Veterinary Council of New Zealand to Disclose Names: Don’t Get Excited. It’s Not What It Sounds Like.
Published simultaneously on The Customer & The Constituent NZ, where you can find the full Harry Kelly case archive: thecustomer.co.nz/harry
And So the Game Goes On . . .
Above: To the courageous anonymous insider (made obvious by your other inclusions) who again emailed me with your now-regular jeering missive yesterday . . . this time to to tell me that my "articles are getting repetitive" : I've repeated the publication of the above photograph of Harry at Massey especially for you. To remind you of your handiwork.
This morning Liam Shields (Deputy Registrar i.e. CEO still thinks Harry's case is beneath him) wrote saying the Veterinary Council of New Zealand (VCNZ) intends to disclose the identities of the "registered veterinarians" involved in Massey University's "Companion Animal Hospital's" “treatment” and “care” of my dog, Harry. (Gotta love what they call “treatment” and “care” . . . the “treatment” and “care” that ensured he never left alive . . . because he was never intended to).
In my previous (May 6) email to Mr Shields, I had pre-empted the two likely strategy options Massey and the Veterinary Council would choose between in order to ensure – in the VCNZ's full-blown, drawn-out collusion with Massey’s management – that no-one is ever held accountable for the atrocities committed upon, and the intended resultant demise of, my precious little Harry.
I had put it to Mr Shields that they intended one of the two following strategies.
From my May 6 email:
"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?"
It would appear the Veterinary Council of New Zealand and Massey University and its veterinary "hospital" have decided they're going with Strategy (b).
As I pointed out, either strategy would render it incredibly easy for VCNZ and Massey to engineer a “nil findings” outcome.
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 - can be readily deployed to ensure that the worst actors walk free . . . both those licensed practitioners whose involvements got magically shifted across to "non-licensed" staff, and/or the decisions and actions of non-licensed staff whose actions and outcomes aren't subject to any regulatory or disciplinary body whatsoever to start with.
If you think this is me being overly cynical, no. It’s not. It’s clearly what McLachlan, Shields and co. intend to do. And here’s how it has been masterminded to work:
Here’s the offer Shields made in a sort of cloaked way in his email previous to mine . . . but that he's backed out of since reading my response and realising I was wise to his and Massey’s combined intentions.
His offer had been:
"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."
In my responding email I had graciously accepted:
"Great, Mr Shields. Then since you know that I have multiple times across now five months requested key information (like the names of ALL involved staff) . . . and since your ‘committees have legal powers to require’ these - then you can obtain these very easily for me."
But today, he wrote this:
“We’re not able to facilitate a personal information request on your behalf. You can contact Massey University directly about your Privacy Act request. That is the appropriate avenue to access personal information held by Massey University.”
So, switched-on readers will see clearly that, if you put those two “strategic” items together, they equal Strategy (b).
Now let’s move to Shields’s next paragraph:
“I mentioned a Complaints Assessment Committee (“CAC”)
(sic)
powers under the Veterinarian’s Act because the CAC will typically request relevant clinical records during its investigation. The purpose of obtaining this information is to assist the CACs
(sic)
decision-making.”
That sounds innocent and reasonable. But here’s the problem. In the main, he’s talking about the “Clinical Summary” document that I prised out of Massey originally, after its release had been the subject of a further delay (i.e. it had been caught belatedly by their Legal and Governance Department after someone at the Companion Animal “Hospital” almost released it to me without the editing and hygienising that the legal counsel found necessary . . . and goodness knows, it’s easy to tell that the undoctored version was already problematic enough for them).
This “Clinical Summary” has had every name and every position title redacted. Great. Big. Black. Boxes. Over every one of them.
So unless Massey “un-redacts" the numerous entries throughout every single page and puts the names and job titles back in, then who’s going to decide who did what in terms of the formal complaint I need to make to VCNZ for each name they finally release?
The answer to that is (drum roll) . . . the VCNZ Complaints Assessment Committee (CAC), of course! (The one featuring none other than
Professor Jenny Weston herself — Academic Director of Massey University's Veterinary Teaching Program and ex officio member of the VCNZ Council — who sits on the body that reviews all CAC decisions, including any decision on complaints about Massey University, the institution whose veterinary academic program she directs . . . who also previously co-authored the 2019 New Zealand Veterinary Journal study that documented VCNZ's own 67.2% dismissal rate and 1.5% uphold rate over 24 years.)
