the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment (Office of Animal Welfare) Bill 2026
Summary
Animal Care Australia has significant concerns regarding the proposed Office’s independence; the extent of ministerial control; the continuation of enforcement powers exercised by private charitable organisations; the absence of enforceable remedies for animal owners and the limited scope of the proposed oversight framework.
Of particular concern is the distinction between establishing a statutory corporation and establishing a genuinely independent regulatory authority.
While the Bill constitutes the Office of Animal Welfare as a NSW Government agency, section 24ZA provides that the Office is subject to ministerial control and direction, except in specified circumstances. Furthermore, several important review functions may only be exercised following a written request from the Minister.
Animal Care Australia question whether this arrangement provides sufficient independence to allow the Office to identify, investigate and report proactively on systemic failures within the broader animal welfare regulatory framework.
More concerning is that the Bill retains the existing arrangement whereby approved charitable organisations, principally RSPCA NSW and Animal Welfare League NSW, exercise significant statutory enforcement powers.
These organisations are not government law enforcement departments. They are independent charitable entities that exercise powers conferred by legislation, including investigation, animal seizure and prosecution functions.
Animal Care Australia is absolute that the exercise of coercive statutory powers requires robust, transparent and independent oversight, supported by procedural fairness and meaningful avenues of review.
Progression of this Bill must give consideration of amendments addressing the following matters:
- Greater statutory independence of the proposed Office.
- Clear separation between ministerial policy direction and independent regulatory oversight.
- Independent scrutiny of approved charitable organisations exercising enforcement powers.
- Stronger procedural protections and review mechanisms for animal owners.
- Transparency regarding animal seizure, retention, rehoming and disposal decisions.
- Independent oversight of prosecution decisions and enforcement practices.
- Public reporting of complaints, investigations and systemic findings.
- Broader representation of animal industry stakeholders in policy development.
- Examination of alternative government-led enforcement arrangements.
- Clearer safeguards concerning funding, governance and conflicts of interest.
Independence of the Proposed Office of Animal Welfare
(Relevant provisions: Sections 24X, 24Y and 24ZA)
Section 24X establishes the Office as a statutory corporation and NSW Government agency. Although this provides the Office with a distinct legal identity, it does not necessarily provide the institutional independence generally associated with an independent regulatory or oversight authority.
Section 24ZA(1) expressly provides that the Office is subject to the control and direction of the Minister.
More significantly, section 24ZA(2) prevents the Office from independently initiating certain review and advisory functions without a written ministerial request. These include reviews concerning:
- Government funding provided to approved charitable organisations.
- The statutory functions of approved charitable organisations.
- Broader animal welfare matters.
Animal Care Australia acknowledging that section 24ZA(3) provides important protections concerning the contents of advice and reports, complaint-handling decisions and compulsory information-gathering powers. Nevertheless, these protections do not eliminate the limitations placed on the Office’s ability to initiate broader reviews.
Concern: An oversight body may identify emerging systemic concerns yet remain unable to commence particular statutory reviews without ministerial authorisation.
Animal Care Australia believes that this structure warrants further scrutiny, particularly where the Office is presented as an independent animal welfare authority.
Animal Care Australia recommends:
- The Office should have express statutory authority to initiate systemic reviews, examine enforcement practices and provide advice on animal welfare matters without requiring prior ministerial approval.
- Ministerial direction should be limited to general policy and administrative matters and should not prevent independent investigations or reviews.
- The legislation should also clarify the Office’s organisational independence, funding arrangements and reporting obligations to Parliament.
Continued Enforcement Powers of RSPCA NSW and Animal Welfare League NSW
(Relevant provisions: Sections 24Y, 24Z and existing section 34B)
Under the existing NSW framework, RSPCA NSW and Animal Welfare League NSW are approved charitable organisations whose authorised inspectors may exercise enforcement powers under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979.
The Bill does not fundamentally restructure this arrangement. Instead, it introduces an additional oversight body responsible for reviewing the performance of these organisations and investigating complaints concerning their statutory functions.
However, the exercise of statutory enforcement powers by organisations operating outside the ordinary public-sector enforcement structure raises legitimate governance questions. These include:
- Whether enforcement decisions are sufficiently separated from organisational interests.
