[Steve]

Wags, on 27 January 2012 - 12:12 PM, said:

Steve, on 27 January 2012 - 11:49 AM, said:

The problem lies in the accountability of the charity charged with enforcing the legislation and in what will be done with the information which they, as a charity collect.
If they or anyone can interfere in what a breeder chooses to do in their breeding program they can interfere in ours and they have already started telling us about what we should and shouldnt breed and do.

The problem - as you see it - is what you have stated.

Those that choose to focus only on a negative campaign against the RSPCA, who are not perfect admittedly, but I don't see any other suggestions as to who could adequately police the legislation - are of course, free to be tunnel visioned as they choose. But it is not achieving anything proactive so far a I can discern.

I just hope that enough less single focussed people view this post with a more proactive view and focus on the issue of putting ALL breeders in a position of responsible and accountable breeding practices. THIS is the purpose of the legislation.

You all have the ability to express your concerns at the website for the State Government as noted in my first post - I have brought the matter to notice - you have the chance to have your say where it will count, and any concerns can be expressed on that site. I've done my bit, the rest is up to you as individuals to do something proactive - or not.

Not true - I have no issue with the RSPCA and I am in no way negative about them . My issue is with state laws which enable ANYONE or ANY group to behave as police without outside accountability.

[Howl]

yarracully, on 27 January 2012 - 12:20 PM, said:

Wags, on 27 January 2012 - 11:44 AM, said:

Wags, on 27 January 2012 - 11:41 AM, said:

Crisovar, on 27 January 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

Quote

This is not a matter of being anti-RSPCA. Its a matter of having a state law with some form of accountability and equity.

THIS!!
I actually find it hard to understand why so few people fail to recognise this.

Thank you, thank you, thank you for actually seeing the point - it's about accountability and responsibility in ALL breeders.

Look, I'm sorry but for the life of me I can't see why, if breeders are responsible, really responsible, about their breeding practices, are doing the right thing by their dogs and puppies, being traceable, contactable and accountablew is a problem ????

The problem I have and which I was trying to illustrate is that a non government organisation has the power to be involved in creating a law, enforcing the law, and prosecuting the law. An organisation that can allocate power that exceeds that of law enforcement officers. However it gives this extreme power to itself. The same organisation that can set its own costs to be claimed via court and does not have any external body to be accountable to. How much stronger definition of "Conflict Of Interest" do you need?

If a member of the police force exceeds their authority there is an ombudsman that is supposed to act as an independant umpire. There are also procedures in place to allow you to appeal their actions.

If a solicitor acts wrongly there is an ombudsman that acts as an independant umpire as well as consquences for inappropriate actions.

Who does the RSPCA have to answer to? No-one. Thats the problem. They can do what they like and do not have to justify it.

Who sets the amounts that the RSPCA can claim in court for costs? The RSPCA. Do you really believe that it costs $85.00 per dog per day to feed a small dog. Of course it doesn't but thats what they have been known to claim.

What can you do if you do not agree with an inspectors decision? Appeal to the RSPCA. Thats it. There is no independant body that you can go to.

Are there any protocols for dealing with a power hungry inspector. None seen so far.

Who deems the RSPCA inspector fit to act in the role? The RSPCA. Reality is any one connected with the RSPCA could be an inspector. Take for example a small branch of the RSPCA in a small country town. Lets say there is a vet and a secretary at this branch. The Secretary could be given the role of an inspector. They do not have to have any specific qualifications. They simply need to be appointed by the RSPCA.

They may not even know much about animal welfare. They don't need to. They are now an inspector that has more power than a police officer and with none of the complications of due process and accountablility

If you care to do a google search on Ruth Downey and look what the RSPCA did to her on the grounds of what an RSPCA Inspector said.

Indeed one of those RSPCA inspectors involved with Ruth Downey was a former police inspector with very little knowledge of animal welfare generally.

The RSPCA was not intended to be a law enforcement body. That is the issue I have. Its not specifically the RSPCA its the entire process of a non government charity that was never intended to be a law enforcement now making itself into one. Its not just being given power, it is also creating the power and then giving it to itself and in so doing does not have to justify its actions to anyone.

