Bills

Statutes Amendment (Decriminalisation of Sex Work) Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a few remarks, if I might, at clause 1 in lieu of the fact that I was not able to be here for the conclusion of the second reading debate and, as such, was unable to make some remarks at that stage; I will be brief, though. I made it fully clear that I supported the previous bill that the Hon. Michelle Lensink brought in in 2017, when we finalised it, and I support this legislation.

I respect the right of members here to move amendments to try to improve the bill. I have heard comments from the community and others who say this is not a perfect bill. As someone who has had some experience in bringing private members' bills into the parliament without the backing of a government department—some would say sometimes that is an advantage—I know there are obviously resources that government departments have that private members do not have when drafting these bills.

I commend the Hon. Michelle Lensink for this previous work, which followed a fairly lengthy select committee that sat over a reasonable period of time. I want to indicate tonight that I will be supporting this bill. It is my view that this will provide an eminently better situation than what exists now in our South Australian community.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I will also be brief, as I made a second reading contribution. My comment is really one about process. I make no criticism of the mover of the bill because I think she gave sufficient notice. However, all of us are dealing here with a bill that now has I do not know how many amendments—50 or more, probably—many of which were lodged today.

I have no doubt that a number of members, including myself, have not had the time to go over them, certainly not in any detail whatsoever. Frankly, that makes it difficult. This is a serious piece of legislation, and we are all faced with coming to a position on each of these amendments. I feel underprepared to deal with those amendments, and I suspect that I am not alone. If members were surveyed, I am sure there would be a number who feel the same way.

I would make that comment at the outset. I am sure it will not change anything. I doubt that we are going to postpone this bill for another day, but I do think that it is a difficult situation for each of us to find ourselves in: that we have all of these really quite complicated issues to deal with, with minimal preparation.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I would also like to make a brief statement, as I did do a second reading. As stated in my second reading speech, I agree that we need legislative reform and that all workers have the right to feel safe in their workplace, but I do not agree that regulations should not apply to ensure a level of protection is given to those who choose, and those who do not choose, to be part of the sex industry, be that as a sex worker or in the general community.

Since my reading speech, I have hit the pavement, asking the community about what they feel is the best approach. Yes, most do accept that sex work should be made lawful, but I did not have one conversation outside of this building that did not result in the constituent preferring a level of regulation being applied to the sex industry.

Like the members of the community I discussed this bill with, I believe regulation provides a level of protection for business owners, workers and the community. I feel that the bill before us tonight does not address the needs of all stakeholders, particularly the community. The sex industry is seeking to go from complete criminalisation to complete decriminalisation and, in doing so, is not regarding the sex industry as being like any other adult commercial service.

The six amendments I have tabled seek to provide a level of protection for the sex industry, the community, children and young people and other South Australian businesses. By doing so, the tabled amendments will also provide consistency between other adult commercial services by introducing a licensing scheme.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Being at clause 1, I would like to clarify something about the process; that is, that we are able to both make some general comments and also ask general questions of the mover of the bill. Is that a correct understanding?

The CHAIR: Yes, the Hon. Ms Scriven.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I have had about 1,000 pieces of correspondence from individuals about this bill. Putting aside those that have come from groups, there were almost 1,000 from individuals. Of those, 80 per cent have been from women opposing the bill. Of those 1,000, I had 11 who were in favour of the bill while the remainder were opposed to the bill, and, of those, 80 per cent were women. That should not surprise us because the demand for prostitution comes from men: 99 per cent of buyers are men. Men, after all, are the people who create the demand in 99 per cent of cases. So the removal of any social restriction on purchasing sexual access to women obviously benefits men more than anyone else.

I think it is also worth noting that these were pieces of correspondence from individual people who have heard about this bill and have determined that this is not something that they think should be supported in our state. A number of people who describe themselves as survivors of the sex trade have been in contact with me, as I mentioned in my second reading speech. Some have been in contact with me since that second reading speech and have said that they have felt in the past that their voices have not been heard and that they are glad that at least in some small way their voices have been heard through the contributions of myself and perhaps others.

I have a number of questions for the mover, some of which have been canvassed in the various briefings that have been held, but of course those briefings have not been on the public record. So I would like to move now to a number of questions that are about general aspects of the bill, as opposed to necessarily having a clause aspect. Could you tell me how many people who describe themselves as survivors of the sex trade you have spoken with directly?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I assume, Chair, that that question was directed through you, and I assume that the member has made herself quite familiar with the select committee. That select committee did run for two years, and many who call themselves survivors presented evidence, made submissions and the numbers are in there, as well as those who have lobbied me.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I thank the Hon. Ms Franks. My question was more with regard to a one-on-one basis in relation to this particular bill.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: While I appreciate the member's interest now, to have a personal conversation about one-on-one conversations—I am not the type that actually brings those conversations into this place unless they are relevant to the bill. This bill is a decriminalisation bill. It was the bill that was supported previously by this parliament and the subject of that select committee. That process was open and transparent, so the member can read that for herself.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Thank you. I certainly have read that report. I think the individual voices of survivors are very relevant to this bill and this debate.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: On that, I do note that some who presented to the select committee as survivors of the sex trade, and who claim to have worked under decriminalisation, actually had not worked under decriminalisation in all the cases where they presented. They had worked under licensing models and criminalisation models, but not under decrim.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I have spoken to a number of survivors who have worked in New Zealand and in New South Wales under a decriminalised model. Is the Hon. Ms Franks saying that she has spoken to no-one who has experienced firsthand the decriminalisation model who describe themselves as a survivor?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: No, I am not saying that.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: In a recent forum, the Hon. Ms Franks asked SAPOL if women arrested for prostitution were provided with interpreters, and that was following statements by the Acting Assistant Commissioner of Police that the increase in offences related to prostitution during the 2017 financial year, which the Hon. Ms Franks said was a 20-fold increase in a short period of time, was due to the Asian prostitution situation, particularly that setting up in hotel rooms. I was pleased to see that the Hon. Ms Franks was concerned for the women, presumably because many of them had low or non-existent levels of English.

I would imagine the Hon. Ms Franks would share my concern that—by the way, the police answered that 100 per cent of the women who had been arrested for offences in this Asian prostitution product said that it was a requirement that they have an interpreter. It was 100 per cent, because they are obliged to have an interpreter, is what the Acting Assistant Commissioner said, saying that he would take it on notice but that that is what the answer would need to be, were his words, I believe.

I was pleased to see the concern for women, because obviously women with low or perhaps non-existent levels of English would be particularly vulnerable. My concern, then, is also about the low levels of English making those women highly vulnerable to the sex buyers, and preventing opportunity for those women to seek assistance if they are trafficked. My question is: are you concerned that, if interpreters are necessary for women who are being charged by the police, perhaps interpreters are necessary to prevent sexual abuse of women in prostitution?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The honourable member has referred to a select committee that currently has not reported back to this parliament. I was not going to bring any of that into the discussion tonight, but if you rule that that is acceptable then I am happy to go over some of that evidence that was presented on Monday.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Scriven, are you—

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I said 'before a forum' earlier this week.

The CHAIR: A forum, not a select committee?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I did not give details of what the forum was—is that required?

The Hon. T.A. Franks: Budget and Finance Committee.

The CHAIR: The member has raised an objection to your question saying that the information comes from a particular committee. If it comes from a particular committee, which has not reported, then it cannot be used.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am happy to stand corrected and not pursue that line. I will just ask a general question: are there concerns that women with very low levels of English, who are in the sex trade in South Australia, are at heightened risk of vulnerability and obviously not provided with interpreters in general cases?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I am sorry, I did not hear that because another member was talking to me. Can the member please repeat that?

The CHAIR: Ms Scriven, could you repeat the question to the Hon. Ms Franks?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My question to the Hon. Ms Franks was: is she concerned that women with low levels of English or perhaps non-existent levels of English are extremely vulnerable to exploitation and potentially to intimidation or other vulnerabilities if they do not have an interpreter? Of course, I think it would be fair to say that women in the sex trade are generally not provided with an interpreter as a matter of course.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Thank you, Chair. Now that I know what the question was: the women concerned were actually using an app called WeChat, according to the sentencing remarks, and WeChat is actually an Asian app. In fact, the business was conducted, I believe, in various other languages other than English.

I am concerned that women are being put in the City Watch House for as long as at least three days, possibly more, for very minor offences. Often the judges were saying no conviction; often the judges were querying why these women had their mobile phones, money and so on confiscated; and often the judges noted that there seemed to be an unreasonable attitude towards these women. There was a lot of sympathy in the sentencing remarks from the judges for these women and I share that sympathy.

I do not think these women should be hauled in front of our courts, kept in the City Watch House for three days and not given access to interpreters in an appropriate way. In fact, those concerns were raised with me by various lawyers who have sought to ameliorate this injustice that they can see going on through our court system. I hope the Hon. Ms Scriven will join with me in making sure that these women are not put in our City Watch House with a decriminalisation model that does not actually criminalise them in the first place.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am sure the Hon. Ms Franks will be pleased to recall my comments in the second reading that I do not think individual women who are in prostitution should be criminalised. I am sure she will be delighted to know that we have that in common. However, as I have stated, I do not believe that this decriminalisation model will make things any safer for women. Many women I have spoken to who have worked under decriminalisation models have found that to be the case, and a number of studies have also found that to be the case.

I do share most sincerely the Hon. Ms Franks' concern about women being locked up—and I think, if it is over a weekend, then it can be three days—when they may well be the subject of extreme vulnerability and exploitation. I understand that the police are using adult cautions as some mechanisms for dealing with complaints against women who are in prostitution, or other people who are in prostitution, where they do not consider it is necessarily in the public interest that it proceed to a full prosecution.

Perhaps the Hon. Ms Franks will correct me if I am wrong: is she suggesting that all Asian women involved in prostitution are using the WeChat app? Is that what Ms Franks is suggesting?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I referred to the sentencing remarks and the judges often commenting on the use of WeChat. I cannot see how the honourable member drew her conclusions from that to 'all women'. Perhaps she might like to reflect that not all women agree, and I doubt that the honourable member and I will agree much tonight.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I have placed on the record—and the Hon. Ms Franks has now kindly done that—that we cannot assume that all women who have low levels of English or no levels of English are being protected because of an app.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: A point of order: I would like to seek leave to make a personal explanation.

The CHAIR: You do not need to make a personal explanation; you can speak freely.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Bear with me. I ask the member to withdraw that because I did not say that all women are protected when they are vulnerable and have English as a second language through the use of an app. I did not say such a thing, so I ask the member to withdraw.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Thank you, but I thought I just said that I appreciate it had been placed on the record that that was not what you were saying, so I think we are in agreement for at least the second time tonight.

At a media conference there was, I think, a statement made that if this decriminalisation model, the bill as it is, proceeds there could be the promotion of prostitution as an occupation or as a career at careers expos—whether they be at schools or otherwise was not quite clear but career expos in general. The Hon. Ms Franks' response to the cameras, as I recall, was that that would be totally inappropriate and would never happen. Given the various non-discrimination aspects of this bill, can the member explain how that would never happen, if indeed I have recalled her comments accurately.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: One of the benefits of this bill is that it has provisions to amend the Equal Opportunity Act to prevent discrimination against somebody who is or has been a sex worker. This bill also provides for sex workers to be over the age of 18, so for those two reasons I do not understand the longbow the member is drawing, except, perhaps, the idea that if she talks enough tonight we will not get to vote on any of the clauses. I look forward to her moving her first amendment.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I would hope that because this is such an important issue that people are willing to answer all queries. Given that careers expos currently, as I recall, will be quite open to perhaps giving people opportunities to discuss a career in hospitality, which might involve working at licensed venues where you need to be over 18, a careers expo is not—you do not have to be over 18 to talk about a job that you might be doing once you are over 18. My question remains: did the member say that it would be totally inappropriate for, as she calls it, sex work to be promoted at careers expos and can she confirm that it would never happen?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The member knows full well that I cannot wave a magic wand and make certain things happen or not happen but what I can do is bring a bill to this place that decriminalises sex workers and stops the discrimination against them, that recognises that they are workers and respects the fact that they wish to be referred to as sex workers.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: A study from the European parliament entitled Sexual Exploitation and Prostitution and its Impact on Gender Equality states that in the Netherlands sex workers do visit schools to talk about their profession as a job alternative. Can we have clarity from the member as to whether that would not or could not occur under this bill if it proceeds?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I refer the member to my previous answer but also note that when the Swedish lawyers were shipped over for the part of the select committee process that the antidecriminalisation forces organised—flown over, indeed—they argued for an age of consent to be 14. Can the member guarantee that the age of consent will not be lowered to 14 should any version of the Nordic model be implemented in South Australia?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: If we have a bill in the future that promotes the Nordic model that will be the appropriate time to answer that question. We would have to look at a bill. It appears that we are not going to have an answer from the Hon. Ms Franks which implies clearly that the promotion of sex work, as it is called, at a careers expo would be entirely possible under this bill if it proceeds.

