Proposed New Victorian Dog Laws Dead Wrong

[grumpette]

I am pretty sure that any of the Obedience, Agility, Tracking, Herding etc clubs that are affiliated with Dogs Vic would be considered an "applicable association" as they are covered by Dogs Vic's insurance and must operate under Dogs Vic's Code of Practice.

I have sent off an e-mail to Dogs Vic seeking clarification of the "exhibited the dog for show purposes" part of the proposed amendment. Will let you know when I hear something.

[Erny]

I am pretty sure that any of the Obedience, Agility, Tracking, Herding etc clubs that are affiliated with Dogs Vic would be considered an "applicable association" as they are covered by Dogs Vic's insurance and must operate under Dogs Vic's Code of Practice.

I'd think the same.

I have sent off an e-mail to Dogs Vic seeking clarification of the "exhibited the dog for show purposes" part of the proposed amendment. Will let you know when I hear something.

That's great, Grumpette. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I would have thought the definition should be prescribed by the Government and suitably clarified, rather than granting an "applicable association" the power to set definitions that would impact the public. If they did that, then at any time VicDogs had a meeting, they could easily change their definition, which would leave many people who were encompassed into the 'elite' group (let's not forget there will be many who are undemocratically and negatively biased by this law), out of the protection they thought they had.

Apart from the fact that this law shouldn't even be in any set of proposed Bill, be it this one or any future one.

All that aside, it is likely/possible that the Bill will be read next week, with Parliamentary sitting commencing on Tuesday. So regardless, a response may not be available from VicDogs in sufficient time. But it would be interesting to read their response.

Mind you - this is completely silly. It is a stupid law that shouldn't have been written in, in the first place and we shouldn't even have to be discussing it as though it has any merit. It's quite an insult, really.

[Steve]

IMHO the only dogs that should be exempt should be obedience trained dogs. Afterall their owners are responsible and are willing to put the time and effort into ensuring their canine friends are good citizens.

To give exemptions to dogs just because they are shown is ludicrious.

I have attended quite a few ANKC shows and they often had more incidents with dogs behaving badly at just one show than we had in all the years we were able to hold shows. BSL put a stop to that

Its an absolute shameful disgrace and it ticks me off badly enough that I'm not going to shut up about it.

[Steve]

I am pretty sure that any of the Obedience, Agility, Tracking, Herding etc clubs that are affiliated with Dogs Vic would be considered an "applicable association" as they are covered by Dogs Vic's insurance and must operate under Dogs Vic's Code of Practice.

I have sent off an e-mail to Dogs Vic seeking clarification of the "exhibited the dog for show purposes" part of the proposed amendment. Will let you know when I hear something.

These clubs are part of the applicable organisation because they are members of Vic dogs but unless their dogs are purebred and on the ANKC registry the dogs are not exempt.

[Steve]

I am pretty sure that any of the Obedience, Agility, Tracking, Herding etc clubs that are affiliated with Dogs Vic would be considered an "applicable association" as they are covered by Dogs Vic's insurance and must operate under Dogs Vic's Code of Practice.

I'd think the same.

I have sent off an e-mail to Dogs Vic seeking clarification of the "exhibited the dog for show purposes" part of the proposed amendment. Will let you know when I hear something.

That's great, Grumpette. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I would have thought the definition should be prescribed by the Government and suitably clarified, rather than granting an "applicable association" the power to set definitions that would impact the public. If they did that, then at any time VicDogs had a meeting, they could easily change their definition, which would leave many people who were encompassed into the 'elite' group (let's not forget there will be many who are undemocratically and negatively biased by this law), out of the protection they thought they had.

Apart from the fact that this law shouldn't even be in any set of proposed Bill, be it this one or any future one.

All that aside, it is likely/possible that the Bill will be read next week, with Parliamentary sitting commencing on Tuesday. So regardless, a response may not be available from VicDogs in sufficient time. But it would be interesting to read their response.

Mind you - this is completely silly. It is a stupid law that shouldn't have been written in, in the first place and we shouldn't even have to be discussing it as though it has any merit. It's quite an insult, really.

