How Do You Sleep At Night, Shields and McLachlan? How About Doing the Right Thing for Once in the History of Your Deeply Conflicted & Intentionally Useless Organisation?

READERS:  As per my immediately prior article - 'Slippery Birds of A Feather . . . Massey & the Vet Council Flock Together' - here's Deputy Registrar Liam Shields's latest exercise in circumlocution as he and his advisors mastermind yet another "undertaking" when they are, as I strongly suspect, not committing to any undertaking at all.

The full correspondence trail is here in this article, so those readers interested in observing the dogged determination of an "industry regulator" to shield its mates and members, can see the full evolution of that playing out.

___________________________________________________________

Dear Mr Shields

I would thank you for your email but I have waited more than three weeks for something you could have answered by return email.

Once again, you engage me in a drawn-out, ongoing and agitating cat-and-mouse exercise as I seek to obtain simple and straight answers from you and the invisible, cowering-behind-his-deputy "Chief Executive Officer", Mr Iain McLachlan.

You wrote:

'I confirm that we will contact Massey University Veterinary Teaching Hospital (“MUVTH”) for names of the veterinarians who were involved with the treatment and care of Harry Kelly. Our remit is over individual veterinarians. The scope of our request will be limited to the names of the registered veterinarians. From there, we will send you information about how to raise a formal complaint, how the process works, and what information we’ll need from you. If you have questions in the interim, please do let me know."

Yes, Mr Shields, I DO have questions, so I am now (again) letting you know (again) what those questions are.

Just as I asked you on March 29 and multiple times before that:

Are you going to furnish ME - Jordan Kelly, directly - with the full list of names, position titles and specific involvements?

Because, of course, I will NEED the names of those individuals, and their job titles, if I am to - per your email - "raise a formal complaint" about each of them, won't I, Mr Shields. I will need that information FROM YOU, before I am able to meaningfully give any further information TO YOU.

Or are you planning some stunt whereby:

a) You tell me you have the names - but with nil intention to disclose them to me - and then conduct a secret squirrel "investigation" of these undisclosed individuals, before returning a "not guilty" verdict?

OR

b)  Given that you absolutely could, if you wanted to, obtain and disclose ALL the names of every staff member and other individual who handled or was involved in Harry's case, but that you have specifically self-limited that in your email . . . are you going to make the totally predictable manouevre of siphoning off as many as possible of the wrongdoings from licensed staff and attributing them over to unnamed, non-licensed staff so that you can then “investigate” the licensed personnel only and then say that all (or as many as you could move off to) the practices in question were the decisions or actions of the non-licensed staff? And that, thus I need to take these matters up with Massey? Which is exactly what you know I’ve been trying to do since your entire collusive circular stone-walling Massey/VCNZ/Massey/VCNZ/Massey/VCNZ gyration strategy began?

OR BOTH (a) AND (b)?

Both of these devious but predictable strategies are incredibly easy for you and Massey to engineer together.

The "registered veterinarians only" is the mechanism that - most especially in a "teaching" facility where multiple students, interns and unqualified, inexperienced personnel (or worse) are handling or making life or death decisions for people's (private patient) pets - you can deploy to ensure that the worst actors walk free. Both those licensed practitioners whose involvements got magically shifted across to "non-licensed" staff, and those non-licensed staff over whose actions and outcomes you have nil concern.

You also wrote:

"You have asked about accessing clinical information held by MUVTH, and I understand that you made a Privacy Act request for this information. We are unable to facilitate a Privacy Act request or an Official Information Act request on your behalf. The information holder is best placed to provide you with access to the information. It may be helpful to note that, where a formal complaint is made, our committees have legal powers to require information necessary to advance their investigation or reach a decision." 

Great, Mr Shields. Then since you know that I have multiple times across now  five months requested key information like the Controlled Drug Register, the withheld video footage, the missing (i.e. December 1) IDEXX read-out reports and, of course, the personnel names and position titles - and since your "committees have legal powers to "require" these - then you can obtain these very easily for me.

I look forward to receiving them all, via the VCNZ, Mr Shields. May I have them in the same correspondence as that in which you will shortly be including the names of the staff in question? It would be handy to have it all in one neat information package. As you point out, that is well within your powers.

You forgot to write anything in answer to my question as to why your March 19 Privacy Act response makes no reference whatsoever to the VCNZ's reply to Massey Veterinary School Dean Jon Huxley's private email to you, Mr McLachlan and Seton Butler, calling you off and discrediting my complaint - that I hadn't even made yet, and still haven't been able to - as "wholly unfounded" . . . and asking you to, you know, give him a call.

