DOCSLIB.ORG

Submission from Sentient, the Veterinary Institute for Animal Ethics: Criminal Code Amendment (Animal Protection) Bill 2015

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Submission from Sentient, the Veterinary Institute for Animal Ethics: Criminal Code Amendment (Animal Protection) Bill 2015 The Veterinary Institute for Animal Ethics Submission from Sentient, The Veterinary Institute for Animal Ethics: Criminal Code Amendment (Animal Protection) Bill 2015 To the Committee Secretary, Senate Standing Committees on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport As an independent association of veterinarians and associates solely dedicated to animal welfare and ethics, we have serious concerns about the proposed federal Criminal Code Amendment (Animal Protection) Bill 2015. Thank you for the opportunity to submit these concerns. They form the basis of our complete rejection of this Bill, which we regard as regressive, misleading, and detrimental to the public interest and animal welfare. 1. The Bill will hinder the detection and prosecution of malicious cruelty to animals perpetrated within animal enterprises: This Bill will result in the prosecution of individuals or organisations who, in the public interest, obtain undercover footage of malicious cruelty to animals that would otherwise never be exposed. The Bill will not lead to greater efficiency in prosecuting the perpetrators of such cruelty, and is likely to hinder prosecutions by placing unrealistically short time frames on the mandatory submission of evidence. In effect, the prosecution of ‘whistleblowers’ themselves will deter the collection of further evidence, deflecting attention away from the more pertinent issue: animal cruelty complaints. Consider the recent response by State and Territory Governments to the exposure by ABC’s Four Corners and animal activists of live baiting in the greyhound racing industry1 - this response has included (at the time of writing) investigations and likely prosecutions, stronger penalties for live baiting, lifelong bans on individuals, and the establishment of independent regulatory reviews, including a review by the Chief Veterinarian of Victoria. All this would have been thwarted had the Bill already been introduced, because to avoid penalty, investigators from Animal Liberation Queensland and Animals Australia would have been required to submit their initial footage to the relevant authorities within five business days, effectively bringing their investigations to an end. The threat of such powerful deterrents would have allowed the malicious cruelty of live baiting to flourish within the greyhound racing industry - the public would remain unaware of this or may dismiss insider reports as ‘rumours’, and the responsible authorities (Police or RSPCA) would most likely conduct one-off, announced visits to the premises concerned, at times the cruelty was not occurring. The Four Corners expose, which triggered the current overhaul of the greyhound racing industry, was only possible due to a sustained investigation that used footage to establish a pattern of cruelty offences over time. 2. The Bill fails to prescribe mandatory reporting by firsthand witnesses to malicious cruelty to animals from within animal enterprises: The explanatory memorandum states that “The Bill’s first priority is to ensure that animals are protected against further unnecessary cruelty caused by a delay in reporting”. If this is the primary aim of the Bill, why does it not prescribe timely mandatory reporting by individuals who are firsthand witnesses to malicious cruelty to animals within their industry? Instead, the Bill outlines new offences for those who fail to report 1 ‘Making a killing’, ABC, 16 February 2015: http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2015/02/16/4178920.htm PO Box 223, Oatley NSW, 2223 www.sentient.org.au [email protected] The Veterinary Institute for Animal Ethics malicious cruelty to animals only after recording it. The bias against animal activists and investigative journalists who record evidence of animal cruelty is very clear. For this reason, many in the animal welfare and wider communities have judged this as a Bill that primarily aims to protect animal industries that harbor systemic animal abuse. 3. The crucial role of undercover footage in the context of Australia’s current animal welfare regulatory framework and its limitations: This Bill is contextually perilous, occurring at a time when the Government and other authorities designated to respond to animal welfare matters are understaffed and unable to adequately oversee the enforcement of State and Territory animal cruelty laws. As a consequence, a number of successful prosecutions for animal cruelty in Australia have been aided by undercover footage obtained by private individuals and independent animal protection organisations. There is a crucial role for undercover footage in ensuring public scrutiny of animal industries. This is because of the aforementioned resource limitations, and also the lack of mandatory reporting by those engaged within animal industries, the often geographically remote and private nature of industry facilities, the absence of independent monitoring and auditing of animal welfare standards, and the inability of responsible authorities to conduct sustained investigations into animal cruelty. 