Here We Go Mandatory Desexing For All Pet Puppies.

[shortstep]

Depends on the state. Victorian RSPCA can't enter without evidence.

Also, they are answerable to the minister, no? Saying they are answerable to no one implies just that - there is no higher authority than the RSPCA and that isn't true.

Megan, the RSPCA is answerable to the 'greater good', which is a far greater position than the minsiter.

Be Green Vote Green, end animal ownership and animal slavery in Australia!

We don't wear them, we don't eat them, we don't own them!

Support maditory desexing of all pets.

I'm not sure if this is a joke or not

either way food for thought. so if all foul domesticated methane excreters are to be eliminated??

does that mean all wild methan excreters are next for extermination????????? theres millions of them,, um actually a few billion of em particularly so in africa

yikes

homo sapiens also excrete..................what..................methane?

The next step is to severely limit population of humans. (have you not been listing to ABC, not a day goes by where they do not mention population control).

Wild animals are to be saved at all cost and given back all of the earth that is rightfully theirs.

Humans should be removed from the rural and small towns and moved to the largest 5-7 cities, live in high density living and only allowed to reach numbers that can be substain with inner city garden plots. Look at the Cuban plan for an example.

The areas between the cities should be reverted back to natural bush for the wild animals.

Be Green, Vote Green.

All water needs to flow in the rivers to the sea, man must stop taking the water to grow food.

Support goverment buy out of all water rights and end all water using farming in Australia today!

Edited December 15, 2010 by shortstep

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

there is no where, i am serious, there is no appeals process, best you could do is complain to the minister maybe.

but the police have a formal appeals process and so should the rspca

The Qld law which allows RSPCA intervention, is a relatively new one, so includes some emphasis on a review/appeals structure. In line with current public expectations. The final process is via an independent tribunal & that is written into the law.

I already posted about that & my memory is that you, JB, responded.

I don't know the laws & their accountability structures in other states.

yes it was checked out and a formal appeals process wasn't found

mita if you have a link handy i would appreciate it as i couldn't find one and i do prefer to give out the right information

[AmandaJ]

Depends on the state. Victorian RSPCA can't enter without evidence.

Also, they are answerable to the minister, no? Saying they are answerable to no one implies just that - there is no higher authority than the RSPCA and that isn't true.

Megan, the RSPCA is answerable to the 'greater good', which is a far greater position than the minsiter.

Be Green Vote Green, end animal ownership and animal slavery in Australia!

We don't wear them, we don't eat them, we don't own them!

Support maditory desexing of all pets.

I'm not sure if this is a joke or not

either way food for thought. so if all foul domesticated methane excreters are to be eliminated??

does that mean all wild methan excreters are next for extermination????????? theres millions of them,, um actually a few billion of em particularly so in africa

yikes

homo sapiens also excrete..................what..................methane?

The next step is to severely limit population of humans. (have you not been listing to ABC, not a day goes by where they do not mention population control).

Wild animals are to be saved at all cost and given back all of the earth that is rightfully theirs.

Humans should be removed from the rural and small towns and moved to the largest 5-7 cities, live in high density living and only allowed to reach numbers that can be substain with inner city garden plots. Look at the Cuban plan for an example.

The areas between the cities should be reverted back to natural bush for the wild animals.

Be Green, Vote Green.

All water needs to flow in the rivers to the sea, man must stop taking the water to grow food.

Support goverment buy out of all water rights and end all water using farming in Australia today!

I'm going to take this as "tongue in cheek" - the alternative it to frightening......

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

maybe not so tongue in cheek. there are extremists everywhere...just depends if anyone is listening to them and buying what theysay

[shortstep]

Depends on the state. Victorian RSPCA can't enter without evidence.

Also, they are answerable to the minister, no? Saying they are answerable to no one implies just that - there is no higher authority than the RSPCA and that isn't true.

Megan, the RSPCA is answerable to the 'greater good', which is a far greater position than the minsiter.

