NO CHANGE: Most public submissions oppose shire amendments to rules on facilities

THERE continues to be community opposition to the Surf Coast Shire’s proposal to change its local laws about access to facilities, with a large majority of public submissions against it.

The shire has been exhibiting its proposed amendments to Community Amenity Local Law 2023.

Of these, the most controversial is the deletion of clause 2.1(j) in the Principal Local Law (Behaviour in Municipal Buildings), which would remove the prohibition for people over six years old to enter a shire facility such as toilets, showers or changerooms intended for use by persons of the opposite gender.

The shire says the change would improve accessibility not only for families and carers but also for gender-diverse community members, and was also needed to make the shire legally compliant with the federal Sex Discrimination Act 1984 and Victoria’s Gender Equality Act 2020.

An 174-signature petition urging the shire to “leave the local law on men’s and women’s facilities alone” has already been lodged with the shire, and of the 84 submissions received about all of the shire’s proposed amendments, 82 were opposed and only two were in support.

According to the report presented to councillors at their hearing of submissions meeting on Tuesday last week, the submissions included 70 comments along the lines of “concerns that privacy and/or safety of women may be compromised when using facilities” if the clause is removed.

There were another 18 occurrences of “suggestions to create separate ‘all-gender’ facilities to meet legislative requirements” rather than removing the clause, which the shire is not considering as it would involve a significant amount of time and funding.

One of the speakers at the hearing of submissions meeting, Bo Carter, said he was the lead petitioner behind the 174-signature petition.

He said he had spent the past few weeks talking to people in Torquay, Anglesea, Winchelsea and surrounding areas.

“The response I have received from a very diverse range of people, including some women from the LGBTIQ+ community, is that this is a massive power imbalance towards our women, and they do not feel safe.

“Another very common feeling out in the Surf Coast community is that the local council should not be getting involved in these sorts of issues, as lots of people feel it’s more of a state or even federal government issue.”

In response to a question from Cr Mike Bodsworth about the shire’s frequently asked questions (FAQ) list on its website about the proposed amendments, Mr Carter said the FAQ was “a bit misleading in the way it’s actually worded”.

Another of the speakers, Helen Papadimitriou, said her submission reflected “how important women’s spaces are to women”.

“I must say I was a bit shocked that no women’s groups were considered in the consultation [about the amendment].

“Given this will affect women-only spaces, why was Our Watch not consulted [or] ANROWS [or] Gender Equity Victoria… I found that odd.

“If anyone could tell me at some point, that would be great, because I think that’s part of the problem.”

She said given violence against women was increasing, not decreasing, “I have to question why council would remove even the smallest lever that it has at its disposal to use to keep women safe and as part of a preventative strategy.”