Above: Institutional desperation on full display. Massey's Director of Governance and Assurance, Jodie Banner, displaying the institution's petty passive-aggressive strategy of issuing their "responses" or rather, their non-responses, in a tiny unreadable 7-point typeface. (The above screenshot is magnified.)
____________________________________________
Massey University has, for the second time, extended its statutory deadline to respond to an Official Information Act request seeking core operational data relating to the abuse, torture and coerced-under-false-pretences killing of my beloved little papillon, Harry, at the University's Companion Animal "Hospital" on December 1 last year.
To be clear, this particular OIA request, to a large degree, is for very basic information that any pet owner would want and is certainly entitled to, but that the University's Director of Governance and Assurance, Jodie Banner, has already wangled, wiggled, and/or arrogantly refused to release under my other requests. However, I have kept going back and tightening the noose to get what they know they are eventually going to be forced to hand over . . . even if only because I am holding her to such public account through
this publication and its sister site, the
International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics . . . both of which now have eyes on them that are making Massey more than uncomfortable.
So . . . Banner issued yet a second extension notice to an OIA request (for some very revealing information that they really, really don't want to hand over) at 5.04 PM on Friday 17 July 2026 (four minutes after her initial extension expired) — this time pushing the response date out to August 7, on the grounds that yet
further consultations are required.
The Information Either Exists or It Doesn't, Jodie Banner
But . . . from where I or any reasonable thinking person sits, the information is the information. It either exists or it doesn't. So who then, is she needing to keep "consulting" with, or to additionally "consult" with?
Is Massey casting an international net to recruit hired-gun veterinary gurus to fabricate a particularly clever, retrospective medical cover story to explain away why
a viable pet was
catastrophically overdosed with unnecessary, contraindicated substances and
disconnected from the very basic rehydration treatment for which he was actually admitted? Something that can be somehow invented that never appeared in his (already dodgy) "Clinical Summary"? After all, Harry's clinical "records" show the institution has already falsified, added to, embellished, twisted, re-framed and altered quite enough reality.
If a valid justification doesn’t exist in the contemporaneous clinical records for the many heinous actions he was subjected to, inventing one this belatedly is going to ultimately be a
monumentally bigger problem than Massey already faces. I'm sure if Massey is acting in a clear-thinking manner within the confines of their obvious desperation to keep the cover-up from cracking wide open (which it actually already has), they'll know that I'll make sure of that.
Back to the question of exactly what parties they are seeking out to "consult" with. If, from this list of parties, it's primarily the hunt for some purchasable, creative, sharp-thinking veterinary guru that is causing these ongoing delays, they are obviously conducting a very serious (and likely, international) search for someone who can come up with something.
Or is it that they need more time to co-ordinate with external PR spin doctors, corporate lawyers at Buddle Findlay, and institutional liability insurers because they've realised they can't produce specific, written owner consent forms and Animal Ethics Committee (AEC) registrations for the heinous student "teaching" and video production activities . . . because those authorisations simply do not exist? (Certainly no owner consent forms exist, which makes any other form of "authorisation" completely null and void.)
Given that these core operational questions - specifically regarding
student utilisation consent violations,
Animal Ethics Committee registrations,
overnight staffing realities,
IV fluid disconnection authorisations, and internal risk communication trails - have been put to the University executive repeatedly over the preceding months, the assertion that baseline institutional data requires a second 15-working-day window to locate is more than just noteworthy. To any ethical, competent organisation, it's ludicrous.
Perhaps Buddle Findlay has drawn further complete blanks on how to legally suppress Massey's own internal email panic trail and risk briefings. Certainly they know how it now looks to the growing, international readership of this publication for
Banner to keep arrogantly refusing the very justifiable information I'm asking for. Or to keep
totally ignoring my OIA requests outright.
Incompetence or Further Sleight of Hand?
In both extension notices, the formal internal header reads
"Extension of time to respond to request under the Privacy Act - REF#15/2026" - the Official Information Act having been omitted from that header in both instances. The July 1 notice at least separated the two Acts clearly in its body text (despite an
earlier sleight of hand by Banner to re-categorise/downgrade the entire request and all its questions to a Privacy Act request), with a distinct bullet point for each.
By July 17, that structural clarity is gone (see below emails) - the OIA is folded into a single collapsed sentence rather than treated as its own distinct track. An institution
under this level of scrutiny cannot even keep its own administrative paperwork straight. Whether this is sloppy bureaucratic incompetence or a strategic attempt to sideline the public accountability of the OIA track, the effect is the same: Massey's internal record-keeping is in as much disarray as its clinical operations.
But back to all these "consultations" that Banner and co. need to have, or keep having, before they can simply release information that should already exist, and that should be simply released in the form in which it does already exist. If it exists.