Be Green Vote Green, end animal ownership and animal slavery in Australia!

We don't wear them, we don't eat them, we don't own them!

Support maditory desexing of all pets.

I'm not sure if this is a joke or not

either way food for thought. so if all foul domesticated methane excreters are to be eliminated??

does that mean all wild methan excreters are next for extermination????????? theres millions of them,, um actually a few billion of em particularly so in africa

yikes

homo sapiens also excrete..................what..................methane?

The next step is to severely limit population of humans. (have you not been listing to ABC, not a day goes by where they do not mention population control).

Wild animals are to be saved at all cost and given back all of the earth that is rightfully theirs.

Humans should be removed from the rural and small towns and moved to the largest 5-7 cities, live in high density living and only allowed to reach numbers that can be substain with inner city garden plots. Look at the Cuban plan for an example.

The areas between the cities should be reverted back to natural bush for the wild animals.

Be Green, Vote Green.

All water needs to flow in the rivers to the sea, man must stop taking the water to grow food.

Support goverment buy out of all water rights and end all water using farming in Australia today!

I'm going to take this as "tongue in cheek" - the alternative it to frightening......

I have not seen any tongues in cheeks along the Murray Darling.

Edited December 15, 2010 by shortstep

[Souff]

They do have more power than the police and they are answerable to no one.

In at least 1 state of Australia the RSPCA can enter premises without a warrant.

The police in that same state must get a warrant before they can enter the same premises.

Yet, unlike the police, there is no Ombudsman or Tribunal to whom the public can go to about RSPCA matters, and no ICAC for the RSPCA to answer to.

Souff

To better explain some of the subleties of the law in NSW here is the relevent part of the POCTA Act. Note that a warrant is required to enter "a dwelling". *

A warrant is not required for your kennels, your garage, your sheds, your car, your caravan, your boat, your shop, your office etc. They are all part of "land" apparently.

However if the inspector believes that an animal might be in imminent danger he/she can enter a dwelling without a warrant anyway!

*So much for having to get a warrant for a dwelling. Just when you were feeling all safe and cosy about your dwelling .... sorry about that.

As always, the devil is in the detail.

Never skim over anything a politician has approved - particularly when it concerns the health of your animals or your rights as a citizen.

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 No 200

Current version for 9 July 2010 to date (accessed 15 December 2010 at 18:09)

Part 2ADivision 2

<< page >>

Division 2 Powers of inspectors

24D Interpretation and application of Division

(1) In this Division:

inspector means an officer (other than a police officer) who is the holder of an authority issued under subsection (2) that is in force, or a police officer.

land includes premises or a vehicle, vessel or aircraft.

(2) The Minister, or the Director-General or a Deputy Director-General of the Department, may issue an officer with an authority for the purposes of this Division and may revoke any such authority.

(3) An inspector may not exercise powers under this Division in relation to animal research carried out in accordance with the Animal Research Act 1985 on designated land within the meaning of that Act unless the inspector is also an inspector within the meaning of that Act.

24E Power to enter land

(1) An inspector may enter land for the purpose of exercising any function under this Division.

(2) Despite subsection (1), an inspector may exercise a power under this Division to enter a dwelling only with the consent of the occupier of the dwelling, the authority of a search warrant or if the inspector believes on reasonable grounds that:

(a) an animal has suffered significant physical injury, is in imminent danger of suffering significant physical injury or has a life threatening condition that requires immediate veterinary treatment, and

(b) it is necessary to exercise the power to prevent further physical injury or to prevent significant physical injury to the animal or to ensure that it is provided with veterinary treatment.

24F Search warrant

(1) In this section:

authorised officer has the same meaning as it has in the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002.

(2) An inspector may apply to an authorised officer for a search warrant if the inspector has reasonable grounds for believing that there is, in or on any land:

(a) an animal in respect of which an offence against this Act or the regulations is being or has been committed or is about to be committed, or

(b) evidence of an offence against this Act or the regulations that has been committed.