There are several errors in your information. For the sake of clarity please note that I am referring to RSPCA Qld only in my response.

Despite what people continually want to sprout on this forum, RSPCA Qld - in terms of its Inspectorate functions - is accountable. It is accountable to the State government department that is responsible for administering the Animal Care and Proection Act 2001 - the Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation.

Any complaints made about Inspectors must be reported by the RSPCA to DEEDI, and DEEDI can conduct their own investigation if they deem fit. This is just one of the many reporting arragements that are in place in order for RSPCA Qld to act as an agent for DEEDI in enforcing the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001.

Inspectors are not appointed by RSPCA Qld. Inspectors are appointed by the chief executive of DEEDI, and only when the chief executive is satisfied that the person has satisfactorily finished training approved by the department. They are required to undergo several modules of study - in law, investigations, and animal welfare - then pass an exam, before they can be appointed as Inspectors. So no, it is not a situation of the local vet making their secretary an Inspector.

Decisons made by Inspectors such as to enter a property and seize an animal or issue an Animal Welfare Direction ARE reviewable. The decisions are reviewed by an external authority - DEEDI. Persons subject to such a decison are informed of their right to appeal, as the information is supplied in an information notice given to them by the Inspector at the time. The Inspector MUST show DEEDI the reasoning for the decision, they must demonstrate that it was supported by the law and the DEEDI procedural guidelines for that decision to be upheld. That's right, the procedural guidelines are set by DEEDI - not RSPCA Qld.

If the person subject to the decision is not happy with DEEDI's response, then as it is a state government department, they can go to the Ombudsman.

If there is any doubt regarding the accuracy of this information then please feel free to do your own research of the Act itself; s114 Appointment of Inspectors, s150, s155, s160 - requirements for information notices about decisions (an information notice means the decision is reviewable). Also the Biosecurity Qld website gives information on how investigations under the Act are conducted.

[Wags]

Howl, on 27 January 2012 - 02:36 PM, said:

yarracully, on 27 January 2012 - 12:20 PM, said:

Wags, on 27 January 2012 - 11:44 AM, said:

Wags, on 27 January 2012 - 11:41 AM, said:

Crisovar, on 27 January 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

Quote

This is not a matter of being anti-RSPCA. Its a matter of having a state law with some form of accountability and equity.

THIS!!
I actually find it hard to understand why so few people fail to recognise this.

Thank you, thank you, thank you for actually seeing the point - it's about accountability and responsibility in ALL breeders.

Look, I'm sorry but for the life of me I can't see why, if breeders are responsible, really responsible, about their breeding practices, are doing the right thing by their dogs and puppies, being traceable, contactable and accountablew is a problem ????

The problem I have and which I was trying to illustrate is that a non government organisation has the power to be involved in creating a law, enforcing the law, and prosecuting the law. An organisation that can allocate power that exceeds that of law enforcement officers. However it gives this extreme power to itself. The same organisation that can set its own costs to be claimed via court and does not have any external body to be accountable to. How much stronger definition of "Conflict Of Interest" do you need?

If a member of the police force exceeds their authority there is an ombudsman that is supposed to act as an independant umpire. There are also procedures in place to allow you to appeal their actions.

If a solicitor acts wrongly there is an ombudsman that acts as an independant umpire as well as consquences for inappropriate actions.

Who does the RSPCA have to answer to? No-one. Thats the problem. They can do what they like and do not have to justify it.

Who sets the amounts that the RSPCA can claim in court for costs? The RSPCA. Do you really believe that it costs $85.00 per dog per day to feed a small dog. Of course it doesn't but thats what they have been known to claim.

What can you do if you do not agree with an inspectors decision? Appeal to the RSPCA. Thats it. There is no independant body that you can go to.

Are there any protocols for dealing with a power hungry inspector. None seen so far.

Who deems the RSPCA inspector fit to act in the role? The RSPCA. Reality is any one connected with the RSPCA could be an inspector. Take for example a small branch of the RSPCA in a small country town. Lets say there is a vet and a secretary at this branch. The Secretary could be given the role of an inspector. They do not have to have any specific qualifications. They simply need to be appointed by the RSPCA.

