Our Victorian Ombudsman case-manager has just sent a letter of preliminary closure of our case. Our main concerns in the Lists of Defects the Ombudsman requested have not been addressed or answered. The Ombudsman has taken Knox Council’s reply that ‘a sample size of 724 is representative of the Knox population’, and the inaccurate figure that ’47% of the survey respondents were cat owners. I note that there are approximately 7000 registered cats in the City of Knox, and the total population is approximately 165,000. Accordingly, cat owners’ input to the survey appears proportionally quite high.’
As our case-manager was unavailable, today I asked on the phone how many residents joined our case, the Ombudsman’s office tells me that usually all parties are connected in a case, but in C/21/19177 the figures of Knox AdvoCats are unusually not there - completely absent. Also told that our case has taken too much time. These delays were only caused by Council, asking for extensions twice, then still not answering our case-manager, yet unfairly all Council’s answers are believed, and our concerns not answered.
some issues not answered:
- Lack of statistics for council’s claims, and lack of any expert evidence for Council’s claims of intended effect. No evidence of efficacy given. The erroneous report used to make the law ‘recommending’ a law that does not have any evidence of the intended effect to protect wildlife, while being a detriment to cats’ lives and their owners.
- The Order as written, makes it an offence for a cat to leave their owners property period. Therefore, owners who wish to walk their cat on a lead, use a cat boarding service or take their cat to the vet will be guilty of an offence.
- Councillors have suggested that cats can be walked on a lead or ‘trained’ not to roam but ‘not securely confined to the owner’s premises’ implies that a cat on a lead or one sitting in its owner’s unfenced front yard could attract a fine for the cat owner.
- Under the Code of Practice for the private keeping of cats - made under the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 - cat owners have a responsibility to provide minimum standard of care as set out below. The Order as written contravenes the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986.
- Of Knox Council hiding cat-complainants identities, unlike dog-complainants.
The 24-hour curfew has polarised the community and created neighbourhood conflict where it previously did not exist. Rape victims must face their attackers in court, therefore, it is reasonable to expect complainants in civil cases to have their identity revealed.
Council is dividing the community, in harming a minority group’s rights - including the right know who is making a complaint.
- Council not acting in accordance with the Local Government Act 2020, not adhering to overarching governance principles, the Councillor Code of Conduct, not being transparent, not acting with integrity.
- Concerns about Council’s 24-hr Cat Curfew Order devaluing cat-owners’ properties, and use of their gardens, and cruelty to residents and animals by demanding cat-enclosure cage-living.
- Concerns about residents' welfare, as well as cat wellbeing, with the potential ‘puppy farm’ cruelty of caged cats, and owners forced to live in reduced circumstances (with homes as cage for both owner & cat.)
- Contraventions of human rights and equality for cat-owners, in a city where majority dog-owners out-number minority cat-owners 3-to-1, where dog-owners are accorded many benefits, not available to cat-owners (Knox documents dog nuisance as triple that of cats, yet by Council Order dogs are allowed off their owner’s properties off-leash in streets and in 300+ parks & reserves.)
- Concerns about Council not recognizing diversity, and reducing its cat-owners, and cats, to a lesser species - ’second-class citizens’. Council proposing a law that victimises, and forces inequality upon minority cat-owners. In making it too difficult to own a cat in Knox, and indicating dogs as Knox's ’the right pet’.
- Not recognizing or considering companion cats, therapy cats, and their importance for residents’ mental health. Also the impact upon the aged, former dog-owners now unable to walk or chase them, who now have cats and are distressed at this inequity.
- Inadequate consideration - leading to cat abandonment and euthanasia, and victimisation to cat-owners forced to choose between home and cat companions, where cats and owners cannot thrive in Knox
- During and recovering from a pandemic, Council proposing, and enacting law, that inflicts further hardship, stress, public hate speech, fear, endangerment, and harm to health upon many struggling residents.
- This law makes further inequity by removing any beneficial return to Knox cat-owners from registration fees.
Knox Council states that cat registration fees pay for collection and return (no longer a benefit with 24-hours as cats cannot go past their property-line), the pound (again invalidated by 24-hours on owner's property), enforcement, prosecution (not a benefit to cat-owners), subsidised de-sexing (invalid as all registered cats are already de-sexed, and Pets in the Park (cats cannot safely attend this dog event, paid for by cat-owners, which is not inclusive.)
So cat-registrations would only be charging cat-owners for prosecution, enforcement, and imprisonment for cats and owners.
Council has kept all Council Meetings closed to the public, not allowing public attendance while they enact this law. There has been no transparency of process. The re-quoted figure of 47% response from cat-owners is not a fact, not accurate. Anyone could complete the survey multiple times and choose any box. Why are Knox Council's answers believed and quoted, yet many of Knox AdvoCats case concerns not assessed or answered? If you are dismissing our concerns then please could you state your reasons for dismissal on each case concern - please respect.
Please answer the original case questions in the Lists of Defects we trustingly answered to your own request.
Respectfully, Knox AdvoCats