Yeah thats what we said when they wanted to make criminals of people who showed a dog which was debarked interstate without the correct paper work from their local council.

[Erny]

Ok - I've just spent today until now, finishing off what I hope is a letter which makes sense and doesn't ramble toooooo much. My problem is that when the Government put up laws that are erroneous, I can't help but assume they can't see how they are erroneous, so I am compelled to explain it to them, give them examples, etc. etc. I've asked many 'please explain' type questions in my letter as well. But these will most likely just be added with the other of my letters that are comprised of questions and which still have not been answered.

Hopefully though, these explanations and questions will assist Members of the Opposition to understand how these laws can unfairly impact and also arm them with some of the questions that need to be raised when the proposed Bill is debated.

I'd post the letter up here, except that it proved to be 8 pages worth - a tad long for here. But if anyone wants it, feel free to PM me with your email address and I'll send it.

I need a coffee break and my poor neglected dog needs to come out for a walk. ..... But oh no!! Can't go. Can't find his plastic Council tag. Now that's a conundrum. What about that Council by-law that strive/d to make a 'one walk a day' mandatory? Fined if we do. Fined if we don't?

Photo curteousy of AnnieK, who came out yesterday to take some shots. It was freezing and we about got blown away with some of the wind gusts. AnnieK

LOL ..... told you it was windy.

Edited June 19, 2010 by Erny

[Erny]

Its an absolute shameful disgrace and it ticks me off badly enough that I'm not going to shut up about it.

Nor should you, nor any of us. It is not fair.

[grumpette]

I am pretty sure that any of the Obedience, Agility, Tracking, Herding etc clubs that are affiliated with Dogs Vic would be considered an "applicable association" as they are covered by Dogs Vic's insurance and must operate under Dogs Vic's Code of Practice.

I have sent off an e-mail to Dogs Vic seeking clarification of the "exhibited the dog for show purposes" part of the proposed amendment. Will let you know when I hear something.

These clubs are part of the applicable organisation because they are members of Vic dogs but unless their dogs are purebredand on the ANKC registry the dogs are not exempt.

If that is the case then none of the dogs registered as Associates for competition purposes and I would imagine many dogs that have joined the Companion Dog Club would be covered, as a lot of them are cross bred or neutered.

I would think that Dogs Vic would be extremely stupid to exclude such a large membership base when formulating new laws, as they are actively encouraging membership in the Companion Dog Club

[zayda_asher]

If that is the case then none of the dogs registered as Associates for competition purposes and I would imagine many dogs that have joined the Companion Dog Club would be covered, as a lot of them are cross bred or neutered.

I would think that Dogs Vic would be extremely stupid to exclude such a large membership base when formulating new laws, as they are actively encouraging membership in the Companion Dog Club

The canine controls excluded all the associates when they were broking their deals for BSL, many of us with associates wrote and ask them to protect their associate members who also give them money and they basically told us to stick it... don't expect them to go in to bat for the associates...

Edited June 19, 2010 by zayda_asher

[Steve]

I am pretty sure that any of the Obedience, Agility, Tracking, Herding etc clubs that are affiliated with Dogs Vic would be considered an "applicable association" as they are covered by Dogs Vic's insurance and must operate under Dogs Vic's Code of Practice.

I have sent off an e-mail to Dogs Vic seeking clarification of the "exhibited the dog for show purposes" part of the proposed amendment. Will let you know when I hear something.

These clubs are part of the applicable organisation because they are members of Vic dogs but unless their dogs are purebredand on the ANKC registry the dogs are not exempt.

If that is the case then none of the dogs registered as Associates for competition purposes and I would imagine many dogs that have joined the Companion Dog Club would be covered, as a lot of them are cross bred or neutered.

I would think that Dogs Vic would be extremely stupid to exclude such a large membership base when formulating new laws, as they are actively encouraging membership in the Companion Dog Club

Yep but they are also drumming up business so only their recognised breeds are seen to be the good dogs too. Its not the ANKC which are excluding them - its the government because the dogs have to be on the Vic dogs registry to be exempt. We tried to have a go at our members being members of Vicdogs and being able to get exemptions on mandatory desexing but the dogs had to be registered on their purebred registry - not the people.