Perhaps the time has come to put in an OIA to
show the taxpaying public and Massey University's donors these other categories of expenditure, which the university gutlessly prioritises over even the notion of admitting to its
gross systemic clinical, ethical, legal, and administrative failures . . . and doing something to address them.
At what point will their
board of governors - the supposedly unimpeachable individuals who comprise the Massey University Council - deem
enough antics, enough University funds, and enough dishonesty has been deployed in favour of the continuing (and clearly, failing) attempts to keep the lid on
what's been going on at Massey's Veterinary "Teaching" "Hospital" aka their Companion Animal "Hospital"?
Below, for the information of readers and "watchers", I reproduce my original Official Information Act request, along with Jodie Banner's first notice of extension and now her second. Readers are more fortunate with this reproduction than I was in receiving Banner's actual emails, which - per the screenshot at the top of this article - were in the type of tiny print one finds in places where it is hoped it will not be read because it is too unreadable.
From: Privacy <Privacy@massey.ac.nz>
Sent: Friday, 17 July 2026 5:04 pm
To: Privacy <Privacy@massey.ac.nz>; 'editor@consumeraffairswriter.com' OIA Requests <oia@massey.ac.nz>
Subject: RE: Information Request Extension #15/2026_Kelly
Kia ora, Ms. Kelly
Extension of time to respond to request under the Privacy Act – REF#15/2026.
I refer to your request for information, received by Massey University on 4 June 2026 as shown below.
Regrettably Massey University is unable to respond to your request within the extended time limit of Friday 17th July notified under the Privacy Act and Official Information Act respectively. We miscalculated the additional time required for completing required consultations on your request at the time we issued the extension, for which we apologise.
The response will now be provided to you no later than
Friday 7 August 2026, an extension of 15 working days. We will endeavour to provide our response earlier than this. You have a right under section 82 of the Privacy Act to make a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner and/or under section 28(3) of the Official Information Act to make a complaint to an Ombudsman, about this decision. Information about how to make a complaint is available at
https://www.privacy.org.nz/ or by freephone 0800 803 909 and/or available at
www.ombudsman.parliament.nz or by freephone 0800 802 602.
Kind regards
Governance and Assurance Office
From: Privacy <Privacy@massey.ac.nz>
Sent: Wednesday, 1 July 2026 4:53 pm
To: Privacy <Privacy@massey.ac.nz>; 'editor@consumeraffairswriter.com'; OIA Requests <oia@massey.ac.nz>
Subject: Information Request Extension #15/2026_Kelly
Kia ora, Ms. Kelly
Extension of time to respond to request under the Privacy Act – REF#15/2026.
I refer to your request for information, received by Massey University on 4 June 2026 as shown below. Massey University is unable to respond to your request within the normal time limit set out in the Privacy Act and/or the Official Information Act which is no later than 20 working days after the day on which the request was received.
Accordingly, to the extent that the information you have requested is:
- Covered by the Privacy Act, I am notifying you under section 44 of that Act that the timeframe for responding to your request has been extended. The reason for this extension is that consultations necessary to provide a full and accurate response cannot be completed within the original timeframe.
- Covered by the Official Information Act, I am notifying you under section 15A of the Official information Act , that the timeframe for responding to your request has been extended. The reason for this extension is that consultations necessary to provide a full and accurate response cannot be completed within the original timeframe.
The response will now be provided to you no later than
Friday 17 July 2026, an extension of 10 working days, taking in to account the Matariki public holiday on 10 July 2026.
You have a right under section 82 of the Privacy Act to make a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner and/or under section 28(3) of the Official Information Act to make a complaint to an Ombudsman, about this decision. Information about how to make a complaint is available at
https://www.privacy.org.nz/ or by freephone 0800 803 909 and/or available at
www.ombudsman.parliament.nz or by freephone 0800 802 602.
Kind regards
Governance and Assurance Office
From: Privacy
Sent: Monday, 8 June 2026 4:53 pm
To:
editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Subject: Request Acknowledgement: Request - Patient Consent Violations, Animal Ethics Committee Records & Regulatory Compliance: Harry Kelly (Admission November 30 / December 1, 2025)
Kia ora, Ms Kelly
We acknowledge receipt of your request, which due to its content we are acknowledging and processing as a privacy request. The reference number for your request is
15/2026.
If we have any questions or need to seek clarification on any part of your request, we will be in touch.
Otherwise, we will seek to respond to your request as soon as practicable and no later than 20 working days after the date your request was received (by 2 July 2026). If we are unable to respond to your request by then, we will notify you of an extension of this timeframe.
