RSPCA Tasmania has dismissed its CEO Ben Sturges amid allegations of serious misconduct. The Tasmanian Government has announced a Public Accounts Committee will review the financial affairs of the organisation which has spent extraordinary amounts of taxpayer and community funds on corporate welfare, rather than on the anmals it is charged with protecting. The organisation currently operates with a board of just three, and this investigation is and and of itself an enquiry into the conduct of the board and its CEO, who was both appointed and dismissed in questionable circumstances. The PAC enquiry therefore does not go far enough, because the potential remains for more taxpayer funds and community donations and bequests to be diverted into yet more RSPCA damage control.
It is time for some creative thinking into the animal protection regime in Tasmania. There is no basis for the perception that there 'must' be a RSPCA in the state and there is more than enough evidence to remove this organisation entirely from the equation.
The portfolio must be removed from the Department of Primary Industries and given to the Department of Justice, the Inspectorate functions (and the resources that go with them) to a dedicated and uncompromised unit of Tasmania Police, and shelter operations in the entirety should be given to the properly financed and resourced (and diversified Dogs' Homes of Tasmania.
If you think Tasmanian animals are getting a poor deal from this wholly compromised organisation, please sign and share this petition.
Dear decision makers
Animal advocates have welcomed the news that a Public Accounts Committee is to investigate the financial position of RSPCA Tasmania, but believe that the initiative, supported by all three parties, does not go far enough. They believe that in order for the investigation to have much-needed integrity, the board, down to just three members, must be dismissed and an administrator appointed to take over the affairs of the continually troubled organisation.
We believe that an investigation such as this is, in and of itself, an investigation into the conduct of the board, now down to just three members, and the CEO, Ben Sturges, who was both appointed and dismissed in questionable circumstances. We were surprised to see members of all three political parties praising Mr Sturges, who, along with the board, have engaged in the sort of profligate spending on people, not animals, that we have seen in the Annual Report and Financial Statements. We note also that Mr Sturges was both appointed and dismisssed in extraordinary circumstances.
We ask you therefore, to dismiss this board and to take a more creative apporoach to the animal protection regime in Tasmania.
Yours sincerely