They may not even know much about animal welfare. They don't need to. They are now an inspector that has more power than a police officer and with none of the complications of due process and accountablility

If you care to do a google search on Ruth Downey and look what the RSPCA did to her on the grounds of what an RSPCA Inspector said.

Indeed one of those RSPCA inspectors involved with Ruth Downey was a former police inspector with very little knowledge of animal welfare generally.

The RSPCA was not intended to be a law enforcement body. That is the issue I have. Its not specifically the RSPCA its the entire process of a non government charity that was never intended to be a law enforcement now making itself into one. Its not just being given power, it is also creating the power and then giving it to itself and in so doing does not have to justify its actions to anyone.

There are several errors in your information. For the sake of clarity please note that I am referring to RSPCA Qld only in my response.

Despite what people continually want to sprout on this forum, RSPCA Qld - in terms of its Inspectorate functions - is accountable. It is accountable to the State government department that is responsible for administering the Animal Care and Proection Act 2001 - the Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation.

Any complaints made about Inspectors must be reported by the RSPCA to DEEDI, and DEEDI can conduct their own investigation if they deem fit. This is just one of the many reporting arragements that are in place in order for RSPCA Qld to act as an agent for DEEDI in enforcing the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001.

Inspectors are not appointed by RSPCA Qld. Inspectors are appointed by the chief executive of DEEDI, and only when the chief executive is satisfied that the person has satisfactorily finished training approved by the department. They are required to undergo several modules of study - in law, investigations, and animal welfare - then pass an exam, before they can be appointed as Inspectors. So no, it is not a situation of the local vet making their secretary an Inspector.

Decisons made by Inspectors such as to enter a property and seize an animal or issue an Animal Welfare Direction ARE reviewable. The decisions are reviewed by an external authority - DEEDI. Persons subject to such a decison are informed of their right to appeal, as the information is supplied in an information notice given to them by the Inspector at the time. The Inspector MUST show DEEDI the reasoning for the decision, they must demonstrate that it was supported by the law and the DEEDI procedural guidelines for that decision to be upheld. That's right, the procedural guidelines are set by DEEDI - not RSPCA Qld.

If the person subject to the decision is not happy with DEEDI's response, then as it is a state government department, they can go to the Ombudsman.

If there is any doubt regarding the accuracy of this information then please feel free to do your own research of the Act itself; s114 Appointment of Inspectors, s150, s155, s160 - requirements for information notices about decisions (an information notice means the decision is reviewable). Also the Biosecurity Qld website gives information on how investigations under the Act are conducted.

Knowledgeable sanity at last !!!! Thank you. Hopefully it might put paid to the deflection from the real issue. Thanks for trying anyway.

[Reverend Jo]

HAHAHA, have you ever tried to put in a complaint, I'm guessing not It just doesn't work in reality and a charity/business that has a role in formulating law should not be responsible for enforcing it.

No reason why the DPI can't take on this role, you ask who else can do it then that is your answer.

[Wags]

Reverend Jo, on 27 January 2012 - 02:49 PM, said:

HAHAHA, have you ever tried to put in a complaint, I'm guessing not It just doesn't work in reality and a charity/business that has a role in formulating law should not be responsible for enforcing it.

No reason why the DPI can't take on this role, you ask who else can do it then that is your answer.

To be absolutely frank ...... I'm not really into issues of 'power over' and don't really have any problems with the RSPCA do police the legislation, just so long as it's policed.

In my mind the issue isn't 'who polices it' and I don't see why this would be an issue to any breeder doing the right thing - the issue is that ALL breeders are included, not just a select few comparatively. That is the only way the legislation will have the desired affect.

This opportunity can be utilised proactively or not, it's the individual's choice, but it certainly wasn't posted as an avenue to continue a negative campaign in regard to the choice of the policing agency.

If you feel so strongly about it, voice your thoughts to the State Government.

[Howl]

Reverend Jo, on 27 January 2012 - 02:49 PM, said:

HAHAHA, have you ever tried to put in a complaint, I'm guessing not It just doesn't work in reality and a charity/business that has a role in formulating law should not be responsible for enforcing it.

