Posts

De-Register the RSPCA as a charity

Available on these platforms:

In this podcast two guests join us to a discuss our modern-day RSPCA.  What might surprise you is that this isn’t a heart-warming story.

The Royal Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, known as the RSPCA, dates to 1871 when a public meeting was held in Victoria in response to the ill treatment of horses.  The QLD RSPCA was formed in 1883.  The RSPCA is a household name and many consider it a beacon of respect and care for animals.

Today, the RSPCA has capitalised on its branding of animal welfare with producers and brand owners being able to use the RSPCA logo to reflect their shared vision for animal welfare.  Today we can buy RSPCA approved meat in our supermarkets.  Typically, we don’t question the integrity of the claimed “animal welfare” standards as we take for granted that this iconic brand is squeaky clean.

Several QLD constituents contacted my office recently with extraordinary stories about how the RSPCA were conducting themselves.  Since asking questions at Senate Estimates about the RSPCA, their methods and the legitimacy of their not-for-profit status, we’ve been flooded with more calls and emails.  Their stories share many similar themes and the overall message is that there is something rotten in the state of the RSPCA.

The concerns being raised are varied.

The RSPCA’s charity status means that they are not-for-profit and enjoy a tax-free status.  Looking closely at the recent annual report it shows revenue was $58 million and included in that is a $4 million Federal Govt grant.  The hefty surplus of $8.7 million is what prompted Senate Estimates questions of the Commissioner for Charities and Not-For-Profits.  My questions were about whether the RSPCA should continue to enjoy charitable status? We’re waiting for that answer as no-one could provide one on the day.

The RSPCA appears to be leveraging its charity branding to become heavily commercial.  I have already mentioned the RSPCA approved meat and today RSPCA pet shops are being set up in the suburbs.  On the face of it there is no problem.  It is when we understand how the RSPCA is conducting itself under its Inspectorate powers, that we see the problem.

The RSPCA’s Inspectorate of RSPCA QLD, has power to investigate and confiscate animals that are poorly treated.  That is the heart of what we expect from them.  What we don’t expect is seizure of animals based on lies.  We have dozens of examples where Inspectorate officers have entered properties and confiscated with no prior notification or investigation.  All this is based on an anonymous tip off that is never disclosed to the property owners.  The warrants JPs sign sometimes use photographs of animals in poor conditions, which do not match the animals to be seized.  This is only the beginning.  Some pet owners have then seen their animals online for sale within days.  This is the problem when the RSPCA have a commercial arm alongside their charitable arm when they can confiscate and sell based on misuse of powers and lies.  This is a clear conflict of interest.

Many pet shop owners, registered breeders, private pet owners, animal rescuers and veterinarians have experienced the full force of the RSPCA’s misuse of power.  Many have spoken out against this strong arm approach and suffered the consequences.  Pet shop businesses have been sabotaged when the RSPCA advises their suppliers to blacklist them based on false accusations of animal cruelty.  Veterinarians who have spoken out against this behaviour have also suffered from the RSPCA spreading false accusations regarding their standards of animal care.  Business have been decimated through this belligerent behaviour.

My two guests, who both own pet stores, join us to share their experiences with the RSPCA.  Their stories are confronting.

‘Shell’ and Nicole’s stories are extraordinary and not what we expect of a charity that is supposed to champion care and respect for animals.  This unconscionable conduct is exploiting its charitable and tax-free status to create a multi-million dollar business.  Its strong-arm approach is clearly outside of acceptable conduct under both the Acts.

The RSPCA have become a law unto themselves, issuing warrants based on lies, not going through due process to investigate before seizing animals, extorting money out of people for housing their stolen animals and then annihilating local private businesses through negative media and malicious lies.  It’s quite a rap sheet for the warm and fuzzy RSPCA we all grew up with.

This belligerent and intimidatory behaviour must stop. Their exploitation business model must be stopped.

I am calling for the RSPCA to be de-registered as a charity.  I urge everyone to take your complaints to the ACCC and to the Charities and Not-for-Profit Commission for investigation.  Everyone who donates to the RSPCA, think again.  Any RSPCA employees, past or present, are invited to call my office and share their stories.

