Jump to content

Auditor-General slams failure to oversee RSPCA Queensland


Boronia
 Share

Recommended Posts

Auditor-General slams failure to oversee RSPCA Queensland

 

https://inqld.com.au/news/2021/11/30/auditor-general-slams-failure-to-oversee-rspca-queensland/

 

  The State Government department in charge of overseeing the RSPCA’s operations had not been proactive or effective in its oversight of the animal welfare body, a critical Auditor-General’s report has found.

 

berkay-gumustekin-ngqyo2AYYnE-unsplash-8

 

Photo: Berkay Gumusten/Unsplash

Tabled in Parliament on Tuesday, the 33-page report details a lack of accountability, a failure to establish codes of practice for the animal types the RSPCA Queensland regulates, no structured processes for complaints about inspectors and no conflict of interest procedures.

The report is also critical of the fact there is no transparent process in place for approval of fees for animal care paid by owners whose animals have been seized.

The Auditor-General’s report comes on the back of recent claims where the Queensland RSPCA was accused of targeting certain pet shops and breeders, charging exorbitant fees for animal care and telling anyone who complains about them to “take it to court”.

Those claims were included in a dossier of allegations, compiled by State MP Robbie Katter, after his office received a litany of complaints. The document was handed to the State Government for action but they are not part of the Auditor-General’s probe.

Katter highlighted one case where a man’s dog was with the RSPCA for seven months and the cost of care and board was $42,000.

The audit office was asked, in July 2020, to conduct an audit on the delivery of animal welfare services and the enforcement of the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 and the Animal Care and Protection Regulation 2012.

The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and the RSPCA Queensland deliver animal welfare services.

The report found that the department’s engagement with RSPCA needs improvement and that the department had not been proactive in overseeing and supporting the RSPCA in exercising its powers.

Frameworks should be strengthened to give the department better oversight of RSPCA inspectors and ensure enforcement approaches are consistent across the State.

The report makes the point that under the act, RSPCA inspectors are not accountable to the department and are appointed without conditions for an indefinite term.

There is also criticism of the fact there is no monitoring of the animal welfare body’s process for prioritising animal welfare complaints to ensure they align with guidelines.

“The department has not established compulsory and/or voluntary codes of practice for most of the animal types that RSPCA Queensland regulates – this introduces subjectivity in interpreting compliance requirements,” the report notes.

There is also no structured process to share information on complaints about RSPCA inspectors or outcomes of complaints.

In addition, there is criticism of the fact that the department has no oversight of the provision for handling conflicts of interest.

Related Story

rspca-285x170.jpg

Dog's $42,000 kennel bill: RSPCA accused of bullying tactics

Cindy Wockner Tuesday, November 16

RSPCA relies largely on donations and sponsors to fund the investigation and prosecution activities. For the last financial year inspector expenses were $4.6 million, of which the department contributed $500,000.

“The department has not required RSPCA Queensland to report on how it is managing its conflicts of interest in light of its reliance on funding sources outside of the department’s contribution.”

In relation to fees, the report notes that there is no requirement in the regulations for the department to approve a schedule of reasonable fees or to make them publicly available.

“The department has not ensured a transparent process is in place for approving a schedule of recovery costs, their escalation rates or oversee their use as part of negotiated outcomes.”

The Auditor-General recommends that the legislation be amended and require a fee schedule for reasonable cost recovery be approved and made public and that there be oversight of inspector recommendations for prosecutions.

The report also recommends that the department step up its oversight of the RSPCA and actively monitor the outcome of complaints and about investigations and inspectors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 months = approx 215 days

42000 / 215 = approx 195 per day

 

That is only marginally less per day than you'd pay for a full hospitalisation stay at a vet clinic...

 

In NSW, RSPCA daily "boarding" costs for seized animals is around 42 per day, and I'd assume similar for QLD in cases where kenneling only was the case for the vast majority of the animal's incarceration. One can only imagine what other things were being done to the dog to end up with a 42000 bill for costs...

 

As for the Audit report... pity the same hasn't been done for NSW RSPCA... as I reckon exactly the same negative findings would be the result.

 

T.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

"the department had not been proactive in overseeing and supporting the RSPCA in exercising its powers."  Well that does not bode well at all.  more support of the decimation and destruction of any person targeted.

 

 

dont waste your hopes on them "overseeing" anything to reduce the mental suffering of either the animals seized or their owners methinks.

 

went this route in the so called investigation of nsw last year and we all know what happened there

 

not much new there to indicate any accountability or avenue of appeal for those targeted

 

 

Edited by asal
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to volunteer at their old Fairfield shelter in QLD. Things could be different now (doubt it) but the seized animals were kept in small concrete runs all locked away down the back. We could see the entry area quiet clearly but I don't know any volunteer who was allowed to go down there and clean, feed or exercise those animals and I never ever saw a staff member down their either. I mean you could hardly find a staff member in the areas you did need them so you can just imagine how little contact and stimulation those poor seized animals were getting. Not their fault they were part of an investigation but they were certainly suffering for it. How can they 'save' an animal from a bad situation and just put them in another? How can they have the audacity to charge that kind of money and provide so little as far as assisting that animal to recover from the alleged neglect or abuse? Bloody terrible. Just one in a long list of reasons I stopped volunteering for them. So much unnessecary suffering and negligent decision making for the animals in their care.

 

Another thing that bugs me about them in QLD is all the govt money they put in for and receive from the gambling funds (mainly for equipment and buildings). I used to know someone who processed those and one of the approvers on the panel favoured the RSPCA so they got money every single round they put in for. Hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years. Probably still happening too.

 

But it's all bullshit. Imagine the work independant rescues could be achieving for actual animals if they had even a tenth of the same incoming funds as RSPCA. The organisation either needs an entire overhaul (at their bloody expense with all their millions in the bank!) or they should be shut down. I think it should be the latter. They lost their way a long, long time ago.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When a large animal "charity" organisation spends more annually on touting for donations (around 5-6 million) than they spend on their actual animal care costs (around 3 million), methinks there may be a "problem".

 

In NSW there are approximately 500 paid staff... and approximately 5000 volunteer staff. The inspectorate section (paid staff) cost around 3 million-ish last financial year... and brought in around 137,000 (ish) in fines from "successful" prosecutions... not a reasonable return for the "investment, ya think?? No mention about how much the actual legals cost there either...

 

RSPCA NSW had incoming funds of around 34.3 million last financial year... around 1/10th of that was actually spent on animals in their "care"... and more than 7 million was spent on "administration"...

 

The cat rehoming stats are better than usual at 7450 rehomed out of 13,400 taken in (still 5950 euthanaised), but dog figures were pretty horrendous at only 2205 rehomed out of 6900 taken in (4795 euthanaised) - one would think that an extremely large and well funded "rescue" would have much better stats than that...

 

I think that rather than handling actual prosecutions, RSPCA should build their cases and pass them to the DPP for prosecution (which is how AWL handles their cases) - at least that would mean that only worthy cases with actual credible evidence would make it through the system... instead of RSPCA bully tactics forcing the accused to plead to lesser charges (and recorded as a "win" by RSPCA), rather than going bankrupt due to the exhorbitant cost of legals to fight them all the way though the system. Those who do manage to fight them all the way and win never see a penny of awarded costs, and then need to get on the court/legal roundabout again to try to get them to pay... rarely with any success... they just don't pay, and it seems not even the courts can make them...

 

T.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think its also a massive conflict of interest, for a charity formed on the stated purpose of Prevention,  to then receive Government support and sanction to Punish  animal cruelty.  We have laws and Legal systems that should more appropriately handle matters of Justice.

 

Accepting the responsibility of prosecutions,  The Organizations  success will  be judged on successful prosecutions rather than Prevention of the need for them. 

 

Surely that is a massive conflict.

Edited by moosmum
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, moosmum said:

Accepting the responsibility of prosecutions,  The Organizations  success will  be judged on successful prosecutions rather than Prevention of the need for them. 

 

And therein lies the rub... they start off by serving people with multiple charges, smear that person's name in the media from the first court mention, delay proceedings as long as possible in order to run up that person's legal costs and costs associated with holding/"treating" the animal(s), then at the crucial point before actually going to trial, will offer to drop all bar one charge if the person pleads guilty to that charge... effectively giving RSPCA a "win". And to rub salt into the wound, the media is then advised of that "win", further smearing the person's name... while the person is gagged by the court from saying anything negative in public about RSPCA and their tactics used to secure that "win".

 

The case I was involved in defending started off with 13 "charges"; was delayed numerous times to rack up maximum legal costs (total approx 200,000 before it even looked like going to actual trial; estimated costs to proceed through said trial was around 2 million all up; offer came to drop 12 charges if plaintiff was amenable to pleading guilty to one charge, and all legal costs (bar the fine allocated for that one charge) would stop. Is it any wonder that people take the plea as offered? Who has a spare 2 million to fight trumped up charges with no chance of ever recouping those monies even after a successful outcome in that person's case? In our case, the fine received by RSPCA (they have a legal moeity on fines, so receive said monies) didn't even cover the costs they were claiming for "treatment" and holding of the animals they seized, let alone their own legal costs... so effectively, the "win" wasn't really cost effective with regards to outlay vs return. But they did get to smear the plaintiff one more time in the media announcing said "win", and thus cementing their "good name" and fooling the donation giving public into thinking they are doing a great job bringing animal "abusers" to "justice"...

 

The system is badly broken when organisations like the RSPCA can rort it to maximum effect.