(3) An authorised officer to whom an application is made under subsection (2) may, if satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for doing so, issue a search warrant authorising an inspector named in the warrant, together with any person so named:

(a) to enter and search the land, and

(b) to exercise any functions of an inspector under this Division in or on the land.

(4) Division 4 of Part 5 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 applies to a search warrant issued under this section.

24G Powers of inspectors in relation to land used for certain commercial purposes

(1) This section applies to the following land:

(a) land used for the purpose of a sale-yard or an animal trade,

(b) land in or on which an animal is being used, or kept for use, in connection with any other trade, or any business or profession (including a place used by a veterinary practitioner for the purpose of carrying on his or her profession).

(2) For the purposes of ensuring that the provisions of this Act or the regulations are not being contravened, an inspector may, in relation to land to which this section applies, do any or all of the following:

(a) inspect and examine the land, any animal that is in or on the land and any accommodation or shelter that is provided in or on the land for any animal,

(b) inspect and examine any register that is kept under this Act or the regulations and that is in or on the land,

© require any person found in or on the land to produce any such register,

(d) take copies of, or extracts or notes from, any such register.

(3) A person must not fail to comply with a requirement made by an inspector under subsection (2) ©.

Maximum penalty (subsection (3)): 25 penalty units.

24H Powers of police officers to detain vehicle or vessel

(1) If a police officer suspects on reasonable grounds that a vehicle or vessel contains an animal in respect of which an offence against section 5, 6, 7 or 8 has been or is being committed and that the animal is in distress the police officer may:

(a) stop the vehicle or vessel, and

(b) enter the vehicle or vessel, and

© enter any land for the purpose of entering the vehicle or vessel, and

(d) examine the animal.

(2) For the purpose of entering the vehicle or vessel or examining the animal concerned, the police officer may direct the person operating the vehicle or vessel to do any or all of the following:

(a) to manoeuvre the vehicle or vessel in a specified manner or to a specified place (including a place that is appropriate for examining the animal concerned),

(b) to park or secure the vehicle or vessel in a specified manner,

© to remain in control of the vehicle or vessel while the police officer is exercising his or her functions.

(3) A person must not fail to comply with a direction given to the person under this section.

Maximum penalty: 25 penalty units.

(4) A direction under this section to stop a vehicle or vessel must be made in a manner prescribed by the regulations by a police officer who is identified in a manner so prescribed.

(5) For the purposes of subsection (1), an animal is in distress if it is suffering from exposure to the elements, debility, exhaustion or significant physical injury.

24I Powers of inspectors generally to examine animals

An inspector may examine an animal if the inspector suspects, on reasonable grounds, that:

(a) an offence against this Act or the regulations is being, has been or is about to be committed in respect of the animal, or

(b) the animal has not been provided with proper and sufficient food or drink during the previous 24 hours (or, in the case of the provision of food to an animal of a class prescribed by the regulations, during the period prescribed for that class of animal) and is still not being provided with that food or drink, or

© the animal is so severely injured, so diseased or in such a physical condition that it is necessary that the animal be provided with veterinary treatment and the animal is not being provided with that treatment, or

(d) the animal is so severely injured, so diseased or in such a physical condition that it is cruel to keep it alive, and the animal is not about to be destroyed, or is about to be destroyed in a manner that will inflict unnecessary pain on the animal.

24J Powers of inspectors in relation to care of animals

(1) If, after examining an animal in accordance with this Division, an inspector suspects, on reasonable grounds, that the animal is in distress (as referred to in section 24H (5)) or any of the circumstances referred to in section 24I exist in relation to the animal, the inspector may do any or all of the following:

(a) take possession of the animal (or, if the animal is dead, the animal’s carcass),

(b) if appropriate, remove the animal (or carcass) to such place as the inspector thinks fit,

© retain possession of the animal (or carcass),

(d) provide the animal with necessary food, drink or veterinary treatment,

(e) destroy the animal in a manner that causes it to die quickly and without unnecessary pain.

