Who Monitor's The Rspca?

[Loreley]

I get these weird questions that pop into my head from time to time, most of them can be quite left field.

I was curious to understand how the rspca came to have such power considering it was a private organisation, from what I can see there is no other organisation that I know of (limited) that has the wide ranging legislated powers that they hold.

Then it started me thinking, who police's the policeman? Who is responsible for monitoring the quality of the care and their decisions to put an animal down for instance? Where is would you go for your right of appeal?

Our legal system, our government, police, every major area where there is legislation including banking has some form of ombudsman or review board, does the animal welfare system have this? and if not why not?

Please don't use this as an RSPCA bashing, this isn't what this is intended for, what I am keen to learn about is the checks and balances and processes that are in place to safeguard animals in the care of the rspca and other such organisations.

Told you they were left field, am keen to hear your thoughts.

[Are You Serious Jo]

Well they aren't left field questions, we have discussed this at length for a number of years. Essentially no one polices them. You'll have a few people who insist that the minister is the higher power but that route is fundamentally flawed. What happens is a person complains to the minister, the minister asks the rspca what is going on, rspca say all is fine, minster won't act. No one who claims the minister will act has ever tried it so going by experience of those involved they answer to no one currently.

[tdierikx]

The AWL usually have the same investigative powers as the RSPCA - so I'd probably try them first if you had any evidence that an RSPCA shelter was dodgy.

They can and will investigate each other if pressed hard enough...

T.

[Loreley]

So really there is no government body ? That's amazing!

[tdierikx]

Nope - no actual governing body to keep them in check...

The best part is that they get to police their "competition" - like rescues and shelters... makes you think, doesn't it?

T.

[mita]

Written into the Q'ld law about the implementation of animal welfare law, are steps for appeal by people affected by decisions made by the RSPCA Q'ld. First is appeal to the Director-General of the Government Dpt which oversees that law (via relevant Minister). If the complainant is not satisfied, then the next level is to QCAT (Q'ld Civil & Administrative Tribunal).

QCAT may review a wide range of administrative decisions - & includes animal care and regulation.

[Little Gifts]

Qld's whole political system is set up differently to the other states as we are run under a corporation (Brigalow). No idea how they got away with it back when, but they did!

Anywho, this also isn't intended as RSPCA bashing but as the body responsible nationally for the welfare of all creatures great and small I really can't understand how/why they aren't involved in protecting pet dogs seized under BSL who haven't caused any actual harm? Surely someone needs to be championing the needs of these dogs? How can keeping them confined and without contact with their human families be in the dogs best interests while court cases are going on, sometimes for a year or more? How can their owners not being there with them when they are pts be in the dog's best interests? Sorry, but sometimes I just don't understand what they do that is so different from all the other independent animal rescue groups out there? They can get involved in legal stuff where others can't. They have the push to get a foot in the door with councils that no-one else can. I think they have spread themselves too thin with all the activities they do and are losing sight of their legislated responsibilities that no other key body can perform.

[Aphra]

In Victoria anyway, their legislated responsibilities are only around investigating and prosecuting animal cruelty. Everything else they do are actions they choose to undertake as an independent body. All the jurisdictional RSPCAs run differently - so the ACT RSPCA behaves quite differently to the NSW RSPCA.

If they choose not to support dogs seized under BSL legislation its because they have decided that its not politically expedient to do so - going up against Ministers who are so vocally committed to BSL might impact on their level of influence.