Kind regards
Governance and Assurance Office
From:
editor@consumeraffairswriter.com <editor@consumeraffairswriter.com>
Sent: Thursday, 4 June 2026 3:04 PM
To: OIA Requests <oia@massey.ac.nz>
Subject: Official Information Act Request - Patient Consent Violations, Animal Ethics Committee Records & Regulatory Compliance: Harry Kelly (Admission November 30 / December 1, 2025)
Context & Evidentiary Basis
This official statutory request is issued directly in relation to the documented clinical record of the private patient Harry Kelly, admitted to Massey University's Companion Animal Hospital on November 30 / December 1, 2025.
A comprehensive clinical and systemic analysis of the hospital's invoicing data, medical logs, and post-admission records has revealed an un-indicated medication cascade and severe over-sedation that did not align with any active neurological or structural brain pathology.
Under New Zealand statutory frameworks – including the Animal Welfare Act 1999, the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997, and the Veterinary Council of New Zealand Code of Professional Conduct – utilising a privately-owned animal for clinical demonstration, student training, or non-indicated pharmaceutical protocols outside of explicit therapeutic necessity crosses directly into regulated territory and requires both mandatory institutional oversight
and owner consent.
The following core investigative records form the explicit evidentiary basis for this inquiry: (NB: These are part of a broader and even more comprehensive base of published documentation.)
Pursuant to the Official Information Act 1982, and referencing the investigative evidence linked above, Massey University is required to provide definitive answers to the following:
Informed Consent Protocol
& Its Application by the CAH in the Harry Kelly Case
The exact operational protocol or Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) that governs the obtaining of specific, explicit, written owner consent for the use of a private patient in student teaching activities, clinical demonstrations, or video productions – distinct from and beyond any general teaching hospital disclosure clause contained in standard admission forms.
This request specifically includes whether Massey University's own protocols require additional specific consent where an owner has previously and repeatedly stated, verbally, in writing and on admission documentation, that their animal is not to be used as a teaching aid, training tool, or the subject of any student activity – as Harry Kelly's owner had documented and verbally stated on multiple prior occasions.
Please confirm whether any such specific consent was sought from, or provided by, Harry Kelly's owner for any student activity or video production conducted on, or with the use of, him during his November/December 2025 admission.
Animal Ethics Committee Registrations for Harry Kelly
All internal registry entries, meeting minutes, approvals, or project logs demonstrating whether Harry Kelly was at any time during his November/December 2025 admission registered, listed, or utilised as a live subject under an active Massey University Animal Ethics Committee (AEC) approved protocol for research, testing, teaching, or data collection.
Divergence from Clinical Necessity in Harry Kelly's Care
The specific institutional directive, clinical justification worksheet, or authorisation that legally permitted Companion Animal Hospital or ICU staff to transition Harry Kelly's medical management – including his documented sedation levels and drug administration cascades – away from direct therapeutic welfare and into a non-indicated clinical protocol without notifying or obtaining the consent of his owner.
IV Disconnection Authorisation for Harry Kelly
Whether the disconnection of Harry Kelly's IV rehydration fluids during his November/December 2025 admission was documented, clinically justified, and authorised by a supervising clinician – and if so, what clinical justification was recorded, who authorised it, and at what time it occurred relative to the documented sedation administrations.
Internal Audit, Review and Billing Records for Harry Kelly
All internal correspondence, emails, clinical review notes, handwritten meeting minutes, incident reports, or file notes held by the School of Veterinary Science, the Companion Animal Hospital Executive / Management or other parties, or individual ICU staff, regarding the specific drug administrations, medication discrepancies, over-sedation concerns, or invoicing codes applied to Harry Kelly in November/December 2025.
If no formal audit report exists, this request explicitly includes all informal communications, email strings, team debriefs, or draft reviews concerning these billing and clinical discrepancies.
Regulatory Breach and Risk Communications
All communications, emails, internal memos, legal counsel briefings, and risk-assessment notes exchanged within the University – including but not limited to the Veterinary School Executive / Management, the Companion Animal Hospital Clinical Director and Practice Manager, and University Risk and Legal teams – or with any external regulatory, statutory, or insurance bodies or the like, concerning potential, alleged, or established compliance breaches under the Animal Welfare Act 1999, the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997, or the VCNZ Code of Professional Conduct, or other legal concerns held, regarding the case file of Harry Kelly.
This request explicitly includes any internal correspondence discussing or reacting to the publisher's public exposures, Privacy Act and Official Information Act requests, or statutory (or intended statutory, for example those awaiting Massey’s / VCNZ’s release of clinician identities to enable) complaints regarding this matter.
I request a response within 20 working days as required by the Act.
Sincerely
Jordan Kelly
Editor-in-Chief – The Customer & The Constituent,
www.thecustomer.co.nz
Executive Director – International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics,
www.iiive.org