- Whether inspector conduct is subject to consistent independent scrutiny.
- Whether prosecution decisions receive appropriate independent review.
- Whether animal owners have access to timely and affordable remedies.
- Whether financial and operational arrangements create actual or perceived conflicts of interest.
- Whether the same procedural protections apply consistently across different enforcement agencies.
Animal Care Australia recommends:
- An independent review should examine whether the existing charitable-organisation enforcement model remains the most appropriate long-term arrangement for NSW.
- Consideration should be given to a government-operated inspectorate or another model that separates frontline enforcement, prosecution oversight, animal care services and independent complaints review.
- Any continued delegation of enforcement powers to charitable organisations should be accompanied by consistent accreditation, competency, auditing, conduct and accountability requirements.
Insufficient Remedies for Animal Owners and Other Affected Parties
(Relevant provisions: Sections 24ZD, 24ZE and 24ZF)
Animal Care Australia welcomes the proposed establishment of a statutory complaints mechanism.
However, the Bill provides the Office with broad discretion regarding how complaints are handled. Under section 24ZD, the Office may investigate, refer, dismiss or otherwise deal with complaints as it considers appropriate. Although complaints must be dealt with within a reasonably practicable time, the Bill does not prescribe specific statutory timeframes.
Furthermore, section 24ZD(8) permits the Office to make recommendations to an approved charitable organisation following an investigation. The provision does not expressly establish a power to require compliance with those recommendations. This raises important questions about the practical effectiveness of the proposed complaints framework.
For example, where an animal owner alleges that an inspector has acted improperly, exceeded their authority or failed to follow appropriate procedures, the Bill does not expressly provide the Office with powers to:
- Order the return of an animal.
- Reverse an enforcement decision.
- Require corrective action by an approved charitable organisation.
- Award compensation.
- Suspend an inspector’s authority.
- Provide an independent merits review of a seizure decision.
Animal Care Australia acknowledges that other statutory or judicial remedies may be available in particular circumstances. Nevertheless, these can involve significant costs, delays and complexity.
Animal Care Australia recommends:
- The legislation should establish clear complaint-handling timeframes, written reasons for decisions, appropriate escalation pathways and an accessible independent review mechanism.
- Where complaints identify serious procedural or enforcement failures, the Office should have clearly defined powers to require corrective action or refer matters for binding determination by an appropriate authority.
Animal Seizure, Retention and Disposal
Animal seizure and retention decisions require particular attention because of their potentially irreversible consequences. Animal owners, breeders and animal businesses may experience significant financial, emotional and reputational consequences when animals are seized or retained during an investigation.
The welfare of animals must remain paramount. However, appropriate animal welfare protection and procedural fairness are not mutually exclusive. The Bill does not establish additional express safeguards concerning:
- Independent review of seizure decisions.
- Timeframes for determining the continued necessity of retaining animals.
- Independent veterinary assessment where welfare findings are disputed.
- Disclosure of evidence supporting ongoing retention.
- Transparency concerning costs charged for animal care.
- Decisions involving rehoming, transfer or euthanasia.
- Remedies where an investigation does not substantiate the original allegations.
Animal Care Australia is particularly concerned about situations where delays in investigations or legal proceedings result in significant boarding and veterinary costs, or where animals cannot be returned despite the eventual resolution of a matter.
Animal Care Australia recommends:
The Government should review the existing seizure, retention and disposal framework alongside this Bill and consider introducing expedited independent review procedures, proportionate cost arrangements and stronger safeguards against irreversible decisions before disputes have been appropriately determined, except where urgent animal welfare needs justify immediate action.
Financial Transparency and Potential Conflicts of Interest
(Relevant provisions: Sections 24Y and 24Z)
The Bill expressly identifies oversight of government funding to approved charitable organisations as one of the Office’s objectives.
Animal Care Australia unequivocally supports appropriate scrutiny of public expenditure. However, financial accountability should extend beyond confirmation that government funding has been spent in accordance with relevant agreements. Where an approved charitable organisation undertakes enforcement, animal housing, veterinary care, fundraising and other operational activities, transparent accounting arrangements are important.
The regulatory framework should clearly distinguish between:
- Public funding for enforcement functions.
- Charitable donations and fundraising revenue.
