PERSONAL REPONSE TO THE ABC PROGRAM, “FOUR CORNERS”

It has been interesting to observe that of all the letters I received and the calls taken following the recent ABC Program, Four Corners, and subsequent media commentary, only one person amongst them is currently a member of the RSPCA. Nevertheless, in response to your letters and calls, I have decided to report to you the origins of that interview and the events related to it

The entire Four Corners interview was based on information represented to the ABC by a member of the RSPCA’s own Council, Ms Yvonne Pallier, RSPCA Council documents regarding an ongoing investigation released by Ms Pallier and misquoted by the ABC, and privileged legal advice released by Ms Pallier to the media regarding an investigation for a significant prosecution.

I faced a camera under lights in a non-stop inquisition (and it was an inquisition without warning) for more than two hours. About 2 minutes from two hours of film were selectively pasted into the program. Extremely adverse impressions were formed from that “cut and paste” in the editing.

Our Members and supporters deserve balancing information to enable them to form a rational view. Although I am currently on leave of absence from the Council and am unaware of any action the Council may be taking, I am forwarding the following information for those who have tried to contact me.

Firstly, it is clear from many letters and many calls that RSPCA members and the public believe the members of the Council are paid officers. I need to dispel that image immediately. No member of the Council receives any remuneration or compensation of any kind. The members are all volunteers. They give their time freely to the organisation for no reward other than a beneficial outcome for animal care and welfare.

Secondly, the selective “cut and paste” of the interview portrayed a gross distortion of my views, and those of others. Those who know me are outraged by the misrepresentation portrayed by the editing.

I was shown stating: “I don’t believe in animal rights …”.

Understandably that edit has caused a huge reaction. In response to a question as to my philosophy I actually replied:

“I don’t believe in animal rights, I believe in the responsibility of humans for the care and welfare of animals. That’s the RSPCA philosophy.”

That’s like asking someone if they agree with crime and being shown replying “Definitely …”, when the reply was “Definitely … not.” That sort of editing is a scandalous abuse of media power to mis-portray people or circumstances.

Thirdly, there was an emphasis in the ABC interview on declarations of interest by members of the Council, but only two were edited into the footage.

All Councillors make a disclosure of financial interests each year immediately after the Annual General Meeting. Declarations were sought during and after the October 2003 Council meeting. The disclosure is in accordance with the Associations Incorporation Act and the Constitution. All councillors apart from one lodged their declarations. Only one Councillor failed to lodge a disclosure of interests form for seven months, ie: until after the May 2004 Council meeting. That was Councillor Pallier.

Councillors also make additional disclosures during the year in respect of debates on issues in which any conflict of interest, either real or perceived, may exist. That is normal and proper practice.

In respect of a budget allocation during the April meeting for a national campaign against live exports, one Councillor, Mr Gooding, a farmer, declared that it is possible stock which he had sold to the general market could have been on-sold for export without his knowledge. That was a proper declaration, and he correctly refrained from participating in any debate on the industry. He conducted himself properly, in accordance with the Code of Conduct for Councillors, and took no part in the discussion.

Page 2

But he was attacked by Ms Pallier, not in the Council where her concerns should be raised, but to the media, and in a most scathing way, about his alleged involvement in Council decisions in which he had not participated.

The attack was extended to another Councillor, Mr Marsh, who was not even present at either of the meetings dealing with the issues.

Fourthly, it was claimed during the ABC interview that “I” had withheld a “legal opinion” from the Council during debate about a potential prosecution. The claim was made without warning, and was based on operational documents passed by Ms Pallier to the ABC. Without the benefit of access to any documents or Council Minutes, I denied that claim on camera, and I vehemently deny it off camera.

I asked genuinely “Why would I do that?” as there was just no reason for such an assertion. It would be anathema to me to impede an investigation. The investigation is one which has ( or had prior to the improper disclosure of investigation details), the potential to achieve an outcome I, the State Council and the National Council have all sought for 25 years – a prosecution for animal suffering in the live export trade.

It is improper to discuss individual investigations and prosecutions, and the public disclosure of any such information is regarded as gross misconduct of the most serious kind and provides grounds for immediate dismissal of an employee, and grounds for expulsion of a Member from the Council. With that in mind I will mention some background issues to the media reports, but in general only.