Can the member outline her response to the concerns of various councils: for example, the City of Salisbury does not support the decriminalisation of street workers and recommends a prohibition on street workers at any location; various other councils have said that they are concerned about having to regulate public soliciting, that it will be allowed unfettered, and that councils will have approvals based on planning matters only without the ability to take into account local residents' concerns. I am sure the member and most other members in this place might have received a number of letters from councils. Could the member outline how she is addressing the concerns of councils in this bill?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I think you will find that different councils have different attitudes. Indeed, the Adelaide city council has quite different attitudes. Many people who doorknock have remarked to me, when they have been elected or run for election as a councillor, how many brothels there are in each of their wards or patches. What I would say is that the council should not be in the business of counting condoms or sniffing sheets; indeed, they should stick to roads, rates, rubbish and the business of planning and development approvals.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Indeed, and I certainly acknowledge that different councils have different points of view. However, the councils that have raised concerns deserve to have those concerns addressed, so I would ask the question again: how is the mover intending to address the concerns? Indeed, I believe that councils would much prefer to stick to roads, rates and rubbish than count condoms or similar.

Their concern is that they will have the responsibility for the regulation of brothels to an extent, that they will have members of their constituency, their residents, potentially complaining about brothels or other issues to do with total decriminalisation, and they would like to know how they will have the resources to address these and other concerns. Has the member written back to the councils that have raised concerns outlining what methods there are to mitigate the concerns of those councils?

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: With the permission of my honourable friend, I thought I might weigh in at this point as the resident planning lawyer in the room. One of the things that will get lost in this debate if we are not careful is that the bill starts with decriminalisation as its basic premise, when most of the questions are talking about a bill that is not before us—that is, a full regulatory bill that answers every question that relates to every aspect of the bill: how many showers, how many hand sanitisers, a whole range of issues. If this industry is decriminalised, the law in the ordinary course—whether it is local council bylaws or the state government through planning laws, or whether it is occupational health and safety—will kick in.

A 'straw person' argument is where people are saying that once you decriminalise something then it is open slather and anything can happen. That is clearly not the case. It is not the case that has occurred when other industries have come on. Whether it was the computer industry, you name it, every industry that has developed has developed around it a range of regulatory matters and other arrangements.

I think it is unfair to take a bill that relates to decriminalisation and then try to pick holes because every single question of subsequent regulation is not dealt with in the bill because that is not what the bill is supposed to be doing. Then people say, 'There's no regulation.' When you have an activity that has been illegal, the government tends not to regulate illegal activities. There are no state government laws about the quality of heroin you are allowed to sell on the street because you are not allowed to sell heroin on the street, so there are not any laws.

The Hon. T.A. Franks interjecting:

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Sorry, yes, prescription for sure. What I am saying is that activities that society has regarded as unlawful or illegal do not have regulations around them.

The first step that the parliament needs to take is to decriminalise. Once that has happened, a whole range of other processes will kick in; some of them will come through this chamber and some of them will go through local council chambers. But it is unfair to suggest that this chamber tonight should have an answer to every question about how this industry might subsequently be managed or regulated going forward.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I add to that with a personal touch because it seems that it is being cast as if this is a bill that I have somehow conjured up in my own head and is my personal predilection—forgetting the history of the bill, that it has been through a select committee process of over two years, that it has been in the parliament previously, that it passed this upper house previously and that it was sponsored by a Labor and a Liberal member previously. The Salisbury council specifically were invited to a forum recently, but they failed to attend, and one of the experts in urban planning and sex premises spoke at that forum. They showed no interest.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I refer particularly to a letter from the Tea Tree Gully council. I appreciate the comments of the Hon. Mr Parnell in regard to not being able to have every single question answered. However, I think that the issue from the council's point of view is that there seems to be virtually no questions answered whatsoever that affect them and will impact them. One point from this letter is that they are concerned that the bill will force councils to effectively become the regulator of brothels and street prostitution, given that the model of decriminalisation has been adopted in the bill as opposed to legalisation, where a licensing authority could be established to regulate the industry. It is those regulations and so on that would occur under a licensing or legalised model that are totally absent in this decriminalisation model. I think it is entirely reasonable for councils to have some answers, but it appears that they are not forthcoming at this stage.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Again, the Hon. Clare Scriven and I do agree: it is reasonable for councils to have direction and guidance, and that is what happens once you pass a bill to effect something into the law and then all the administrative arrangements are made and the consultations are done in that way. The councils have had ample opportunity with the select committee process. I understand that some people on some councils will be concerned, confused or supportive, and there are all of those responses from councils and council members.

The president of the Local Government Association of Australia actually did attend the aforementioned forum, which was not attended by others, and certainly he and others within the council realm are very keen to do that work should this bill pass.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The mover of the bill requested that members raise questions, if they had any, during the second reading debate to assist the mover in terms of processing the legislation, and I asked a series of questions of the mover to seek some greater understanding of some particular provisions. I wonder whether I could ask, through you, Mr Chairman, whether the mover intends to respond to those questions at clause 1, or whether she intends to respond later during the committee stage of the debate. It would just assist those of us who did try to comply with the mover's request if she could outline the process that she intends to adopt in terms of trying to address some of the issues.

In putting that request to the mover, can I say, with great respect the Hon. Mr Parnell, that, whilst I understand his view of the world in relation to the process that is adopted, I respectfully disagree with aspects of what he put. When a member of parliament is being asked to take a decision in relation to something as significant as this, I do not think it is unreasonable to have some idea of what the mover and those who support the legislation are intending.

As was outlined during the second reading debate by a number of members who are not supportive of the legislation, there are significant issues in New South Wales in relation to how local government has managed the situation. If it was hunky-dory—if I can use a colloquial expression—as the Hon. Mr Parnell indicated, all those issues would have been resolved and there would be no ongoing concerns being expressed by councils in New South Wales in relation to regulation or how the i's were dotted and the t's crossed in terms of the New South Wales model.

Whilst I respect the Hon. Mr Parnell's views on this particular issue, and in part I actually can understand the point that he is making, I do not think it is an unreasonable process for members who are being asked to support a major change in direction on an important issue to at least get some indication of not only what the mover is supporting—because the mover is but just one vote in this chamber—but ultimately what the majority in this chamber are supporting because, should it pass this council, another debate will occur in the House of Assembly.

I think any information that we can get, particularly from the mover, on how she sees the model ultimately operating in South Australia, should this parliament successfully pass the legislation, would be not only useful but I think informative, not just for members of parliament but also for the community generally. Anyway, I just offer that as an alternative view of the world to that put by the Hon. Mr Parnell. However, my question remains as to how the mover intends to manage the process.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Given the significant number of amendments to this bill—I think, in fact, double in pages to the bill itself—my intention was to work through it clause by clause and address the issues as the clause was relevant. Certainly, the return to work areas the honourable member raised and the maybe now infamous 'prostitutes delight' are the subject of one of the later clauses of the bill.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Scriven–1]—

Page 3, line 3—Delete 'Sex Work' and substitute:

Prostitution, Pimping and Brothel Keeping

This amendment is to change the name of the bill. I moved this amendment because I consider that the bill in its current form as so named is actually, if not misleading, certainly not reflective of all the implications of the bill as it currently stands. It is true that the bill seeks to decriminalise prostitution, which some people like to call sex work; however, it also decriminalises the keeping of brothels and it decriminalises pimping.

In a totally decriminalised world, what we might colloquially call pimping is renamed to be either receptionist or salesperson or manager because if sex work is work, then the persons who are promoting the mainly women in the sex industry, in the sex trade, are simply acting as salespersons. I think that the title of the bill should reflect to the extent possible the major thrust of the bill, and since this bill is not simply decriminalising those individuals who are offering prostitution services, the name should reflect that.

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS: Sex worker groups in Australia reject the word 'prostitute' and have done so since the late 1970s, and have used the term 'sex workers', predominantly because prostitution is a term that was commonly used in legislation enacted in the 19^th and 20^th centuries to refer to sex work. The terms 'prostitution' and 'prostitute' have negative connotations and they are considered by advocates of sex workers to be stigmatising. The term 'sex work' is preferred and that is the term I will be supporting.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: It comes as no surprise I am sure that I will be opposing this amendment. Certainly, it seems quite ludicrous to put this amendment. I do believe that the member does not actually believe in the decriminalisation of this industry, but that is my assumption, and I just reflect that the motivations appear more to delay and derail the debate than to actually address the issue before us, and that is the decriminalisation of sex work in this state.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I oppose the amendment and I think it is absurd.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: For the record, I indicate that I will also be opposing the amendment.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I indicate that I support the amendment. I believe in calling a spade a spade. In my view, it is prostitution, and it should continue to be called prostitution. I accept the fact that many others prefer to call it sex work as many others prefer to use their own phrases for a whole variety of other things, but to me it is prostitution and I will support the amendment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: For the record, I will not be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: In my mind, it does not matter much what it is called, to be honest. I think it is neither here nor there. The fact that this particular amendment deals with the issue of prostitution and also pimping and brothel keeping, which this bill ultimately decriminalises, I think has merit and therefore I will support it.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I will not be supporting the amendment. I think that the terms are quite demeaning. We are in the 21^st century and there is now a common term that covers that industry quite appropriately.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Mr Chairman, I thought at this point that I might make a quick process point. Because legislation like this has been regarded as a conscience vote, especially amongst the old parties, I expect that you will keep a little tally and look to people for how they are going to vote potentially to avoid divisions on every clause. I will make the point now that my colleague Tammy Franks and I have discussed this legislation and my view is the same as hers on all the amendments. So unless you particularly want 21 people all standing up on each amendment and telling you what their position is, I will get mine out of the way now and say that, whilst I have some contributions to make on other amendments, my position is identical to that of my colleague.

The CHAIR: Thank you for the courtesy.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I will be opposing the amendment. I think it seeks to perpetuate stigma. For that reason, I will be opposing this amendment and all amendments in the name of the Hon. Clare Scriven.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: To assist the committee, I have agreed to pair the Hon. John Dawkins, who has given the indication that he will support the amendments that the Hon. Michelle Lensink agrees to. I will be pairing and opposing. So I am agreeing to this amendment, but I am opposing the Hon. John Dawkins.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will be opposing this amendment. There are a number of terms that are used to describe certain people that have been used historically. Often, they are used in a pejorative way and they are not used today because they are not appropriate. There is a whole range of areas where this applies. I think that, as a society, we have grown away from describing people with words that those people do not wish to be used. I will respect that and I will oppose the amendment.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I will be opposing this amendment for similar reasons to the Hon. Mr Maher.

The CHAIR: Has everyone had their say on this amendment? The Hon. Ms Scriven caught my eye, then I will come to you, the Hon. Mr Wortley.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am going to sum up the debate.

The CHAIR: You have to sum up the debate, but you can make a statement now if you wish.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am happy to defer to the Hon. Mr Wortley.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I will be opposing the amendment. I think it is derogatory and I will be opposing it.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Scriven, before I put the question, do you have anything else to say?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Yes. I would just like to differentiate between the words 'prostitute' and 'prostitution'. I would certainly agree with a number of the comments that have been made here with regard to calling someone a prostitute. To call someone a prostitute is not person-centred, it is indicating what a person is doing as an activity, and I do not agree with that.

In fact, I will make a few more comments on that later when I move another amendment in regard to the use of the term 'sex work'. However, I will point out that this refers to prostitution, which I think is simply an acknowledgement of the activity that is under discussion. It also decriminalises brothel keeping and pimping. That was the reason for the amendment: to reflect all the major aspects of the bill.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 2 passed.

New clause 2A.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Wade–1]—

Page 3, after line 4—Insert:

2A—Commencement

This Act will come into operation on a day to be fixed by proclamation.

