Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Tuesday, 10 February 2004) . . Page.. 147 ..

I might just make the point that the provisions in relation to the age of criminal responsibility are in any event codified, or are being codified, in respect of all new offences by section 25 of the Criminal Code 2002.

Concerns have been expressed to me—and I think to other members—about repealing these offences. The concerns go to issues of the privacy and safety of people using the facilities. This is an issue that has stirred some community concern and I will just dwell on the government’s further justification for the change and make a couple of observations about those concerns about privacy and safety.

First, it is important to note that sections 18 and 30 of the Public Baths and Public Bathing Act do not, of themselves, prohibit offensive behaviour. They do not prohibit people from indecently exposing themselves. Any offensive behaviour and activity at these facilities is covered by the Crimes Act 1900 and that will not change. We will continue to utilise those provisions of the Crimes Act related to offensive behaviour and indecently exposing oneself that are currently relied on in circumstances such as this. Those provisions will remain. The Crimes Act provisions are direct and they are effective in addressing operative concerns about offensive behaviour in any public place, any public sporting facility, any changing room, including, of course, any public bath or public bathing facility.

Second, as I say, these are the only provisions of this kind in ACT legislation. There are no equivalent provisions, for example, in respect of any other public sporting facility, such as a gymnasium changing room or a locker room at any sporting field. You can go through the full range of other sporting fields, facilities or infrastructure and public toilets. There is no provision such as this in relation to any other public changing facility in a public place anywhere in the ACT. Most pertinently, there is no such provision in relation to public toilets.

However, every member here and every member of the community knows that that does not mean that public toilets are not designated as for males or females. It also does not mean that men are commonly using the toilets designated for women. I am not aware that it is an issue at all, that men—or women, for that matter—are using toilets designated for the other sex.

I think we also need to point out that the offences in the Public Baths and Public Bathing Act only cover a limited number of public bathing facilities—in fact, only six. There are six declared public bathing facilities: the Manuka, Civic, Dickson, Macquarie, Phillip and Erindale pools. The new Belconnen swimming facility, the Tuggeranong facility and other private facilities such as the AIS are not covered by this act in any event. As I said in relation to other facilities, I am not aware of any problems in any of these facilities in relation to these issues. There is no reason to suspect that repealing these offences will mean that people using swimming pools at, say, Manuka, Civic or Dickson will behave any differently from people at Belconnen, Tuggeranong or the AIS.

The observance of sex designations in these facilities is the same, regardless of the presence or absence of this specific legislative provision or offence. Repealing the act does not mean that the facilities will not continue to be designated as for male or female: they will still be male or female facilities.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .