There’s a poll showing currently on the front page of the online Geelong Advertiser, posing the question “Should nude beaches be banned?”. We’re going to ignore the obvious generalisation of the topic on the grounds that there must have been a limited number of words the Addy could fit in that little box!!

Please get along to the poll and show your support for keeping nude beaches open for the enjoyment of thousands of users from all over Victoria, nationally and even around the world

http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/

Update: 27/1/07 1.45pm - 68 voters say no to banning CO beaches, from 76 respondents that’s 89% for keeping them open!!

Update: 28/1/07 10.00am - 187 votes are in, with 91% in favour of not banning nude beaches!!

Update: 30/1/07 11.40pm - 602 votes are in, with 92% saying nude beaches should not be banned!! Support for keeping the beaches open is clearly there

Update: 31/1/07 11.50pm - 662 votes are in, with 92% still saying nude beaches should not be banned!! After 4 days of running, it looks like slightly more than 9 in 10 people want to keep nude beaches open. That’s a very interesting result indeed!!

According to this article in the Gellong Advertiser (Click here to read), support for the poll has gone international!! Just think, lots of potential international nudist tourists now know Torquay and Pt Impossible exist!! Nudism is good for tourism, we say!!

In the Meeting Agenda released by the Surf Coast Shire for the council meeting to be held Tuesday 17/10, item 4.3 on Page 48 introduces the next step in the process being folowed by Council to clean up the mess initiated by Cr Humphrey. You can donwload the entire agenda from the Surf Coast Shire website, just scroll to Page 48 to read the detail (Click here to see the agenda)

There’s a couple of things that are interesting in the agenda that are worth pointing out, as follows:

• The council acknowledges that the Great Ocean Road Coast Committee (GORCC) did not support the council motion in the early stages of the process
• Although we have not seen the actual letter sent by the Planning Minister to the council, the agenda does quote the Minister as saying “It would be imprudent to proceed further without appropriate local consultation being undertaken.”
• The council acknowledges that “there has not been a broad ranging and structure [sic] consultation process undertaken. For example, the people who legitimately and legally use Pt Impossible as an option dress beach and the broader community were not consulted prior to the Council considering the above action.” This is the first time (as far as we are aware) that the council acknolwedges the community was not consulted, contrary to what Cr Humphrey would have you believe
• Council has requested the Shire CEO (Peter Bollen) to prepare a community consultation framework
• Council suggests there will be “considerable political risk to Council if it maintains its current position in relation to
  its request to Minister Hulls to revoke the optional dress provisions at Pt Impossible without undertaking a
  structured and open consultation process.” - That’s a bit more than a public meeting, Cr Humphrey…
• Finally, council acknowledges that “consultation may inform Council that its current position in this matter is justified or alternatively it may return that further thought needs to be given to this issue”. The nudist community is of the belief that much further thought is required, preferably based on facts rather than the emotive rhetoric and specious assertions that put council in this position in the first place

The Victorian nudist community supports the notion of open and reasonable discussion of the issues within a consultative framework that allows for the contributions of all interested parties to be considered. The community also welcomes any opportunity to be involved in the process that defines the consultative framework, in consideration of the unique ways the community communicates internally throughout the state and nationally.

It is our view the Cr Humphrey’s suggestion to hold an open forum to resolve the issues “once and for all” (as quoted in the Geelong Advertiser 16/10 and referred to in a previous post on this site) is a naive and short-sighted view of how appropriate and comprehensive community consultation should be undertaken. Cr Humphrey’s poorly researched original motion and subsequent behaviour (particularly in the media) has only served to highlight his unwillingness (or inability) to present verifiable facts and remain impartial on these issues, and has not served the interests of the community or the council as a result.

We’ll keep you informed of the outcome of the meeting, and urge everyone to be ready with the letters and comments for submission

An article appeared in the Geelong Advertiser on Monday 16/10, titled “Planning Minister demands more… Nudist beach views”, by Lauren Pike (Click here to read). In the article, Cr Ron Humphrey plans to suggest that “a public meeting would settle once and for all the community’s stance on the issue and fulfil Mr Hull’s requirement [that the council undertake proper community consultation]“.