4. Failure to address the deficiencies in Australia’s current resources to independently monitor animal welfare, and to detect, investigate and prosecute animal cruelty: If Senator Back and the Federal Government are serious about “enhancing animal protection”, they must set up the resources and funding to allow the relevant authorities (the state RSPCA and other Inspectorates) to more closely monitor and enforce animal welfare standards in animal industries. They must also increase the Inspectorates’ range of investigative powers to include right of entry, unannounced, random inspections, sustained investigations and the covert video surveillance that has so far been the domain of private investigators. This would remove any possible biosecurity risks posed by unauthorised undercover investigations and would also guarantee that video footage of animal cruelty (including neglect) is admissible as evidence in court, having been lawfully obtained. Compulsory and independently monitored 24-hour closed- circuit television (CCTV) surveillance in all animal enterprises should form part of the regulatory framework, and would greatly increase transparency. Sentient also supports the proposal in September 2014 by RSPCA Australia2 for mandatory abuse reporting by key responsible persons with a duty of care for animals, to be incorporated within State and Territory animal welfare legislation. The task of monitoring and enforcing animal welfare legislation wherever animals are used by humans is enormous. It will always be compromised by any form of industry self- regulation or by conflict of interest, such as allocating the protection of animal welfare to the Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) or the State or Territory Departments of Primary Industry, whose roles are also to support industry expansion and profit. We submit that if the Australian Government is truly committed to the protection of animal welfare, it must commit to funding a federal initiative. It is our view that this can best be achieved by establishing a national Independent Office of Animal Welfare (with counterpart bodies in all States and Territories) with the powers to promote legislative reform, harmonise 2 ‘Act to Protect Animals by Reporting Animal Cruelty’, RSPCA Australia, 8 September 2014: http://www.rspca.org.au/sites/default/files/website/media-centre/Press-releases/RSPCA_Australia- Act_to_Protect_Animals_by_reporting_animal_cruelty-FAQs.pdf PO Box 223, Oatley NSW, 2223 www.sentient.org.au [email protected] The Veterinary Institute for Animal Ethics State and Territory animal welfare laws and to oversee the regulation and enforcement of this legislation. 5. The Bill is detrimental to the public interest and to public trust in animal enterprises: Implementation of this Bill would limit openness and transparency in animal industries, preventing the Australian public from learning about significant animal cruelty. It is therefore not in the best interests of the public or of the welfare of animals, and may even damage legitimate animal industries through eroding public trust. We submit that if industries are complying with animal welfare legislation, they have nothing to hide and this Bill is unnecessary. 6. We wish to address the following specifics of this Bill: • Division 383.5 (1): Unreasonable time frames: The time frames stated for submission of a report of having obtained footage and for submission of the footage itself (one and five business days respectively) are unreasonable. The impact of many previous animal cruelty investigations has been largely aided by the collation of serial footage, obtained over a period of weeks to months. Without this, many issues may be dismissed as one-off anomalies rather than as evidence of widespread, systemic animal abuse. This has serious consequences for the effectiveness of enforcing animal cruelty legislation. Furthermore, once footage has been fully obtained, it must be viewed by more than one individual, which may take many hours; the purpose of this viewing is to confirm the belief that malicious cruelty has occurred and to consult with veterinary or other experts to describe the likely injuries and other impact of the cruelty on the animals concerned. Although Sentient does not engage in undercover or any other cruelty investigations, we are routinely consulted to provide expert commentary on footage obtained by animal welfare organisations internationally. Therefore, we can attest to
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Australia
    15 16 \L 77 ,, 0010 <3- kg^PCA^, 26, .!:- A ^^;;.t^ Q ^ for all creatures great a small ~ 61 Q JUL 20/5 ~ ~ ^, *, o *S' % \* 70 $0 to 3 July 2015 The Hon Rick Mazza MLC Chair Select Committee into the Operations of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Western Australia (Inc) Legislative Council Parliament House GPO Box All , PERTH WA6837 \ Dear Mr Mazza RSPCA Australia submission to the Select Committee into the operations of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Western Australia (Inc) As one of Australia's oldest and most trusted charities as well as being the nation's leading animal welfare organisation, I am pleased to attach a submission from RSPCA Australia that provides information on the objectives and operations of the RSPCA in Australia against the terms of reference. The RSPCA's commitment to improving animal welfare in Australia commenced in the 1870s and we look forward to the next one hundred and fifty years of service. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you would like further information. \ Yours sincerely A^-,\ HSFCA A. :\'~, I'M 111. ,\EN 99 668 65.1 249 Heather Neit Chief Executive Officer P (11.28? 8300 RSPCA Australia F 02 628? 8311 E ,\,, rl@r\1:1, , Dr. IAI ,,, 151, '" ill, ; .,, PCI 80, 265 Dual" VV, .\I ACT 2600 ,^. .q, RSPCA,^, 26, RSPCA Australia submission to the Select Committee into the operations of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Western Australia (Inc) 3 July 2015 Objectives of the RSPCA The RSPCA in Australia rose out of a need to improve the lives of the thousands of horses literally being worked to death in the streets of Victoria in the 1870s.
