Public & Donor Megafunds Not Spent on Fixing the Root Cause of Massey's Veterinary Practices and Ethics Problems. No, No. Spent Working Out How to Shut Me Up About What They Did to My Dog . . . So Other Pet Owners Don't Learn What Goes On At Its 'Companion Animal Hospital'

When a publicly funded institution uses a technical sleight of hand to hide its spending, and then goes as far as blatantly ignoring Official Information Act (OIA) requests, it usually means the numbers are far too embarrassing to admit to.

On April 24, 2026, Massey University's "Director of Governance & Assurance", Jodie Banner, "responded" to an Official Information Act request regarding the university's external legal expenditure in the Harry Kelly matter. Rather than providing what was asked for, Banner claimed that "no invoices, bills, fee notes, or statements" had been received by the Massey University Companion Animal Hospital.

But that was just a transparent narrowing of scope. The Companion Animal Hospital is an operational unit, almost certainly not the entity that receives corporate billing from national law firms. The actual invoices would far more logically be routed through Massey University's centralised professional services budget centre.

When a refined OIA was filed on May 7, 2026, explicitly forcing the university to disclose all invoices, work-in-progress, and deferred billing across the entire institution, the statutory clock again began ticking. But silence followed . . . and that silence has been resolutely maintained by this shameless, unaccountable and recalcitrant institution.

So . . . since Jodie Banner appears institutionally and ethically incapable of answering a straightforward question about how Massey spends public and donor money, this article will attempt to answer it instead — using “Dean” Jon Huxley’s January 30, 2026 legal threat to me, reasonable inference, and the known market rates of firms in the broad industry tier as that which was confirmed as Massey's external legal counsel in this matter at that time.

To be clear, nothing in this article is a statement of fact about what Massey has actually spent . . . but it most certainly IS what any experienced legal analyst would reasonably (if not, conservatively) produce in the absence of the disclosure Massey refuses to make.

The Matter Massey Is Defending (or Currently, Defending Its Silence On)

For any estimate of legal expenditure to be meaningful, readers need to understand what those funds are, on the balance of probability, being spent to manage.

The published record – across (currently) more than 60 (many forensically detailed and deeply researched) articles on The Customer & The Constituent NZ and also on the website of the International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics (IIIVE.org) – documents the following clinical misconduct and ethics atrocities committed upon Harry Kelly (the deeply loved pet of a private, fee-paying client i.e. the author of this article) – a vibrant little 15-year-old, 3.8kg blind papillon, on November 30 and December 1, 2025 at Massey University's Companion Animal Hospital, who was admitted for a straightforward rehydration process during a period of extreme hot weather:

• The repeated administration of Gabapentin — contraindicated for renally impaired dogs — at doses estimated at 500–750% (per dose) of the safe ceiling, across at least three administrations (but possibly more, with some just 26 minutes apart) on the night of November 30 and into December 1, 2025, to a dog, admitted for rehydration, but whose renal compromise was documented in Massey’s own recent clinical records for him;

• The disconnection of life-essential IV rehydration fluids at 8.38am on December 1, despite those fluids being the documented purpose of Harry's admission (with a 24-hour protocol having been charged for) that subsequently became clinically critical given the accumulated convenience sedation overdoses then trapped in his renally-compromised system;

• The unauthorised use of Harry as a live teaching specimen  for BVSc5 student activities — including but far from limited to menace response testing on a blind dog, proprioception testing, vestibulo-ocular reflex testing, and dental grading — while pharmacologically collapsed and disconnected from his IV fluids, all without his owner's knowledge or consent and in express contravention of her (my) repeatedly written and verbal instructions.

• The filming of Harry on cell phones during those unauthorised activities and in the state of severe, potentially lethal pharmacological collapse that Massey staff had induced him into – filming of him at any time also being in express contravention of written instructions from his owner (the author);

• The fraudulent misrepresentation of Harry to his owner (me) as having suffered a sudden neurological decline, when he was in fact actually in a state of severe sedative overdosing – a fact which was totally withheld from his owner in order to have her believe the “neurological decline” fraud, in order to achieve “Dr” Steffi Jalava’s and “Dr” Anita Shea’s (the “teachers” who used him that day as a live specimen for the benefit of their student demonstrations and as content for their video productions (which continue to be withheld from his owner);

• The intensive, high-pressure, emotionally manipulative and prolonged coercion of his owner (me), under specifically stated and documented (including in the previous night’s intake notes) conditions of acute sleep deprivation, into signing a euthanasia consent form for his immediate death with no ability to obtain any independent opinion, including of his own external veterinarian;