This amendment seeks to insert a commencement clause into this bill. The bill before us currently does not have a commencement clause. As result should the bill pass the parliament, with or without amendment, it will commence on the granting of royal assent by His Excellency the Governor.

As the Hon. Mark Parnell highlighted, this bill is complex, and if the bill passes the parliament detailed work will need to be done, in particular in relation to issues such as return to work, industrial issues, planning and local government. The government would need to develop policies and procedures and may well need to draft and proclaim subordinate legislation; it would certainly need to consult with relevant stakeholders.

There may yet be the need for additional regulatory measures to effectively legalise sex work and at the same time minimise the risk of criminal infiltration and other potential adverse outcomes. In my view this work may conceivably take longer than two years. This amendment would disapply the default two-year rule under the Acts Interpretation Act for the commencement of legislation. Should this bill pass parliament with the suggested amendment, the government would have sufficient time to do the work that is necessary.

My amendment proposes that the bill would commence on the making of a proclamation by His Excellency the Governor. It would give the government time to undertake whatever work is necessary to facilitate orderly implementation of the bill. I have consulted with the Attorney-General on this matter and she advises me that this is an important amendment that will facilitate the decriminalisation of sex work whilst also allowing scope to deal with significant policy issues.

The bill should establish a regime for the oversight of the industry which is, in my view, vulnerable to criminal infiltration. A number of such bills are currently committed to the Attorney-General and it is my presumption that this bill, if it were passed, would also be committed to the Attorney-General. It would be her role to oversee the related matters that need to be dealt with and, at the appropriate time, bring to cabinet a recommendation in relation to proclamation.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I rise to support the amendment, and thank the Attorney-General for her contribution in sponsoring the bill in the other place. Indeed, it is a refreshing change for an Attorney-General to take such leadership on the decriminalisation of sex work, and I look forward to the Marshall Liberal government's speedy introduction of the legislation should it pass the parliament.

I note that this is an essential clause, because in WA they did vote for a decriminalisation bill but it lapsed because of an election and was never enacted. So this is a wonderful addition to the debate tonight.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I support the amendment. Given that this is a complex piece of legislation, I believe the government will need time to work through some of the issues if it should pass.

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS: I support the amendment as well. I think it will at least provide an opportunity to address some of the concerns the Hon. Clare Scriven raised.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: For the reasons outlined by the members I will also be supporting this amendment.

New clause inserted.

Clause 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The CHAIR: There are a number of amendments to clause 4. Amendment No. 1 [Bonaros-1] and amendment No. 1 [Franks-2] are identical, and the Hon. Ms Bonaros' amendment was filed first.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Absolutely. I will not be moving mine because the Hon. Connie Bonaros will be moving hers.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 3, line 15—Before '10 years' insert 'Imprisonment for'

In a sense, this is a technical amendment made at the request of parliamentary counsel. It simply inserts the words 'Imprisonment for' before the 10-year penalty that applies in clause 4. Members will note that clause 4 of the bill deals with the provision of commercial sexual services to children. Subclause 1 says 'Maximum penalty: 10 years'; that should read 'Maximum penalty: imprisonment for 10 years'.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I have a question for the mover of the bill. It is a general question rather than to the amendment. Is that appropriate to raise now?

The CHAIR: We will deal with the amendment now and then I will give you the call after, if it does not relate to this particular amendment.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My question is in regard to how the penalty of 10 years' imprisonment was determined, mainly because section 68 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act has a differential penalty, a maximum penalty if the child is under the age of 14 or, in any other case, if they are not under the age of 14. I was interested as to why a differential penalty was not seen as appropriate here.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: This is the amendment that was previously put and passed by this council, so it was not changed for this version of the bill.

The CHAIR: Sorry, I did not quite catch that.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The bill is unchanged since the previous version that passed the council. It was no particular personal choice of mine. It was the bill that passed the council that went through the select committee process previously.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: For clarification, regarding the bill that you are moving, you do not know what the reason was for that? I am not having a go at you, if that is the case. I am just clarifying that you are not aware of why a differential penalty was not considered appropriate; is that correct?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The previous bill was the subject of a select committee process, which included three sets of Law Society advice, support from dozens of organisations, support from groups, such as the Women Lawyers Association of South Australia, expert opinion and, indeed, the work of parliamentary counsel. If the member wishes to now move an amendment to this point, perhaps she may wish to take that course of action, but certainly no concerns have been raised by those groups, such as the Law Society and so on.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Thank you for the clarification. No, I am not intending to move an amendment. I just wanted an explanation of the reasoning.

Clause as amended passed.

New clause 4A.

The CHAIR: There are two amendments: amendment No. 2 [Bonaros-1] filed first and amendment No. 1 [Bourke-2] filed second. Both seek to insert a new clause 4A. I will give the call first to the Hon. Ms Bonaros.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 3, after line 19—Insert:

4A—Insertion of section 68AB

After section 68 insert:

68AB—Offence to employ child for a purpose related to provision of commercial sexual services

(1) A person who employs a child for a purpose related to the provision of commercial sexual services is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), but without limiting the generality of that subsection, a person who performs any of the following services and functions will be taken to be doing so for a purpose related to the provision of commercial sexual services:

(a) acting as a receptionist, or otherwise making or receiving telephone calls or other communications, related to the provision of commercial sexual services;

(b) driving a sex worker to a place for the purpose of providing commercial sexual services (whether at that place or elsewhere);

(c) providing cleaning services at premises at which commercial sexual services are provided;

(d) purchasing goods (however described) intended to be used in the provision of commercial sexual services.

(3) It is a defence to a charge of an offence against subsection (1) for the defendant to prove that—

(a) the defendant required the child to produce evidence of their age; and

(b) the child made a false statement, or produced false evidence, in response to that requirement; and

(c) in consequence, the defendant reasonably believed that child was 18 years of age or older.

(4) In this section—

employs a child includes—

(a) enters into a contract for services with a child; and

(b) allows a child to undertake work as a volunteer;

premises includes a part of a premises;

sex worker means a person who provides commercial sexual services.

The provision is relatively straightforward. It inserts a new section 68AB which makes it an offence for a person to employ a child for a purpose related to the provision of commercial sexual services. The maximum penalty for such an offence is five years. I note that this provision has been inserted into the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, following the previous provision which I referred to earlier, which is in relation to the provision of commercial sexual services to children.

The provision goes on to provide that, without limiting the generality of the subsection, a person who performs any of the following services and functions will be taken to be doing so for a purpose related to the provision of commercial sexual services. They include acting as a receptionist, or otherwise making or receiving telephone calls or other communications related to the provision of commercial sexual services; driving a sex worker to a place for the purpose of providing commercial sexual services, whether at the place or elsewhere; providing cleaning services at premises at which commercial sexual services are provided; purchasing goods, however described, intended to be used in the provision of commercial sexual services.

I note for the record this is not a definitive list. The section says 'without limiting the generality of that subsection' but the amendment does go on to provide a defence where someone is able to prove that they required the child to produce evidence of their age and the child made a false statement or produced false evidence in response to that requirement. In consequence, the defendant reasonably believed that the child was over the age of 18.

I note again for the record the amendment is not limited to simply employing a child, but importantly also extends to undertaking work on a volunteer basis. I do not know that there is much more that I need to say, other than to address some of the concerns that were raised during the second reading about the appropriateness or otherwise of children being employed at premises where commercial sexual services are being provided. It is my view that children should not be employed or, indeed, be allowed to work even on a volunteer basis at those premises.

The CHAIR: It is my intention to deal with [Bonaros-1] 2 separately from [Bourke-2] 1 because I have taken advice from parliamentary counsel that they can stand side by side and they are not mutually exclusive. I will come to the Hon. Ms Bourke in a moment.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: If I could point out for the record, I think it is important to note that this offence has been placed in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act because it was my view that a higher penalty ought to apply than the maximum penalty that would apply under the Summary Offences Act which I understand to be two years. So the penalty that I am proposing is five years.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I would like to support this. As raised in my second reading speech, I do think this is a very important aspect in an amendment that is coming forward today. I also have the same amendment within my licensing amendment that will come up in amendment No. 6, but I will support it here as well.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Just a process question: these amendments obviously both seek to insert new clause 4A and are similar but different. Did I hear correctly that you said that you believe they can both be incorporated into the bill?

The CHAIR: The advice that I have received is that they are not mutually exclusive, so they both can technically be inserted. Therefore, I have decided to put the question on the first, then I will put the question on the second lot of amendments. The numbering will be recalibrated between the houses, so it is not an issue of numbering.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: As someone who has not had a great deal of time in recent days to address these particular details for other reasons, and you are now ruling that the amendments are not mutually exclusive or indeed are complementary, for the benefit of myself and possibly some other members it would be useful to actually understand from the Hon. Ms Bourke the purpose and nature of her amendment so that we can actually make a judgement for ourselves, I guess, as to how they fit together or, indeed, they do not fit together.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: My amendment seeks to not have children on the premises while commercial sexual services are provided.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I guess my question to the Hon. Ms Bourke is: how is that different to the Hon. Ms Bonaros' amendment? That is, what is the amendment that the Hon. Ms Bourke is proposing going to do that is different to what the Hon. Ms Bonaros' amendment is doing? If parliamentary counsel advice is that they are not mutually exclusive, I assume counsel's advice is that it does something else. I am just not sure what it is that it does in addition to what the Hon. Ms Bonaros' amendment does.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: The Hon. Ms Bonaros' amendment is in regard to employment. Mine is in regard to a child being on the premises. I am happy to discuss it in further detail, but I am guessing I do that—

The CHAIR: It is up to the committee. If members are confused, then I would recommend that you speak to it.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: It is separate, and I think it should be moved separately.

The CHAIR: You are able to move it now, if you wish. It is just that I am going to put the questions separately because they are not mutually exclusive. How the committee runs itself is a matter for the committee. Given some members have expressed confusion, perhaps we should throw to you, and you can take us through your amendment and, in doing so, just be very clear how it is not overlapping with the Hon. Ms Bonaros' amendment.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I seek to introduce a new clause to protect children and young people from possible sexual exploitation and abuse. This is by adding a new clause on page 3, after line 19, to insert new section 68AB—Provision of commercial sexual services where children present.

Rightfully, many have agreed not to dispute clause 4, enforcing that it is unlawful for a person to provide commercial sexual services to a child, with a maximum penalty of 10 years, which has been amended to include imprisonment; and subsection (2) of section 68AA, that if it is provided on reasonable grounds the minimum age for a person providing commercial sexual services is 18. I would like to make particular note that this amendment has lifted what is recognised as the minimum age of consent for sexual interaction in SA from 17 to 18—again, bringing the sex industry in line with other adult commercial services.

I would also like to take this moment to note that the minimum age of consent in South Australia—that being 17—was designed to protect children and young people from sexual exploitation and abuse. Such laws effectively determine that children and young people below the age of consent are yet to reach a level of general maturity enabling their safe participation in sexual activities.

Why am I making this change? This leads me into my reasoning for this amendment, a concern I feel has been overlooked in section 68AA. While I agree this section of the bill addresses a need to protect the best interests of children and young people, I do feel an element of possible protection has been overlooked. The safety of children and young people, for me, is of paramount concern. I am tabling this amendment to seek to further protect children from the exposure of sexual commercial services. I understand sex workers may choose to work from home, but if, under our current laws, a child or young person is deemed unable to maturely deal with sexual activities, is it appropriate for a child to be in the premises while commercial sexual services are being exchanged in their presence?

I have no doubt there will be comments to come my way which will sound something like, 'Is it also an unlawful act for children to catch their parents in the act of a non-commercial sexual interaction?' However, I do see this differently. Once this becomes a lawful commercial service, it also becomes your workplace: an industry that has been deemed to only be appropriate for people 18 and over to provide commercial sexual services. This amendment will apply a penalty to both the provider of a sexual service and the person procuring commercial sexual services. The maximum penalty is imprisonment for five years.

Provisions are provided to enable defence on reasonable grounds that one was not aware a child was present on the premises at the relevant time. Consideration has also been given to what is deemed a separate premise, i.e. a hotel room is a separate premise. This amendment comes down to should a child or a young person be present at the workplace that is deemed to be an adult commercial service and possibly be exposed to sexual commercial services, either knowingly or unknowingly.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: For clarification, clearly if it happens in a home and a child is there, under your amendment that would be unlawful; is that what you are saying?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: Yes, that is correct, if there is a sexual service while the child is at home, a commercial sexual service.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Mr Chairman, I just want to be clear. The two amendments, you have said, are not mutually exclusive, but my understanding of what we have just heard, from memory, and these amendments were filed either yesterday or today, so it is fresh for all of us, is that the Hon. Ms Bourke's amendment essentially excludes children from a commercial premises where sexual activity is being sold, but the Hon. Ms Bonaros' amendment simply prevents the child—that is, the under 18-year-old person—from working on that premise.