    [Show full text]
  • Reading Magazine 2013
    Year 9 Reading Magazine 2013 © Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2013 Mind your reflection When you look into a mirror, you know that your reflection isn’t another person. Many scientists wonder if other animals also have this ability. Understanding your own thoughts and feelings is described in psychology as the ‘theory of mind’. Some scientists believe that if an animal recognises its reflection, it is showing signs of a theory of mind. To use a mirror to test an animal’s theory of mind, scientists put animals in front of a mirror and let them look at their reflection. The scientists then remove the mirror and put a coloured dot on the animal’s body before bringing the mirror back. The animal can only see the dot when looking in the mirror. If they touch the dot on their own Frogs don’t recognise their own reflection body after seeing the reflection, the scientists assume that the animal identifies the image in the The mirror test might sound easy, mirror as theirs, and not belonging but even humans can’t pass the test to a separate animal. until they are at least 18 months old. So the next time you look in Many animals, such as dogs, can the mirror, remember that it wasn’t pass the mirror test, as well as always so easy! chimpanzees, dolphins and even magpies. 22 TEACH THAT OLD Home RSPCA opposes croc safari hunting in NT DOG SOME TRICKS NATIONAL AWARDS RSPCA OPPOSES CROCODILE RECOGNISE ‘GOOD SAFARI HUNTING IN NT EGGS’ The RSPCA is strongly opposed to the introduction of WHALING REPORT safari style hunting in the Northern Territory.
    [Show full text]
  • Australian Animal Protection Law Journal Issn 1835-7008
    AUSTRALIAN ANIMAL PROTECTION LAW JOURNAL ISSN 1835-7008 Australia’s first peer-reviewed Animal Law journal (2011) 5 AAPLJ EDITOR John Mancy ASSISTANT EDITOR Jacquie Mancy-Stuhl Published by John Mancy t/as LEGAL BULLETIN SERVICE 18 Wavell St., Carlingford, N.S.W. 2118 Australia E-mail: [email protected] © 2008 John Mancy t/as Legal Bulletin Service (2011) 5 AAPLJ ! 1! CONTENTS DEFINING THE PUPPY FARM PROBLEM: An Examination of the Regulation of Dog Breeding, Rearing and Sale in Australia Katherine Cooke …… 3 THE RIGHTS OF ANIMALS AND THE WELFARIST APPROACH TO PROTECTION: May the Twain Meet? Stephen Keim SC & Tracy-Lynne Geysen … 26 SHOOTING OUR WILDLIFE: An Analysis of The Law and its Animal Welfare Outcomes for Kangaroos & Wallabies Keely Boom and Dror Ben-Ami … 44 TOWARDS THE LEGAL PROTECTION OF ANIMALS IN CHINA Deborah Cao … 76 NOTES Whaling Update (Celeste Black) … 82 Bobby Calves: an example of the Standards Development Process (Elizabeth Ellis) ... 89 CASE NOTES Australian Consumer and Competition Commission v CI & Co Pty Ltd & Ors 1 (Ian Weldon ) … 96 BOOK REVIEWS 102 • Animal Rights What Everyone Needs To Know • Kitty McSporran Saves the Animals ANIMAL LAW COURSES 2011-12 104 1 [2011]FCA 1511. (2011) 5 AAPLJ ! 2! Defining the Puppy Farm Problem: An Examination of the Regulation of Dog Breeding, Rearing and Sale in Australia By Katherine Cooke ! ‘Human beings do not treat animals harshly because they are classified as property; animals are classified as property so that human beings can legally treat them harshly.’2 This article examines the regulation of dog breeding, rearing and sale in Australia.