(2) An animal (or carcass) to which section 24I (a) applies may be retained by an inspector for a period not exceeding 60 days or where, within that 60-day period proceedings are commenced in respect of the offence concerned, until the proceedings are finally determined (unless the court otherwise directs).

(3) Despite subsection (2), an animal retained under this section that is in distress or to which section 24I (b), © or (d) applies may be retained for such period of time as is sufficient for the animal to be provided with necessary food, drink or veterinary treatment, or to be destroyed in a manner that causes it to die quickly and without unnecessary pain, as the case requires.

(4) The reasonable expenses incurred by:

(a) an inspector who is a police officer or another person on behalf of the NSW Police Force, or

(b) an inspector who is an officer of a charitable organisation or another person on behalf of the organisation, or

© an inspector who is a member of staff of a Department (within the meaning of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act 2002) or another person on behalf of the Crown,

in the exercise of the powers conferred by this section in respect of an animal, or in complying with the related duties imposed by this Act or the regulations, may be recovered from the owner of the animal as a debt in a court of competent jurisdiction by the inspector or any other person acting on behalf of the NSW Police Force, a charitable organisation or the Crown.

24K Power of seizure of evidence of offences

(1) An inspector who is lawfully on any land investigating a suspected commission of an offence against this Act or the regulations may seize any thing that will afford evidence of the commission of the offence.

(2) An inspector who seizes a thing under this section must provide the occupier of the land with a receipt acknowledging the seizure of the thing if the occupier is present and it is reasonably practical to do so.

(3) If an inspector seizes a thing under this section, it may be retained by the inspector until the completion of any proceedings (including proceedings on appeal) in which it may be tendered in evidence.

(4) However, an inspector may retain seized documents under subsection (3) only if the person from whom the documents were seized is provided, within a reasonable time after the seizure, with a copy of the documents certified by an inspector to be a true copy.

(5) Subsection (3) ceases to have effect in relation to any thing seized if, on the application of the person aggrieved by the seizure, the court in which the proceedings referred to in that subsection are instituted orders the inspector to return the thing seized.

Edited December 15, 2010 by Souff

[Alyosha]

So Souff you have just shown that although RSPCA Inspectors in NSW have some powers under the POCTA, which police have as well.

Police then have additional powers under the same Act, as defined by LEPRA.

You have failed to note how you allege that this equates to RSPCA having more power than police. It's showing the opposite.

And in addition, regarding the feed bills issue, from http://www.rspca-act.org.au/about-us/

We will prepare 300,000 meals for companion animals; 500,000 feeds for native birds and mammals.

Geez. half a million meals huh? Sounds pretty cheap to me. Especially with highly specialised diets involved...

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

have been out of action for a but i will still be crunching the numbers as soon as i can

[Alyosha]

Me too JB - must be the season for it!!

We might be all heading to an agree to disgree type situation anyway... ?

[shortstep]

I am wondering about the ethic's of breeders in other states placing dogs into Canberra (or the Goldcoast) after this law goes into effect.

If Canberran's do not want purebred pups in their state with out the dogs coming from breeders being under tight control of the government, then I would say that they would not want another state's breeder to send dogs into their state. I am sure they can't make a law to say that, but that would be the wish of those who want this law put into place. Dogs/pups coming into ACT from breeders in other states would defeat the whole purpose of having tight control over every pure bred dog in the state.

I do mean only purebreds too, as it is obvious that BYB and designer dog breeders are not traceable and will fly right under the radar, so I am sure there will lots of these dogs available for the folks of ACT to enjoy.

Edited December 18, 2010 by shortstep

[Steve]

there is no where, i am serious, there is no appeals process, best you could do is complain to the minister maybe.

but the police have a formal appeals process and so should the rspca

The Qld law which allows RSPCA intervention, is a relatively new one, so includes some emphasis on a review/appeals structure. In line with current public expectations. The final process is via an independent tribunal & that is written into the law.