You wrote:

"Please let me know if you have any questions."

I do. And there you have them, Mr Shields, as above.

My very plain, very clearly laid-out questions . . . yet again.

I would greatly appreciate your very clear, very plain, and some very honest this time, answers. Complete ones, if you would be so kind.

And if you wouldn't mind addressing me as "Ms Kelly", I would be grateful for your refraining from the assumption that I wish to be on first-name terms with any of the characters involved in this entire torrid affair. From those who planned and oversaw the abuse, torture, conversion to institutional "teaching" property and the deception to achieve the otherwise unnecessary chemical killing of my catastrophically overdosed precious little dog when they had finished with him, to the multiple instances of records falsification by way of staff and management misfeasance cover-up (all the way to the top) . . . along with those who are actively working to ensure these actors are never held to account and indeed never even have to face the public's gaze (which I will most certainly achieve one way or the other, Mr Shields and Mr McLachlan).

As well as refraining from the above unwelcome familiarity (or is it just your patronising attitude to pet owner complainants?), I would welcome a response which also refrains from your standard circumlocution and drawn-out time frame.

Sincerely

Jordan Kelly (Ms)

From: Liam Shields <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz> 
Sent: Thursday, 23 April 2026 4:42 pm
To: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Subject: Re: Your Privacy Act Response of March 19, 2026 - Jordan Kelly

Dear Jordan,

Thank you for your email. 

I confirm that we will contact Massey University Veterinary Teaching Hospital (“MUVTH”) for names of the veterinarians who were involved with the treatment and care of Harry Kelly. Our remit is over individual veterinarians. The scope of our request will be limited to the names of the registered veterinarians. From there, we will send you information about how to raise a formal complaint, how the process works, and what information we’ll need from you. If you have questions in the interim, please do let me know. 

You have asked about accessing clinical information held by MUVTH, and I understand that you made a Privacy Act request for this information. We are unable to facilitate a Privacy Act request or an Official Information Act request on your behalf. The information holder is best placed to provide you with access to the information. It may be helpful to note that, where a formal complaint is made, our committees have legal powers to require information necessary to advance their investigation or reach a decision. 

You have made comments about how we manage conflicts of interest at the governance level. As I mentioned in my letter, where a Council member has a conflict of interest in relation to a veterinarian or clinic, they are expected to declare that conflict and recuse themselves from any decision-making. The Council maintains an interests register to support this process. 

You’ve also asked about our response to your Privacy Act request. I thought it would be helpful to clarify that the Teams message that you reference was sent on 12 December 2023 (which you’ll note from the timestamp). The Teams correspondence was between myself and Jamie Shanks, a previous employee of the Veterinary Council. The message relates to an email that you the Veterinary Council in late-2023. We've included the correspondence, including Jamie’s email to you, in our Privacy Act response to you. 

We will be back in touch shortly, once we have contacted MUVTH. Please let me know if you have any questions. 

Thanks, 

Liam Shields

Deputy Registrar 

Te Kaunihera Rata Kararehe o Aotearoa | Veterinary Council of New Zealand

Level 6, Midland Chambers, 45 Johnston Street, Wellington 6011

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com <editor@consumeraffairswriter.com>
Date: Sunday, 29 March 2026 at 4:55 PM
To: Liam Shields <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz>
Cc: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com <editor@consumeraffairswriter.com>
Subject: Re: Your Privacy Act Response of March 19, 2026 - Jordan Kelly

Dear Mr Shields,

Please find below my formal response to your letter of March 19, 2026.
 
This response has been published in full at The Customer & The Constituent NZ: Yes, Please, VCNZ's Liam Shields, I WILL Have the Names You Have Been Obligated to Extract from Massey for the PAST THREE MONTHS

Jordan Kelly

Dear Mr Shields

Thank you for your letter of March 19, 2026 and the accompanying Privacy Act disclosure.

On your offer to assist with the provision of names and position titles:

In response to your offer to source the names and position titles of all involved parties, I accept – with the requirement that this be a complete and unredacted list, not a partial or selective one.

Specifically, and as a matter of primary urgency, I require the unredacted names and professional roles of every individual at Massey University who had any involvement whatsoever with Harry Kelly – including but not limited to:

• Every clinician, intern, student, and support staff member involved in his "care", “treatment”, handling and any and all associated decision-making processes, during the period of November 30 and December 1, 2025.

