Alexis Kilby-Luhrs’ dog died while having surgical swabs removed from its abdomen from a failed previous surgery. She took her complaint to the ACT Veterinary Surgeons Board and said their response was “manifestly inadequate”.

“We never even had a meeting with the person investigating the complaint,” Ms Kilby-Luhrs said.

“The process was traumatic, frustrating and unfair.”

However the ACT government has defended the vet board, saying it was working well and the new legislation would improve it's efforts to stamp out malpractise in the sector.

Ms Kilby-Luhrs' dog Elle, a mastiff cross rescue dog, died in January 2016 from mistakes made during a routine desexing surgery two years prior.

A complaint report produced by the vet board, provided to the Sunday Canberra Times by Ms Kilby-Luhrs, states: "[Redacted] is likely [redacted] left an indeterminate number of surgical swabs in Elle's abdominal cavity while spaying her. It appears that this incident was an isolated lapse of judgement by an otherwise experienced, competent veterinary surgeon."

In response to the complaint, the vet's employer updated surgery kit protocols to include a defined number of swabs and reviewed clinical record procedures and anaesthetic protocols.

The dog, Elle, was six months old when she had the desexing operation in 2014. After she became unwell, a subsequent surgery revealed a mass of surgical swabs that had, over two years, embedded into the tissue causing necrosis and obstructing digestion.

Ms Kilby-Luhrs complained to the vet board soon after the dog’s death. It took the board a year to finalise the complaint, and she is deeply unhappy with the result.

She received a letter saying the complaint had been finalised without any information as to what had been put in place to ensure what happened to her dog wouldn’t happen to someone else’s.

Ms Kilby-Luhrs wants the process to be more open and transparent. At the moment, the board only discloses information publicly if disciplinary action has been taken - but not if recommendations are made.

Ms Kilby-Luhrs fosters rescue dogs until they find their forever homes, and said she is experienced with post-surgical care.

She felt the vet board dismissed her complaint because she hadn’t taken Elle back for a postoperative check-up. But, Ms Kilby-Luhrs said she was never informed of complications that occurred during the surgery and the dog had no clinical signs of being unwell.

The death of Elle devastated Ms Kilby-Luhrs. Adding insult to injury, she said the board was condescending, “the whole episode dragged on for way too long”, and she felt the problem was not dealt with appropriately.

“The vet just got a slap on the wrist,” Ms Kilby-Luhrs said.

"I still have no answers. I want to know it won’t happen again,” Ms Kilby-Luhrs said.

Lance Nash’s dealings with the vet board have been similarly difficult. While he's been told his complaint has been finalised, Mr Nash is fighting to find answers as to what's been put in place to protect other animals.

He said the lack of action is appalling.

“I think it’s a matter of an industry policing itself," Mr Nash said.

Mr Nash's dog Apache, a kelpie cross, was found to have cancer on his bottom. He was 14 years old. Surgery to remove a lump was undertaken in 2016 but the vet didn’t tie off the suture, which resulted in infection. The dog collapsed soon after the surgery and Mr Nash said he received a phone call asking if he wanted to euthanise the dog.

Mr Nash was astonished, and asked what other options were available. He said only then did the vet offer to clean the surgery site, which would require another surgery.

The vet clinic then tried to charge Mr Nash for the subsequent surgery. While the vet board doesn't deal with complaints about the cost of veterinary care, Mr Nash felt that the vet discharged Apache too early with an open wound after he complained about the fees.

"They wanted me to pay for their negligence," Mr Nash said.

Apache died in September 2017. Mr Nash said before the surgery, the dog was “a fairly healthy older dog” with arthritis as his only health issue.

“When I brought him home, he was not the same dog. He never fully recovered from the second surgery.”

The minister for Transport Canberra and City Services presented the new veterinary legislation in early May. It will be debated by the Legislative Assembly in the coming weeks.

Minister Meegan Fitzharris said the changes enhance regulatory powers of the vet board, but also increase public reporting measures and accountability provisions.

"These provisions will enable scrutiny of the board's work and provide the community and the profession with greater assurance that the board is working in line with its legislative duties and performing efficiently," Ms Fitzharris said.

A government spokeswoman said the board investigates complaints in an evidence-focused manner.

"The board’s focus in resolving complaints is always on ensuring the protection of the public and the welfare of animals."

The spokeswoman said the board members consult with the ACT Human Rights Commission about what actions are appropriate in response to a complaint.

She said the new legislation, set to be debated in the Legislative Assembly in the coming weeks, would "significantly improve the efficiency and responsiveness of the complaints process".