I already posted about that & my memory is that you, JB, responded.

I don't know the laws & their accountability structures in other states.

There seems to some confusion about this - QCAT - Says it handles complaints with Animal care

Under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 decisions about registration, using an animal for scientific purposes, disclosure exemption applications and giving an animal welfare direction.

Thats not quite the same as having the RSPCA having an outside accountability.

If a police officer comes into my home and does an illegal search and beats me up. I can complain to his superiors and if I dont get any outcome because they collude or cover up facts or laod evidence to make out that the cop didnt do the wrong thing I can go to th eombudsman and anti corruption and have some INDEPENDENT PERSON WHO HAS NO POLITICAL REASON TO FIND ONE WAY OR THE OTHER to hear my case and take action if corruption or similar is found.

Now if and RSPCA officer is out of line you have to complain to his boss, if you dont get any joy , you can complain to his boss, if you dont get any joy you can write a letter to the board of directors. You can also go to the minister. However all the way through that chain there are many opportunities for collusion and its not in their best interests to find their system has failed and someone has had their lives ruined.

I am not accusing the RSPCA or any other person or body of anything - however, if someone can come onto your property and seize your animal , refuse to allow you to know where its being taken , have their own vet look at it without any obligation for a second opinion, they can decide without consulting you or allowing your vet to have a look on your behalf, decide the animal is suffering too much to stay alive and kill it. No evidence because its cremated. Then prosecute you and have more rights to withhold evidence which may work in your favour etc as the prosecutor does in any other instance.

Then lets add a bit extra - in one some states they have the power to police pocta and planning laws and their own policies . This is why all of a sudden some rescues in NSW all of a sudden need concreted pens etc . But did you know that when you ask your local council what you have to do to comply from a planning view to be able to breed animals from you rproperty they cant answer ? Why? Because its all taken on a case by case basis. This means that one neighbour may be looked upon in a more amiable manner than another, and it leaves open opportunities for free luches and bunch of other potential corrupt behaviours.

Im not saying this happens but the fact is in every state of Australia there are ordinary people who are saying there is something crooked and you only have to hit google to see what kind of accusation there are .Breeders now are telling us they have to have concreted pens and there is no mandatory code which says they have to have that - no one knows why.

Its simple give us an external system where people can feel they have an ability to tell their story and be listened to fairly and none of this would be happening

The ombudsman and anti corruption was put in place for EXACTLY this to prevent these situations and accusations and history tells us its possible in fact probable that at least some of these cases have some basis but worse these guys tie it up every single step of the way.

We also have to tidy up council planning issues so every person is seen to be treated in an equitable manner to their neighbours. Its not O.K. to tell people they cant tell you what you need to do until after you apply and that each application is taken on a case by case basis.

Whats more just because a person wnats to own and entire dog they shouldnt have to give up their right to privacy and be treated as if they are crimminals.

[Steve]

So Souff you have just shown that although RSPCA Inspectors in NSW have some powers under the POCTA, which police have as well.

Police then have additional powers under the same Act, as defined by LEPRA.

You have failed to note how you allege that this equates to RSPCA having more power than police. It's showing the opposite.

And in addition, regarding the feed bills issue, from http://www.rspca-act.org.au/about-us/

We will prepare 300,000 meals for companion animals; 500,000 feeds for native birds and mammals.

Geez. half a million meals huh? Sounds pretty cheap to me. Especially with highly specialised diets involved...

Police in NSW cannot police mandatory codes for breeding dogs planning laws or RSPCA policy.

Edited December 18, 2010 by Steve

[Steve]

You need to understand that in all states the RSPCA have police powers for POCTA but their stated aim is to have the same powers in other states they currently have in NSW - in particular the ability to police mandatory codes as well as POCTA.