• The above category of requirement must include the licensed veterinarians that (a) the rotating intern, "Dr" Stephanie Rigg (who misrepresented herself to me as a seasoned, senior veterinarian), should have been supervised by, and (b) the licensed practitioner that was or should have been responsible for the intaking staff member (who I am advised by another aggrieved client of the facility - but whom is too frightened to speak out themselves because of Dean Jon Huxley's legal threat to me for doing so)also bears the name of "Stephanie".
   
  It should be noted that I was almost certain at the time that she (the very young "Stephanie" i.e. her name was not known to me at the time) was lying when she assured me she was a graduated and fully qualified veterinarian in her own right. Given what I know now about the lack of experience and ethics with which the Companion Animal "Hospital" is staffed, I am even closer to being fully convinced that she was not a qualified vet, but rather, still a student. As I had commented in my published article, 'Massey Vet Teaching Hospital: Where Empathy Goes to Die', this staff member looked barely old enough to have been out of high school, was clearly out of her depth, and not only had no authority over the two ICU attendants (who were engaged in social conversation and refusing any attention to Harry as he stood up in his cage screaming in terror with his legs dangerously, especially for a blind dog, outstretched through the grid of the cage door), and despite my pleas, refused to exercise any authority over these ICU staff. In retrospect, it would seem now that this very young woman was not in a position of qualified authority to do so.
   
  Clearly,Practice Manager Pauline Nijman has at least conjoint responsibility for staffing rosters, but there must also be - in a veterinary teaching establishment - present, direct reporting chains in place at all times. If this was not the case during Harry's admission and time in the "ICU" facility, then the two licensed practitioners bearing ultimate responsibility for this failure (including its obvious systemic nature) would be Jon Huxley, the Dean of the Veterinary School, and Jenny Weston, the Dean of Massey's Veterinary Teaching Program.
   
  I place particular emphasis on this point purely because - given the Veterinary Council's already-demonstrated protectionism towards, and degree of collusion with, Massey University, its leadership and its staff - I firmly believe that you will take the opportunity to disingenuously optimise every possible technicality to avoid accountability for as many staff as you can.

• Every individual involved in the selection or administration of any drug or substance to Harry Kelly during that period, whether authorised, and whether documented / recorded, or otherwise.
   
  The"undocumented" and "unrecorded" element of this requirement is especially important, given Massey's continued refusal to release the Controlled Drugs Register and, in fact, its outright breach of the complete Official Information Act request of which this was a key part.
   
  To be noted, and as I made clear to Massey, I have asked for this critical document due to the demonstrable difference in Harry's condition showing between the multiple covert student videos taken of him on cell phones that morning (in outright contempt for my firm verbal and written instructions to Practice Manager, Pauline Nijman, and on forms, that Harry should NEVER be used as a training tool) and when he was presented to me some six hours later with the (what I now know to be just an intern's) demand that he be "euthanased" (and the fact that the "Clinical Summary" records his last (unnecessary contraindicated sedative over)dose as having been at 9am (i.e. 1.5 hours prior to the student activity for which he was obviously further catastrophically sedated and permanently disconnected from his critical IV fluids).

• Every individual involved in, present during, or who authorised or participated in any filming or recording of Harry Kelly during his time in the Massey facility.

• Every individual involved in making, documenting, or communicating the bogus “neurological” diagnosis (that has been clearly demonstrated to have been bogus) used to coerce his “euthanasia”. (So as to avoid my inadvertently creating a opportunisable loophole either for you or for Massey, you should include the alternative term that will have been used in the official narrative no doubt framed for your benefit and for his, by the compromised Veterinary School Dean Jon Huxley i.e. "recommended" "euthanasia".)

• Every individual involved in the decision to push for the “euthanasia” of Harry Kelly, and in the carrying out of that “euthanasia”.

• Every individual involved in the handling of Harry Kelly's body following his death (achieved by way of abuse, scheme and deception) on December 1, 2025.

• Every individual involved in the creation of, adding to, alteration of, falsification or scrubbing of Harry Kelly's clinical and financial records, specifically including but not limited to:

·    The Clinical Summary (the broader contents and claims of which, it should be noted, are inconsistent with (a) the facts, (b) prior records, and (c) logic (including between one part thereof and another, and have clearly been altered and added to posthumously) – in which a false neurological diagnosis narrative was constructed to justify the coerced "euthanasia". (To be noted, this is not the only false inclusion in this "Summary" document.)