No reason why the DPI can't take on this role, you ask who else can do it then that is your answer.

I don't think the problem you had was putting in the complaint - sounds like having the complaint taken seriously? And that's something that needs to be addressed with those reviewing it. The point is, everyone's harping on that there is no outside accountability or channels to appeal. Simple fact is - and again I will stress I am talking about Queensland - there is review and accountability. And dare I say it, some people just don't like to hear the answers.

As for not being responsible for enforcing a law that they had a role in formulating - gee I would say the police have a strong role in formulating the law they enforce, DERM has a strong role in formulating environmental protection law, etc, etc. Unless you are trying to say that RSPCA Qld will benefit financially from enforcing the law??? Considering the money they have to put in to having even one Inspector in place, with all costs of office, vehicle and fuel, computer, shelter requirements for animals, etc I really don't think so. If people feel that precious about it maybe they could suggest that the DEEDI Inspectors take on the role of enforcing puppy farm legislation, just as they cover the commercial ventures and animals kept for scientific purposes.

As for why DPI (DEEDI) can't take on the entire role - why indeed?. Maybe you should ask them. I would think that the RSPCA would be quite happy to withdraw if DEEDI would put enough officers on to cover the state.

[Reverend Jo]

I shouldn't have to explain why an organisation that lobbies against a particular group shouldn't be put in charge of regulating them. There have been some serious conflict of interest episodes with the RSPCA and this is just another one of them. A charity/business should never be given this much power when they are actively lobbying for legislation change. This is the only case we have of it in Australia.

[yarracully]

Howl, on 27 January 2012 - 03:41 PM, said:

As for not being responsible for enforcing a law that they had a role in formulating - gee I would say the police have a strong role in formulating the law they enforce, DERM has a strong role in formulating environmental protection law, etc, etc. Unless you are trying to say that RSPCA Qld will benefit financially from enforcing the law??? Considering the money they have to put in to having even one Inspector in place, with all costs of office, vehicle and fuel, computer, shelter requirements for animals, etc I really don't think so. If people feel that precious about it maybe they could suggest that the DEEDI Inspectors take on the role of enforcing puppy farm legislation, just as they cover the commercial ventures and animals kept for scientific purposes.

As for why DPI (DEEDI) can't take on the entire role - why indeed?. Maybe you should ask them. I would think that the RSPCA would be quite happy to withdraw if DEEDI would put enough officers on to cover the state.

Wrong. No police force anywhere is involved in formulating a law. That is the role of politicians. Politicians create, police enforce, courts prosecute. Its called seperation of powers. What you have here with the RSPCA is Conflict Of Interest.

As for the inspectors quote

An inspector appointed under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 (including an employee of the RSPCA Qld who was appointed as an inspector), would generally need to obtain consent before entering a premise to check compliance with the Act. However, they could enter without consent if they obtained a warrant or if they reasonably suspected there was an imminent risk of an animal welfare offence causing death or injury to an animal or on certain other limited grounds.

And that means they can enter property and sieze animals on a suspicion without a warrant. Greater power than the police themselves.

Further the RSPCA comes under the umbrella of the RSPCA of Australia. As such the queensland branch is the same as any other. As a charity non government organisation they have no ties to any government. As such a government body may take a complaint but cannot act on any member of the organisation if that person is acting under the powers of that organisation. Members of the RSPCA executive have even admitted there is no accountability to any body outside the RSPCA. And QLD would be no different.

However as I have already said I don't live in Qld so this law won't affect me. We already have it in NSW and its caused alot of pain and achieved nothing.

I'll just wait and read all the comments about it in time to come- when others realise the mistake these laws, as they stand, have made.

I have already seen what can happen when this sort of thing occurs. As it has already happened in NSW. There have already been two large scale incidents that have resulted from this type of legislation. One a cattle farmer who ended up losing an entire herd (all perfectly healthy but never the less shot by the RSPCA inspector) as well as the farm itself, the other involving a wildlife park. And all because of the RSPCA and the abuse of power that these laws brought in.

