Legislative Council Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Matters of Interest Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals ROYAL SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS The Hon. M. PARNELL Legislative Council The Hon. M. PARNELL (15:56): I rise today to speak about the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, commonly known as the RSPCA. At the outset I will declare my status as a member of that organisation, a status I share with other members of this house. Last night debate on the livestock bill considered the future role of the RSPCA in investigating and prosecuting alleged animal welfare crimes. I want to take this opportunity to correct the record, because there was a degree of misinformation that came out in the debate last night. I think it is important that that misinformation is corrected. I will state at the outset that I am grateful to Mr Neale Sutton, the CEO of the RSPCA, for providing some of this information, although I make the point that it is quite easy to find on the RSPCA's website a great deal of information about its operations, including the annual report. For the benefit of members, it is www.rspcasa.asn.au. Both the Hon. Michelle Lensink and the Hon. Robert Brokenshire referred to the Brinkworth case in support of their justification for removing the power of the RSPCA to pursue investigations into farm animal cases. There is no doubt that the collapse of the Brinkworth case was a great blow to the RSPCA. I do not need to go into all the details but, in a nutshell, what would have been one of the biggest animal cruelty cases in our state's history collapsed because of unauthorised behaviour by a single staff member who is no longer with the RSPCA. What does need correcting is the assertion by the Hon. Rob Brokenshire that the RSPCA was forced to pay three-quarters of a million dollars in legal costs. The member said: I am advised that the RSPCA ended up having to pay $750,000 with respect to the court costs and legal costs when officers went out there after investigating a report from fellow farmers in that area. I am advised by Neale Sutton (the CEO) that the amount is nowhere near three-quarters of a million dollars. According to Mr Sutton, the amount is closer to $17,000—in fact, $16,900. That is not $750,000. I think it is important to set the record straight, because it grossly overstates the impact that this case had on the finances of the RSPCA and, unless corrected, that wrong information could impact negatively on the willingness of the community to support the RSPCA financially. I think it is beholden on all of us to be as accurate as we can with assertions of financial impact as well as other facts and figures. If the honourable member had simply asked, as I did, he would have been set straight. There was also misinformation about the general funding of the RSPCA. In a nutshell, the organisation has a budget of about $8 million and has net assets of $14 million. Of that $8 million budget, around $2.2 million is spent on investigations and prosecutions, which are described as operations in the annual report. Of that $2.2 million, only $660,000 comes from the government—and this is the first line of the published financial statements, so it is not hard to find. However, last night, the Hon. Rob Brokenshire said that the RSPCA got $200,000 from the government. That is wrong. It is more than three times that amount. But even though the amount provided is three times more than the Hon. Rob Brokenshire said, it is still less than one-third of the cost of enforcing the legislation. The other two-thirds come from the members and supporters of the RSPCA, through donations, bequests and other fundraising. As for this $660,000 that comes from the government, the amount is not indexed, and it has been constant for many years and it needs to be reviewed. So, what do we get for this modest investment? We get great value. Last year, the RSPCA responded to 5,000 reports of alleged animal cruelty or requests for assistance for injured animals. The RSPCA seized more than 4,500 animals, and it had a record number of prosecutions. There were 55 matters finalised in court, including the first custodial sentence handed down by an SA court, and there were 24 other court matters at different stages of review or investigation. In the future, if we want the RSPCA to continue this work—and I think we do, and I think it wants to continue this work—we need to fund it properly and we need to recognise its independence and the fact that it does not bring to the task any particular interest, other than the welfare of animals. I would say that, however disappointing the Brinkworth case might have been, we do not sack the police, we do not sack the Director of Public Prosecutions, when a case goes wrong, and therefore we should not be sacking the RSPCA. It is a respected organisation. It is well over 100 years old in South Australia, and it deserves our full support.