The Architects of a Flawed System
The systemic failures in Victoria's dog attack laws are not an accident. They are the predictable result of a government that takes its primary advice from organizations with a profound and undeniable conflict of interest.
To understand why public safety is consistently compromised, we engaged directly with the two most influential advisory bodies in the state: RSPCA Victoria and the Australian Veterinary Association (AVA). We presented them with a simple, professional question: How do you reconcile your public lobbying against all breed-specific safety measures with your professional duty to uphold the law and protect the public?
The responses were a case study in denial, deflection, and dismissal.
RSPCA Victoria: From Denial to Silence
Our correspondence with RSPCA Victoria's legal counsel began professionally. However, when we raised the issue of the inherent conflict between their anti-BSL (Breed Specific Legislation) advocacy and their role in animal management, we were met with a simple denial. In an email dated 17 February 2025, their legal counsel stated:
In response, we provided a detailed follow-up, outlining with rational and legal arguments precisely how this conflict of interest works in practice and how it undermines public safety. That is when the communication stopped. Our detailed, evidence-based email was met with complete silence. This is not a disagreement; it is a clear refusal to be held accountable when confronted with the public safety implications of their political lobbying.
The Australian Veterinary Association (AVA): A Polite Dismissal
Our approach to the AVA, the peak body for veterinarians, was similar. We raised concerns that their members are in trusted positions to enforce laws that their organization's official policy opposes. Instead of a substantive discussion, we received a polite, bureaucratic stonewall. In an email dated 3 February 2025, the AVA responded:
As with the RSPCA, all further attempts to engage in a genuine dialogue were met with silence.
The Consequence: Public safety Suffers
The pattern is clear. The very organizations that the government relies on for expert advice have a vested interest in keeping safety legislation weak. This serves their own operational and ideological goals, such as maximizing "live release" rates from shelters, sometimes by "risk laundering" dangerous dogs back into the community under misleading labels.
When the "experts" advising on public safety are fundamentally opposed to proven public safety measures and refuse to even discuss the conflict, the system is guaranteed to fail. It is a classic case of the fox guarding the henhouse, and the public, and their pets, are the ones who pay the price.