• The falsification and post-death manipulation of clinical records, including the Patient Change Log, the wrong veterinarian's name and wrong time on the "Euthanasia" "Authorisation" form, posthumous invoice item inflations (Billing Record 636969), and the manual Time of Death data scrub of December 3, 2025 – all the subject of Police Report OR-2484821N, engaging Section 258 (Altering document with intent to deceive) and Section 260 (Falsifying registers) of the Crimes Act 1961;

• The unauthorised conversion of Harry from a clinical patient to a live teaching specimen and commercial filming asset – engaging Section 219 (Theft by conversion) of the Crimes Act 1961;

• The active withholding of the identities of clinical and ICU staff involved (and, additionally, the heavy redaction of what records have been released to prevent the ability to associate decisions and actions with any specific individual), in breach of Privacy Act and OIA obligations, and in contravention of basic international standards confirmed in writing by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (UK) – one of Massey’s own accrediting organisations. These are actions which, in effect, prevent the laying of properly documented complaints against individuals with the Veterinary Council of New Zealand i.e. the industry’s regulator (whose management has been demonstrated to be in direct collusion with Massey's management to prevent any meaningful complaints from being laid, despite the directly disingenuous, strong-arm encouragement of these two colluding parties to do so; in fact, the stipulation that this is all I am allowed to do . . . good luck to them both with their combined prohibiting "order").

• The active collusion, documented and published, between Massey's Dean of Veterinary Science Jon Huxley and Veterinary Council of New Zealand CEO Iain McLachlan, to characterise the complaint as "wholly unfounded" before any investigation was conducted – and while (as above) meaningful complaints against the full range of individuals continue to be actively prevented.

This is what the external legal engagement – confirmed by the named and CC'd firm in Jon Huxley's January 30, 2026 letter threatening this former client, Harry’s owner (me) with legal action – is estimated to be managing . . . whether that be the same firm, additional legal expertise, and/or additional subject matter experts and other on-standby paid resources being prepared for deployment in any likely future court proceedings.

Legal Engagement to Date:  What Research & Published Documentation Indicates

Let us err on the side of extreme conservatism by dealing only with the fees likely to be incurred purely by the primary legal services provider.

What that firm may reasonably have been engaged to advise upon – and again, this is informed inference, not confirmed fact – includes:

• Monitoring and reviewing each new, and also updated, article upon their publication on The Customer & The Constituent NZ, the International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics (IIIVE.org) and my hobbyist platform, DoggieMamma.com, where (to date) 60+ articles have been published (a check of the daily analytics activity for each site demonstrates daily monitoring indicative of legal reviewing and profiling, that was, in its early stages, intensive, including of the non-case-related archived articles);

• Advising on and drafting formal legal correspondence, including the January 30, 2026 legal threat letter, for “Dean” Jon Huxley;

• Advising on OIA response strategy across multiple separate requests, including the deliberate narrowing of scopes and intentional non-responses;

• Advising  on engagement with three international veterinary accreditation bodies (each of which appear to support Massey in their wilful ignorance of their own associated obligations, including ethical) i.e. the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council, the American Veterinary Medical Association, and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (UK);

• Advising on the response strategy to counter the Ministry of Primary Industries’ Animal Welfare investigation currently under way as a result of the Harry Kelly matter and the issues it stands to reveal at Massey’s Companion Animal “Hospital”;

• Advising on how to negate the Veterinary Council of New Zealand’s complaint process and the Law Society complaint relating to the collusion between Huxley and McLachlan, and McLachlan’s obstruction of natural justice;

• Advising on the implications of Police Report OR-2484821N, engaging the Crimes Act 1961;

• Advising on the criminal and civil exposure arising from the unauthorised conversion of a private client's companion animal into a live teaching specimen and commercial filming asset  – engaging Section 219 (Theft by conversion) of the Crimes Act 1961 and the tort of conversion under civil law;

• Advising on civil litigation risk exposure under the torts of conversion, bailment deviation, trespass to chattels, and misfeasance in public office.

Again, while none of the above is confirmed, all of it is a reasonable inference about what a prudent institution facing this combination of criminal, civil, regulatory, and reputational exposure would instruct its external legal counsel to address . . . or be advised by them that it should.

Or, more in line with Massey’s demonstrated conduct, perhaps better expressed as . . . what it can get away with ignoring.

The Estimated & Escalating Billing Damage

While this is one of the most insightful pieces I could have produced for readers who want to know what all this dishonesty, misfeasance in public office, and criminal and civil legal defence preparation is costing this publicly-funded institution (that is well-known to already be under immense financial pressure), it’s also a piece where any researched figures and estimated fees could become a diversionary tactic for Massey and its legal counsel, conveniently taking the focus off the root causes of its problems (which are, therefore, their clients’ and their patients’ problems – including, very literally, lethally-speaking).