It is important to understand that members of the Council do not handle documents related to prosecutions. They remain the property of the prosecuting officers. Councillors may be informed about operational matters in progress but they do not interfere in them. Regrettably this changed in respect of the complaint lodged by the animal rights group Animals Australia, and it has been politicised.

Prior to receiving the Animals Australia documents we had already begun discussions regarding jurisdiction in respect of the export trade. We were in pro-bono discussions from October 2003. And in December 2003 we sought jurisdictional advice from the authority from which we derive our powers, the Animal Welfare Unit in the Department of Local Government and Regional Development.

My involvement was to be informed when we received the much publicised documents from Animals Australia (why they went public about a potential major prosecution escapes me). As we had still received no definitive advice about jurisdiction and because jurisdiction was critical to any prosecution I urged that the Animal Australia file should be given to our principal legal advisers, Phillips Fox, to establish if in the opinion of our own advisers we had power to act. Without jurisdiction all else was irrelevant.

Upon inquiry after the ABC filming I was informed that a document titled “Legal Opinion – Jurisdiction” from Animals Australia was included in the file given to our legal advisers, Phillips Fox. It was the opinion from Phillips Fox, who already had the Animals Australia file, that went to the Council.

I therefore correctly informed ABC that the document to which they referred was in the possession of our legal advisers: it was not withheld from the Council. Phillips Fox, produced their opinion and the Council received that opinion, as I did. I can re-state what I told ABC, that the Council received three documents - they were two opinions from our own prosecutors, and the Phillips Fox opinion. No documents were withheld.

The inference that “I” had deliberately withheld documents from the Council is an outrageous allegation. [Although the allegation doesn’t change, it transpires that the alleged “legal opinion” was a document composed by Animals Australia: it was composed from an exchange of e-mails they had with a respected Barrister.]

Fifthly, it was claimed on the program that the CEO had argued against and recommended against a prosecution. That was just not correct. The document shown on camera was the CEO’s cover sheet attached to two reports from another officer, not from the CEO, stating that in the officer’s view a prosecution could not be sustained. The CEO did not make that claim, and never argued that to be the case. He relayed the view of another officer.

Page 3

Nor did the CEO seek to withhold a prosecution on the basis that government funding would cease. Every responsible CEO has a duty to ensure the Council is informed before reaching a conclusion on any matter before it. If recurrent government funding ceased because the export industry was closed that may cause a financial hiccup for the Council. Closure of funding may or may not be an outcome, but the CEO did not argue that the investigation should not proceed by reason of government funding.

State government funding is less than 10% of our cash inflow and under the terms of payment it is not permitted to be used for inspectors, investigations, prosecutions, rescues or the animal shelter. It is restricted to education services. No funding is provided by the Commonwealth or by local councils. We raise 90% of all our funds ourselves.

Sixthly, it was claimed on the program that the Council was not proceeding with the relevant prosecution. Despite all the improprieties of discussing the progress of an investigation, I was forced to state that the assertion was just not true. We were establishing jurisdiction and I stated that in my view I believed we would find that we did have the appropriate power to proceed with the investigation.

The Council gave instructions to the CEO to seek advice as to the evidence we would need to launch a prosecution for animal suffering in the trade. The information received from Animals Australia could then be measured against the evidence needed to establish if the case could be made. That process is in progress and no decision has yet been made. Even if the evidence is inadequate to support a prosecution on this occasion, and I have no way of forming that judgement, we will be placed in a strong position to pursue the industry for its conduct.

No member of the Council has experience in investigations or prosecutions. The task of investigating and the judgement for prosecuting should be correctly left to our experienced officers and to our legal advisers, not to Council members.

There is nothing more serious than the pursuit of a prosecution, and nothing more important than success. To prosecute and fail, and particularly in a test case of the most significant kind, would send the wrong message to the industry and to government. It has to be done carefully and thoroughly.

The haste sought by animal rights groups, and even by some on our own Council, is understandable, but threatens a successful outcome if it is not done properly. Members and the community must give credit to our officers who have always acted carefully without fear or favour, and never with reckless enthusiasm or consumed optimism.