[zayda_asher]

Yep but they are also drumming up business so only their recognised breeds are seen to be the good dogs too. Its not the ANKC which are excluding them - its the government because the dogs have to be on the Vic dogs registry to be exempt. We tried to have a go at our members being members of Vicdogs and being able to get exemptions on mandatory desexing but the dogs had to be registered on their purebred registry - not the people.

ANKC could still have protested this and said they wanted to protect all their members, including their associates and those who don't show. If they did, and it was rejected, they should let their membership know, as its caused a lot of bad feeling with their assciate members in the past when they were excluded... I know people who left over the BSL thing, so they lost members!

[Steve]

Yep but they are also drumming up business so only their recognised breeds are seen to be the good dogs too. Its not the ANKC which are excluding them - its the government because the dogs have to be on the Vic dogs registry to be exempt. We tried to have a go at our members being members of Vicdogs and being able to get exemptions on mandatory desexing but the dogs had to be registered on their purebred registry - not the people.

ANKC could still have protested this and said they wanted to protect all their members, including their associates and those who don't show. If they did, and it was rejected, they should let their membership know, as its caused a lot of bad feeling with their assciate members in the past when they were excluded... I know people who left over the BSL thing, so they lost members!

Yes exactly but its in the ANKC's best interest to go with it and I'm betting the only way it got in there was because of their influence.

[Erny]

Yes exactly but its in the ANKC's best interest to go with it and I'm betting the only way it got in there was because of their influence.

So ANKC isn't completely blameless, then? Or is it not their job to 'defend' ?

[Steve]

Yes exactly but its in the ANKC's best interest to go with it and I'm betting the only way it got in there was because of their influence.

So ANKC isn't completely blameless, then? Or is it not their job to 'defend' ?

I dont see there is anything to gain by affixing blame - the fact is that the way several laws are written in regard to dogs generates business for the ANKC without fair reason.

If its there and it benefits them then its hardly fair to ask them to say no to help anyone else I guess. For whatever reason laws in Victoria are most definitely giving the ANKC advantages which are hard to justify.

[Erny]

I dont see there is anything to gain by affixing blame ...

Yeah - that's fair enough.

But is it part of ANKC's function to protect groups/members from unfair and/or bias laws at all? If it is not, then I guess it is its choice whether it decides to go into bat for any member or member-group.

I could ask the same question of VicDogs as well. What exactly is their direct function, other than being a registry of dogs?

[APBT Club of Aust Inc.]

You'd think Dogs Vic would at least go into bat for its associate members as well as its purebred dog owners, they probably contribute quite a few $'s to Dogs Vic's coffers.

Personally I wouldn't want to be associated with them if they weren't willing to do this. I'd resign from their organisation and be very vocal as to my reasons why.

Selling your soul to the devil, comes to mind

Edited June 19, 2010 by APBT Club of Aust Inc.

[Erny]

The rules of Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness are (and I think I did put them up in this thread somewhere, but so they are not forgotten, I think they are worth repeating) :

http://www.ombo.nsw.gov.au/publication/PDF...ral_Justice.pdf

What is natural justice/procedural fairness?

The rules or principles of natural justice, also known as procedural fairness, have developed to ensure that decision-making is fair and reasonable. Put simply, natural justice involves decision-makers informing people of the case against them or their interests, giving them a right to be heard (the ‘hearing’ rule), not having a personal interest in the outcome (the rule against ‘bias’), and acting only on the basis of logically probative evidence (the ‘no evidence’ rule).

When should the rules of natural justice be observed?

There is a presumption in law that the rules of natural justice must be observed in exercising statutory power that could affect the rights, interests or legitimate expectations of individuals. However, it is good practice to observe these rules whether or not the power being exercised is statutory.