·    The Patient Change Log (Field-Level Audit) – in which the recorded time of death (false in its own right) was subsequently manually overwritten with 0:00, in a deliberate act of forensic scrubbing to eliminate the timestamp from any future audit or investigation.

·    The Euthanasia Authorisation form – pre-typed before my arrival at the facility and prior to any decision I was prepared to make, bearing timestamps inconsistent with the Patient Change Log.

·    Billing Record 636969 – in which a billable quantity was manually inflated from 1.6 to 4.0 units at 16:56 on December 1, 2025 – two minutes after the falsified time of death – and further manipulated through to approximately 19:20 on the same date.

·    The simultaneous triggering of both "Deceased" and "Discharge" status entries in the clinical records management system – mutually exclusive administrative statuses whose concurrent activation constitutes a documented administrative collision revealing the fraudulent closure of a live patient's file i.e. in a frenzied rush to avoid the new incoming night shift staff from questioning or investigating the day's events.

·    The manual "data scrub" of December 3, 2025 – performed two days after Harry Kelly's death by an individual with high-level system access, deliberately overwriting forensic evidence to obstruct any future audit, investigation or legal proceedings.

All of the above conduct is the subject of Police Report OR-2484821N and engages Sections 258 (altering a document with intent to deceive), 260 (falsifying registers) and 219 (theft by conversion) of the Crimes Act 1961 (updated as part of the Crimes Amendment Act 2003).

I note that Privacy Act 2020 Principle 11(e) permits this disclosure in order to uphold a statutory regulatory process, and that Massey's blanket redaction of all clinician identities is being utilised to subvert my right to file a VCNZ complaint. I further note that a Senior Standards and Advice Officer and Solicitor at the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (UK) - an accrediting organisation of Massey - has confirmed in writing that veterinarians are expected to provide their names to clients so as not to prevent them from raising a conduct concern. This is an obligation that applies regardless of whether the individual is employed by a university or a private practice.

On the Apparent Glitch In Your Correspondence

I note that the Privacy Act disclosure includes email correspondence between Massey University and the VCNZ — specifically, a private email from Massey's Dean of Veterinary Science, Jon Huxley, to VCNZ leadership, characterising my complaint as "wholly unfounded" before any investigation has been conducted, and ending with a friendly invitation for you to contact him for his, i.e. the apparently official, version.

Your letter makes no reference whatsoever to the VCNZ's response to receiving that email, either at the time of receipt or in the period since. Quite frankly, it would be a naive individual who would believe that you and/or your CEO, Iain McLachlan, and/or your point of direct connectivity between the two organisations, Seton Butler, didn't respond to - and, far more likely, enter into communication with - Dean Jon Huxley as a result of receiving that email (signed "Jon") from him.

I require a full account of the actions the VCNZ took upon receiving Dean Huxley's private communication, who else received it, and all subsequent communications and related discussions and decisions - which, I suspect, included the two anonymous parties with whom you and your VCNZ colleague, Jamie Shanks, discussed me and the matter, but refuse to disclose any details thereof.

On the Redacted Microsoft Teams Message

I challenge your refusal to disclose the content of, and the parties to or discussed during, the Microsoft Teams message/s between yourself and Jamie Shanks.

You have redacted the names of two individuals on the basis of section 53(b)(i).

However, given that at the time of that communication you had not assisted me with the provision of names (and still have not) nor in any other way helped me with submitting a complaint (and still have not) - and therefore had no complaint formally before you (and still have not) - I require to know: who were you discussing me with, in what capacity, for what purpose, and on whose instruction?

I would appreciate the full name, role, purpose and nature of the communications involving those undisclosed individuals and the undisclosed content of the associated discussions.

I am considering a complaint to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner regarding your refusal to disclose what is likely a communication or communications central to the likely compromised and collusive nature in which you intend to avoid, refuse, frame, conduct or dismiss my forthcoming complaints.

On the Internal Contradiction In Your Letter Regarding Conflicts of Interest

Your letter contains a direct contradiction.

In your paragraph 11 you state that Professor Jenny Weston "has no involvement with CAC (Complaints Assessment Committee) investigations and decision-making."

Yet, in your paragraph 12 you state that "the Council are legally required to review all CAC decisions".

Professor Weston sits on the Council. Therefore Professor Weston is involved in reviewing CAC decisions - including any decision relating to my complaint about Massey University i.e. the institution whose veterinary academic program she directs.

Just saying, Mr Shields.