Further the information you claim to be incorrect is based on facts of incidents that have occured in other states by this organisation under similarly worded legislation. Learn from history.

ETA: look on the internet for a document called "The Ruth Downey Inquisition". Have a read and see for yourself what can happen when a power hungry organisation gets involved in creating, enforcing and prosecuting a law. What you will see is the result of a law with the same wording that was introduced into NSW. A law that gave the RSPCA extrordinary powers. And it doesn't matter what state you are in this is RSPCA Australia being given the power.

This post has been edited by yarracully: 27 January 2012 - 06:21 PM

[Steve]

DEEDI isnt an outside agency such as an independent ombudsman. This is akin to having the Police minister running interference for his officers and why we now have an OUTSIDE accountability processes in place.
Being accountable to their own department is hardly the same as being able to be easily looked at by an independent ombudsman.

[Howl]

yarracully, on 27 January 2012 - 04:52 PM, said:

Howl, on 27 January 2012 - 03:41 PM, said:

As for not being responsible for enforcing a law that they had a role in formulating - gee I would say the police have a strong role in formulating the law they enforce, DERM has a strong role in formulating environmental protection law, etc, etc. Unless you are trying to say that RSPCA Qld will benefit financially from enforcing the law??? Considering the money they have to put in to having even one Inspector in place, with all costs of office, vehicle and fuel, computer, shelter requirements for animals, etc I really don't think so. If people feel that precious about it maybe they could suggest that the DEEDI Inspectors take on the role of enforcing puppy farm legislation, just as they cover the commercial ventures and animals kept for scientific purposes.

As for why DPI (DEEDI) can't take on the entire role - why indeed?. Maybe you should ask them. I would think that the RSPCA would be quite happy to withdraw if DEEDI would put enough officers on to cover the state.

Wrong. No police force anywhere is involved in formulating a law. That is the role of politicians. Politicians create, police enforce, courts prosecute. Its called seperation of powers. What you have here with the RSPCA is Conflict Of Interest.

As for the inspectors quote

An inspector appointed under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 (including an employee of the RSPCA Qld who was appointed as an inspector), would generally need to obtain consent before entering a premise to check compliance with the Act. However, they could enter without consent if they obtained a warrant or if they reasonably suspected there was an imminent risk of an animal welfare offence causing death or injury to an animal or on certain other limited grounds.

And that means they can enter property and sieze animals on a suspicion without a warrant. Greater power than the police themselves.

Further the RSPCA comes under the umbrella of the RSPCA of Australia. As such the queensland branch is the same as any other. As a charity non government organisation they have no ties to any government. As such a government body may take a complaint but cannot act on any member of the organisation if that person is acting under the powers of that organisation. Members of the RSPCA executive have even admitted there is no accountability to any body outside the RSPCA. And QLD would be no different.

However as I have already said I don't live in Qld so this law won't affect me. We already have it in NSW and its caused alot of pain and achieved nothing.

I'll just wait and read all the comments about it in time to come- when others realise the mistake these laws, as they stand, have made.

I have already seen what can happen when this sort of thing occurs. As it has already happened in NSW. There have already been two large scale incidents that have resulted from this type of legislation. One a cattle farmer who ended up losing an entire herd (all perfectly healthy but never the less shot by the RSPCA inspector) as well as the farm itself, the other involving a wildlife park. And all because of the RSPCA and the abuse of power that these laws brought in.

Further the information you claim to be incorrect is based on facts of incidents that have occured in other states by this organisation under similarly worded legislation. Learn from history.

If you think the police have no input into developing the laws they enforce then you are kidding yourself. We have experts in policing, years of knowledge and experience - are you saying everyone just ignores what they have to say regarding what works, what doesn't and what is needed, and leaves it up to a politicians who has no idea on the subject, to formulate law? Of course not! Public servants are there to provide "frank and fearless advice" to their elected members, and the police are no different in that respect.

RSPCA Qld Inspectors do not have greater powers than the Qld police. In fact, Qld police under the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act have the SAME powers as an Inspector to enter a property without a warrant to take action in specific circumstances. I would familiarise yourself with the whole Police Powers and Responsibilities Act before you make such a ridiculous statement again - you will find Qld police have more powers than you think.