 

T.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rort is indeed the word.  @tdierikxa local case here recently mirrored exactly the one you describe.  I haven't mentioned it because I'm close to parties and don't want the searchlight to suddenly swing and focus on me.  They also rule by fear.

 

On the prevention/punishment arguments - I don't think there can be prevention without punishment being a part of it.  Because you can give people all the advice and education in the world, and if they are not aware that if they do wrong there are consequences of fines they will still go ahead and do wrong because it's cheaper or easier or they don't give a damn.  Education is useless without some kind of enforcement.

 

Aside from that, I loathe they way they operate, and pretty much also the governments various that do nothing about it - because it's cheaper and easier and they don't give a damn either.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, PossumCorner said:

 

 

On the prevention/punishment arguments - I don't think there can be prevention without punishment being a part of it.  Because you can give people all the advice and education in the world, and if they are not aware that if they do wrong there are consequences of fines they will still go ahead and do wrong because it's cheaper or easier or they don't give a damn.  Education is useless without some kind of enforcement

 

Agreed.

 

What I can't agree with is that you can work effectively at prevention (as per the stated intent of the organization) when your reward and effectiveness is judged on successful prosecution. 

The monetary reward is not in prevention. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a case in QLD I was following - a once well respected rescue who I think got in over their heads and when that happens who do they go to for actual help? Anyway the person running the group had many charges, one of their children (who lived on the premises) had just turned 18 and was also charged with multiple offences. Case was in and out of court up here for at least 2 years and suddenly the main person plead guilty to a portion of the charges, the rest were dropped and surprisingly all the charges against the 18 were dropped too. I'm not saying the main person wasn't guilty of some of these charges and needed to have done something to address an untenable situation before the RSPCA got involved but their previously well respected life was turned upside down, and that of her two young adult children. As a case winning strategy the RSPCA would've dragged it out as long as they could, this person had no hope of getting a job (or her adult child probably) during that time, they lost their accom when the shit hit the fan, they lost their small income, high needs animals who had been in their care for a very long time and of course a lot of long term supporters, so pleading guilty was the only realistic way forward. 

 

Was justice served for the animals? I doubt it. There is no deterent for this person to not start rescuing, working with or owning animals again at some point in the future with her skills and contacts and if things go wrong again they would do even more to hide it. Instead of upholding the law the RSPCA focus on manipulating the system and that is doing very little in terms of punishing or reforming the guilty, deterring others from committing harm to animals and it sure as shit isn't saving many animals before things get to the point that permanent damage is done.

 

And don't get me wrong - I believe this person has caused harm to vulnerable animals in her care and was doing an awful lot to hide it, but I also know they did a lot of good for quite a while prior and had their been options or supports to help them at a critical time I don't think things would have deteriorated to the point they did. But who could they even talk to? The signs were there and building but it's all got to get critical for the poor animals before the RSPCA even bothers to step in. I also think this person needs some form of punishment so they never go down this path again but to strangle their entire lives and that of their children and just keep them in limbo for several years just disables people from doing better and finding rehabilitation. It creates bitterness and inertia. It's all kinds of messed up and again when are the animals being put first in any of these scenarios?

 

RSPCA blame the legal system for lenient punishments and tying their hands but they also have the power to seek amendments to the legislation they use if that legislation is not keeping up with the times and public expectations. And they also have the ability to build a stronger case as soon as possible after the investigation commences and primary information is gathered. How a case is stronger before the courts after one or two years is beyond me. If it was shocking enough on site to remove animals (and put them to sleep because they were too harmed) then it is strong enough to take before the courts for a decision within 6 months. You owe the animals who lost their lives that.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have what can only be described as a form of PTSD after going through the case I did... and I wasn't the person they targetted...

 

Any mention of RSPCA gets my blood pressure up, and I flash back to the hundreds of pages of "evidence" that was tendered that spelled out exactly what they did to the animals they seized, the lies their "expert" witnesses told in their statements that went completely against the actual evidence tendered, including their own bodycam footage. Friends know to never bring their name up in front of me, as I am prone to starting to rant and rail about how they operate.

 

I recently went back to TAFE and completed my Cert 3 Animal Studies (we were in lockdown, and I figured why not do something constructive), and my teacher previously worked with RSPCA as a vet locum. I explained to her that I'd had very bad dealings with RSPCA, and that I may be triggered by any positive mention of "the good work they do"... and she was very careful about not triggering me by mentioning them.