Seventhly, the question of costing a major investigation and prosecution is a serious issue. The cost of a failed prosecution could reach $250,000 or more and we don’t have extensive reserves of free cash.

But we began with pro-bono assistance last October, and that is continuing. We have received generously discounted advice from our principal legal advisers, and a senior associate from the firm has presented the firm’s advice, and met with Councillors pro-bono. It is argued that an offer of pro-bono advice to Animals Australia from eminent barristers in Perth has been ignored, but that is not true. We have not yet met with them as the matter was progressing through the Council, and we will be seeking their offers in due course. Pro-bono Court representation will be highly valued.

There will be significant associated costs involved. We have touched on the extent of potential costs, but not yet explored all the cost implications. Even funding a case from a special public appeal is not out of question.

It is disappointing that in the meanwhile an eminent barrister has criticised the RSPCA ”for not proceeding with the prosecution” when that assumption is unfounded. There is a danger in making assumptions from unsubstantiated sources. No one asked the RSPCA.

Had the investigation been allowed to progress through the normal operational channels before being referred to the Council, it may have progressed further by now. But the significance of success at last in a prosecution of the export trade was so important that it deserved the Council’s attention. Since is was first raised in the Council, the investigation has been politicised [maybe even to the detriment of the case] both outside the Society and inside the Council, and that has only served to delay its progress and given rise to outrageous claims of interference in a prosecution.

Eighthly, the ABC Program in respect of Western Australia took its lead from a position pursued by Mrs Yvonne Pallier. That attack has continued since the program was shown.

Page 4

Remarkably, Ms Pallier discarded all proper conduct in this affair. She ignored the Code of Conduct she helped to produce for Councillors, abandoned the basic Constitution of the Society, ignored her duty to raise matters of concern within the Council, snubbed her Council colleagues, disregarded the adverse impact her actions would have upon loyal and committed staff, and went directly to the media with no warning. She sought protection behind a claim the National RSPCA President had told her to do that. Not surprisingly he rejects that claim and has initiated legal action for defamation.

Finally, I want to commend the remaining Council of 14 dedicated members who provide their time and talent to govern the Society’s affairs in Western Australia with propriety and selflessness. Outlandish claims of self-interest, favours and interference can not be demonstrated. The maturity of the Council members and their totally unconnected interests provides an independence which is important. Their diversity of vocations, ages and gender provides a balance very representative of the community, and not of any sector. It is that balancing of representation that has made the RSPCA unique and underpinned its survival, as a barometer of the community’s views, for 180 years.

Taken out of context, the ABC Program, Four Corners, set out to promote a perspective - that the Society has no will to intervene to stop animal industries such as the live export trade. The program encouraged the perception that the RSPCA is a cat and dog Society, with no capacity to deal with animal industries. This was reinforced by the producer wanting each RSPCA officer filmed with dogs or cats or in pet shelters, while detractors were filmed with livestock.

Anyone who knows the reality of investigations knows that animal industries enjoy no exemption from RSPCA prosecutions. They know the huge effort our officers put into the livestock industries. And no one can demonstrate interference in that process. Members of the Council do not divert resources away from prosecutions. We just don’t have enough resources to do everything demanded of us. The dedication, enthusiasm, good work and loyalty of all our officers are all depreciated by the scandalous assertions in the ABC Program, and the detractors of the RSPCA.

Inferences that either I am, or any other Council Member is, uncommitted to the RSPCA charter of animal care have no substance. Anyone who has heard me, spoken to me, listened to me, corresponded with me, or read anything I have written over 20 years, will attest to the falsity of that claim. I am a total supporter of the RSPCA position.

I encourage you to dismiss the misrepresentations for what they are, malicious assertions in a political challenge. Our job in the RSPCA is to stay focused on the welfare of animals within our capacity to do that. I hope you will help us in that pursuit with your support rather than join those who seek denigration of the people working arduously for improvements for animal protection in Western Australia.

Eric Ball
President
RSPCA WA Inc
6 July 2004


Click here to return to Rabbit Information Service page about "A Blind Eye"