If action being taken by a public official or by or on behalf of a public sector agency will not directly affect a person’s rights or interests, there is no obligation to inform the other person of the substance of any allegations or other matters in issue. For example, if an investigator is merely collecting information to make a report to the management of an agency so that action can be taken, there is no obligation to notify the subject of the complaint. However, if an investigation will lead to findings and recommendations about the matter, the investigator should provide natural justice to the person against whom allegations have been made. Similarly, the person who ultimately makes a decision on the basis of the investigation report must also provide natural justice, by allowing the person adversely commented upon to make submissions regarding the proposed decision and sanction.

What are the rules of natural justice?

Any person who decides any matter without hearing both sides, though that person may have rightly decided, has not done justice. Any person whose rights, interests or legitimate expectations will be affected by a decision or finding is entitled to an adequate opportunity of being heard. In order to properly present their case, the person is entitled to know the grounds on which that decision or finding is to be taken.

However, the courts emphasise the need for flexibility in the application of the rules of natural justice, depending on the circumstances of each individual case. Depending on the circumstances which apply, natural justice may require a decision-maker to:

• inform any person:

– whose interests are or are likely to be adversely affected by a decision, about the decision that is to be made and any case they need to make, answer or address

– who is the subject of an investigation (at an appropriate time) of the substance of any allegations against them or the grounds for any proposed adverse comment in respect of them

• provide such persons with a reasonable opportunity to put their case, or to show cause, whether in writing, at a hearing or otherwise, why contemplated action should not be taken or a particular decision should or should not be made

• consider those submissions

• make reasonable inquiries or investigations and ensure that a decision is based upon findings of fact that are in turn based upon sound reasoning and relevant evidence

• act fairly and without bias in making decisions, including ensuring that no person decides a case in which they have direct interest

• conduct an investigation or address an issue without undue delay.

While a person the subject of an investigation should be informed of the substance of the allegations against them and proposed adverse comment, this does not require all the information in the investigator’s possession supporting those allegations to be disclosed to that person. Indeed it may damage the effectiveness of the investigation to show the investigator’s hand completely by offering too much information too early to the person the subject of complaint.

In rare cases there may be an overriding public interest in short-circuiting certain natural justice requirements. This will normally be in situations that involve serious risks to personal safety or where substantial amounts of public funds may be at risk. In these cases, expert external advice should always be sought and documented.

Benefits for persons whose rights or interests may be affected

Natural justice allows persons whose rights or interests may be affected by decisions the opportunity:

• to put forward arguments in their favour

• to show cause why proposed action should not be taken

• to deny allegations

• to call evidence to rebut allegations or claims

• to explain allegations or present an innocent explanation, and/or

• to provide mitigating circumstances.

Benefits for investigators and decision-makers

While natural justice is, at law, a safeguard applying to the individual whose rights or interests are being affected, an investigator or decision-maker should not regard such obligations as a burden or impediment to an investigation or decision-making process. Natural justice can be an integral element of a professional decision-making or investigative process — one that benefits the investigator or decision-maker as well as the person whose rights or interests may be affected.

For an investigator or decision-maker, natural justice serves a number of related functions:

• it is an important means of checking facts and of identifying major issues

• the comments made by the subject of the complaint or the interested party will expose any weaknesses in an investigation, decision-making process or information on which a decision is to be based, which avoids later embarrassment, and

• it also provides advance warning of the basis on which the investigation report or administrative decision is likely to be attacked.

Further information

For further information, see also:

• Good Conduct and Administrative Practice — Guidelines for state and local government, NSW Ombudsman, August 2003

• The Complaint Handlers Tool Kit (2nd edition), NSW Ombudsman, June 2004

• Investigating complaints — A manual for investigators

(2nd edition), NSW Ombudsman, June 2004

Edited June 19, 2010 by Erny

[APBT Club of Aust Inc.]

Justice

What a joke!

There is no justice if you haven't got money

[Erny]

Doesn't mean we should stop reminding them that "Justice" and "Procedural Fairness" is supposed to be a part of our system.

[APBT Club of Aust Inc.]

Keep those letters rolling in, we've got to put a stop to this.

Otherwise we'll all be lined up at Tandy Electronics to obtain our next pet and they're nowhere near as cuddly as what we are privileged enough to own now.

Edited June 19, 2010 by APBT Club of Aust Inc.