On Your Suggestion That I Contact Massey University for Assistance

Am I to interpret this as outright contempt, or gaslighting, or both, Mr Shields?

I do not believe that, at this stage, you are ignorant of Massey’s refusal to provide the names of the parties required for me to lay complaints with the Veterinary Council. 

I do not believe that, since you have been copied in on two months of repeated, multi-angled, fervent requests to Massey, which - as you know, and as you know I know - is obligated legally, morally, and by international “best practice” standards to provide these (and not to have blacked them all out, in the first instance, from the subset of records I have managed to extract), as well as in accordance with New Zealand's Privacy Act 2020 and the Official Information Act 1982 . . . the instruments of our country's law through which I have so far unsuccessfully sought their release.

I also do not believe you are ignorant of all the associated coverage on this website that details every minute aspect of this situation and its current status, Mr Shields. And if you are, it is to your shame, Mr Shields, given the gravity of the matter, including each and every individual, reported aspect thereof.

Further, I do not believe I need to explain to the Deputy Registrar of the VCNZ why directing a complainant back to the demonstrably obstructive source entity of their complaint for assistance is entirely inconsistent with VCNZ's stated mandate of "having timely and transparent processes" and "upholding veterinary standards to protect people and animals".

On Massey University's Ongoing OIA Non-Compliance

Additionally, Mr Shields - since you are now, belatedly, offering - yes, there is something else you could absolutely assist me with.

As you know and further to the above, the Official Information Act 1982 is the cornerstone legislation governing the mandated release of information held by publicly-funded institutions in New Zealand.

It is an errant institution, contemptuous indeed of New Zealand law, that thumbs its nose at its OIA obligations . . . which, as you know, and as stressed above, is exactly what Massey University has done. I am still waiting for any communication regarding my OIA request that was due on March 13, 2026.

Given your close relationship with Massey, and your no doubt desire to assist me proceed in a timely manner with the laying of multiple complaints - in keeping with the VCNZ's own stated objectives of "upholding veterinary standards to protect people and animals", "having timely and transparent processes", and its vision for "Aotearoa to have the world's most trusted veterinary profession" - I would expect you to be most amenable to urging Massey to act in a manner conducive to those objectives.

As a reminder of the information I await from Massey - all directly relevant to the content of the complaints that need to be formulated for your organisation - the outstanding OIA items include but are certainly not limited to (the below is excerpted from the OIA request also published here, as you’re of course, already aware):

1. Identity of Clinicians: The unredacted names and professional roles of all staff involved in the "care", treatment, and handling in any way of Harry Kelly during the November 30 and December 1, 2025 period, and also in the period following his death on December 1, 2025, including all staff involved in the handling of his body.

2. Conflict of Interest Disclosures (Seton Butler): All internal records, disclosures, and management plans regarding Seton Butler's dual role as a Massey University Adjunct Lecturer and his professional advisory role at the VCNZ - and all communications of any type relating to Jordan Kelly or Harry Kelly. (**I DO BELIEVE THESE SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN YOUR OWN PRIVACY ACT DISCLOSURE PACKAGE TO ME, BUT WERE NOT.**)

3. Instructional Content Authorisation: All internal documentation, ethics committee approvals, or funding agreements related to the production of "instructional content" or clinical studies in the ICU or any other part of Massey University and/or its Companion Animal Hospital during the period of Harry Kelly's admission, and including while his body was in Massey's possession.

4. Pet Farewells Communications: All communications with Pet Farewells regarding Harry Kelly and Jordan Kelly. Specifically, not a general commentary.

5. Post-Mortem Activity: Disclosure of whether or not an unauthorised post-mortem was performed on Harry Kelly.

6. Controlled Drugs Register: All entries in the Controlled Drugs Register pursuant to the Medicines Act 1981 and the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, as they relate to the dispensing, administration, or recording of any controlled or prescription substance administered to Harry Kelly during November 30 and December 1, 2025, or to his remains.

7. Patient Record Access Log and Audit Trail: The unredacted Field-Level Audit Log and all associated system access logs identifying every staff member who accessed, viewed, created, amended, "updated" or deleted any entry in Harry Kelly's electronic patient record from November 30, 2025, to the date of Massey's response.

8. Conflict of Interest Disclosures (Jenny Weston): All internal records, disclosures, and management plans regarding Dr Jenny Weston's dual role as Massey University Academic Program Director and her ex officio VCNZ membership - and all communications of any type relating to Jordan Kelly or Harry Kelly.