The Hon. C. Bonaros: Or volunteering.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Or volunteering. So in every sense the Hon. Ms Bourke's amendment goes further, in that the child cannot even be there. To me, it seems to overrule, or overreach, if you like, the Hon. Ms Bonaros' amendment. Are we certain that they are not mutually exclusive? It is a significant question because certainly the Hon. Ms Bourke's amendment seems to include the aim of the Hon. Ms Bonaros' amendment.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I understand the point the Hon. Mr Hood is making. I wonder, from my reading, if it is not the case, though, that in some ways the Hon. Connie Bonaros' amendment goes further. The way I read the Hon. Connie Bonaros' amendment is that if you are employed in relation to providing a commercial sexual service, as a receptionist or buying products, you need not necessarily be on the premises, so in that respect there are differences in both of those.

I think the Hon. Mr Hood's point was that the Hon. Emily Bourke's amendment covers the entire field, including everything that the Hon. Connie Bonaros' amendment does. The way I read it, it does not. As I read the amendment, there are those extraterritorial effects, if you like, that relate to not just on the premise but employment there, but we might get some explanation.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I will weigh into this one as well. One big difference with the Hon. Emily Bourke's amendment is that it criminalises both the provider and the client. In relation to the provider, if the provider in a private home has a small child asleep in a back room a long way from the action, if we can call it that, that provider is criminalised for having a small child in a separate room somewhere on the premises.

Certainly, there are definitions in relation to apartments, which include collections of rooms. There is a definition in relation to hotels, which includes a room or a suite of rooms. There is no definition in relation to a house. You could have a small child fast asleep in a cot, being looked after by somebody else, 30 metres from where commercial sexual services are being provided, and both the provider and the client, if they have knowledge of the presence of that child, are guilty of an offence.

I do not think the Hon. Emily Bourke's amendment makes any sense. It could cause an incredible amount of injustice. On the other hand, I think the Hon. Connie Bonaros' amendment makes a lot of sense, and that is the one I will be supporting.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I think the Hon. Mark Parnell makes a very good point. I think the way that a particular premises is conducted can be fundamentally different. I would remind honourable members that there are general laws that relate to child protection. The Child Protection Act provides:

abuse or neglect, in relation to a child, means—

(a) sexual abuse of the child; or

(b) physical or emotional abuse of the child, or neglect of the child, to the extent that—

(i) the child has suffered, or is likely to suffer, physical or psychological injury detrimental to the child's wellbeing; or

(ii) the child's physical or psychological development is in jeopardy,

If a child was being allowed to be on a premises and was being exposed to those threats, there are laws already available to deal with those involved in the activity.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I rise to indicate that I will be supporting the Hon. Connie Bonaros' amendments, which address concerns that were raised in the second reading contributions. I think they have the appropriate level of response to concerns about people under 18 being employed or volunteering in roles on the premises. That is not even reflective of our age of consent, even though in this case we are not necessarily talking about somebody being a sex worker but somebody perhaps doing the cleaning, as was suggested, answering the phones, developing the website, or running the social media, and so on. The Hon. Connie Bonaros has taken that challenge and she has brought back quite a sensible solution.

At this point, I reflect on the Hon. Clare Scriven's question at clause 4 about why there was not a higher penalty than 10 years where a service was provided to somebody under 18. That is because we do have age of consent laws; in fact, other criminal provisions would apply if somebody was 14 and a sex worker had sex with them. We would not be talking about it being a part of this bill. We would be talking about rape and sexual assault at that point, and those laws are well covered by the child protection laws that we have.

In terms of the Hon. Emily Bourke's amendment, it is a series of amendments that is designed to be a licensing scheme very much prescriptive about where, when and how sexual services in the commercial sense can be provided. That is reflective, and we can see how they are operating in Queensland, the Northern Territory and Victoria most specifically. At this point, I note that in Queensland, where they have had for some time a licensing scheme, the Labor government has now announced that they are looking to decriminalisation. The Northern Territory has a licensing scheme. Both Labor governments are looking to a decriminalisation model.

Both have announced that because they have actually seen the error of their ways in trying to create these restrictions. What you do when you create these restrictions is criminalise the sex workers themselves. You leave people in unsafe positions, where they cannot, even in Queensland's case, make a phone call to tell somebody where they are to ensure their safety. You remove the provisions they can take to protect their safety, to screen clients, to ensure their own personal safety and ensure appropriate practices around sexual health as well.

They are well-meaning but ultimately ill-founded suggestions, and they are in fact not fitting of a decriminalisation bill. They should be put before this place as a legalisation licensing model, and then we can have those debates properly. I understand that members are finding it hard to grapple with these particular amendments because we are trying to create a licensing scheme within a decriminalisation scheme. They are two very different things and, as we well know, they have failed where they have been tried in Queensland and the Northern Territory specifically, and that is why those governments are now looking at decriminalisation.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: This issue came up during the previous committee stage of the bill in 2017. The response that I provided to the bill, as unamended, was to refer to the Fair Work Act, specifically division 1A, which is a special provision relating to child labour, and 98A, a special provision relating to child labour, in that the commission may, by award, 'determine that children should not be employed in particular categories of work or in an industry, or a sector of an industry', and 'impose special imitations on hours of employment of children.'

This matter was raised in that context, and my understanding is that the Hon. Ms Bonaros' amendments specifically address that issue in this legislation. I support that, and I think it goes to some of the previous debate as well, about whether sex work would potentially be included in employment fairs and the like. I think we are all in furious agreement that that is not something that any of us would endorse. For that reason, I will be supporting the Hon. Ms Bonaros' amendment.

In relation to the Hon. Ms Bourke's amendment, I think it has quite a different intent. It has been discussed enough tonight but, realistically, the South Australian industry is very much a cottage industry. If we were to criminalise mothers with kids within their own home, that is going to have the unintended consequence of pushing more of these services into hotels, commercial premises and the like. I think that is a bridge too far, so I will not be supporting that amendment.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Likewise, I was going to hark back on previous debates in this place on our similar legislation, particularly in regard to the employment of minors. For those reasons, I think the amendment moved by the Hon. Ms Bonaros should be supported, and I will be doing so.

I appreciate the intent behind the Hon. Emily Bourke's amendments, particularly this one, which pertains to young children or minors being on the premises. However, my concern is that it may inadvertently and unavoidably capture those persons offering sexual services from their own home and who do have a young child whom they do not want to leave alone or leave with other people in other premises.

Something that was put to me in previous debates, a couple of years ago now, was that a person may have a child with a disability who needs to be looked after constantly. To criminalise the provision of sex work in that situation—in this person's own home, with a very young child present somewhere else in the house, perhaps being looked after, as the Hon. Mr Parnell said, or potentially a person with a disability who also needs to be constantly cared for—I think would be unfortunate. Therefore, I cannot find myself supporting the Hon. Ms Bourke's amendment this evening.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: These are the first of a number of amendments that we will be considering tonight. For me, the difficulty will be whether I vote in favour of an amendment that makes what I consider a flawed bill slightly less bad, given that the bill itself says that it is okay to buy sexual access—give money to women, although to other persons as well. It has an educative effect—the normalising of sexual access to women for payment and the normalisation of violence against women—as I have heard from people who have been in decriminalised environments in the sex trade. Overall, the bill is so problematic that it is hard to see how it can be made acceptable.

However, I can also count and, from what we have been hearing in the corridors and in various discussions, it is likely that the bill will pass in some form tonight. Therefore, we need to look at each of these amendments and ask whether they make the bill less bad. Certainly, in terms of the amendment being moved by the Hon. Ms Bonaros, I think it does make the bill less bad.

Whilst it does appear so far that we are all in furious agreement in terms of supporting this particular amendment, I would like to ensure that members are aware of why some of the functions here, which might appear quite benign, are essential to be included—for example, (2)(a) acting as a receptionist. I want to share with members the experience of one person who was acting as a receptionist in a decriminalised environment. She said:

My job title was receptionist. I suffered post-traumatic stress disorder for a few years afterwards. One of the main reasons for the PTSD for me was exposure to hard-core porn that I could not escape. Shifts were 13 hours' long, so that's a lot of porn. Porn wasn't just in the introductions area, it played on big screens in every room. It was violence against women on film, where the women are verbally abused, degraded, treated roughly, choked and their hair pulled.

That was just one women's experience of being a receptionist, so-called, within a prostitution environment. It is worth placing on the record why each of those specific activities related to employment within the environment of prostitution is necessary to be part of the activities that will not been allowed to be engaged in by a person under the age of 18. So, as probably is obvious, I will support the Hon. Ms Bonaros' amendment.

In terms of the Hon. Ms Bourke's amendment, I think there are certainly some valid points that have been raised. It is true that, under the scenario mentioned by the Hon. Mr Parnell, if a child was sleeping in another room with a carer, under the amendment currently being moved by the Hon. Ms Bourke the provider of the commercial sexual service would be criminalised.

However, we also need to think of what the main aim is here. Who should be the prime concern? In that circumstance, which may or may not be very likely to occur, then certainly one could say that the person providing commercial sexual services—and the client if the Hon. Mr Parnell's interpretation is correct—would be criminalised.

However, what about the other circumstances where a child is on the premises, they wake up in the night—maybe it is an eight-year-old child—and they go into the other room, as those of us with children know children are wont to do, and potentially they come across an act that would appear to that child to be traumatic, particularly if the sexual interaction is involving violence, whether that is actual violence or whether it is part of a fantasy being played out? The child is going to be exposed to those things.

I would like also to refer to some aspects that are extremely distasteful, to say the least; in fact, I can't even use that term—they are abhorrent. I refer to some work by Dr Aaron Darrell, a person with parents in prostitution. He grew up as a person with parents in prostitution. His mother was the person providing prostitution services and his father, he says, was the pimp. He relates some of the 'jokes'—and I use that term because that is how he uses it, in inverted commas—which display the kind of risks to which a child on the premises of a commercial sexual operation would be exposed. I warn members that these supposed jokes are abhorrent points of view. What do you called a prostitutes child? 'A prostitot', 'children of the porn', 'the only way to get an erection', or 'next'.

We need to be aware that, when we are talking about children being on premises, they may have the most loving parent in the world who wants only the best for them, but they are being exposed to sex buyers who have no love for that child, who have no love for that child's parent either. They are simply purchasing sexual access to them. So the clients they are encountering certainly do not have the child's best interests at heart.

Certainly, that kind of abhorrent attitude is entirely possible within the realms of a prostitution environment, and has that kind of potential for abuse. Dr Darrell also talks about the grooming of children through constant exposure to sexualised acts, commercial sexualised acts in particular, and how many, many people who have parents in prostitution are scarred, are groomed into the industry themselves.

I can certainly accept that it would be an unfortunate aspect for the person providing sexual services to be criminalised if they have provided a carer and another room for their child so that the child could not walk in, etc. That would obviously be the ideal, but we need to remember that we are not talking about ideals. We are talking about risks to children that could occur, and certainly, without the kinds of provisions the Hon. Ms Bourke is moving, could occur at great risk to children. I think the children's needs, the children's safety, should be our prime concern.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I would like to make a couple of points: firstly, I would like to address the Hon. Rob Lucas' point, and I think the Hon. Mark Parnell also touched on this. What I would like to clarify for the record is that the amendment that I have moved deals with employing or having volunteers work in premises, or otherwise, for purposes related to sexual services. They may be at a brothel; they may be somewhere else.

For instance, in relation to (2)(d), 'purchasing goods…intended to be used in the provision of commercial sexual services,' that does not necessarily have to be at a brothel, that could be anywhere. I could be sending someone to buy some goods that are going to be used for the provision of commercial sexual services. My amendment relates specifically to employment or volunteer situations where the purpose is related to sexual services.

The Hon. Ms Bourke's amendment on the other hand, as we have heard, makes it an offence for a child to be present where sexual services are being provided. That is the main difference between the two amendments. It is my advice that they are two standalone provisions. You can make it illegal for a child to work or undertake volunteer activities for purposes related to sexual services. By the same token, you can also make it an offence for a child to be present at a place where sexual services are being provided. I hope that provides some clarification.