Yes RSPCA Qld does come under the umbrella of RSPCA Australia, but it is still a separate organisation AND the law its Inspectorate enforces is different to all the other states. Just because they are part of the RSPCA does not override the fact that the Qld Inspectors appointment comes from the state government and they must abide by the provisions of the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 and DEEDI guidelines in the course of their duties. If they did not they would be acting outside of the law and there would be no authority to support their actions.

I understand there have been problems in NSW but I have tried to make it quite clear that I have been talking about the situation in Qld. Because at the end of the day, this is the state where the proposed legislation is being considered. Not NSW, not Vic. They have different Acts and different lines of reporting. Are you also aware that the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 is not a new situation - it has been enforced by RSPCA Qld Inspectors since its introduction over 10 years ago. So in those 10 years, they have run around unfettered with this great power and the ability to abuse it - and you can only bring up a case in NSW (with different legislation) and a case in Victoria (with different legislation) to say it clearly doesn't work?

This post has been edited by Howl: 27 January 2012 - 06:34 PM

[Howl]

Steve, on 27 January 2012 - 06:26 PM, said:

DEEDI isnt an outside agency such as an independent ombudsman. This is akin to having the Police minister running interference for his officers and why we now have an OUTSIDE accountability processes in place.
Being accountable to their own department is hardly the same as being able to be easily looked at by an independent ombudsman.

Steve, you miss the point that DEEDI is subject to the ombudsman. If someone is not happy with DEEDI's review of a situation they do have a further independant avenue of appeal.

DEEDI can't sack the Inspector, but they can withdraw the Inspector's appointment so the can't perform that role anymore and RSPCA either has to find somewhere else in the organisation for them, or let them go. DEEDI can also request that the Insepctor be retrained or some other form of performance management.

I know, its not the answer you want - but it is a whole lot better than what most people think.

[Tralee]

I am clearly not across all the issues, so I have not tried to analyse the comments that have been made here.
That doesn't mean that I will not be looking to find some compliance between the state laws and regulations with my own practices.
From what I can discern from what is written here, there seems to be objections to the powers of inspectors based upon abuses of similar powers in the past.

It is easy to be critical the proposal being presented, until the question of what would you suggest in its place is asked.
Clearly something has to be done and one theme running through the document is a collection of data.
That data could then be used to re-evaluate the status quo and I have an inkling that this proposaL, if it gets up, in one or other of its variants, will not be the last word on the matter.

More to the point, the power of the inspectors seems to me to be quite benign, remebering that it is not proposed that there be a return to the past.

Quote

It is proposed that employees of the RSPCA Qld could be appointed as inspectors under the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008.
Their powers would be limitedto monitoring and enforcing compliance with the breeder registration requirements and to accessing microchip data.

It will probably raise more questions than it will answer but that is a healthy process. If no questions were raised the document would be stagnant.

Px

[Steve]

I am happy to give it a tick if and when they introduce an outside accountability process for any group or any one charged with enforcement which doesn't have to go through the system- in this case deedi - to get there.
How can this be a problem and why would anyone oppose it ?

[yarracully]

Howl, on 27 January 2012 - 06:33 PM, said:

yarracully, on 27 January 2012 - 04:52 PM, said:

Howl, on 27 January 2012 - 03:41 PM, said:

As for not being responsible for enforcing a law that they had a role in formulating - gee I would say the police have a strong role in formulating the law they enforce, DERM has a strong role in formulating environmental protection law, etc, etc. Unless you are trying to say that RSPCA Qld will benefit financially from enforcing the law??? Considering the money they have to put in to having even one Inspector in place, with all costs of office, vehicle and fuel, computer, shelter requirements for animals, etc I really don't think so. If people feel that precious about it maybe they could suggest that the DEEDI Inspectors take on the role of enforcing puppy farm legislation, just as they cover the commercial ventures and animals kept for scientific purposes.

As for why DPI (DEEDI) can't take on the entire role - why indeed?. Maybe you should ask them. I would think that the RSPCA would be quite happy to withdraw if DEEDI would put enough officers on to cover the state.