For this reason, I'm simply going to lay out the (conservatively estimated) components of work I believe this firm has been engaged to perform, and the conservative number of hours the AI estimates that each component has involved – but leave readers to themselves perform their own (easily done) online research into the fee structures of Partners, Senior Associates, Solicitors, and Junior Solicitors/Researchers at the major, top-tier law firms (one of which “Dean” Jon Huxley’s January 30 legal threat stated he was utilising for this matter). (Also note that this figure would not include briefing, initially and ongoingly, any third party “experts” and the like that Massey and its primary legal services provider may well be lining up to engage in court proceedings on their behalf, along with their preparatory-related billings incurred to date.)

Here are those estimates. Please note, readers, that in a matter involving criminal law, civil law, regulatory law, administrative law, tort law, and reputational risk management simultaneously, senior partner involvement would not, in any reasonable assessment, be optional.

Your (the Taxpayer's) Estimated ‘Investment’

The following figures are estimates only, based on reasonable assumptions about scope and time. They are not statements of fact about actual billing.

The February profiling scrollfest weekend – where analytics data indicated multiple systematic reviewers working through this publication's full archive across a single weekend: an estimated 9–16 billable hours for that single event.

Ongoing monthly monitoring and strategic advice across the ensuing five months to date, estimated at a conservative 8–10 partner hours per month.

Formal correspondence drafting and/or advising on OIA response (or scope-narrowing and/or non-response) strategy across multiple OIA rounds: an estimated 15–20 hours. (NB: This would be way too conservative if the same firm is also advising on, or producing, the various correspondence responses - or more accurately put, continued non-responses - by the Veterinary Council's Liam Shields, who its CEO Iain McLachlan seems to be positioning as its sacrificial lamb i.e. in order to avoid transparency of his own behind-the-scenes involvement in the protection of Massey, its management and its staff by the circular promise of extracting the names from Massey and its then refusal to do so).

International accreditor engagement advice across three bodies: an estimated 10–15 partner hours.

MPI investigation response preparation – given a 342-page submission already in investigators' hands – a conservative 20 hours at partner rates.

Comprehensive civil litigation risk and criminal exposure assessment: At a minimum, advising on the strategic management of Police Report OR-2484821N (engaging Sections 258 and 260 of the Crimes Act 1961), evaluating corporate civil exposure under the torts of conversion, bailment deviation, and misfeasance in public office: an estimated conservative 20–30 partner hours given the complexity of multi-jurisdictional liability.

What That Money Could Have Paid For Instead

If readers take the time to do the calculations, I believe you’ll agree that the resultant estimated expenditure would almost certainly have funded any of the below far more advisable "investments" of public and donor monies:

• Several full veterinary nursing salaries for a year — Massey could have hired external, non-Massey-trained veterinary nurses for their ICU who do not rely on convenience sedation in place of ethical, professional, competent care;

• The full cost of an independent clinical review that could have addressed the Companion Animal “Hospital’s” ingrained reckless practices and “wild west” culture;

• Properly supervised overnight ICU coverage, including the funding of a licensed veterinarian’s attendance on the midnight to 9am shift.

And that's based purely on what has likely been spent to date.

It doesn't make provision for the fact that - in the interests of bringing this matter to the attention of as many pet owners as possible  for the sake of protection of their beloved pets, in the interests of exposing the massive harms the current crop of staff are at full liberty to commit upon clients' animals, and the appalling, unfit-for-purpose "education" of big-fee veterinary students - my coverage and my legal intentions will not be ceasing any time soon.

The Question Jodie Banner Won't Answer (As With the Others She Has Evaded or Ignored)

Jodie Banner has twice declined to answer a straightforward OIA question about how Massey University spends public money defending itself against documented and well-evidenced allegations of animal cruelty, clinical fraud, civil law violations, misfeasance, record falsification, and administrative and regulatory misconduct.

I’m not bothering to ask a third time:  It will just end up costing the taxpayer and Massey’s donors more money as Banner seeks Massey's esteemed legal counsel's advice on whether to continue ignoring me . . . and the reasonable certainty of their legal advisors’ valueless “affirmative” answer.

This is public money – spent not on Massey's much-needed overhaul of veterinary standards, staff ethics, and teaching practices . . . not, in fact, on any of the institutional reforms that seven months of documented evidence have shown are urgently needed at Massey’s Veterinary “Teaching Hospital” for the sake of the quality of graduates they’re sending out into the veterinary clinics of New Zealand and further afield, and not on ensuring that private clients’ pets are safe (by any definition whatsoever).

No, no. This taxpayer and donor funding has been spent on lawyers. Telling Massey how to say nothing. Except how to deny, delay, defy, hide, threaten . . . and avoid any degree of transparency or public accountability whatsoever. And how to keep doing it.

And telling Vice-Chancellor Pierre Venter and Dean Jon Huxley how to ensure these issues remain obscured from public view ongoingly . . . and how to try to get me to shut TF up since I am a direct threat to that objective.