I would like to make a couple of observations in relation to the points that Ms Scriven has just made. I accept what Ms Bourke is trying to do, but at some point I question where we draw the line because, with the greatest of respect, if there were no exchange of money involved there would be no offence being committed. I cannot help but raise a couple of examples: what do we do when a mother or father or parent accepts a drink or a meal in exchange for sex? What do we do when an adult parent goes onto a social app like Tinder or Grindr, hooks up with somebody and takes them back to their home for sexual activities?

At what point do we draw the line and say that people engage in sex and we do not all consider it abhorrent? Ms Scriven, or others, may consider what goes on in my bedroom, or indeed in other members' bedrooms, abhorrent; I certainly do not. The fact is that we are not always going to agree on what is abhorrent or otherwise. People engage in sexual activity. You may not agree with it, I may not agree with it, but that is just the reality.

My observation is: while I accept what Ms Bourke is trying to achieve, I think it is problematic and I just do not understand where this line is being drawn in terms of the exchange of cash, as opposed to every other scenario that we can think of where you or anybody else would consider that behaviour abhorrent. It baffles me.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: First of all, I should clarify. I think the Hon. Ms Bonaros perhaps misheard what I was referring to as abhorrent. I was not referring to any activities that might take place of a sexual nature between two people because, as she says, that is a matter of subjectivity. I was referring to the attitudes of clients of sex workers who talk about the children, the under-age children of those people providing prostitution services, as 'next', as in 'they are next: first I will have the mother and then I will have the child.' That is the abhorrence that I was referring to.

I know from the Hon. Ms Bonaros' previous comments on other things to do with child exploitation that she would not entertain for a moment that that is anything but abhorrent. I wanted to clarify that we are talking about the exploitation of children for sexual services and the attitudes of the buyers. Yes, if they go through with that we know that there are child protection laws in place to then prosecute the buyer, but I am talking about the attitude of the buyers, what the children are exposed to and so on.

In terms of how that differs from someone on a Saturday night going home with somebody or whatever, certainly those risks are there as well; the difference surely must be that they are less likely to be occurring 10 times a day, six or seven days a week.

The Hon. C. Bonaros: It depends on who you speak to.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The Hon. Ms Bonaros said it depends on who you speak to; I think it is probably self-evident that that is not as common as it would be if you were a person providing sexual services on a commercial basis.

An honourable member: Bit of an assumption.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Yes, it certainly is an assumption. I would have thought it is a fairly important and serious matter to talk about whether a child is exposed to that kind of thing on a regular basis, potentially daily and potentially a string of people coming in and out of their home to use their mother—or, on occasion, it could be their father, but generally, as we know, 95 per cent of people in prostitution are women. So we are talking about that potential for the child to be exposed to it on a regular and recurring basis. I think it would be disingenuous to suggest that that is just the same as somebody who might pick someone up and take them home on a social basis, simply in terms of the number of times the child is likely to be exposed to it.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: For the record, I take exception to some of those comments. I think my record, in terms of child exploitation, speaks for itself. There have been motions and bills and speech after speech on that very issue in this place. However, I do not live in a bubble and I do not accept that there will not be children in homes who are less exposed to sexual activity in their own home just because their parent does not accept money or receive money for that activity.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I have already expressed my concerns about the amendments put by the Hon. Emily Bourke but I wish to ask a question that I think is relevant to some of my concerns. Can I ask the mover: what is the definition of 'commercial sexual services' in terms of the premises? In this particular clause the amendment talks about children being present where commercial sexual services are provided on the premises. Does that include an escort who goes out on a date with somebody to the movies or to dinner or to a function for their work—perhaps they needed a plus one? Has that been addressed, and can you define 'commercial sexual services' according to the raft of amendments that we have here?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: Commercial sexual services would reflect what is already in the bill tabled, which is where there is payment provided to a person to provide a sexual service.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Does your amendment then create a criminal act from somebody going to a movie as an escort with another person who has hired them, or in fact to a work function where there may be children present? It might be a dinner, it might be a lunch, it might be a Christmas function and there may well be children there: is that the case?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I would not deem that that is someone who is providing a sexual service.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Sorry?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: That is not what I would deem as someone providing a sexual service.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: But if somebody is an escort and they do that for money then that is a commercial sexual service according to your amendments. Should they go on that date for the girlfriend experience or whatever, perhaps there will be what you might consider to have been the intent of your amendment later on, which I imagine is sexual activity, but this a commercial sexual service: somebody going out with somebody to the movies, to a karaoke bar, to a work function as a plus one, so that they have some company on whatever social engagements they may undertake, on a weekend away with other people—this is the range of activities that are in fact commercial sexual services. It is not all about the bedroom.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: Yes, you are correct. Later on in my amendments I seek to provide an amendment that seeks licensing where it would be defined in an interpretation of what a commercial sexual service is, which would mean an act engaging in payment involving physical contact between two or more persons that is intended to provide sexual gratification for one or more of the other persons, but does not include an act of a class excluded by regulations from this definition.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Does that include kissing?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: The honourable member is highlighting her concerns with this amendment, and I do appreciate that. The intention of my amendment, which has been highlighted correctly or wrongfully, was to put the children first and ensure that they would have a level of protection. That is what my amendment is seeking to do.

In seeking to do that, unlike what the Hon. Connie Bonaros referred to before, this is not about saying that there is anything wrong with sexual activities in a home. It is when you turn your home into a workplace, which is deemed as an adult-only commercial service, and you have your children present around that adult commercial service where they have been deemed not maturely capable of dealing with sexual activities at that age—which is why 17 is the age of consent—I feel that children should be considered.

Do we want children present in an adult commercial service? Do we want them to see this happening in their home, which is meant to be a safe environment? We would not take our children to the pokies and let them sit there and watch us put coins into the—

The Hon. C. Bonaros: We would leave them in the lounge outside to watch.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: Yes, you would leave them in the lounge, but you would not take them into the room to watch you do that. This is again removing a child from an environment that is deemed not appropriate for a child.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: To follow on from that analogy, the Hon. Ms Bonaros said that you would leave the child in the lounge to watch the pokie machines, and the Hon. Ms Bourke's amendment would address that so that a child could not be sitting in another room watching the commercial sexual activities in their home, which, as Ms Bourke has said, would turn into a workplace. It would not allow that to occur and therefore would increase the level of safety for children, which should be the prime concern.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Hon. Ms Franks' contribution has just confused me a little further. I thought I understood what a commercial sexual service was until the Hon. Ms Franks said, 'Does that constitute kissing as well or going on a date?' Given that the bill uses the term 'commercial sexual service' and that the Hon. Ms Bonaros' amendment uses the term 'commercial sexual service', can the Hon. Ms Bonaros indicate in terms of her amendment—I am assuming, that commercial sexual service is not, in terms of responding to the general question the Hon. Ms Franks was putting, referring to kissing or going on an escorted date?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I might need you to repeat that question, Mr Lucas.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: As I said, naive as I am in the ways of the world, I thought I understood what we were talking about in terms of commercial sexual services, that is, someone going to a sex worker or a prostitute, whatever word or phrase you want to use, and paying for sex for a number of ways. The Hon. Ms Franks asked: is 'commercial sexual service' a kiss? Earlier, she asked about going on an escorted date to the movies or something like that.

The bill uses the phrase 'commercial sexual service', and the Hon. Ms Bonaros' amendment uses the phrase 'commercial sexual service'. I am assuming that 'commercial sexual service' is not referring to a kiss or, indeed, going on a theatre date or whatever it is in the example that the Hon. Ms Franks was raising.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I will be providing the Hon. Rob Lucas with an answer in a moment. I think the important part to remember is that the offences that we are both talking about do not apply under the Summary Offences Act but, rather, under the Criminal Law Consolidation Act. Section 65A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act defines commercial sexual service to mean:

…services provided for payment involving the use or display of the body of the person who provides the services for the sexual gratification of another or others;

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: So it does not include a kiss?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: It could. If you receive sexual gratification from kissing then the response would be yes, presumably. I am happy to receive further advice on that if the—

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: So if you pay for a kiss, it is a commercial sexual service?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I will read the provision again. It means:

…services provided for payment involving the use or display of the body of the person—

so it may not even involve a kiss—

who provides the services for the sexual gratification of another or others;

So if a kiss is enough to make someone sexually gratified, then my response would be yes.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I have a further question. I recall reading that section and it referred to 'with the intention of providing sexual gratification'. Is the word 'intention' there?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: No, I will read it again:

commercial sexual services means services provided for payment involving the use or display of the body of the person who provides the services for the sexual gratification of another or others;

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Referring to the definition within the Hon. Ms Bourke's amendments—that is where I have seen it—it states:

…between 2 or more persons that is intended to provide sexual gratification for 1 or more of those persons

Whilst I am not a lawyer, to coin a phrase, I would think that the intention is what the courts would look at there and that if someone is providing commercial sexual services but they are limited simply to a kiss, the courts would then make a decision on whether or not the intention was to provide sexual gratification, regardless of whether the person receiving the said kiss actually experienced sexual gratification.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: To alleviate the Hon. Rob Lucas' confusion, the difference is that the Hon. Connie Bonaros' amendment is quite tightly defined as to who it applies to, which is somebody employed 'in the provision of' or 'related to'. So that employment relationship defines the protections, whereas the premises is quite loosely defined and can in fact be anywhere. If a child is there without the knowledge of the people involved, that also therefore criminalises them simply for going to the movies.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am not going to prolong this; it is getting much more difficult. I would have thought that a Playboy model or someone modelling would fit the definition of a commercial sexual purpose in the definition the Hon. Ms Bonaros indicated, but I am not going to get into that debate. That definition has obviously been in the legislation for a long period of time, and I assume the equivalent of Playboy models have not been prosecuted for providing commercial sexual services for a long period of time. On the definition that the honourable member has just read out, it would appear, so I am led to believe, that the Playboy-type models are for the sexual gratification of some people who read these particular magazines, evidently.

My question is more specifically in relation to the Hon. Ms Bonaros' amendment. Is it the intention and the effect of the Hon. Ms Bonaros' amendment that someone who is working from a commercial sexual premises—what I would call a brothel—would be able to take his or her child to those premises while they are working?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: If I understand correctly, the amendment that I am moving relates specifically to employment or volunteering activities at one of those premises.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: If you are a worker and you just take the child there to do their homework in the back room or they are sick or whatever—

The Hon. C. BONAROS: That is not covered by the amendment that I am moving. There is nothing in my amendment that would preclude an individual taking a child to a brothel or, indeed, if they provide those services from home, there is nothing in my amendment that would preclude a child being present at home where those services are being provided. But I note again for the record that there are a number of other provisions or offences that we need to take into account. For instance, child protection provisions also need to be taken into account in that context.

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS: All I wanted to say is that I support the amendment by the Hon. Connie Bonaros. I will not be supporting the amendment by the Hon. Emily Bourke. I think we have adequate child protection laws and quite extensive child protection laws that protect the interests of children. We are moving to a decriminalised model and we need to have protections for employees as well. Those are my reasons.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I will be supporting the Hon. Connie Bonaros' amendment and I will not be supporting the Hon. Emily Bourke's amendment. I think the Hon. Mark Parnell made some salient points about the activity of a sex worker in their own home. In fact, I think I mentioned what happens in England under their laws where it is quite commonplace that a sex worker will use her own premises for sex work there. I am also going to assume that many mothers actually have a sense of responsibility when they do sex work. We are tending to assume that they are all going to be irresponsible, and I do not think that is the case.

The other aspect of it, as the Hon. Mark Parnell pointed out, is the unintended consequences. There is another example of that: you can imagine that suddenly you have neighbours, who seem to suspect that some kind of activity is going on in there, and suddenly they are going to be exposing the sex worker to a whole series of vexatious complaints where you are going to have the police being called, or you are going to have authorised officers going there and disturbing a person's privacy. I am quite uncomfortable with the Hon. Emily Bourke's amendment. I can see what she is trying to achieve with this but I think it is totally unworkable and I will not be supporting it.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I would like to indicate that I will be supporting the Hon. Connie Bonaros' amendment and I will not be supporting the Hon. Emily Bourke's amendment. I think the amendment the Hon. Emily Bourke has moved is well intentioned, but for reasons outlined by the Hon. Mark Parnell and the Hon. Frank Pangallo, I will not be supporting it. I do note in the debate there has been some level of concern raised that you would not want children around when there are, I think the words used were, 'a string of people or characters coming to a house'.