Wrong. No police force anywhere is involved in formulating a law. That is the role of politicians. Politicians create, police enforce, courts prosecute. Its called seperation of powers. What you have here with the RSPCA is Conflict Of Interest.

As for the inspectors quote

An inspector appointed under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 (including an employee of the RSPCA Qld who was appointed as an inspector), would generally need to obtain consent before entering a premise to check compliance with the Act. However, they could enter without consent if they obtained a warrant or if they reasonably suspected there was an imminent risk of an animal welfare offence causing death or injury to an animal or on certain other limited grounds.

And that means they can enter property and sieze animals on a suspicion without a warrant. Greater power than the police themselves.

Further the RSPCA comes under the umbrella of the RSPCA of Australia. As such the queensland branch is the same as any other. As a charity non government organisation they have no ties to any government. As such a government body may take a complaint but cannot act on any member of the organisation if that person is acting under the powers of that organisation. Members of the RSPCA executive have even admitted there is no accountability to any body outside the RSPCA. And QLD would be no different.

However as I have already said I don't live in Qld so this law won't affect me. We already have it in NSW and its caused alot of pain and achieved nothing.

I'll just wait and read all the comments about it in time to come- when others realise the mistake these laws, as they stand, have made.

I have already seen what can happen when this sort of thing occurs. As it has already happened in NSW. There have already been two large scale incidents that have resulted from this type of legislation. One a cattle farmer who ended up losing an entire herd (all perfectly healthy but never the less shot by the RSPCA inspector) as well as the farm itself, the other involving a wildlife park. And all because of the RSPCA and the abuse of power that these laws brought in.

Further the information you claim to be incorrect is based on facts of incidents that have occured in other states by this organisation under similarly worded legislation. Learn from history.

If you think the police have no input into developing the laws they enforce then you are kidding yourself. We have experts in policing, years of knowledge and experience - are you saying everyone just ignores what they have to say regarding what works, what doesn't and what is needed, and leaves it up to a politicians who has no idea on the subject, to formulate law? Of course not! Public servants are there to provide "frank and fearless advice" to their elected members, and the police are no different in that respect.

RSPCA Qld Inspectors do not have greater powers than the Qld police. In fact, Qld police under the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act have the SAME powers as an Inspector to enter a property without a warrant to take action in specific circumstances. I would familiarise yourself with the whole Police Powers and Responsibilities Act before you make such a ridiculous statement again - you will find Qld police have more powers than you think.

Yes RSPCA Qld does come under the umbrella of RSPCA Australia, but it is still a separate organisation AND the law its Inspectorate enforces is different to all the other states. Just because they are part of the RSPCA does not override the fact that the Qld Inspectors appointment comes from the state government and they must abide by the provisions of the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 and DEEDI guidelines in the course of their duties. If they did not they would be acting outside of the law and there would be no authority to support their actions.

I understand there have been problems in NSW but I have tried to make it quite clear that I have been talking about the situation in Qld. Because at the end of the day, this is the state where the proposed legislation is being considered. Not NSW, not Vic. They have different Acts and different lines of reporting. Are you also aware that the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 is not a new situation - it has been enforced by RSPCA Qld Inspectors since its introduction over 10 years ago. So in those 10 years, they have run around unfettered with this great power and the ability to abuse it - and you can only bring up a case in NSW (with different legislation) and a case in Victoria (with different legislation) to say it clearly doesn't work?

I am well aware of the law making process. And Qld police are no different in their powers than any other state. But at least there is a police ombudsman which can be brought in for accountability. The RSCPA in any state has no such independant umpire.

As for who makes the laws do you think that anyone with knowledge was involved in drafting the ridiculous laws that are now in place in Victoria. No it was done by politicians with direct guidance and input from a charitable organisation with a very powerful PR image. By the way public servants that you refer to are people like teachers, nurses etc.

Politicians make the laws. Thats what they do in Parliment-debate and create laws.Not have tea parties. The public servants only supply the information to them but other forces guide them.