- Animal care and boarding charges.
- Veterinary and associated costs recovered from animal owners.
- Prosecution-related costs.
- Other income associated with enforcement activities.
The purpose of such scrutiny is not to presume inappropriate financial conduct but to ensure that enforcement decisions are not influenced, or perceived to be influenced, by financial considerations.
Animal Care Australia recommends:
Independent financial audits should examine enforcement-related expenditure, cost recovery arrangements and potential conflicts of interest.
Public reporting should provide sufficient detail to establish how enforcement activities are funded and how financial conflicts are identified and managed.
Narrow Scope of the Proposed Office
(Relevant provision: Section 24Z)
Despite its title, the Office of Animal Welfare is primarily assigned functions relating to the oversight of approved charitable organisations and the provision of advice to the Minister.
Its proposed functions do not expressly establish it as a comprehensive regulator of all animal welfare enforcement agencies or animal-related regulatory activities across NSW.
For example, the Bill does not create equivalent complaint oversight arrangements for every authority exercising animal welfare enforcement functions.
Currently the title and public presentation of the Office will create expectations of broader regulatory responsibility than the legislation actually provides.
Animal Care Australia recommends:
- Greater clarity on whether the Office is intended to function primarily as an oversight body for approved charitable organisations or as a broader animal welfare regulatory authority is needed – especially for the purpose of promoting the Office to the public.
- If the latter is intended, its statutory functions, resources and accountability mechanisms should reflect that broader responsibility.
Removal of the Animal Welfare Advisory Council Consultation Requirement
(Relevant provision: Schedule 1[3], amendment to section 34A)
Schedule 1[3] removes the specific reference to consultation with the Animal Welfare Advisory Council in relation to certain animal welfare guidelines.
The proposed replacement requires consultation with representatives of relevant livestock industries and relevant stakeholders concerning companion animals. While broader stakeholder consultation may be beneficial, removing an expressly identified advisory body raises questions regarding the continuity, transparency and independence of expert advice.
Animal Care Australia has major concerns that an undefined stakeholder consultation process may allow inconsistent representation of affected sectors and unvetted inclusion of ideological influences, not supported by science.
Companion animal stakeholders include far more than animal welfare charities. They also include responsible breeders, exhibitors, animal trainers, boarding operators, veterinary professionals, animal businesses, rescue organisations and animal owners.
Animal Care Australia recommends:
The legislation should establish transparent consultation requirements and ensure balanced representation of relevant animal care, breeding, training, veterinary, welfare and industry expertise.
The Government should also explain the rationale for removing the specific reference to the Animal Welfare Advisory Council.
Qualifications, Competency and Professional Standards
Statutory enforcement powers should be exercised only by appropriately qualified, competent and accountable personnel.
Animal welfare investigations frequently require specialist knowledge of animal behaviour, husbandry, nutrition, veterinary science, breeding practices, species-specific needs and animal welfare assessment. The absence of which is admitted by the approved charities, when actions are called into question.
Incorrect interpretation of normal animal behaviour, breed characteristics or husbandry practices will continue to result in inappropriate enforcement outcomes.
Nationally consistent minimum competency expectations for authorised animal welfare inspectors is required, including ongoing professional development and specialist training relevant to their duties.
The proposed Office should be empowered to audit inspector competency, training arrangements and professional conduct standards.
Reporting, Transparency and Parliamentary Accountability
(Relevant provisions: Sections 24ZD, 24ZI and 24ZJ)
The Bill requires complaint outcomes to be reported to the Minister, with further reporting requirements potentially established by regulation. However, it does not expressly require comprehensive annual public reporting of the Office’s oversight activities.
Public reporting is essential to confidence in the regulatory framework. Reports should include complaint volumes, complaint categories, investigation outcomes, systemic findings, recommendations, implementation progress and relevant enforcement performance indicators.
Section 24ZJ provides for periodic reviews after five-year periods. An earlier independent implementation review would assist in identifying operational problems.
Animal Care Australia recommends:
Mandatory annual reporting to Parliament, public disclosure of systemic findings subject to appropriate confidentiality protections, and an independent review within two years of commencement.
Animal welfare needs more than an Office in name.
Animal welfare deserves expertise – transparency – and a whole of animal approach!