If this bill passes, sex work is an occupation like any other occupation. It would be no different from a person who sets up a home accountancy practice and has a string of clients coming for accounting services, chiropractic services or homeopathic services. I would have thought that a criminal defence lawyer working from home probably has clients who would come by, who you would be more concerned about with children around than a sex worker, but I do not think any of us are going to suggest that we get into the business of moralising about different occupations and whether children should be there when that person's clients visit.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. HOOD): The Hon. Ms Bourke, I do not believe you have moved your amendment yet.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I will move my amendment but I would also like to clarify: we discussed at the beginning whether we should move these as amendments that overlap or separate amendments.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. HOOD): It has been determined that we will vote on them separately.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Bourke–2]—

Page 3, after line 19—Insert:

4A—Insertion of section 68AB

After section 68 insert:

68AB—Provision of commercial sexual services where children present

(1) A person must not provide, or be provided with, commercial sexual services in premises in which a child is present.

Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years.

(2) It is a defence to a charge of an offence against subsection (1) if the defendant proves that the defendant did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to have known, that a child was present in the premises at the relevant time.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1)—

(a) each apartment (however described) in an apartment building or other complex will be taken to be separate premises; and

(b) each room or suite of rooms taken in a hotel or other premises offering accommodation on a commercial basis will be taken to be separate premises.

The CHAIR: I take it no other honourable member has a contribution on amendment No. 2 [Bonaros-1].

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Just for the record, I will be supporting both amendments.

The Hon. C. Bonaros' amendment carried; the Hon. E.S. Bourke's amendment negatived; new clause inserted.

Clauses 5 and 6 passed.

Clause 7.

The CHAIR: I will just set the scene so that we all keep on the same page. There are three sets of amendments. There is amendment No. 2 [Scriven-1], for which I will give the call to you, the Hon. Ms Scriven. That is followed by amendment No. 2 [Bourke-2] and amendment No. 3 [Bourke-2]. I give the call to the Hon. Ms Scriven.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Can you just clarify which section we are on, please?

The CHAIR: We are on clause 7.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The amendment of the Equal Opportunity Act.

The CHAIR: Yes, an amendment of the Equal Opportunity Act. Clause 7 is an amendment of section 5—Interpretation.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I just want to point out that the bill provides:

Section 5(1)—after the definition of sexuality insert: sex worker—

and its meaning. There is no definition of 'sexuality' in the Equal Opportunity Act at present, as far as I can see, so I think that may be an error on behalf of the mover.

The CHAIR: Does the honourable member have a contribution on amendment No. 2 [Scriven-1]?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Scriven–1]—

Page 3, line 29 [clause 7, inserted definition of sex worker]—Delete 'sex worker means' and substitute:

engaged in prostitution, in relation to a person, means

This amendment touches slightly on one of the early amendments in terms of the name of the bill; however, I think it needs to be expanded on to an extent. This amendment in my name replaces the term 'sex worker' with the phrase 'engaged in prostitution'. I want to point out the reason why I think this is important.

In my second reading contribution, I referred to someone close to me who was in prostitution for 17 years. When I referred to her time in sex work, she described it as abuse. In fact, simply calling it 'sex work' was extremely traumatic for her. I refer also to some of the comments from people who have been in prostitution. One said that the legalised buying and selling of women is, in effect, a promotion of and profiting from women's poverty, childhood sexual abuse, sexual harassment and sexual exploitation.

To tell these women, who are describing their own lived experiences of trauma, sexual exploitation and sexual abuse, that it is just work appears to me to be appallingly dismissive of their experiences, which in many cases have resulted in post-traumatic stress disorder. It normalises their abuse, it exonerates their abusers and it makes their trauma invisible. To ignore their voices would be akin to telling another rape victim that she has not been raped, that it was actually consensual. I trust that none of us would do that.

These women describe themselves as survivors of the sex trade, not workers. They would like to see the term 'survivor' or 'prostituted person' in the laws relating to prostitution. However, I understand that there are also people who maintain that they have chosen to be in the sex trade, and they want to be called sex workers. They have been alluded to on a number of occasions tonight. Those people would likely see the term 'prostituted person' as suggesting that all people in the trade are victims.

I earlier differentiated between prostitution and calling someone a prostitute. I do not consider it appropriate to call someone a prostitute. That frames their entire personhood around an activity that is part of their life; whether it is coerced or whether it is free it is only one part of their life. Each person we are talking about is an individual. Each person we are talking about has attributes and experiences that are totally unrelated to prostitution, and I therefore see it as dehumanising to use the term 'prostitute'.

It seems to me that whatever our personal views are about prostitution we should use a term that is neutral, that is encompassing of all the views of people who have been in prostitution, and that neither denies women's experience of sexual abuse nor implies automatic victimhood. 'A person engaged in prostitution' is the closest I think we can come to a neutral term. It is person-centred, it is talking about the person: it is not talking about them as though prostitution is all that there is to them, which also occurs if you use the term 'sex worker'.

Importantly, it would not ignore the wishes of either group of people. By using the term 'sex worker' we are ignoring a significant number of people who consider they have been abused. I am not proposing that we instead call people 'survivors' or 'prostitutes': I ask instead that we support what I think is the closest we can get to a neutral term, a term that respects the views of all people who have been in or are involved in prostitution. I therefore ask members to support this amendment.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I indicate that, for similar reasons as I indicated before, I will support the amendment.

The CHAIR: For the sake of completeness, there is a small technical matter that I bring to the attention of members out of an abundance of caution but also for the benefit of recording it in Hansard. If the amendment gets up or does not find favour with the council, there will need to be a clerical amendment to the bill where it is placed in the list of amendments by alphabet. There is a technical error, because when this bill was filed other amendments took place in the Equal Opportunity Act.

That should not concern members, but I raise it for the benefit of recording it on Hansard. Depending what happens in the amendment there will need to be an adjustment, despite the provisions of the bill, to insert it at the appropriate place in the various other acts it seeks to amend. For the benefit of newer members, that is called a clerical amendment and does not require the chamber to move a motion. Does any other member have a contribution on the Hon. Ms Scriven's amendments?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I will not be supporting this or any of the subsequent amendments which seek to change the terminology in a similar fashion.

The CHAIR: It is my understanding that, whatever happens to amendment No. 2 [Scriven- 1], this is effectively a test provision. Therefore the committee will have effectively decided on the subsequent amendment Nos 3 to 22 [Scriven-1].

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am happy to accept this is a test amendment. I hope members will support including the voices of all those in prostitution, but if I lose this amendment I will not be proceeding with the other amendments, that are essentially the same in nature.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: As this is a test, I indicate that I will be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS: I will not be supporting the amendment. I think it moves away from the actual intent of this bill, which is to decriminalise sex work. It is not a bill looking at the traumas and ills, the physical or mental disabilities that people may suffer for the fortitudes of life.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: For the record, I will not be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: For the record, I will not be supporting this amendment either.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Bourke–2]—

Page 3, line 29 [clause 7, inserted definition of sex worker]—After 'who' insert:

lawfully

This amendment seeks to further clarify and protect a person from discrimination when referring to a person providing lawful commercial sexual services. This is achieved by inserting 'lawfully' after the word 'who'. If the bill is successful, there will still be laws that will be deemed unlawful regarding the sale of sex services (i.e. to children). This amendment is to clarify the difference between lawful and unlawful. The amendment would read: 'sex worker means a person who lawfully provides sexual services on a commercial basis.'

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS: I cannot support the amendment. It is unnecessary as an amendment. The bill is decriminalising sex work, therefore the work is lawful. It is just a tautology. It is a play on words. There is no need to add the adjective 'lawfully' in the text.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I will be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I will be opposing this amendment. I think this suite of amendments, as I have said before, is a licensing model, which has been canvassed but not brought before this place for proper testing. It should, in fact, be brought back as a standalone bill that does not purport to be decriminalisation when it is not. When members are considering this, I have to concur with the Hon. Irene Pnevmatikos: it is not just superfluous, it is setting up a scheme where some people are then unlawful, and that is unnecessary and unhelpful.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I will not be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will not be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I will not be supporting the amendment. The place to put 'lawful' or 'unlawful' is in the criminal code, not into the Equal Opportunity Act.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: For members, this has no influence over the licensing amendment that I will be moving in amendment No. 6.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Bourke–2]—

Page 3, line 30 [clause 7, inserted definition of sex worker]—After 'basis' insert:

(but does not, to avoid doubt, include a pimp, brothel keeper or other person who does not personally provide sexual services)

Again, this amendment seeks to add clarification to this clause by removing any doubt when referring to 'a sex worker', which I highlight again. The bill is referring to an individual and not—I am not sure if this is politically correct—'a pimp, brothel keeper or other person who does not personally provide sexual services'.

I understand the original purpose of this amendment was to define the definition of a sex worker and did not seek to define a pimp or a brothel keeper. This amendment will remove any doubt that this was the purpose of the original amendment by inserting 'after'. A sex worker means a person who now provides sexual services on a commercial basis and then it will insert 'but does not, to avoid doubt, include a pimp, brothel keeper or other person who does not personally provide sexual services'.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I have some questions of the mover. I cannot see a definition in the materials provided of a pimp or a brothel keeper. Could she please indicate where they are?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: Yes. The definition of a sex worker means a person who lawfully provides sexual services on a commercial basis. This is to define that it is a person providing the sexual service and not the person who is running a brothel.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: But I did not ask for the definition of a sex worker. I asked for the definition of a pimp or a brothel keeper. Previously, the Hon. Clare Scriven referred to this as the pimp's protection bill, but I also note in her previous contribution this evening that she referred to a receptionist as a potential pimp or a driver as a potential pimp. Will this clause, to avoid doubt, not include a receptionist or a driver as that pimp or is there some other definition that is meant to be employed here?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: If I may just answer for the record, given that the Hon. Ms Franks referred to comments that I made. She may recall or Hansard will reveal that I was quoting somebody who explained that her job title in a decriminalised environment was receptionist. She further went on to explain that her role was to sell the women and, therefore, promote this woman or that woman to provide a sexual service of a particular kind. So the woman herself said that her job title was receptionist but her role was pimping, just for clarity.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I thank the Hon. Clare Scriven for that clarification. The person who answers the phone and books the service will be considered a pimp. Is that the case? Could the mover please clarify and confirm that?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I will need to clarify that. As there is no definition within the bill, the court will determine what a brothel is by the ordinary meaning in a dictionary, therefore it will not be a receptionist.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: How can we be assured that a receptionist, who we have just had an account of calling herself a pimp, not be referred to as a pimp under this legislation? Which dictionary: the Macquarie or the Oxford or Wiktionary?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I would have to put the trust in the court to determine which would be determined the definition of a pimp from a dictionary.

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS: It would be somewhat unfair to place on the court the obligation of trying to clarify what particular terminology the bill is referring to. If a pimp and a brothel are important in terms of the amendments that the Hon. Ms Bourke is making, there would need to be some definitions. We cannot just leave it to the courts to decide the will of parliament.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I would just like to make the point that I do not think the only issue is whether or not a receptionist or a driver might be termed as a pimp. The fact is, I cannot see how they can be excluded from the remaining words 'or other person who does not personally provide sexual services'. A driver or a receptionist is not providing direct sexual services, and they are picked up by the 'other person' provision.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Could the mover please explain how the term 'brothel keeper' is determined?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: There is no definition. I appreciate where this will be going, that you will then ask how that will be determined. That would be determined in the same manner.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Perhaps we will have some of those definitions and answers, if this version of a bill, a licensing model bill, a faux Nordic model bill, went before a select committee or came to this place in a standalone bill.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I have concerns based on the Hon. Mr Wade's presentation. The definition of 'or other person who does not personally provide sexual services' is so wide as to be very concerning to me. Whilst, again, I appreciate what the Hon. Emily Bourke is trying to do, the confusion that this would set alive in the courts, should there ever be any prosecutions that go to the courts on this matter, I think we would not want to be responsible for, so I cannot support the amendment.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: For the reasons that have already been outlined by other honourable members, I will not be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I will not be supporting the amendment for the reasons outlined but also because I think it demonstrates a misunderstanding of the actual industry. My understanding is that sex workers can also be brothel keepers. I think the elephant in the room really is that there is an assumption by some that all people who work in this industry are victims and therefore anybody else who may be involved in the industry is some sort of overlord, which is not something that I accept because I have spoken to enough people who work in this space and had representations from them. I do not think this clause adds anything to the debate.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I have a question for the mover of the bill. Is the original clause intended to apply to someone who may be running a brothel of, for example, 200 people? I appreciate the Hon. Ms Lensink says that does not happen here, but of course it cannot happen here at the moment because we do not have a different model. Is the expectation that part of the Equal Opportunity Act will mean that you cannot discriminate against somebody who may have been running a brothel of 200 people, for example, and living off those earnings?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Sex work will no longer be a crime. Therefore, involvement in the sex work industry should indeed be protected by the equal opportunity provisions. What I would say is that the Hon. Clare Scriven also raised that there were no exit provisions in this bill. This is indeed the exit provision, but she has a problem with that, too.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I certainly will talk about some exit provisions when we get to that part of the amendments in the bill, I believe. For the record, I will be supporting the Hon. Ms Bourke's amendment. I think we need to come back to what we really want to achieve from the bill. As I said previously, I do not think that a person who is providing prostitution services should be pursued, should be criminalised, etc.