  9. ICU Video Footage of Harry Kelly: The release in full of all video footage taken of Harry Kelly during his ICU admission on November 30 and December 1, 2025, and any taken after his death. Massey's previous refusal to release the footage in full is not considered adequate compliance and is not accepted.

In Conclusion, Mr Shields

I remain deeply concerned about the VCNZ's refusal to perform its mandated role, and about the appalling complaint uphold rate documented in the VCNZ's own published research - co-authored previously by Professor Weston herself - which recorded that, over a 24-year period, 67.2% of complaints were either not investigated at all or were dismissed outright, with a mere 1.5% upheld, and only then, on technical competency grounds.

Combined with the unashamed reticence you have shown with regard to facilitating this egregious complaint (and regarding which your March 19 email directs me to your website to fill out a form regarding), I intend to hold the Veterinary Council of New Zealand publicly accountable for a transparent process in this particular case.

When a veterinary "hospital" and its staff overdose, abuse, torture, conduct twisted student activities upon while in a state of the pharmacological collapse they have induced him into, intentionally engineer his most unnecessary death, and coerce me under false diagnosis to not only consenting to my dog's traumatic killing but having to equally traumatically participate in it, I tend to take the matter rather personally.

As quite a large proportion of pet owners, in fact, would.

Between The Customer & The Constituent NZ and the International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics, this case is being read by a New Zealand audience spanning from Invercargill to Northland, and internationally across the United Kingdom, Scandinavia, the United States, Australia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Indonesia and South Africa.

Regulatory bodies in several of those jurisdictions have been formally notified and are actively monitoring developments.

This will be your opportunity to demonstrate that the Veterinary Council of New Zealand is capable of executing its regulatory duties in an ethical, honest and responsible manner.

Or not.

I look forward to receiving the complete list of names and position titles so that I can proceed with formal complaints against each relevant individual.

One Last Point of Note, Regarding VCNZ's Chief Executive Officer

In closing, I note that your Chief Executive Officer, Mr Iain McLachlan, has had so little concern - other than what appears very much to be to protect Massey University, its veterinary facility and its personnel from accountability - that he has ignored the multiple communications on which he has been cc'd for months regarding this matter, and the many provisions of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinarians in New Zealand ("administered" by your own organisation) that Massey's veterinary "teaching hospital" is in clear and in arguable breach of (per my January 17 article on The Customer & The Constituent and the Open Letter to him that I published alongside it).

He initially endeavoured to avoid having to respond to my request for the (albeit incomplete and redacted) information you have now provided when I initially asked for it under the Official Information Act and chose to decline that request, apparently hoping I wouldn't know I had a right to it under the Privacy Act. 
 
Now, in a statement of open contempt, he has flicked off to you the responsibility for "dealing" with me, which you are hoping to conclude by way of directing me to fill out a form on your website. 

And so, I would ask, if a matter of such gravity as is represented by the Harry Kelly case, is not worthy of your Chief Executive's attention, just how bad does a set of circumstances have to be, and how obviously systemic does it have to appear within an organisation (New Zealand's only veterinary "teaching" facility, no less) before it is considered one of serious concern to the Veterinary Council of New Zealand?
 
Or is the answer to that reflected by the fact that only an inconceivable 1.5% of all complaints (notwithstanding those that are never made) to your Council are upheld . . . and only then, on grounds of "technical competency" . . . with no concern for any complaints where a compromise in ethics has played an obvious part?

If none of this is of any concern to Mr Iain McLachlan, as the head of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand, it begs the question, what does Mr McLachlan do all day? Perhaps he spends his time drafting the Standards, aims and goals that your very actions and decisions are actively designed to ensure are never actually achieved.

Yours sincerely

Jordan Kelly 
Editor-in-Chief, The Customer & The Constituent NZ 
Executive Director, International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics (IIIVE) 

From: Liam Shields <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz>
Sent: Thursday, 19 March 2026 5:47 pm
To: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Subject: 2026_03_19 Response to information request

Kia ora Jordan,

Please see attached a letter dated 19 March 2026 in response to your information request. Also attached are two bundles. There are three attachments in total. 

Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. I would be very happy to talk further about the role of the Vet Council or our complaints process. 

Thanks, 

Liam Shields

Deputy Registrar 

Te Kaunihera Rata Kararehe o Aotearoa | Veterinary Council of New Zealand

Level 6, Midland Chambers, 45 Johnston Street, Wellington 6011