2016-08-16
Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) — I welcome the opportunity to speak on Mr Bourman's motion today that the Standing Committee on the Economy and Infrastructure inquire into and consider by August next year the RSPCA in relation to:
the appropriateness and use of its powers pursuant to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986, including in the context of its other objectives and activities —
that is, the objectives and activities of the RSPCA.
The second item in the motion is:
the appropriateness and use of funding provided by the … government, including in the context of its other objectives and activities …
I presume that also refers to the RSPCA.
The third item in the motion is:
any other consequential matters the committee may deem appropriate.
Firstly, I make an observation that this is almost word for word similar to a motion that was moved by the Shooters and Fishers in Western Australia — almost a carbon copy of that particular motion in May of 2015. Having read through a lot of the documentation with regard to that particular inquiry, one could say that certainly from the point of view of our representative on that inquiry and the ALP representative on that inquiry the report was quite controversial in terms of, in a nutshell, making recommendations and findings that did not flow from the evidence that was presented to the committee. So we have the problem there. Anyway, I say that.
In terms of the motion here, I will just make the point that there is a pattern here in putting these motions that I have noticed. Perhaps there are motivations behind it that are above and beyond what Mr Bourman said in his relatively brief contribution.
The RSPCA, as Mr Leane and Mr Bourman referred to, is already a subject of its own commissioned but independent review. It is not an internal review; it is an independent review that is being conducted by former Chief Commissioner of Police Neil Comrie. That review commenced, I think, in May of this year and is running through to next month. The terms of reference of that review are:
1. Describe the scale and scope of the animal welfare and cruelty reports in Victoria.
2. Analyse resourcing and funding levels, and if appropriate, recommend alternative operating, funding and resourcing models.
3. Document RSPCA Victoria's operational response to reports, including all associated systems and processes, and recommend any improvements that can and should reasonably be made.
4. Document RSPCA Victoria's approach to prosecution, including all associated systems and processes, and recommend any improvements that can and should reasonably be made.
I will state that I was invited to make a submission to the review or at least to speak to the review team, but I was not able to do that so I have not done that, but I look forward to reading the report. What I would say is that what is being looked at by this particular independent review really covers off on the matters that are mentioned in Mr Bourman's motion.
The other issue that was raised by Mr Leane — and not mentioned by Mr Bourman, although I am sure he would agree that we have actually spoken about this — is the timing of the commencement of Mr Bourman's inquiry. Mr Bourman mentioned that he would like to see it start after the tabling of the independent review, but there is nothing in the motion to that effect. While there is this independent review being conducted — which I think by the terms of reference is quite comprehensive — and I would say also being headed by a former Chief Commissioner of Police, a person who I would think would have vast experience in how to conduct a review and investigation and also lead a team to do something like that and vast experience to do that, I would have every confidence that this will be a thorough, comprehensive and credible report that will come from Mr Comrie and his team.
That is the context in which we are looking at this particular motion. Perhaps I am saying there is no need for this particular motion at this time, but I also have some other points to make about why the Greens are not able to support this motion at this time. This would not be necessarily consistent with the Greens position across the country. My Greens colleague in Western Australia Lynn Maclaren, MLC, and her Labor colleague Ms Talbot wrote a minority report to the Western Australian inquiry — quite an extensive minority report, in fact — pointing out where many of the findings and recommendations had no bearing to the evidence that was actually presented to the committee.
My colleague Mark Parnell in South Australia quite some time ago put up a similar motion in the South Australian Parliament, putting forward the issue that Mr Bourman raises in his motion about the RSPCA having an investigatory function under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, which exists in most states and territories to varying degrees and in varying ways that that is done, but not in all states and territories — it does not exist in Queensland from my memory — and the allocation of some public money to that function.
This is an issue that has been discussed over many years. The appropriateness of it has been discussed and the level of it has been discussed. For example, we know that pretty well the funding that is provided to the RSPCA in those states where they have the investigatory function does not cover the cost of the investigatory function, so the organisation has to use its public donations to augment that particular function in almost every case as far as I can work out. That is a key question, but I think that question is actually being investigated or being looked at in the independent review that is currently underway, so I would be very interested to see what comes out of that. Of course the current CEO of the RSPCA, Dr Liz Walker, has said that she is quite prepared and the organisation is prepared to have these things looked at and in fact has commissioned a review and inquiry to actually look at those things.
Mr Bourman raised some issues — some terrible issues, including the issue of the horses at Bulla and the cattle at Framlingham — and there are any number of other issues that I also know about. We could all stand up here and relate the issues where the RSPCA and/or the police and/or a department and/or a council charged with the investigation of animal cruelty have fallen short in their following up and prosecution of those issues. It happens all the time, and it is not just the RSPCA that is at fault here. What is at fault is the lack of priority that is given by government to animal welfare; that is what is at fault. My other fundamental concern with this particular motion is that it focuses on the RSPCA.
If we look at what we actually have in terms of animal welfare in this state and pretty well in other states, we have no overarching body that is responsible for animal welfare and prevention of animal cruelty. That is the no. 1 problem. It has been the Greens' longstanding policy that there should be an independent regulatory body for animal welfare appointed at a commonwealth level and at state levels that oversees animal welfare across the board.
In Victoria, for example, just to name the major instruments, you would have the five acts — prevention of cruelty to animals, primary industries, domestic animals, wildlife and racing. There are the agencies — four departments, with all their levels of authorised officers — the police, local councils and the RSPCA. If you join all those together in a matrix of lines, it makes Noodle Nation look very simple. That is the situation.
Then we also have the chief veterinary officer floating around there. Not only is this situation under-resourced and under-prioritised, it is also riddled with conflicts of interest. For example, the department of agriculture is meant to be on the one hand looking after animal welfare and on the other hand promoting agricultural industries, including intensive farming industries which involve cruelty to animals. The racing industry is riddled with conflicts of interest in that the racing integrity commissions of the different codes are somehow meant to police animal welfare at the same time as promoting the industry. Report after report has shown us that that is not working. It does not work. It is an inherent conflict of interest.
What would be a good thing would be to wait for this independent review into the RSPCA being conducted by Mr Comrie and to digest that and look into it. At the same time, if there was going to be a review, the sort of review I would be very happy to support and may even put up is a review into the whole system and how it is failing animals across Victoria. That is the issue. That is a fundamental problem. Whatever criticisms that can be levelled at the RSPCA where it has failed in certain instances — and some of them have been mentioned already — the RSPCA has acknowledged those. These criticisms have been pointed out, Mr Bourman says, by extreme animal activist groups or animal advocates. Perhaps Mr Bourman puts me in that category. I am certainly a strong advocate for animal welfare and animal rights. I believe in animal rights. Animals do have rights. They have rights to be treated with respect, to be fed and watered, to be allowed to move freely. Those are rights that I believe animals have and are being curtailed every single day in this state.
I acknowledge that Mr Bourman said in his contribution that he appreciates the work done by the staff of the RSPCA, as do I would suggest most Victorians. It may not be the perfect organisation, but it still does a wonderful job in rescuing animals, looking after animals, trying to rehome animals and advocating against animal cruelty. I know it did not take Mr Bourman very long to get to duck shooting. I think I timed it as being about 45 seconds into his contribution before duck shooting came up, which I think is at the bottom of all this. The RSPCA has always opposed duck shooting, because duck shooting is blatantly cruel. I have witnessed it many, many times, so I cannot be accused of being some latte-sipping person who does not know what goes on on a wetland during duck shooting season. I have seen it very closely, and I know what goes on. I will not be told by duck shooters that it is not cruel, because it is cruel. I have seen actual shocking acts of barbarism, not only against 'game species' birds but against non-game duck species and against other species that are not ducks, do not look like ducks but are still shot by shooters.