Contrary to some other members who have expressed their views, I accept the testimony of women who have told me, personally as well as in other publications and reports, that they do experience what is commonly known as pimping, that they do experience exploitation and that those who are running mega brothels, for example, or many other sorts of brothels, are not all 100 per cent fine upstanding members of the community who are just waiting to be able to register for return to work levies and abide by the law.

I can accept that there may be people in a future decriminalised environment who would fit that bill (no pun intended about the bill), but to suggest that that is likely to be the case I think is fanciful. We have had evidence from police, as well as many other aspects of evidence over the years, that the industry of prostitution is more likely to involve organised crime and drugs than many other industries, so therefore it is not appropriate to simply say, 'Yes, well, there are good employers and bad employers everywhere.'

The facts of the matter are that this industry is more subject to those elements. Therefore, when we are looking at the Equal Opportunity Act, those who run brothels, who are actually profiting from the bodies of women—usually women; 95 per cent—who are profiting from the use, and at times abuse, of women, should not necessarily be afforded the same protections as the person who, through whatever circumstances and whatever level of choice, is providing those services directly.

Therefore, I think that the amendment, notwithstanding there may be some slight issues around the wording, certainly indicates that the intent is to decriminalise the person providing prostitution services but not those who have a higher likelihood of actually exploiting her.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I think it is important to reflect at this point upon the actual practice where these systems seek to somehow criminalise not the sex workers themselves but those around them. They do in fact criminalise sex workers, and one needs to look no further than Ireland at the moment, where two women who were operating a brothel in Newbridge have now been gaoled for nine months through the Naas District Court.

The pair, Adrina Podaru, 25, and Ana Tomascu, 20, were both living at 6 Canning Place, Newbridge, when it was raided following some complaints by the locals. The pair were charged, the two of them sex workers in the same house—the house they live in—with keeping and running a brothel, and evidence was given to the court that the pair were also sex workers.

They are from Romania. One of them is quite pregnant and neither of them were possibly what the Macquarie, the Oxford or the online dictionaries would call pimps, but they have been charged as pimps because they were working together. These are the unintended consequences of these types of well-intentioned approaches being taken and promulgated this evening.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 8.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: This clause is in relation to the Equal Opportunity Act, inserting the term I will now use, as it has been accepted in this bill, 'sex worker', despite the issues I faced in relation to that for people who find it abusive. It says that it will be illegal:

(a) if the person treats another unfavourably because the other is, or has in the past been, a sex worker;

I would like the mover to outline what is meant by 'treats another unfavourably'.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The debate that we have had tonight and previously in this parliament is just one example of treating unfavourably. Of course, they would not be able to complain to the Equal Opportunity Commission about that, but should they be refused access to services, there are some exemptions under the Equal Opportunity Act. I note that the Hon. Rob Lucas talked about religious institutions, and they are most notable in some of their exemptions, in their ability to continue discrimination. We well know that people are often discriminated against within our education system, despite equal opportunity provisions. When you are discriminated against, you pretty much know it and you will be able to take that discrimination complaint to the Equal Opportunity Commission.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: If someone were to say to a person who was involved in prostitution that they consider prostitution to be demeaning, anti-women, exploitative, or some other description of their view of what prostitution is, does the mover envisage that that could be deemed as treating another unfavourably?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Having taken up and having advised many constituents to take up such issues with the Equal Opportunity Commission, I imagine that the commissioner will determine that.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Referring back to the mover's earlier comments about not leaving all these interpretations up to the courts, or in this case the commissioner, I am asking what her intention is as the mover of this bill. Will it be treating another person unfavourably if someone makes comments about their view of the nature of prostitution and the exploitative nature of prostitution on women?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I am not sure whether the member is familiar with assisting her constituents when they have been discriminated against, but many of my constituents are discriminated against and they find these laws most helpful. They find them a little arduous, but there are processes put in place for them to take up those complaints and they are actually adjudicated on a case-by-case basis. The member is asking me for a one-size-fits-all approach. It would be wonderful if we knew that every single complaint that went to the Equal Opportunity Commission, where somebody had been discriminated against, would be upheld, but that is of course not the case.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am not asking for a one-size-fits-all; I am asking about the intention of the mover of the bill in regard to this example.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The only example I have at the moment is the member claiming that somebody might take offence. Can she tell me what her particular concern was again?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: If, for example, someone were to say that they consider prostitution demeaning or that they consider prostitution to be anti-woman or exploitative, is it the mover's intention that that could be interpreted as treating someone who is in prostitution unfavourably?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Is this person a doctor giving health treatment to the sex worker? Is this person a teacher and is the sex worker perhaps a parent at a school? Is this person somehow providing a service and therefore refusing that service? They are the three examples. If you could answer those questions, perhaps we could give you a specific answer to your question.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think the question is fairly straightforward. In regard to any of those circumstances, or any other circumstances where perhaps a person was not doing any of those things to the person whom they were addressing, is it the mover's intent that someone should not be able to make comment about what they consider the nature of prostitution to be? Would making that comment be treating a person in prostitution unfavourably?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Are they refusing them education, health care or other services? Are they a radio announcer? What is the context here? How long is the piece of string that you wish to draw?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: This aspect is not referring to refusing services. My example was someone stating their concerns about prostitution. Is it the intention of the member that that could be construed as treating someone unfavourably and that, therefore, someone would not be able to say that?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Rest assured, I feel somewhat disappointed that this bill will not ensure that people are never offensive to sex workers again. I am sure it will continue to happen.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: So, for clarity, is the member saying that it is not her intention that someone reflecting upon their views on the nature of the industry would be considered to be treating a person in the sex industry unfavourably? Is that what the member is saying?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: My intention, as one vote in this place, is to ensure that sex workers are not discriminated against.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Since the mover of the bill, despite being only one vote, will not say whether she does or does not think that someone should be able to reflect upon the nature of prostitution, I think the chamber will have to draw its own conclusions.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am asking for further clarification from the mover because she indicated at the outset that she would respond to my particular questions at the second reading. I had sought further clarification if she had any further information to share. As I understood her brief comment, albeit she was making it in response to the Hon. Ms Scriven's comments, if I heard her correctly, she was saying that her advice was that the exemptions that exist in terms of religious schools, etc., are not overwritten in any way by the provisions here; that is, they would remain protections, as those institutions would see them, in relation to permissible discrimination.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: You did raise some concerns with regard to religious institutions having the ability to discriminate. Where religious institutions currently have the ability to discriminate they will possibly continue to do so, although I note that many religious institutions actually do not choose to discriminate against sex workers. In fact, in terms of the Christian religion, something that is often put forward is: what would Jesus do? Certainly, I note that recently there have been some in the church who have been quite active in this debate and are pushing for decriminalisation.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Can I clarify that the Hon. Ms Franks is saying that the existing protections, as some would see them within the Equal Opportunity Act, are not overwritten by this particular bill, should it pass? I would like to clarify whether that is her advice.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: This bill does not override the existing situation except for the cases where we have moved these particular clauses to ensure that discrimination is not able to occur. As you know, people will apply for exemptions on the grounds of employment, for example, on the basis of requiring a woman for the position. They will seek those exemptions or they have those exemptions. That does not change.

Clause passed.

Clauses 9 to 11 passed.

Clause 12.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: A point of clarification: this is in regard to not discriminating in education on the basis of having been or currently being a sex worker, as the term is being used, so a person who is currently involved in prostitution could enrol as a mature age student at a school, and you would be concerned about making sure that they were not discriminated against. For example, they would have to be a mature age student, most likely, as they would be over 18. Is that the sort of issue you are concerned about, that someone might wish to not enrol a current sex worker in a high school as a mature age student? Is that the sort of thing you envisage being problematic and needing to be addressed by this?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Is that the sort of thing that the questioner is somehow seeing as a problem?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I make no comment either way: I am asking whether they are the sorts of concerns that have been raised with the mover to necessitate this.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Chair, I must say that that particular example had not occurred to me prior to it being raised tonight by the Hon. Clare Scriven.

Clause passed.

Clause 13 passed.

Clause 14.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Would this discrimination clause mean, as the bill currently stands, that advertising agencies would not be able to refuse advertisements for the provision of prostitution services, as that would be discrimination in the provision of services?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Advertising agencies would pick and choose the advertising both that they were wanting to take on or legally prohibited from doing. There are some amendments around advertising restrictions that are yet to be debated, so, not anticipating necessarily those particular provisions, one would imagine the current regulations around advertising will continue to apply.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Can I offer a bit of an explanation, having previously had carriage of this bill: these amendments relate to individuals, individuals who believe they are being discriminated against for not receiving a service. Rather than that sort of service, we are talking more about an individual who is seeking a service from a shop or, in some other sort of circumstance, who believes that they are being refused because of their particular status, having been a sex worker.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I certainly would support such a person not being discriminated against—there is no question about that. My question is with regard to potentially unintended consequences. If an individual has a newsletter where they accept paid advertisements, and they did not want to accept advertisements for prostitution, would they be discriminating in provision of that service?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: That is actually a little bit of a different question to what we are talking about here, because a publisher of a particular publication gets to pick and choose what they do. Certainly, The Advertiser is well known for having a section where sex work services are currently advertised. It is in the adult classifieds and associated pages. However, should that sex worker have a garage sale and be refused by The Advertiser because, on the grounds that they are a sex worker, The Advertiser has decided not to publish details of their garage sale, I imagine they might have a case to take to the Equal Opportunity Commission.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Certainly, and that would appear to be entirely reasonable that they would take that to the Equal Opportunity Commission. However, I do not think someone publishing a community newsletter is necessarily covered by the publishing laws to which you are referring, although I am happy to be corrected if I am mistaken on that. As an example, it could be a community noticeboard. If someone does not wish to have advertising for prostitution services placed within their remit, whether it be a local newsletter, a noticeboard or something like that, will they be free to not advertise prostitution services if this clause passes?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: While they might be advertising prostitution services, is this person a sex worker?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am referring to someone who is presenting the newsletter or whatever it might be: can they refuse to advertise sexual services by a third party? If a sex worker, as you wish to call it, goes to someone and says, 'I want to place this advertisement for my services,' can they refuse to publish the advertisement for those services?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The discrimination would be if somebody who sought to have one of those ads in that publication who was not a sex worker was allowed to, but then on the grounds that the person who then sought to have the same ad published but was a sex worker was refused on the grounds that they were a sex worker or had been a sex worker, that would be the discrimination. Again, these things would be resolved with the commission.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think that clarifies that therefore someone who has not allowed one and not the other will be able to refuse to advertise sexual services; is that correct?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: That is what I said.

Clause passed.

Clause 15.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I have a question. I raised this question in some of the discussions leading up to this, but I have a further query. This ensures that people who are providing sexual services on a commercial basis are not discriminated against in accommodation. I raised the question that, if someone was renting a property for their residence and operating prostitution services out of that residence—for example, as a sole operator—would the landlord have the ability to not renew their lease or to evict them? I was told that that would be covered under the lease agreement of running a business, so that would be something that is not allowed under a lease agreement.