This behaviour has gone under the radar for too long.  We need to bring the RSPCA back to the animal welfare organisation it is supposed to be.

/3 Comments/by

Is the RSPCA a charity or a dodgy business?

,

Much of RSPCA’s revenue is gained from seizing animals from their owners under the rouse of falsely claiming that the animals are not being treated appropriately. A common feature of the RSPCA’s approach involves the RSPCA harassing owners who appear to have fewer means and lack the ability to challenge the RSPCA in court.

Inspectors seize healthy animals of high quality and worth to sell on the open market even where there is no evidence of abuse or neglect, and owners are supported by evidence from their own vets. Purebred animals have been seized and sold for several thousands of dollars each.

Pregnant animals have been taken and whole litters sold with no compensation paid to the owners. Given these claims, we have to question if the RSPCA deserves to continue the tax status it enjoys as a register charity/non-for-profit.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, and following on from some of my questions during the recent Senate estimates hearings, I ask again: when is a charity not a charity? I’m talking about the business known as the RSPCA. RSPCA Australia is a body originally set up to provide for animals needing assistance and protection from cruelty and neglect, a worthy notion.

This organisation has established other networked but separate businesses in Australia, including RSPCA Queensland and other state based organisations. As businesses, these organisations are doing very well. For example, RSPCA Queensland’s financial results for the year to June 2020 reveal a surplus of $8.7 million during what was described as ‘a challenging year’. This included a $4 million grant from the federal government, taxpayers’ money. Revenue for that period was over $58 million. This is a multimillion dollar business based on what we are told is a charitable, not-for-profit business that enjoys tax-free status. It’s not generally known in the community that much of the revenue is gained from seizing animals from their owners under the rouse of falsely claiming that the animals are not being treated appropriately.

A common feature of the RSPCA’s approach involves the RSPCA harassing owners who appear to have fewer means and lack the ability to challenge the RSPCA in court. Inspectors seize healthy animals of high quality and worth to sell on the open market even where there is no evidence of abuse or neglect, and owners are supported by evidence from their own vets. Purebred animals have been seized and sold for several thousands of dollars each. Pregnant animals have been taken and whole litters sold with no compensation paid to the owners. Puppies are particularly at risk of seizure. RSPCA inspectors, who organise the seizures, often act as prosecutors and also witnesses in the Magistrates Court. Surely this is an abuse of process and represents a conflict of interest.

Plea bargains are often offered to have an animal returned. They say, ‘If you pay a large amount of money to the RSPCA, you may have your animal returned; if you do not pay us, we will kill your animal or sell it to someone else.’ These sums demanded by the RSPCA are not insignificant. I’m aware of demands in excess of $40,000 to have animals returned. If the RSPCA are challenged and taken to court, owners are stung for ongoing caring costs, where the cases are deliberately dragged out to extend and increase the bills being demanded by RSPCA inspectors to care for the animals. These actions taken by the RSPCA are arguably criminal and must be challenged and investigated.

I hold considerable evidence of everything I’ve said today, and I am receiving new complaints on a daily basis from around Australia about outrageous actions of RSPCA inspectors. I’ve got complaints from vets, pet shop owners, registered breeders and many animal and pet owners. They all say that inspectors lie in court and harass owners. I’ve been told by a vet that one of his clients, an elderly man, owned a much-loved old dog that slept at his owner’s bedside. The dog was blind in both eyes, and, under the vet’s care, had a known but treated heart murmur—and was seized by the RSPCA. The RSPCA held the dog for two months, at high cost, and then operated on it to remove its eyes. The poor old dog died under the anaesthetic when its heart failed. The old man’s heart was broken, as his dog was taken unnecessarily and died unnecessarily, yet no compensation was paid. The RSPCA then told other pet owners not to use that vet, as retribution, when he complained on behalf of the old man.

