty to consult and ensure all views are protected, NZ on Air had abrogated the statutory responsibility exercising ordinary practice instead, being purposefully lax and damaging fatherhood by not protecting it to respect and dignity – allowing instead mainstream media and advertising to run men into the ground as if they are the only perpetrators of domestic violence. I thought I had a pretty good case which never got substantively into the Court of Appeal (on appeal) – where the Supreme Court ruled that my arguments needed to outweigh the call for several thousands of dollars of security.


What happened is the NZ on Air lawyer – filed an application on behalf of the BSA using the BSA signature, merely changing a few fonts and references to make it appear like different parties filled out the application (directly misleading the Court). This is collusion by overshadowing the independent responsibilities of the BSA (as a judicial body and Crown entity). To do this under the Crown Entity Act 2004, the BSA had to give its authority of delegation. The statute is very clear. The action was never denied and the application modification was admitted. Additionally and in my submission the removal from due process was substantively significant because it was NZ on Air that had so much to cover up (not protecting over a long period to engage and consult with the controversial views) and in the substantive proceedings of an appeal (still to be heard) the BSA is going to lose hands down (they directly altered the wording and meaning of the complaint in order to make it easier to dismiss).


The High Court judge ruling against me said this was ‘ordinary practice’. The lawyers said the judge knew that the same party had compiled both applications, as if having a judicial body abrogating statute where acting dependent on a Commission was not an offence within the public interest. The Court of Appeal thereafter and the Supreme Court all ignored this act and the application went against me without my points of appeal getting before the Court.


However, I can in fact draw relativity to the main thread of Grace’s comments. At the same time I was in proceedings against the Bank of New Zealand where they had funded an outright and offensive gender discriminatory advertisement proving that the bank had failed to follow in almost every regard their responsibilities under the International Standards for advertising. There can be no denial of this and the bank didn’t attempt to deny it either. The relativity of the proceedings to the thread is that the BNZ employed the same lawyer that NZ on Air employed. It was stunning to think that the money bags of the private sector dealing in abrogating international advertising standards were employing the very same high flying lawyer as the money bags of broadcasting for failing to respect the very same codes. If that isn’t corruption – then as Grace says – I don’t know what it means.


The link – NZ on Air and the BNZ think more about pigs than they do about fathers.       

Sorry the other point was:

Sorry: the other point was that while this was all going on the Ministry of Justice amended the High Court Rules to allow the event to take place even though by changing the rules it protects the lawyers to cover each others backs even if acting in expedient impropriety.

I lost both cases - the NZ on Air as above and the BNZ because even though I proved my case the Chief High Court Judge judge Randerson ruled that I as a man and a father had no standing to bring the bank to court saying that the bank was treating men and fatherhood like they have no standing in society.  

animal welfare act

The animal welfare act   came  about after  two bills wee considered by the select committee.  the first  bill was written by Neil Wells  a vegan and animal activist according  to news paper articles  dating back to the mid 70's

Wells a Labour stalwart  lobbied for the new act   and  with his own idea of  being gainfully employed by converting council dog  officers into  animal welfare officers   wrote that bill.

A second bill was introduced  and the two were heard together and amalgamated into  the animal welfare act 1999

The welfare codes  were written separately   after the act became law.

The animal welfare act provides for approved organisation  which have law enforcement   responsibilities  my issue is  that   this " organisation was founded on Lies  and it is questionable  that it existed in any form other than   neil wells at the time.

You may also wish to read the letters from  the American humane society  which  show  the injuries to the animal on the set  of the lord of the rings   when  Neil Wells  used the trading name Animal welfare institute of New Zealand   misappropriating the    tag line of the American humane society to claim that injuries had occurred  there by giving  Lord of the rings a false end title. See letters  from AHA Read the letters from the American Humane association ( AHA)

animal welfare act

Grace Neil Wells worked with me at MAF, and he was a fairly typical beaurocrat and not an animal activist (nor was I at the time).  As far as I know his diet was no different from many others who profess to "care" for animals while eating their flesh.  When I spoke to him he certainly did not display any vegan tendencies.  

Maf appears to look after their own

I  can only  comment on the documentary proof  I have and that which I have seen with my own eyes .

Man has traditionally  eaten the flesh of animals  and  while some  may see this  as offensive others  see it as  a traditional right and an essential part of the  food chain, or should  we also  seek  to convert   all carnivores to  herbivores.

Man is part of nature , it is natural for us  to eat  meat, in my opinion it is also natural to look after  fellow man   and  not be hypocritical to ones religion and those who claim to be humanitarian should  at least treat   those of the same species   in a humane manner.

It is news to me that Wells worked at MAF  that is an aspect which MAF has  sought to deny and  distance itself  from.