    [Show full text]
  • 16 December 2019 Animal Welfare Act Review Panel
    16 December 2019 Animal Welfare Act Review Panel Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development Via: [email protected] Dear Review Panel Submission to the Review of the Animal Welfare Act 2002 (WA) Thank you for the opportunity to provide a submission to the review of the Animal Welfare Act 2002 (WA). This review provides Western Australia with an opportunity to modernise its animal welfare legislation and bring it into line with contemporary best practice and community expectations. We support the submission of RSPCA WA relating to operational and enforcement aspects of the review. Our submission is made in conjunction with RSPCA WA and focuses more on proposed policy and advisory functions under the Act. Accordingly, our comments fall mostly under terms of reference 1, 3, and 5. We trust this information will be of assistance to your review. Please do not hesitate to contact our office should you require further information or clarification. Yours sincerely, Dr Bidda Jones Chief Executive Officer (A/g) RSPCA Australia Western Australia’s Animal Welfare Act is typical of late 20th century animal welfare legislation in that it reflects a reactive, offence-based regime and consists of broad open-ending defences that create confusion as to the Act’s application. The legislation lacks key features of contemporary animal welfare legislation such as clarity in its objects, proactive compliance mechanisms, and policy and advisory functions. Objects of the Act and contemporary best practice in animal welfare The Objects section of legislation is intended to set out the intent and purpose behind the legislation for the purposes of educating the community about the legislation and for guiding those charged with applying the legislation in its interpretation.
    [Show full text]
  • Inquiry Into the Animal Protection Bill 2018
    LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY Social Policy Scrutiny Committee Inquiry into the Animal Protection Bill 2018 May 2018 Contents Contents Chair’s Preface .........................................................................................................................5 Committee Members ................................................................................................................6 Committee Secretariat .............................................................................................................7 Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................8 Terms of Reference ..................................................................................................................9 Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 11 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 14 Introduction of the Bill ......................................................................................................... 14 Conduct of the Inquiry ........................................................................................................ 14 Outcome of Committee’s Consideration ............................................................................ 14 Report Structure ................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Study of Problematisations in the Live Export Policy Debates
    ANIMAL CRUELTY, DISCOURSE, AND POWER: A STUDY OF PROBLEMATISATIONS IN THE LIVE EXPORT POLICY DEBATES Brodie Lee Evans Bachelor of Arts (Politics, Economy, and Society; Literary Studies) Bachelor of Justice (First Class Honours) Graduate Certificate in Business (Accounting) A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Queensland University of Technology 2018 School of Justice | Faculty of Law This page intentionally left blank Statement of Originality Under the Copyright Act 1968, this thesis must be used only under the normal conditions of scholarly fair dealing. In particular, no results or conclusions should be extracted from it, nor should it be copied or closely paraphrased in whole or in part without the written consent of the author. Proper written acknowledgement should be made for any assistance obtained from this thesis. The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made. Brodie Evans QUT Verified Signature ……………………………………………………………………….. Signature October 2018 ……………………………………………………………………….. Date i Dedication For Scottie. ii Abstract Since the release of video footage exposing the treatment of animals in the live export industry in 2011, ‘animal cruelty’ has increasingly been a major concern in mainstream Australian discourse. Critiques over the inadequacy of current legal protections afforded to animals have had a significant impact on how we debate animal welfare issues and the solutions to them.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2019/20 Vision a Tasmania Where All Animals Are Treated with Kindness and Respect
    AnnuaAnnual l l AnnuaAnnual Safe at Home Home Annual Report 2019/20 Vision A Tasmania where all animals are treated with kindness and respect. Mission Operating a financially sustainable organisation, which allows us to focus on our core mission; helping animals in most need, enlightening people and improving lives. About RSPCA Tasmania We are the peak animal welfare body in Tasmania. We are an autonomous, non- government, community organisation that has been operating in this state since 1878. We are a not-for-profit organisation (Company Limited By Guarantee) governed by a Board chosen by RSPCA members and chosen for their skills. The Board acts according to our constitution and gives us our policy and strategic focus. Our staff and volunteers ultimately report to the Chief Executive Officer who is the main conduit between the day-to-day operations of the society and the Board. The main functions of the Society in Tasmania are: • to protect Tasmanian animals by investigating cases of alleged animal cruelty or neglect; • to operate an Animal Care Centre and Adoption Retail Centre; • to work with all levels of Government to ensure adequate, modern, legislation is in place; • to enlighten the community regarding animal welfare issues; • to manage a successful and sustainable state-wide business; and, • to raise funds to support these essential functions. History Following the introduction of the Tasmanian “Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act” on the 11th December 1877, a group of concerned citizens, who called themselves “animal protectionists”, formed the first Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) on the 19th July 1878.