Another practice to put further pressure on owners to give their animals to the RSPCA is to charge family members as co-defendants in the alleged offences of people failing to care for their animals. This is a current practice. The RSPCA’s role as a regulator and genuine protector must be severed from the commercial functions of the organisation to avoid the currently existing conflict of interest. The RSPCA was set up for genuine charitable purposes, yet sections of this organisation have gone rogue and must be stopped from stealing animals and oppressing genuine caring animal owners. It is the RSPCA behaving like a charity? Resoundingly no.

/3 Comments/by

Is the RSPCA really about saving animals from cruelty?

, ,

Imagine that you’re a succ­essful breeder and your animals sell for thousands of dollars. Then imagine that the RSPCA seizes your animals under questionable circumstances and on sells them for thousands of dollars in profit to the RSPCA.

This is what I’ve heard from concerned constituents. If it’s true I don’t think the RSPCA deserves to hold its tax-exempt status as a charity. I want to get to the bottom of if this is happening, what else the RSPCA is doing and what the government is doing about it.

Transcript

[Female Speaker] Okay, thank you.

[Male Speaker] Senator Roberts.

[Senator Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. Thank you for being here, Dr. Johns. Thank you. My questions are to do with the RSPCA Australia and Queensland. They’re two separate bodies. What body oversees the activities of the RSPCA Australia at either state or federal government level?

I’m sorry, I’d have to take that on notice. We’d have to look up the register and look at its details.

[Senator Malcolm Roberts] And, you’ll be excused if you have to take up a lot of these on notice. It surprised me when I learned about this. Why, in Queensland are RSPCA state inspectors who laid charges, also the prosecutors in the same cases? Shouldn’t they be merely a witness?

I will take that on notice, thank you.

[Senator Malcolm Roberts] Why are RSPCA Australia staff referring owners to particular vets and refusing to recognise the expertise of others?

I’ll take that on notice, thanks. Sorry, and I’ll just interrupt at this extent, we will have a look at any charity’s fitness for registration. We don’t go beyond that remit, but nevertheless, please.

[Senator Malcolm Roberts] Why would this RSPCA Australia be the recipient of fines levelled at an owner of an animal when prosecuted by a state RSPCA staff member?

I’ll take that on notice.

[Senator Malcolm Roberts] Aren’t RSPCA Queensland and RSPCA Australia separate bodies?

[ Dr. Johns] I’ll take that on notice.

[Senator Malcolm Roberts] If an RSPCA Queensland inspector tells an owner of an animal to pay a large sum of money in order to get their unreasonably seized animal returned, and if not paid the animal will be killed, doesn’t that sound like extortion?

I don’t know, but I’ll take it on notice.

[Senator Malcolm Roberts] How many animals are put down by the Queensland RSPCA in a year?

I’ll take that on notice.

[Senator Malcolm Roberts] Is it true that animals held by the Queensland RSPCA are given to organisations for laboratory experimental purposes?

I’ll take that on notice.

[Senator Malcolm Roberts] Are the RSPCA Queensland and the RSPCA Australia genuine charity or nonprofit organisations and worthy of receiving Commonwealth grants?

I’ll take that on notice.

[Senator Malcolm Roberts] How can the Queensland RSPCA seize valuable animals from registered breeders and then on-sell them for thousands of dollars in profit for the RSPCA?

I’ll take that on notice, thank you.

[Senator Malcolm Roberts] How much money does the RSPCA Australia and RSPCA Queensland receive from the Commonwealth in grants?

I’ll take that on notice. I’m sure it’s on the register, but yes.

[Senator Malcolm Roberts] Yeah. No, I don’t expect you to know these. It surprised me when we found out what we found out. Not at all surprised that you’re taking them on notice, and I appreciate that. Why would anyone donate to the RSPCA Australia and RSPCA Queensland when its practises are not very charitable? Is it time for the RSPCA Australia and RSPCA Queensland to be investigated as to its offensive practises?

I’ll take all of those matters on notice, thank you.

[Senator Malcolm Roberts] Thank you.

Reply.

[Senator Malcolm Roberts] Thank you, Chair.

[Male Speaker] Thank you.

/2 Comments/by