Who is Ron kidding? In this article, Ron stays true to form with a slightly naive view of what constitutes “due process”, his idea falling so far short of “proper community consultation” that it’s laughable in the extreme. Hoping to back himself up, he throws in the usual specious statements intended to be taken as fact at face value (anyone here get consulted since last October that the beach was under threat?? Hmmmm, didn’t think so…). But to top it off, he even goes on the attack against the Planning Minister, stating “what the community wanted was never taken into consideration when decisions were made”!!

Wow, that looks like 2 faux pas in a single breath - Not only has Cr Humphrey taken a shot at someone higher up the political food chain (which is always a bad look in Government, particularly if you had aspirations to work at levels higher than local council), but he’s also managed to make himself look short sighted and not representative of the Surf Coast Shire Community in general, suggesting that community views are not important in the political process - I wonder how many supporters Ron will have at the next round of Council elections with that kind of attitude???

The nudist community of Victoria calls for the Surf Coast Shire Council to reject any motions, ideas, suggestions or undertakings from Cr Humphrey, given his history of unsubstantiated emotive rhetoric, incomplete and innacurate research on the issues, and the fact that he got the Council into this mess to begin with. Instead, our community would appreciate being involved in reasonable and intelligent discussion about the issues that face not only the clothing optional beaches in the Surf Coast Shire, but also anti-social behaviour on beaches in general. After all, the only difference between Pt Impossible and Torquay is a pair of shorts!

Thanks to John Bartlett for representing the interests of the nudist community so well in his comments in the Geelong Advertiser article - Like John says, keep those letters rolling in to the Councils, they now have an obligation to hear us!!

(Oh, and for those of you reading this at Mornington Shire, feel free to commence community consultation about Sunnyside anytime - we’re watching closely, and look forward to your proactive invitation to the discussion table. The Mornington Shire has had the benefit of lower media attention than the Surf Coast Shire, but that is sure to change quickly as state interest in the issue grows).

According to an article published yesterday in the Geelong Independent (Click here to read), Minister for Planning Rob Hulls has stated that “it would be imprudent to proceed further without appropriate local consultation being undertaken”, in a letter to the Surf Coast Shire council.

It would appear the letters and emails have been working, as Minister Hulls also stated that there had been “submissions to his office from ‘a number’ of groups and individuals that opposed ‘any change to the status quo’”.

It’s good to see that emotive rhetoric doesn’t have the same effect in the higher political offices - it would be icing on the cake to see Cr Humphrey taken to task for initiating this entire mess!! His behaviour has adversely affected the other councillors, the Surf Coast Shire in general, and was contrary to the interests of the community groups (ie us) that he is supposed to be working for!! Is it possible for councillors to be removed from office prior to the end of their term?? Hmmmm….

Great work everyone - keep those letters coming, and make sure you direct them at the Surf Coast Shire and Mornington councils, so that they know clearly that we want to be involved in the process. In particular, get writing to Mornington - it looks like they were trying to ride this wave, so now we need to remind them that we are watching, and we do want answers!!

Today we received our first official communication from the State Government, in the form of a status letter from Ian Voigt, Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) Regional Director South West. Ian states that councils responsible for all 4 Victorian beaches have asked for either revocation or review, and that DSE “is currently preparing advice for the Minister for his consideration and a decision on the way forward.” You can read the full letter here (Click here to read)

It was nice to get official communication, after all these months of wondering if our cries were being heard. But it’s not nice to get confirmation that all the beaches are under attack!!

We’re surprised that councils and the State Government think revocation of clothing optional beaches is a step forward in our current society. Cape D’Agde in France brings in 300,000 visitors every year from all over the world, because they have invested in infrastructure and facilities for a booming nudist tourist industry. In Europe more beaches are clothing optional than not (and even some parks in some town centres). Nudists are willing to spend their hard earned dollars where quality facilities are located - does Surf Coast Shire want to lose those tourist dollars to people willing to travel to Sydney or Adelaide because Victoria is heading backwards towards where Queensland is currently??? Does Mornington realise that inappropriate activity in the carpark won’t go away if you ban the nudists from the beach 300 meters away!!

All it would take is the realisation that nudists on the beaches are in the best position to improve the situation. Ban the nudists, and there’ll be nothing stopping the inappropriate behaviour at poorly used beaches if there aren’t any crowds.