Mr Bourman interjected.
Ms PENNICUIK — Mr Bourman might want to make light of it, but it is not funny what goes on, and it is cruel. There is no other way to say that than that it is cruel and that it is barbaric and completely unnecessary. It is an activity that should be eliminated in Victoria, which is basically the only state that really in any way allows it and in fact promotes it through a government agency, which is another problem. It seems to me that the Shooters and Fishers Party were upset because the RSPCA did what it should do with its mobile vet and came to the wetland in order to deal with injured wildlife during the opening of the duck shooting season. I am supportive of that. I think that is an appropriate use of its mobile veterinary truck. I was glad to see it there. I do not see that as a conflict of the objectives or aims of the RSPCA to be doing that.
I do acknowledge, as I said earlier, that there have been long discussions over many years in all states about the dual role that the RSPCA has held for a long time in those states. That is actually being looked at by the current inquiry. I acknowledge too that there are many in the animal welfare sector who are critical of the RSPCA. I am critical of it too when it falls down, but I want to put it in the context that we cannot just pull out the RSPCA and point the finger at it when there are nowhere near enough resources put into the prevention of animal cruelty in this state or into animal welfare generally. We have domestic animals, farm animals and wild animals across Victoria suffering cruelty every day. That is not the fault of the RSPCA.
As I say, the Greens would like to see the establishment of an independent regulatory body to oversee the whole animal welfare system in Victoria. That is also our policy in other states and at the commonwealth level. I note the organisation Lawyers for Animals, which I am familiar with. It does a great job in assisting in the prosecution of people who have been charged with cruelty and aggravated cruelty to animals. The model it calls for is based on the New York police department, which has a partnership with the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals — a similar body to the RSPCA — whereby the police manage the investigations in partnership with that body and then that body then takes on the welfare of those animals that have been rescued from whatever situation they have been found in.
Mr Bourman raised the issue of safety of RSPCA inspectors, because they do not have the powers of police and they are not armed like police. They do go into dangerous situations, and we do know that inspectors have been murdered and inspectors have been assaulted. It is a situation that does need to be looked at too.
I know that when my colleague in South Australia raised the issue many years ago — it was about 10 years ago — in South Australia there was a change to the policy on national park rangers as some of them had been assaulted. A policy was brought in to make sure that they were not on their own when they were out in the national parks. Often RSPCA inspectors are going on their own into domestic or other situations where there is animal cruelty, so there are a lot of issues with regard to dealing with people who are perpetrating animal cruelty.
When I am campaigning about stopping greyhound racing or duck shooting or ending puppy farms or jumps racing — all of these activities which inflict needless injury and suffering on animals — I get a lot of people coming back to me and asking why I do not care about human cruelty. Well, of course I care about that. It is possible to care about both. It is in fact worth recognising, I think, that there is a very well known connection between animal cruelty and violence against people, so those who engage in animal cruelty — particularly children who engage in animal cruelty — often go on to become violent people, particularly in domestic violence situations. There is that connection and that is another reason, apart from not allowing animals to be injured or suffering, to stop animal cruelty — and that link is very well established in the literature. Mr Morris's brow is furrowed. I suggest he read the literature, because it is very well established.
Honourable members interjecting.
Ms PENNICUIK — Well, the lead speakers, Deputy President, are allowed to stray a little bit from the motion, but I am making a point about the link between animal cruelty and violence by people who do that.
I would like to thank the staff of the RSPCA, present and past and future, who have done such a good job and who are people dedicated to the welfare of animals. If there does need to be a parliamentary inquiry, it needs to be into the whole animal welfare system and not just into the RSPCA, which is already undertaking what I think will be a comprehensive and credible independent review by former Chief Commissioner Neil Comrie. For those reasons, the Greens will not be able to support the motion put forward by Mr Bourman.