    [Show full text]
  • 30 March 2020 Australia-UK FTA Coordinator Regional Trade
    30 March 2020 Australia-UK FTA Coordinator Regional Trade Agreements Division Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade RG Casey Building, John McEwen Crescent BARTON ACT 0221 BY EMAIL: [email protected] Recognising animal welfare under an Australia-UK Free Trade Agreement I would like to officially register RSPCA Australia’s interest in the Australia-UK Free Trade Agreement (the UK FTA) negotiations. These negotiations present a significant opportunity for the Australian Government to demonstrate its commitment to high animal welfare standards and sustainable development practices. Animal welfare is a critical component of sustainable development having implications for all three pillars of sustainability – economic, social, and environmental. This should be recognised in any trade agreement that Australia is party to. Australia is well placed to be an international leader in animal welfare practices and should seek to capitalise on this comparative advantage and market opportunity. RSPCA Australia is very aware of the high standards of animal welfare operating in the UK and the value the British public place on such standards. Together with our counterparts, RSPCA England and Wales, we are well placed to provide technical comparative analysis on current requirements operating in each jurisdiction. I attach the comments we provided on the EU FTA’s proposed text for animal welfare. We believe the proposed text is a promising start and would hope to see the Australian Government support similar provisions in the UK FTA. In light of the subject matter of the proposed text and the strong relationship with principles of sustainable development we would ask the Australian Government to consider whether such provisions would be better suited within a proposed chapter on Trade and Sustainable Development.
    [Show full text]
  • Duty and the Beast: Animal Care and Protection Bill 2001
    Queensland Parliamentary Library Duty and the Beast: Animal Care and Protection Bill 2001 Animal welfare is one of the most emotive and difficult issues governments face, affecting more people personally than almost any other. This paper discusses the legislative development of the animal protection regime in Queensland. The provisions of the current Animals Protection Act 1925 are explained. The major part of this brief is the discussion of the Animal Care and Protection Bill 2001 and the events leading up to the tabling of this legislation. The current and proposed legislation is compared and contrasted. In addition, significant recent developments on animal welfare issues within other jurisdictions are identified. Glenda Emmerson Research Brief No 2001/23 Queensland Parliamentary Library Research Publications and Resources Section Ms Mary Seefried, Director (07) 3406 7116 Ms Karen Sampford, Research Publications Officer (07) 3406 7310 Mr Wayne Jarred, Senior Parliamentary Research Officer (07) 3406 7422 Ms Nicolee Dixon, Parliamentary Research Officer (07) 3406 7409 Ms Cathy Green (part time) Parliamentary Research Officer (07) 3406 7641 © Queensland Parliamentary Library, 2001 ISSN 1443-7902 ISBN 0 7242 7928 8 Copyright protects this publication. Except for purposes permitted by the Copyright Act 1968, reproduction by whatever means is prohibited, other than by Members of the Queensland Parliament in the course of their official duties, without the prior written permission of the Parliamentary Librarian, Queensland Parliamentary Library. Inquiries should be addressed to: Director, Research Publications & Resources Queensland Parliamentary Library Parliament House George Street, Brisbane QLD 4000 Director: Ms Mary Seefried. (Tel: 07 3406 7116) Information about Research Publications can be found on the Internet at: Http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/parlib/research/index.htm CONTENTS 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • January 2014
    ANIMAL WELFARE SCIENCE UPDATE ISSUE 43 – JANUARY 2014 The aim of the animal welfare science update is to keep you informed of developments in animal welfare science relating to the work of the RSPCA. The update provides summaries of the most relevant scientific papers and reports received by the RSPCA Australia office in the past quarter. Email [email protected] to subscribe. ANIMALS USED FOR SPORT, ENTERTAINMENT, RECREATION AND WORK The force of forehand and backhand whip strikes by jockeys It has been proposed that whipping tired horses in the name of sport is becoming increasingly difficult to justify. The Australian Racing Board has placed requirements around the use of the whip restricting the number of forehand strikes that jockeys can make with the whip prior to the final 100m of the race. The rules do not however, make distinctions on the use of the whip in a backhand manner, suggesting that the use of the whip in the backhand manner is less scrutinised which may have profound implications for horse welfare. Whether a strike is deemed to be forehand or backhand depends on the grip that the jockey takes on the whip. This study uses pressure-detection pads which were embedded in a static model horse to examine the force of both forehand and backhand whip strikes in a laboratory setting, delivered by licensed right handed jockeys. Significant differences in force emerged between individual jockeys and in most interactions between jockey, hand and action. This highlights the problems the industry has in trying to enforce equity in whip use to satisfy punters while at the same time giving reassurances about horse welfare.
