Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Community

Ray White Tuggeranong - fresh, fun & professional approach to real estate

Who pays? The cost of government decisions

By weeziepops - 9 June 2009 57

RSPCA ACT, for the first time ever if I’m not mistaken, was open for extended hours over the long weekend to manage the influx of lost and injured animals as a result of fireworks usage.  Now before you zone out, I’m not raising this in order to debate the banning of fireworks.  I think we have done that one to death.  I am raising it to seek thoughts on the issue of who should pay.  RSPCA ACT responded to need and kept their services available for extended hours at, I assume, their own cost.  The pound also stayed open extended hours, funded by government. 

So who should cover costs like this?  RSPCA ACT only stayed open late to address a need arising from a government decision to allow fireworks.  Should they therefore be able to seek funds from the government for the extra costs? 

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments
57 Responses to
Who pays? The cost of government decisions
1
jakez 9:58 am
09 Jun 09
#

Hmm, what should an organisation that boasts about not being Government funded and then takes $200,000 from the Government do?

I guess the premise of your question is whether the Government (and by logical conclusion, the taxpayers of the ACT) has some sort of fiduciary duty to the RSPCA in the situation.

I can’t say how (and this is ignoring my tax hating anarchy loving philosophy) you could find a link. The RSPCA and its supporters felt that it was the right thing to do for their stated mission. That is as it should be and the RSPCA and its supporters should wear the costs for that mission and feel joy joy feelings for it. I would have donated money in times gone by before I realised how authoritarian [expurgated] the organisation and its current head is.

Report this comment

2
threepaws 10:05 am
09 Jun 09
#

Last year the pound opened until 10pm. This year they opened from 10am to 2pm on Sunday and Monday (which you may note are not the designated hours for fireworks – makes sense doesn’t it). I guess the RSPCA had no choice but to open seeing as the government pound failed to provide their services to the public.

The RSPCA say that they receive around 10% of their funding from the government. Can you tell me where they boast that they are not government funded or did you make this up?

Perhaps it is you that is dishonest.

Report this comment

3
Davo111 10:14 am
09 Jun 09
#

10 points for Jakez – ZING!

Report this comment

4
weeziepops 10:15 am
09 Jun 09
#

Wow – harsh words! What’s your beef with RSPCA and its boss?

If the RSPCA didn’t (or couldn’t due to lack of funds) provide this service what would happen to the animals in distress? They might be picked up and left at the pound. They might be left to wander the streets and face any consequences of same. If you look at the human cost (as so many people think this is far more important than the needs of animals), I am betting there would be a lot of hysterical pet owners out there looking for their pet or treating its wounds or burying it. Animals in need increased in number as a direct result of fireworks usage. Should the government fund the service? I think they should.

Report this comment

5
trevar 10:16 am
09 Jun 09
#

I think it would make more sense for the RSPCA to close entirely for the old lady’s birthday weekend, or simply tie all the strays up outside the pound (with adequate water and all those basic humane things).

Perhaps they could leave a card, saying this is her birthday present, thus they are now the responsibility of the crown.

Report this comment

6
jakez 10:18 am
09 Jun 09
#

threepaws said :

Last year the pound opened until 10pm. This year they opened from 10am to 2pm on Sunday and Monday (which you may note are not the designated hours for fireworks – makes sense doesn’t it). I guess the RSPCA had no choice but to open seeing as the government pound failed to provide their services to the public.

The RSPCA say that they receive around 10% of their funding from the government. Can you tell me where they boast that they are not government funded or did you make this up?

Perhaps it is you that is dishonest.

God that’s a stretch. It was before the election and I’m vaguely thinking either Canberra Times, RiotACT, websitey kind of things. It was to do with an appeal for support. I’ll have a look in the next couple of days but I’m not sure I’ll be able to find something.

If my original statement implied a continual boast that is not what I meant. I doubt I’ll be able to find it so I’m happy to retract the claim right now although I wasn’t making it up.

It was not what I was referring to when I mentioned dishonesty. That was a private communication.

Report this comment

7
jakez 10:22 am
09 Jun 09
#

weeziepops said :

Wow – harsh words! What’s your beef with RSPCA and its boss?

If the RSPCA didn’t (or couldn’t due to lack of funds) provide this service what would happen to the animals in distress? They might be picked up and left at the pound. They might be left to wander the streets and face any consequences of same. If you look at the human cost (as so many people think this is far more important than the needs of animals), I am betting there would be a lot of hysterical pet owners out there looking for their pet or treating its wounds or burying it. Animals in need increased in number as a direct result of fireworks usage. Should the government fund the service? I think they should.

I applaud that aspect of their service weeziepops.

When I lost my dog, I didn’t put a gun to the heads of the citizenry of Canberra and ‘politely ask them’ to fund my search and rescue. I expect the same level of courtesy. ps, using the la cosa nostra as an intermediary does not count as the same level of courtesy.

Report this comment

8
weeziepops 10:29 am
09 Jun 09
#

You applaud that aspect of their service but don’t think it should be government funded?

What did you do when you lost your dog? Call the RSPCA perchance?

Report this comment

9
jakez 10:37 am
09 Jun 09
#

No I don’t think it should be Government funded. I think things should be funded without the use of force. Just because something is ‘good’ doesn’t mean it should be funded through coercion.

I did call the RSPCA. I also use Government roads. I have my beliefs but I do not live in that world. In this world I must make compromises. An organisation that is only f10% funded by a Government is actually pretty good…sadly enough.

It is not their acceptance of taxpayer funding that makes me not like them. I apologise if that is the impression I have given.

Report this comment

10
PM 10:43 am
09 Jun 09
#

How about RSPCA save all that hard earned money and put it to other uses over the duration of the entire year? They could do it if a) pet owners who mistreat animals are charged and b) pet owners lock their animals up over the long weekend.

Report this comment

11
threeze 10:43 am
09 Jun 09
#

Getting back on-topic, maybe the people who sell fireworks could set up a voluntary donation scheme so that the RSPCA can cover any extended and unexpected costs over the long-weekend?

Report this comment

12
threepaws 10:43 am
09 Jun 09
#

I think what weeziepops is saying is that the RSPCA does not exist to supplement the work that the government pound should be doing. Why does an animal welfare charity have to do this work with stray animals?

Maybe the government can increase the funding for the pound, and take some of the strain off the RSPCA. Would this be more acceptable?

Report this comment

13
jakez 10:47 am
09 Jun 09
#

threepaws said :

I think what weeziepops is saying is that the RSPCA does not exist to supplement the work that the government pound should be doing. Why does an animal welfare charity have to do this work with stray animals?

Maybe the government can increase the funding for the pound, and take some of the strain off the RSPCA. Would this be more acceptable?

It doesn’t have to do that work, and nobody is forcing it to. It freely chose to open because it felt it was the right thing to do and it was in accordance with its organisation mission. Good on them.

Your alternative is less acceptable. The RSPCA (ignoring the 10% Govt funding) is voluntarily supported and does this part of its work without the use of coercion. The Government pound is entirely funded through coercive means.

Report this comment

14
frontrow 10:58 am
09 Jun 09
#

I missed the memo. When did we change from governments that banned things as an exception from the norm to governments that allow things as an exception to the norm. Is this something to do with Ivan Canberrovitch?

Report this comment

15
mutley 11:00 am
09 Jun 09
#

Maybe the people who didn’t look after their pets properly could fund the extra hours required to pick up and look after them?

Report this comment

1 2 3 4

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2016 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.

Search across the site