Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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 ruse 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.

Senate adjourned at 18:32