It makes it more apparent  of the inside  dealings  and  why they are protecting him.  

It was   probably   their trust  in him which made them   believe  what he said  that is why he could make such un true statements  and  be protected   by them for all repercussions  for telling porkies to the minister.

I have become curious about you Michael are you the same  Michael Morris  who is/was  connected  to  Transparency International New Zealand (TI-NZ),or are you the  animal welfare researcher and Tauranga resident Dr. Michael Morris  - or are they both one and the same .

I think Neil was actually

I think Neil was actually contracted by MAF, he was not an employer.  But it probably makses no difference; they would want to protect him anyway. The animal welfare division was next to the animal imports division where I used to work.

Man (and to some extent woman) has traditionally eaten meat, just has he has traditionally kept slaves, waged war, raped looted and pillaged.  Our ancestors did indeed eat meat.  They also spoke in grunts, lived in caves, had very poor hygiene and did not own cell phones.  Most of us have moved on since then.

I live in Tauranga and work as a tertiary teacher.  My namesake works for Transparency international and he is the one who stated that New Zealand is one of the least corrupt countries in the world.  He is probably right as far as it goes. It just means that corruption is more subtle. Instead of the open cheque book, the cosy lunches with the old boy network.  Instead of the masked thugs, the cleverly worded legal threats, couched in so much verbiage it takes special training in law to even realise it is a threat. 

More subtle corruption in our public service; but just as effective.

animals in films

Dear Grace, I have just looked at the AHA letter you linked to about concerns on the LOTR set, and it appears as if the treatment of animals in films is something that the animal rights community in New Zealand has so far neglected.  With more high budget films being shot in New Zealand this is something we need to be more aware of.


I had no idea of Neil Wells' questionable practices, but knowing what I do of other corruption in MAF and NAWAC it certainly does not surprise me.  What is surprising though is that I actually found MAF to be a fairly decent employer.  Though I was employed at a different division.


As  a private Investigator  I see that  the number one  cause of all corruption  / fraud starts with trust. People  who  are trusted so much that   others rely on their word without corroboration  are in a position of power.  When that position of power is abused  every one feels foolish for  having ben conned  and  human nature then   dictates that a lot of arse covering  goes on.

Such is the case in this matter.    When the whole thing  is finally exposed  there will  be many heads in  nooses   not for having been a party to the offence  but for   having been a party to the concealment.

I have learnt a lot from my observance of this con   and I have seen how   getting other influential persons involved in a con makes it even more successful.

In New Zealand   only lawyers and those who have access to bucket loads of money have access to the law.

 I proved that AWINZ was not incorporated by incorporating the identical name  under the charitable trust act .  I was phoned  by  Vivienne Parre ( a non practicing lawyer )  late one night and told to  give up the name( awinz) or I would be sued. When her threats didn’t work   her husband  Nick Wright  a Brookfields  resource management  lawyer tried  some intimidation.

When that failed  they filed a statement of claim   three trustees claiming to be the trustees of AWINZ   although they  did not have a deed  showing that they were AWINZ trustees  and  the  deed which did exist  said there had to be 4 trustees    .

However three people  claiming to be   AWINZ trustees took the matter to court -  Breach of fair trading act ..   Now given that AWINZ was their trading name  and  one of  the  trustees  Wyn Hoadley  had become  a trustee only after  we had incorporated our trust.. how  could we be trading on their name?

The other claim- a Tort passing off.. well that is what they were actually doing  as the original documents  for the AWINZ trust concept included  Waitakere city  Council as the settler .Our web site clearly said  that we  were a different trust.

Finally they  threw defamation in as a   persuader  because I had  called it a sham trust in correspondence to Waitakere city councillors    and had made some  factual statemnts about wells  which  showed his true colours.

When we first appeared  before Judge Sharp    I was told to hand over the name  and give up the web site  pay $2000  and give an apology to wells . She added that if I did not  my life  would  be miserable-this was without any evidence   being heard and  without  any  affidavits in support of the statement of claim

As a former police  prosecutor I  still believed in that fairy tale called justice .I did nto think that a judge  could  do that    but apparently that is acceptable in our courts. In the end  Judge sharp was right . I have discovered that evidence and truth play no part in our courts and those who can spin     can  embroider anything, it is not so much about   being right  having  the evidence  but  who  you are and who you know.

But I look upon this as a positive thing  I can help my clients  so much better  because I know  how corrupt the system is  and how much everything is an illusion.

                Cold dark orb which rules the night

               Takes the colours  from our sight

               Red is black and yellow   white

              Only we decide what is right  

              and what is  an illusion …. Moody Blues


I choose not to live in the illusionary world .