    [Show full text]
  • Inquiry Into the Impact of Animal Rights Activism on Victorian Agriculture
    Inquiry into the Impact of Animal Rights Activism on Victorian Agriculture RSPCA Victoria submission 2.8.2019 rspcavic.Page | 1 org About RSPCA Victoria RSPCA Victoria is a non-government, community-based charity that works to prevent cruelty to animals by actively promoting their care and protection. Since its establishment in 1871, and as a member of RSPCA Australia (the federation of eight state and territory organisations in Australia), the RSPCA has collectively become Australia's leading animal welfare charity. Across the state, RSPCA Victoria's community services include work undertaken by our Inspectorate, Animal Care Centres, Clinics and Education teams. RSPCA Victoria operates Animal Care Centres across Victoria, providing refuge, care and new homes where possible to more than 20,000 animals every year. Our team of 27 Inspectors work to protect animals from cruelty and neglect, by enforcing the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, and by using powers given to us under Part 7 of the Domestic Animals Act as authorised by the Minister for Agriculture. They receive more than 10,000 animal cruelty reports every year, prosecuting offenders and rescuing animals from dangerous situations. Our Education team contributes to prevention strategies by influencing over 3,600 young people each year about the value and importance of animals in our lives. RSPCA Victoria works to educate the community regarding animal welfare and works with government and industry to ensure the standard of animal welfare and care continues to improve. Introduction RSPCA Victoria appreciates the opportunity to provide a submission to the Parliamentary Inquiry into the Impact of Animal Rights Activism on Victorian Agriculture.
    [Show full text]
  • The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals New South Wales ABN 87 000 001 641
    The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals New South Wales ABN 87 000 001 641 Annual report for the financial year ended 30 June 2013 The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals New South Wales Annual Financial Report for the Financial Year Ended 30 June 2013 Pages Directors’ report 1 – 3 Auditors’ independence declaration 4 Independent auditor’s report 5 – 6 Directors’ declaration 7 Statement of profit or loss and other comprehensive income 8 Statement of financial position 9 Statement of changes in equity 10 Statement of cash flows 11 Notes to the financial statements 12 – 33 Detailed income and expenditure statement – unaudited 34 – 35 The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals New South Wales Directors’ report The directors of The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals New South Wales (“the Society”) submit herewith the annual financial report of the Society for the financial year ended 30 June 2013. In order to comply with the provisions of the Corporations Act 2001, the directors report as follows: The names and particulars of the directors of the Society during or since the end of the financial year are: Directors Dr Peter Wright, President Mrs Dulcie Goldstien, Vice President Mr Graham Hall, Vice President Mr Paul O’Donnell, Director Mr Doug Dean, Treasurer Mrs Carol Youdan, Director Ms Wendy Barrett, Director Ms Sarah Cruickshank, Director Mr Andrew Givney, Director Particulars of directors The following particulars are given in respect of each of the Directors of the Society: Dr P Wright BVSc, Grad Dip Ag Ec - Dr Wright is a veterinarian who runs his own practice at Goulburn, NSW and treats domestic pets, livestock, wildlife and other exotic species.
    [Show full text]