As for the law itself the wording of this law that gives power to the RSPCA in QLD is the exact same wording that appears in the laws of NSW and Vic. Also in all cases the organisation has no independant umpire or system to which it must answer. As for the DEEDI you mentioned, if they were tasked with enforcement good. Then you will have an accountable system with due process and seperation of powers.

Furthermore the law being proposed in QLD is one being pushed by RSPCA Australia federation. Of which QLD is only a branch of. It is not a seperate organisation. It has the same structure and guidelines to work within as any other state branch. It has the same lines of reporting and the same potential to be exploited.

However the involvement of the RSPCA Australian federation tells me the law is intended to go Australia wide.

Its not the legislation that is the issue. Its the ability for it to be abused with no outside control. This is something that people in NSW and Vic tried to point out years ago and yet the law went through and the problem has occured.

How hard is it to see that QLD will be heading down the same road as NSW and Vic have already gone. Then again it is always easier to agree with anything and then realise later that it was the wrong way to go.

I don't have a problem with the intent of the law. Its just the Judge, Jury and Executioner are the one and the same and they shouldn't be. I have already posted about a document that will give insight into what can and has happened. Read it and see for yourself how individual inspectors will go outside the laws and due process and the victim had no recourse.

Be informed, or you could just pretend it wont happen then cry foul when it does. Its easier to fix the problem before it becomes law-impossible to fix afterwards.

As I have already said I and others tried fighting this before it came in in NSW, now it has been realised how big a mistake this power creates but its too late for some here.

Make your own decision about it, but try to be fully informed first. Remember this though, what you decide now is what you will be stuck with forever, but also quite likely so will others in every other state in Australia. Because this will go Australia wide.

Kind of reminds me of the way the docking and debarking ban was brought in in one state and all the other states said "It won't happen here" yet it did. Interestingly enough same organisation, same powers granted, same tactics- history it seems does repeat.

This post has been edited by yarracully: 27 January 2012 - 10:04 PM

[Steve]

http://www.dogsqueen...Blogs-2012.aspx
Quote - There are two other URGENT items of business of which members need to be made aware:



1. Despite two requests via the Queensland Dog World magazine over the past 12 months (for members to update their data), it would appear that our Dogs Queensland registers still have details of “deceased dogs” appearing against individual Queensland members. Just one example would be as follows: There are 24,719 QLD registered dogs on file BORN PRIOR to 2000 that are NOT marked as deceased.



It would be highly unlikely that very many of those dogs would actually still be alive today. The same would apply to dogs younger than 12 years of age that are deceased. Please contact the Dogs Queensland Office if you require assistance in identifying any dogs that remain incorrectly on your records.



The State Government will not be able to differentiate – all dogs that appear against a member’s name will be considered to be alive and as such may be counted into the Puppy Farm management scheme.



We know of members who have owned in excess of 50 dogs over the period of their “dog world” participation and yet none of those dogs (some showing up as 20 – 30 years of age) still appear on our registers. Updating dog register details is easy – you don’t need to send in original pedigree certificates (these can be kept on your files for nostalgia purposes).



All members need to do is photocopy the certificate of registration and pedigree, mark across this photocopy the word “DECEASED” and then post these photocopies into the Dogs Queensland office with an accompanying note providing your name and membership number.



2. The other issue is one of litter registrations and the number of puppies being bred by some of our members. It may come as a surprise to many of our responsible member breeders to realise just how many litters are being registered by a small percentage of our members. Whilst these breeders are not breaking any specific Dogs Queensland rule, it does raise serious questions about their compliance with our Code of Ethics – in particular Clause 2 e which states: I agree not to breed from a bitch or a dog in a way that is detrimental to the dog or the bitch or to the breed. I further acknowledge that I shall breed only with the intent of maintaining and/or improving the standard of the breed and welfare, health and soundness of my dogs and I shall strive to eliminate hereditary diseases within my dogs and from within the breeds.



Despite the best efforts of Dogs Queensland, it is unlikely that some of these breeders can avoid being caught up in any future Queensland Government Puppy Farm strategy. It may be a good time for these breeders to consider their breeding strategies and be mindful that compliance with State Government imposed regulations may be inevitable.