[Souff]

So Souff you have just shown that although RSPCA Inspectors in NSW have some powers under the POCTA, which police have as well.

Police then have additional powers under the same Act, as defined by LEPRA.

You have failed to note how you allege that this equates to RSPCA having more power than police. It's showing the opposite.

And in addition, regarding the feed bills issue, from http://www.rspca-act.org.au/about-us/

We will prepare 300,000 meals for companion animals; 500,000 feeds for native birds and mammals.

Geez. half a million meals huh? Sounds pretty cheap to me. Especially with highly specialised diets involved...

Ah yes, I see your problem now.

Well, to explain a little further, a police officer in NSW cannot enter your dwelling in NSW unless he/she has a warrant to do so, except in the circumstances where your dwelling is known to them to be premises involved in major drug activity (not just smoking some weed) or if there is activity that falls under the anti-terrorism laws I understand. COnversely an RSPCA inspector has the power to enter a dwelling if believes on reasonable grounds that:

(a) an animal has suffered significant physical injury, is in imminent danger of suffering significant physical injury or has a life threatening condition that requires immediate veterinary treatment, and

(b) it is necessary to exercise the power to prevent further physical injury or to prevent significant physical injury to the animal or to ensure that it is provided with veterinary treatment.

Now, I have no problem if there is a bushfire roaring up the hill and there are animals in a dwelling which is likely to be in the path of the fire, and there is a team of gallant RSPCA officers on the scene to rescue the doomed animals ..... and they use their powers of entry without a warrant.

However, I do have a problem if they are investigating a complaint from someone who has ALLEGED that an activity might be taking place where they feel animals might be going to suffer some physical injury (from a practice that well educated people in the dog world might in fact consider necessary for the long term welfare of an animal) at residential premises and that the powers of entry without warrant are used to enter said premises.

It is all a matter of balance, commonsense and rational thinking, as to whether or not the powers of entry without warrant to residential premises would in fact be used.

But what I am saying is that an RSPCA officer has these powers, and yet the average police officer cannot do the same thing.

And as both Steve has pointed out there is no INDEPENDENT complaints process or ombudsman to which the public can go if they have a complaint about the activity of an RSPCA inspector or officer. If they want to be like a policeman, then they must be subject to the same complaints processes as police officers are subject to and we must have an Ombudsman.

btw that is an awful lot of meals for wildlife. A lot of minced meat and fresh worms for injured kookaburras, a lot of gum leaves for injured koalas, etc. Native wildlife should only be with the RSPCA if they are injured I understand. Are you not getting this mixed up with WIRES ?

Souff

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

Me too JB - must be the season for it!!

We might be all heading to an agree to disgree type situation anyway... ?

we might

i think it important to crunch the numbers which btw i have no idea how it will turn out, because that is real data that we can discuss.

[Alyosha]

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 No 200

Current version for 9 July 2010 to date (accessed 15 December 2010 at 18:09)

Part 2ADivision 2

<< page >>

Division 2 Powers of inspectors

24D Interpretation and application of Division

(1) In this Division:

inspector means an officer (other than a police officer) who is the holder of an authority issued under subsection (2) that is in force, or a police officer.

land includes premises or a vehicle, vessel or aircraft.

(2) The Minister, or the Director-General or a Deputy Director-General of the Department, may issue an officer with an authority for the purposes of this Division and may revoke any such authority.

(3) An inspector may not exercise powers under this Division in relation to animal research carried out in accordance with the Animal Research Act 1985 on designated land within the meaning of that Act unless the inspector is also an inspector within the meaning of that Act.

24E Power to enter land

(1) An inspector may enter land for the purpose of exercising any function under this Division.

(2) Despite subsection (1), an inspector may exercise a power under this Division to enter a dwelling only with the consent of the occupier of the dwelling, the authority of a search warrant or if the inspector believes on reasonable grounds that:

(a) an animal has suffered significant physical injury, is in imminent danger of suffering significant physical injury or has a life threatening condition that requires immediate veterinary treatment, and

(b) it is necessary to exercise the power to prevent further physical injury or to prevent significant physical injury to the animal or to ensure that it is provided with veterinary treatment.

24F Search warrant

(1) In this section:

authorised officer has the same meaning as it has in the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002.

(2) An inspector may apply to an authorised officer for a search warrant if the inspector has reasonable grounds for believing that there is, in or on any land:

(a) an animal in respect of which an offence against this Act or the regulations is being or has been committed or is about to be committed, or

(b) evidence of an offence against this Act or the regulations that has been committed.

(3) An authorised officer to whom an application is made under subsection (2) may, if satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for doing so, issue a search warrant authorising an inspector named in the warrant, together with any person so named:

(a) to enter and search the land, and

(b) to exercise any functions of an inspector under this Division in or on the land.

I think you missed right at the start:

inspector means an officer (other than a police officer) who is the holder of an authority issued under subsection (2) that is in force, or a police officer.

So RSPCA Inspectors share with police the early listed powers of entry without warrant in certain extingent circumstances. Then police, as defined authorised officers under LEPRA, have additional powers relating to warrants.

So again you've alleged that Inspectors have more power than police under this Act, but reading the Act correctly clearly illustrates otherwise. You cannot bend legislation to fit what you want, but you do need to read it carefuly and not make presumtions about what it contains.

And unless you're very conversant with LEPRA, I would contend that you have displayed a very limited knowledge of police powers of entry in various circumstances without warrant.

And yes Steve you're right, police have no part in enforcing anyone's policies, they are not legislative instruments.

[Steve]

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 No 200

Current version for 9 July 2010 to date (accessed 15 December 2010 at 18:09)

Part 2ADivision 2

<< page >>

Division 2 Powers of inspectors

24D Interpretation and application of Division

(1) In this Division:

inspector means an officer (other than a police officer) who is the holder of an authority issued under subsection (2) that is in force, or a police officer.

land includes premises or a vehicle, vessel or aircraft.

(2) The Minister, or the Director-General or a Deputy Director-General of the Department, may issue an officer with an authority for the purposes of this Division and may revoke any such authority.

(3) An inspector may not exercise powers under this Division in relation to animal research carried out in accordance with the Animal Research Act 1985 on designated land within the meaning of that Act unless the inspector is also an inspector within the meaning of that Act.

24E Power to enter land

(1) An inspector may enter land for the purpose of exercising any function under this Division.

(2) Despite subsection (1), an inspector may exercise a power under this Division to enter a dwelling only with the consent of the occupier of the dwelling, the authority of a search warrant or if the inspector believes on reasonable grounds that:

(a) an animal has suffered significant physical injury, is in imminent danger of suffering significant physical injury or has a life threatening condition that requires immediate veterinary treatment, and

(b) it is necessary to exercise the power to prevent further physical injury or to prevent significant physical injury to the animal or to ensure that it is provided with veterinary treatment.

24F Search warrant

(1) In this section:

authorised officer has the same meaning as it has in the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002.

(2) An inspector may apply to an authorised officer for a search warrant if the inspector has reasonable grounds for believing that there is, in or on any land:

(a) an animal in respect of which an offence against this Act or the regulations is being or has been committed or is about to be committed, or

(b) evidence of an offence against this Act or the regulations that has been committed.

(3) An authorised officer to whom an application is made under subsection (2) may, if satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for doing so, issue a search warrant authorising an inspector named in the warrant, together with any person so named:

(a) to enter and search the land, and

(b) to exercise any functions of an inspector under this Division in or on the land.

I think you missed right at the start:

inspector means an officer (other than a police officer) who is the holder of an authority issued under subsection (2) that is in force, or a police officer.

So RSPCA Inspectors share with police the early listed powers of entry without warrant in certain extingent circumstances. Then police, as defined authorised officers under LEPRA, have additional powers relating to warrants.

