Pet lovers in the dog house
Human beings have a special love affair and admiration for pets. The love and trust we give a pet is returned with loyalty and even more unconditional love than we give. It’s a relationship that has existed ever since man and mammal have walked on our planet together.
It is no wonder then that Townsville pet owners have on average 2.5 pets per household, which is one of the highest pet to person ratios in Australia.
Well kept and professionally trained guard dogs, cats, birds and even snakes (more about this in the next TREN edition) are excellent security measures in our homes, especially if they can alert their owner of any unwelcome visitors.
But mostly, they give people a loyalty; mateship and companionship that teach children love, compassion and responsibility and helps ordinary people and impaired victims to bring more meaning and joy into the home.
Now the Palaszczuk government has commissioned an “options paper” with recommendations on body corporate governance issues for changes to by-laws, debt recovery, and scheme terminations pertaining to body corporate and community title schemes.
Attorney General and Minister for Justice Yvette D’Ath said she “wants to hear people’s views on the Queensland University of Technology’s (QUT) recommendations” which are part of a broader review of property laws being conducted by QUT’s commercial and property research centre on behalf of the Queensland government.
The QUT property faculty is headed by “highly-respected property law experts”, Professor Bill Duncan, Professor Sharon Christensen and Dr. Bill Dixon.
The law experts are proposing the use of dissent in the procedural administration of body corporate committees, an unprecedented provision in this area of law.
The introduction of dissent, a legal term used by judges who disagree with each other usually in supreme and high courts where multiple judges sit, is set to revolutionise the way in which Body Corporate business would be carried out in Queensland.
The procedures of a body corporate passing resolutions over such emotive matters as pets, even money for that matter, creates incredible personal arguments, division and pain.
Could you imagine individuals applying instructional rhetoric, prodding and scolding behaviours in order to urge the majority to consider a view, the dissenting point of view?
Well for the lay person who has been in the middle of a heated debate at body corporate meetings, the proposed legalised use of conscientious dissent is the perfect ingredient for bigger sh*t fights.
Pet owners or pet lovers seeking approval of a by-law to allow pets will be obligated to argue on conscience opinion until their black and blue in the face.
But because of the proposed dissent provision, an individual empowered by the proposed new laws can thwart the majority decision to allow pets because all Community Management Statements (CMS’s) will have a no-pets provision by default under the law experts’ option paper recommendations.
If, however, the developer of the property included an allowable pet’s clause in the original CMS, the removal or amendment of the pro-pets by-law is dependent on the dissenting voice to retain it, which based on most anecdotal cases shared with TREN would be upheld.
The same provision has not been proposed by the law experts at QUT for dissent to allow pets if it was not included in the original CMS, but the law will allow the amendment or removal of allowed pets without dissent because the default by-law in the CMS would be a no-pet allowed law.
Under this dissent provision, which has become a relatively recent provision in court judgments originating in the 1830s on equality and discrimination cases in the United Stated, Australia’s legal experts have since adopted the same law science (threshold) for individuals to thwart changes in hereditary or precedent rights matters.
The developer’s hereditary rights are being put in the master bedroom of common people in spite of the majority interests, and now dissenting voices are being put in the master bedroom to thwart the good of the majority, a perfect environment to foster more argument and bloodletting of course.
Pet lovers and property owners are not only being left in the dog house, the law experts are feeding the body corporate committees to the wolves by putting legal dissent argument procedures on to common pet owners and property owners, the likes which challenge highly skilled supreme court judges.
We have seen this lunacy infiltrate our workplaces, our criminal justice (no justice) system and political system where the minorities rule and the interests of individuals are elevated over the pain of victims.
We have seen it in criminal defence bail decisions, in terrorist suspects being released into the community or dangerous immigrants being accepted into our peace-loving society.
The academic judges and lawyers of this country are creating dissent as a precedent and hereditary right across all aspects of our society, and the relatively inconspicuous body corporate legislation is the last bastion of our majority liberal democratic principles to fall.
So yes it is a big deal and certainly worthy of this discussion, our reader’s comments and a rally for further debate in the Attorney General’s property law review.
Common sense affirmative action for a broader need of serving pets as companions and health treatments in our community has already been fought and died for. Just as cruelty to people was outlawed, cruelty to pets has also been outlawed in this country.
Yet the politically weak and academic elite continue the blood bath of waste and rework in a minority rule courtroom social science experiment approach when the common sense intellectual property of the community is that pets are good for the health and wellbeing of people, and with no surprise, the valuations of sale and rental properties.
The RSPCA Queensland is arguing, based on their own evidence that “pet-friendly apartments sell for close to 25% more than those that have a no pet’s policy.” Submissions by real estate agents share this view.
If the majority of lot owners want a no-pets law, so be it and if a majority of lot owners want a pro-pets law, so be it. The majority by resolution have it. It’s a simple and straight forward procedure for common people to understand and apply without legalised manipulation.
Let’s leave the argumentative blood shedding to the courtroom judges.
People should be encouraged and empowered to focus on the common good of ordinary people, by allowing the companionship of pets as a hereditary right that takes precedence over property rights, and not the scientific fantasies of elite property lawyers.
It’s no surprise to conventional wisdom in a community of people that are happy, healthy and loved unconditionally, that the appeal and value in our community also improves and gets stronger both morally and financially.
How to stay up-to-date
Do you have an opinion about the proposed body corporate by-laws? The TREN community wants to hear your story.
Become a subscriber to TREN and eMagazine and be the first to receive local breaking stories, analysis and opinions on the Townsville real estate market.