Inclusive communties

The recent review of Public Open Space (POS) policy in Tasmania developed a draft State vision and number of goals and objectives for POS, which the proposed changes to dog accessible areas and current restrictions appear to be inconsistent with.

The vision is that Tasmania will have a diverse, comprehensive and sustainable open space system, providing health and well-being, environmental, sport and recreation, social, and economic benefits. The Tasmanian open space system will be developed and managed in response to the needs of the community and visitors, whilst respecting our unique environment.

The review identified that Councils need to support an open space system that contributes to social inclusion, community connectivity and community health and well-being. This can be implemented by an number of objective and policies:

POS encourages healthy lifestyles and providing opportunities for physical activity, potentially reducing healthcare costs through lowering diseases associated with inactivity and stress (e.g. obesity, diabetes, heart disease and depression).

The Tasmanian open space system will be accessible and well-connected.

The Tasmanian open space system will be equitable, and respond to issues such as mobility impairment or disability, social isolation, economic and environmental disadvantage. It determined there is a need for greater policy focus on equity and access.

The review identified the main issues and challenges associated with open space planning in Tasmania include, the slow recognition of the need to apply contemporary planning practice and societal concerns into open space planning (e.g. climate change, social inclusion), moving away from the traditional model of sport and recreation facility provision (e.g. single purpose, single user facilities) to a state-wide system of built and natural environments, aimed at improving the quality of life for Tasmanians on a range of levels. This is clearly linked with the need for achieving more effective open space planning and inclusion of all in society.

In a number of Government documents social inclusion means:

“...a term used to describe how government, community, business, services and individuals can work together to make sure that all people have the best opportunities to enjoy life and do well in society. It is about making sure that no one is left out, or forgotten, in our community”

Social inclusion responds to ‘social exclusion’ experienced by some of the people within our community, stemming from a range of disadvantages, or ‘barriers to inclusion’. Social exclusion can occur when a person experiences a number of disadvantages all at once, making it very difficult for them to participate in their community – for example in work, in education or in joining a community group.

The Council in their own documents acknowledges the demand for quality POS, tracks and trails, etc, continues to grow locally, nationally and globally. Recreational walking (including dog walking), cycling and mountain biking are consistently among the most popular physical activities at the national and state level and these trends also reflect local participation data.

The Council documents state that the POS will provide diverse and sustainable recreational opportunities for residents and visitors, showcasing and connecting the coast, bushland, and urban environments within the City. The Council is considering mechanisms that will facilitate a higher level of integration of tracks and trails planning with other roles and responsibilities. Council is considering how to meet tracks and trail demand through the provision of multiple-use trails, as this will maximise resource use and effort and consolidate resource requirements and avoid duplication of services and amenities, and therefore reduce overall operating and maintenance costs.

As part of the multiple-use of POS the Council has Communicate a Trail User Code of Conduct to facilitate safe shared use, which captures elements such as respect for other trails users, staying on designated tracks and trails and minimising impacts on the environment. This educational approach can be inclusive of all people in the community and does not need to discriminate against one group of people to favor another.

The Council has stated they wish to establish an open space network that provides for a range of active and passive recreation opportunities that is accessible, fit for purpose, enhances the natural and cultural resources of the City, and offers an amenable environment for all forms of active and passive recreation.

The Council’s reason to remove dogs from POS areas appears greatly to be based on an aim of the providing Family Friendly Space, however they have not defined what this means. Extensive changes have occurred in family structures over the past 30 years and these have further changed the demands on recreation resources and open space. The traditional nuclear family has declined in importance and is now in a minority as extended families with mixed generations of children and adults, group households and in particular, lone person households have become more common.

According to the 2016 Census the population of Clarence Council was approximately 55,000 people over 20,737 households and the average household has 2.5 people. There are 10,000 registered dogs in the Council approximately 48% of households. In fact there are as many registered dog as there are children under the age of 15.

The Council’s proposal to restrict or ban dogs from POS areas appears to be based on an arbitrary assumption that families will enjoy the POS more if people with dogs are excluded. This assumption appears to have the support of a small number of people that have made submissions, stating it is their right to the exclude others for their gain or enjoyment.

According to Australian Human Rights Commission “Discrimination happens when a person, or a group of people, is treated less favorably than another person or group because of their background or certain personal characteristics. This is known as ‘direct discrimination’ and as dogs do not go to the POS by themselves these proposed rules are directly discriminating against dog owners.

We have been on the beach in the past (without our dogs) during the dog restriction times and there has been no one else on the beach. The beach was isolated and potentially unsafe as there was no public activity or surveillance of the area. The more people that use a space results in less crime and the inclusion of people walking their dogs every day has a great potential to increase the public safety of POS.

This draft policy and existing restrictions appear unjust and discriminatory and really should not be acceptable in our modern age. We requested that the proposed additional restrictions are withdrawn and that all of the other existing arbitrary restrictions banning dog accessing POS are also removed in the aim of providing a locally connected, liveable and inclusive community for all.