So again you've alleged that Inspectors have more power than police under this Act, but reading the Act correctly clearly illustrates otherwise. You cannot bend legislation to fit what you want, but you do need to read it carefuly and not make presumtions about what it contains.

And unless you're very conversant with LEPRA, I would contend that you have displayed a very limited knowledge of police powers of entry in various circumstances without warrant.

And yes Steve you're right, police have no part in enforcing anyone's policies, they are not legislative instruments.

They dont police mandatory codes either .

[Souff]

That is what it might say but in reality that is not how it is. I have it on good authority that they can only enter a residence without a warrant in the 2 circumstances that I previously outlined and even then they prefer to have the warrant first to save the paperwork drama later - this was confirmed to me after POCTA was last amended.

Souff

[Steve]

I watched an RSPCA Rescue episode a couple of months ago which had been filmed in Liverpool western Sydney.

The inspector thought there was a dog on the premises which may have had its tail docked. She knocked on the door and there was no answer . Clearly there could not have been an act of cruelty in progress if no one was home.There was no screaming of a dog in agony coming from inside the home etc.

On camera she carried a ladder and set it up beside the house and on camera looked in the window and saw the dog.the dog did not show any signs of being injured or in distress in any way. Yet on she climbed into the home through a second floor window and entered the property when the owner was not at home - without a warrant.

She removed a dog which was around 8 months old with a shortened tail. If her assumption that it had been illegally docked was correct then clearly it had been docked months and months earlier. She wasnt sure how old the dog was and for all she knew the dog may have been over 1 year old [statute of limitations on animal cruelty cases] or had been born with a bob tail or it had been imported.

There was not one single solitary clue or explaination to show why she should have the ability to enter someone's home and remove their property without being invited in or without permission. She had the option of doing what the police can do if they suspect crimminal activity which is not endangering life - to apply for a warrant or she could have simply either returned when the owners were home or left a note for the owners to contact her to investigate the situation.

After she removed the dog she left a note for the owner to contact her when they returned home and took the dog to the shelter where it was X rayed and examined by the RSPCA vet.It was determined the dog had been docked.The dog was in excellent health and condition.

The owner contacted the RSPCA on her return home that evening. She told the inspector that the dog had been given to her as a gift by her Ex boyfriend at 8 weeks of age and it had already had its tail docked. As she no longer had any contact with the ex and he was travelling around Europe and she didnt know where he got it from she could not provide information on who had docked the dog.

The dog was returned to the owner the next day.

Now you dont have to be a genius to work out that if she did this on camera and didnt get the sack and that the RSPCA gave approval for the show to go to air that this is seen to be an acceptable practice.

Is this acceptable practice? If a police officer did this the owner could lodge a complaint and if they felt they were not being treated as they should be and the cops were covering each other to prevent further action being taken against an illegal entry and seizure without due process they can go to the ombudsman.

If a child may have been injured some month's previously by persons unknown could a cop or FACS officer climb in through a window without warrant and remove the child while the parents werent watching and take it off for an examination? Surely cops should have more not less powers to prevent and punish child abuse than an RSPCA officer should have.

There is something very radically wrong with this picture and yet everyone who watched that show saw it as no big deal. Must be just me because I would think if that happened to people I know that the owner would be on the 6 o clock news yelling about it. Society sees it as "good job RSPCA" - These are very strange times we live in.

Given the amount of false and vexatious complaints which are made is it posible that you can dob in your neighbour and tell them there is a docked dog or a debarked dog on the premises and have them illegally enter your home and remove it while you are out shopping before they ask any questions to see if the dog has been docked or debarked ,whether the correct procedure was completed and whether they may need to further investigate without a warrant?

Obviously they think they can and they think its something to brag about and strutt their stuff on TV.

Edited December 19, 2010 by Steve

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

wow steve, i don't watch that show, that behaviour is appalling and must have been sanctioned by the rspca :D