And so we circle back to Strategy (b).
It’s on the one hand elegant, but on the other hand transparent and devious:
The Clinical Summary contains NO NAMES, NO ROLE TITLES, and thus NO ability for me to see who did what with regard to Harry’s . . . err . . . “treatment” and “care”; those who intentionally and catastrophically and repeatedly overdosed him, those who disconnected him from his IV fluids for use in student demonstrations and video productions, those who abusively “handled” him during those “activities”, the name of the “neurologist” who “examined” Harry in a collapsed and near-comatose state and in that catastrophically sedated state diagnosed him as “demented” which then became the foundational element in the falsified “neurological” diagnosis and “terminal” prognosis and the plan to deceive me into the apparent and non-negotiable need (with no second opinion allowed for) for his immediate “euthanasia”. and those who supported “Dr” Steffi Jalava in this despicable ruse.
With those fundamental and complete set of identity, role and action redactions firmly maintained, who gets to decide who to apportion those decisions and actions to?
The Veterinary Council of New Zealand. The same
“leadership” team who were colluding with Massey University, through its
“Dean” of the Veterinary “School”, Jon Huxley, on how my complaints would be handled . . . or, more to the point, preferably, never handled.
As you can see from the below exchange:
From: "Jon Huxley" <J.Huxley@massey.ac.nz>
Sent: 1/30/2026 3:16:00 AM
To: "Iain McLachlan" <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>, "liam@vetcouncil.org.nz" <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz>, "Seton
Butler" <seton@vetcouncil.org.nz>
Subject: Jordan Kelly - Allegations regarding VTH care
Kia ora koutou,
I am writing regarding recent correspondence from Ms Jordan Kelly, in which she has made a number of serious
allegations about the care provided by the Veterinary Teaching Hospital in Tāwharau ora – School of Veterinary
Science at Massey University.
The School categorically refutes all of the allegations she has raised. Earlier this afternoon I advised Ms Kelly
directly that, should she wish to pursue her concerns, the appropriate pathway is through the Veterinary Council of
New Zealand, as the statutory body responsible for regulating the veterinary profession. She has now been
formally directed to engage with VCNZ if she wishes to take the matter further.
Given the nature of her communications and the pattern of escalation, the Veterinary Teaching Hospital has
declined to provide any future veterinary services to Ms Kelly. The matter has also been referred to the University’s
legal counsel, to ensure our position is clear and appropriately documented should further action become
necessary.
I appreciate that you will have received her messages, and I am sorry that you have been drawn into what is, at its
heart, a wholly unfounded complaint. Should you wish to discuss the matter, or require any clarification about the
circumstances, please feel free to get in touch with me directly.
Ngā mihi,
Jon
Jon Huxley
Head of School
Tāwharau Ora – School of Veterinary Science
Massey University │ Private Bag 11222, Palmerston North │ 4100 │ New Zealand │
│ │ www.massey.ac.nz/school-vetscience/
Pronouns: He / Him
As you can see, VCNZ Chief Executive Officer Iain McLachlan was prompt in taking up "Jon's" offer for Shields to call "Jon" for the official version:
Subject: Re: Jordan Kelly - Allegations regarding VTH care
Date: Friday, 30 January 2026 at 4:27:31 PM Iain McLachlan
To: Huxley, Jon
CC: Liam Shields, Seton Butler
Thanks Jon. I suspect Liam and his team will be in touch.
Ngā mihi
Iain McLachlan
He | Him
Kaiwhakahaere Matua me Pouroki | CEO & Registrar
Te Kaunihera Rata Kararehe o Aotearoa | Veterinary Council of New Zealand
Level 6, Midland Chambers, 45 Johnston Street, Wellington 6011 | New Zealand
P 04 473 9600 | DDI 04 894 3705 | W www.vetcouncil.org.nz
Notably, despite my earlier Privacy Act information-release request, McLachlan's acceptance of "Jon's" kind invitation, has only just surfaced. I know exactly why. But I'll keep that up my sleeve for now.
Interesting to note that I also asked for what came next by way of communication between McLachlan, Shields, Butler and Co. and Massey's Jon Huxley and his legal team . . . but have never received any answer.
Can you just imagine how damning that subsequent communication would be. Because we’re not just talking emails. We’re talking the whole gamut of communication vehicles. Over the ensuing five months.