 

I have nothing but respect for all the volunteers who work really hard to make a difference to the lives of the animals in their care... and nothing but loathing for their inspectorate arm, legal team, and management who encourage prosecution over prevention. The case I was involved in has bodycam footage of the vet onsite NOT in favour of seizure of animals, but one of the inspectors was actively overriding the vet... and the 30 minute break in the footage noted as contacting RSPCA legal team for advice, then deciding to seize as many animals as they thought they could get away with after that call. Contacting the legal team in the middle of an "inspection" is NOT standard practice. I will note that RSPCA had tried to do over the person targetted in this case previously, and their case had failed around a month prior to the visit that resulted in seizure of a number of animals for spurious reasons. Even their own bodycam footage shows the complete opposite of the "conditions" of the animals as claimed in their "evidence" and court notice details. Of note is the number of animals that were seized under the auspice of needing URGENT veterinary care that never recieved ANY treatment for their supposed ailments... and the fact that NONE of the animals seized even saw a vet for treatment of any issue until at least 3 days after seizure - 3 days in the care of RSPCA at Yagoona where there are literally NO records of what happened to them during those 3 days, apart from a couple of blood tests and fecal tests that all came back as normal and parasite free the day after seizure.

 

POCTAA clearly states that seizure of animals is only the very last resort, and only in cases where immediate vet attention cannot be facilitated by the owner of said animals. This was not how it worked in the case I was involved in... we had a vet available to come out on the spot, but were not allowed to call him while RSPCA were at the property... not to mention that said vet had made a visit to the property 2 days prior to RSPCA "visiting", and records of said visit were shown on the day. All animals' health records were kept up to date, and regular worming, vaccinations, and any other medical notes were updated daily and in full. I know this because I was the one who kept those records up to date. I knew the health status of EVERY animal on site.

 

T.

  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

o   tdierikx I am so so sad to learn that has happened to you too  , I have struggled for over 20 years now to deal with the aftermath of the theft of my little dog. it just does in your mind to learn how cruel they are not just to the targeted person but the animals they use / abuse to get at the owner.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

intesting comments on a legal forum

 

"

Right. Hobby horse time.

The whole premise of OP's question (as if this issue turns only on electronic witnessing of 'documents') reflects a broad disregard across the profession and probably society as a whole for what an affidavit actually is: sworn evidence. We all say that it's sworn evidence of course, pay it lip-service, but we seem to have forgotten what that means.

When a deponent makes an affidavit (I'll come back to the terminology in a minute) they swear or affirm that the contents are true on pain of perjury (in NSW that's up to 10 years' porridge). It's about as serious a promise as one can really make in this day and age. Signing a statement or a letter is nowhere near as serious an undertaking.

Yet despite that there seems to be a practice these days of treating an affidavit like any other document. Does any solicitor witnessing the document still administer the oath or affirmation? Do they ask the appropriate questions of the deponent? My bet is it's very rarely done, hence why so many people these days refer to a deponent as 'signing' an affidavit, rather than 'swearing', 'affirming', or 'making' one. We've cheapened the meaning of sworn evidence, probably through little more than a cultural laziness.

The problem is that laziness is encouraged by judges being more and more willing to just let bodgied affidavits through to save time. While this judgment is to do with a far worse bodgied up affidavit than most of my rant is directed to, we still need more judgments like it.

ETA: it all reminds me of that Police scandal a few years ago (I seem to remember it being VICPOL but maybe it was NSW) where it turns out they were just signing affidavits for use in ex parte warrant applications rather than making them properly. There was a whole load of fire and light in the media, but all I heard from practitioners here was 'well that's how we do it'. Jesus wept.

EATA: the value of sworn evidence is that the deponent gives it on pain of penalty. Historically eternal damnation worthy of oath-breakers, now criminal sanction. People will say all sorts of shit when there’s no consequence for getting it wrong, but the threat of penalty gives the courts enough comfort to rely on it as a default, and disbelieve it only when there is good cause to do so. Without sworn evidence being properly prepared and treated, the foundations of our Justice system crumble."

 

 

both tdierikx and I have heard rspca inspectors lie with impunity, in my case the lie is actually in a written document and yet I still could not get the Minister for Agriculture do anything to hold them to account.

 

"(in NSW that's up to 10 years' porridge)"., not a chance, they are sacred cows far as government is concerned, left to "investigate" themselves.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, asal said:

both tdierikx and I have heard rspca inspectors lie with impunity, in my case the lie is actually in a written document

 

In my case, I have bodycam footage AND legal documents showing the lies told... by RSPCA inspectors AND their "expert witnesses"... around 700+pages of it...

 

18 hours ago, asal said:

Without sworn evidence being properly prepared and treated, the foundations of our Justice system crumble.

 

This... *sigh*

 

T.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The info about affidavits disheartens me a lot. Actually it hurts. I'm a Commissioner for Declarations and got it a long time ago so I could sign work affidavits (which I did multiple times a day for many years). I took those documents very seriously. The staff who had written them took them very seriously too because our aim before the courts was to prove harms had occurred to children and to keep them away from that situation so that no further harm could occur. If it was not spelt out in those documents then we would be laughed out of court and the suffering of those children was on us. So shame on any person in power not making the same effort. Change your job if you don't care enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...