New Legislation For Puppy Farmers

[Wags]

Let me start by saying I don't live in Qld but I do take an interest in the various laws being introduced in all australian states.

Another place you should be concerned about is the power it gives to a non-government charity.

A member of this charity would be able to enter your premises and seize animals without a warrant and without police present, simply because they think something is happening or is about to happen to an animal.

Even police must provide evidence or cause to a judge to get a warrant to enter premises.

And why does this organisation get this power.

Because it is involved in drafting the legislation and will also be involved in prosecuting any breaches of the act.

This means there is no accountability.

In normal circumstances the creators of a law do not enforce or administer.

The enforcers do not create or administer the law. and the administrators of the law do not create or enforce.

This law will place too much power in the hands of an organisation than it should be given.

Want to see a misuse of power that can be created by this law, ask about J. Gard (victoria) or Ruth Downey (New South Wales). Both of these matters were brought about by too much power placed in the wrong hands and no process of accountability.

While I don't support puppy farms and I believe something should be done, be very careful of this law as it stands. You may end up with more than you really wanted.

Hi yarracully. :)

I understand you were replying to wags.

However, in your zeal to attack the RSPCA you have overlooked important parts of the proposal.

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.

So, your point about power being misplaced is a misrepresentation.

The inspectors appointed under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 will be independent and their power will be raised to Law Enforcement, an outside agency.

Unfortunately this makes the remainder of your critique redundant.

The new legislation may in fact redress the abuses of power that have occurred in the past.

Regards

Px

Tralee I think you might want to re-read your own posting . The wording you have quoted shows that a member of a charitable organisation (RSPCA) can enter premises without a warrant if they suspect anything being done to harm an animal. They do not require any proof prior to entering. They only need to suspect. The inspectors are not independant. How can they be when they operate under the umbrella of a body involved in formulation of the law and will also be involved in prosecuting any breaches of the law.

Recent history has already shown what can happen when a body is involved in formulating and enforceing law. The same body will also be involved in prosecuting this law. There has to be a seperation of power so that some form of accountability can exist.

Under this law (As has already happened in NSW and VIC) an RSPCA inspector can walk past your front gate and hear one of your dogs bark/howl/growl. Under this act they have the right to enter your property and seize your dogs because they "Suspect" harm being done. They will then prosecute you in court and the whole time run up a huge bill for feeding your dogs which if you succeed in court (months later) you will have to pay (I believe at one point they were claiming upto $85.00 per day per dog).

Thats unless they decide to rehome your dogs so that you cannot have them returned or they decide the dogs are not able to be rehomed and are PTS. All before the actual day in court.

Also remember that if you do happen to win in court (Expensive to fight- they have donated money to fight with, do you?) you cannot sue for compensation or return of costs as they are acting within the law.

As I have said before look at the two cases mentioned that have already occured. The new law will not redress the issue of abuse of power as this wording is the same as in the NSW and VIC laws that created the abuse of power.

Those that cannot learn from history are doomed to repaet it.

There have also been cases where the RSPCA have been called, and they've walked away, finding the report to be bogus. As is normally the case, the focus will lie with the negative. Agreed that some members of any rescue organisation can be so wrapped up in materism that they are unable to see clearly and the situations you describe do occur, but others are more discerning. Unfortunately, the over-zealous situations make more news than the balanced ones.

The question of who would do the policing, other than an organisation like the RSPCA, would seem relevant.

[Crisovar]

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.

[Steve]

Note what Mr Mills says about prosecution.

Submission No 21.pdf

Then

Hansard Feb 2010 - file too big to attach.

CHAIR: Whatcomplaint or appeal processes are available to people who disagree withdecisions

made by RSPCA inspectors? Perhaps you could relatethat to the current issue at hand with the Waterways

Wildlife Park. How do they deal with it? Is itreasonable to say that they might feel a bit overrun by the process:

being inspected, having a second inspection and havinga lot of officers on site? Do they have adequate

opportunity to defend themselves in this situation?

Mr COLEMAN: Dealingin any animal welfare matter, be it one animal or a thousand animals, is

generally highly emotive. We understand and appreciatethe fact that when an RSPCA inspector knocks on

someone's door, that in itself can incite emotion, andunderstandably so. We are very proud of the fact that when

our inspectors investigate the thousands of calls theydo each and every year, around about 1 per cent of all of

those calls end up as a prosecution. There are manyinterpretations, if you like, of that percentage or statistic, but

the fact is that our inspectors on 99 per cent ofoccasions are able to work with people and negotiate with peopleand find anamicable solution to what started out as a legitimate complaint without itnecessarily being a

prosecution.

Do I understand, or can I understand, when people areconfronted by a number of inspectors or a

number of law enforcement officers? Yes, I can. Inthat regard, in terms of an appeal process, clearly, there are

discussions that need to occur. The inspectors arewell versed on their investigative procedures, including the

rights of individuals, one of them being that they donot have to talk to the officers if they choose not to. If a

person chooses to talk first and foremost and thenproceeds to provide responses to questions by the officers

about the animals, again we respect that person'sright not to talk to us but, again, if they do, we make decisions

and provide direction on some of those responses. Ifan individual considers they have been dealt with unfairly,

we have a grievance procedure in place. That personcan elect to make contact with the office of our chief

inspector. If that cannot be resolved, it getsescalated to my office. If that is not resolved, it can go as far as a

complaint direct to ourboard.

Edited January 27, 2012 by Steve

[Wags]

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.

[Steve]

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.

Actually its about accountability for those who are charged with policing all breeders. Breeders already have accountability if the laws which are already there are policed.

[Wags]

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 ????

[Steve]

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.

[Wags]

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.

[Crisovar]

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 SYSTEM and those that ENFORCE it needs to be accontable, can't you see that ?

I'm all for ALL breeders being accountable.

Forgive me if I cannot accept that it will be controlled by a body that is accountable to no one.

[yarracully]

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.

[Steve]

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]

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]

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.

[Are You Serious Jo]

HAHAHA, have you ever tried to put in a complaint, I'm guessing not :laugh: 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]

HAHAHA, have you ever tried to put in a complaint, I'm guessing not :laugh: 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]

HAHAHA, have you ever tried to put in a complaint, I'm guessing not :laugh: 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.

[Are You Serious 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]

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.

Edited January 27, 2012 by yarracully

[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]

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?

Edited January 27, 2012 by Howl