A further question has arisen: given that my understanding is that statute law will always take precedence over contract law, and the bill here will become statute law and a lease will be contract law, will we actually be left with a situation where the landlord could not refuse to let their property to the person who was running a business? I emphasise that the objection would be on the basis that they were running a prostitution business from there rather than, simply, that the person was a sex worker.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The honourable member has conflated two issues there. If it is a business premises and it is not in direct contravention of the lease agreement, why should they be able to discriminate against them? I also note that it is not just if they are but if they have been a sex worker. So it may well not be a premises being used in that business for commercial sexual purposes. It may be that they have opened and gone off to TAFE where they have no longer been discriminated against and they have done a floristry course and they are selling flowers.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: It was in regard to a residential property not a commercial property, so my question still stands.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Then I absolutely say that the member has conflated the two issues because you cannot use—for commercial services—a residential property in that way, in any way.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: For example, if the residential premises were a caravan park or a hotel, where I understand there generally would not be a lease, would it be unlawful to refuse a person engaged in prostitution to rent within your caravan park if they were going to use it for prostitution?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: If the caravan park does not allow somebody to sell flowers, fruit or baked goods, they are probably not going to be allowing commercial sex services, but it will not be on the basis of discriminating against them, it will be simply that that will be the terms of the occupancy. I have not really seen many caravan parks used for business purposes. Usually, people use them for holidays.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Some people permanently reside in caravan parks, which the honourable member may not be aware of, obviously.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I am aware of that. I thank the honourable member for her elucidation of the fact that some people do, indeed, live in caravan parks, and I am well aware of that. I would hope that, had they been a sex worker in the past, the caravan park would not refuse them tenancy on the fact that they had previously been a sex worker.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Yet again, that is something that the Hon. Ms Franks and I can agree upon.

Clause passed.

Clauses 16 and 17 passed.

Clause 18.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I move:

Amendment No 23 [Scriven–1]—

Page 6, line 3 [clause 18(2), definition of prescribed sex offence, (c)]—Delete ', 25A or 26 or Part 6'

This is in regard to spent convictions. This amendment would mean that convictions were spent for soliciting but not for procuring for prostitution and not for living off the earnings of another person who is providing prostitution services. The purpose of this is again to try to differentiate between those who are the persons providing sexual services and those who are living off and potentially exploiting those people. No doubt, members will say that not everyone who is living off the earnings of another person is or has been exploiting that person. That may well be the case, but certainly it is also the case that many people who are living off the earnings of another person are exploiting that person.

In terms of spent convictions, my understanding is that these become spent after 10 years for minor offences but not for those that are considered more major. I am sure that some of the lawyers in here can correct me on the exact terminology. The intent is to have convictions spent for those who have actually been providing prostitution services who may wish to exit, or indeed who have exited, but not for those who have been procuring others for prostitution or engaged in living off their earnings.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Bourke, this is identical to your amendment. Do you wish to make a contribution on this?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I agree with the objective of this bill, which is seeking to protect individual sex workers choosing to exit the industry. However, I do not agree with the convictions of those who owned and profited from a sex worker, either by owning a brothel or a sex worker establishment unlawfully, having their convictions spent. Under this, as the Hon. Clare Scriven has stated, if a person is soliciting under section 25, their convictions would be spent; however, for a person under section 25A or part 6, theirs would remain a conviction.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I put a series of questions to the honourable mover of the legislation in relation to spent convictions and, in particular, to the intentions of the mover with regard to whether or not the Department for Education and the Department for Child Protection should be denied access to information. I am just wondering whether the Hon. Ms Franks is going to take the opportunity at this stage to respond to the questions I put at the second reading.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Indeed, at the second reading stage the Hon. Rob Lucas raised his concerns that somebody who had perhaps run a brothel for 30 years might then go and seek to become a childcare worker. In fact, somebody who had run a brothel for 30 years may well have been a childcare worker for that entire time as well. Yes, it is the intention. At the moment, that person could have their convictions spent after a certain period of time anyway. This speeds up the process.

Just because somebody has engaged in adult consensual sex for commercial purposes does not mean that they are in any way guilty of any abuse of children, sexual abuse of children, any of the things that would get them onto the sex offenders register, because the sex offenders register, should there have been that sort of a crime committed, of course would continue to exist and record those particular crimes. That is conflating somebody who has engaged in commercial sex services in their adult life between consenting adults as somehow criminal and missing the point of this bill.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I will oppose the amendment, mainly because of this issue that we have heard already tonight, that some individual sex workers have in the past been pinched as being brothel owners or having run brothels. The problem is that when you try to define very neatly who does what in these premises that provide sexual services for money, you run the very real risk of actually capturing everybody under a generic brand which is not identified very clearly for the courts, should these cases ever come to the courts.

I understand what both movers of the amendments are trying to attempt, but the problem for me is that the work they want done by this amendment will not be done; in fact, there will be unintended consequences, where the individuals they actually want to protect will be pinched, but on other grounds. So I cannot support the amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I will not be supporting the amendments. I will draw the attention of the council and the parliament to the fact that charges such as money laundering and keeping a brothel have been applied to those who are simply engaged in sex work. A woman who ran a brothel for 30 years now finds herself unable to get a job because of the recent raids. In fact, she has resorted at times to doing flatpack assembly on Airtasker because of the criminal record that she now carries with her, when all she did was work in the adult consensual sex industry, something she had done for 30 years—surprisingly, a similar number to the number you raised—and she now finds herself with no access to income and no way to get employment. She has been charged and convicted of something that looks far worse than it is because she used an EFTPOS machine; therefore, she has a money laundering conviction hanging over her.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I accept that my views on this particular area are in a minority, but I indicate that I am not convinced about supporting this whole provision in relation to it. I understand that the Hon. Ms Scriven's amendment is unlikely to be successful anyway, given the majority view in this chamber, but in this particular area, I am not uncomfortable that this now is left in the legislation because I would hope that when another place gets to debate this issue, they will place greater scrutiny on some of these issues.

I do have concerns in relation to the issues I raised during the second reading debate, and the Hon. Ms Franks has now confirmed that that is indeed her intention. That is fair enough. I understand that that is her view, which is different to mine. However, I think the view that I have will be shared by a number of people. I would hope that members in another place, if they get to debate this particular issue, will provide far greater scrutiny. I think it is being airily dismissed by proponents and supporters of the legislation in this chamber as being of no consequence.

I think that the notion that a madam or a brothel owner, who has operated for 30 or 40 years and lived off the proceeds of prostitution, can happily go off and work in a childcare centre, a school, a residential care institution or whatever it is and the community at large will not be concerned about it might be a view of the supporters of the legislation in this chamber, but it is not a view that I share.

The Hon. Ms Scriven's amendment goes only so far. I am unconvinced about supporting this whole provision. I think this will be an issue of concern. I hope it will be an issue of concern for local members, who will need to be answerable to local constituents in relation to the views that they express in this area. I would hope that the fact that this provision is likely to remain in the legislation will attract some attention if and when it is debated in another chamber. Whilst I acknowledge my views are in the minority—and I do not intend to delay the proceedings by calling a divide on the clause itself—I place on the record my ongoing concerns in relation to this particular issue and my opposition to it.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I think it is important to point out, almost going back to first principles in relation to this debate, that there is no particular South Australian statute that explicitly says that the exchange of money for a sexual service is against the law. What we have is this collection of laws sitting around that effectively mean that somebody cannot operate in that environment.

In particular, living off the earnings is one of the areas within the statutes that is quite regularly used to ping people working in the industry, as are similar ancillary things. I think that it is worth pointing out for the sake of the debate that, while people often assume that sex work is illegal per se, it is a number of those ancillary things that make it impossible to operate legally in South Australia; therefore, this clause is quite germane to that matter.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I, too, have concerns about this particular clause. I have been debating with myself, as I have been sitting here listening to the debate, whether or not I will support the amendments. I am inclined to support them. It looks like they will fail in any case, but I am inclined to support them. I do have concerns about this. I have had a couple of lower house members ask me about it. Their main interest in this bill appears to be around this issue. I think that, as the Hon. Mr Lucas pointed out, it will be a source of significant contention when it goes to the other place.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I would like to point out that, for example, in attempting to ensure that a single operator who has been convicted of living off the earnings does not have that conviction following them for a long period of time, without this amendment the effect will also be to spend the convictions of those who are exploitative, who are not personally engaging in consensual sexual activity in terms of one of the people providing a service but are actually exploiting other people.

Procuring for prostitution will also be a spent conviction. I understand the concerns of members who, like me, do not want individual women who have been in prostitution to have their convictions following them for longer than necessary when it has been only their own activity, but the effect of not supporting this amendment is that, of necessity, we will spend the convictions of those who have procured others for prostitution and who have been exploitative.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 19 and 20 passed.

New clause 20A.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Wade–1]—

Page 6, after line 12—Insert:

20A—Insertion of section 24A

After section 24 insert:

24A—Power of police to enter premises used for commercial sexual services

(1) A police officer may, at any time of the day or night, exercise all or any of the following powers in respect of premises at which commercial sexual services are provided:

(a) the officer may enter into, break open and search the premises if the officer has reasonable cause to suspect that—

(i) an offence has been recently committed, or is about to be committed; or

(ii) there is anything that may afford evidence as to the commission of an offence; or

(iii) there is anything that may be intended to be used for the purpose of committing an offence;

(b) the officer may break open and search any cupboards, drawers, chests, trunks, boxes, packages or other things, whether fixtures or not, in which the officer has reasonable cause to suspect that—

(i) there is anything that may afford evidence as to the commission of an offence; or

(ii) there is anything that may be intended to be used for the purpose of committing an offence;

(c) the officer may seize any such things to be dealt with according to law.

(2) In this section—

commercial sexual services means an act engaged in for payment involving physical contact (including indirect contact by means of an inanimate object) between 2 or more persons that is intended to provide sexual gratification for 1 or more of those persons, but does not include an act of a class excluded by regulation from the ambit of this definition.

In my view, the prostitution industry is one that is particularly vulnerable to criminal infiltration. In that context, this amendment seeks to ensure that there are adequate and appropriate police powers to enter and search premises used for commercial sexual services so that they can deal with criminality. Under section 32 of the current Summary Offences Act, police have the power to enter suspected brothels. The section reads:

The commissioner or a senior police officer, or any other police officer authorised in writing by the commissioner or a senior police officer, may at any time enter and search premises which he or she suspects on reasonable grounds to be a brothel.

This section talks about police being able, at any time, to enter and search premises if they suspect it to be a brothel, with the underlying assumption that brothels are illegal and that it is an offence to keep a brothel. If this bill becomes law brothels will no longer be illegal, and the bill acts to remove any right of entry provisions available to the SA Police.

I am of the view that retaining a right of entry in certain circumstances is important in the context of decriminalising sex work. My amendment proposes what I consider to be appropriate police powers to enter premises used for commercial sex services. An alternative would have been to simply reinstate section 32 of the Summary Offences Act.

Working with the Attorney-General, I am instead proposing a clear affirmation of police powers to ensure a balance is met between entering premises in pursuit of a crime and simply entering premises with no reasonable cause. The amendment seeks to respect the fact that under this bill brothels would no longer be illegal.

The amendment I move supports police to focus on criminal activity in the context of legal sex work. If a premises is being used for a commercial sex service and there is reasonable cause to suspect an offence is also occurring, the search powers can be used without a warrant. By moving the amendment in this way the right of entry provisions better align with the general search power of police through the Summary Offences Act more broadly. I reiterate that there must be reasonable cause to suspect an offence is occurring.

My understanding is that the police commissioner has noted his opposition to a bill that would give police no power to enter premises where crimes like child exploitation or child trafficking or otherwise might be occurring. This amendment provides police with powers to protect sex workers from illegal exploitation, to prevent the involvement of minors, and to try to prevent organised crime entering the industry.

I appreciate the amendment may not be word perfect. I note that if the bill is supported by this council and this amendment is inserted, the bill will be considered by the other place, in which house sit both the Minister for Police and the Attorney-General. I would welcome further consideration of the practical application of these provisions by this council by way of alternative amendment from the other place.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I rise to indicate support for the Hon. Mr Wade's amendment. At the Budget and Finance Committee meeting on Monday this week we had, just by chance—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: You recently understand that the views of the police—

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I beg your pardon, sorry. It is late; forgive me. During some discussions I was able to converse with the police commissioner and he reiterated the police's strong desire to maintain right of entry along the lines of the Hon. Mr Wade's amendments. Without going into detail—which I had intended to, but I was kindly reminded by my colleagues that that would be inappropriate—I align myself with the comments of the commissioner.

I think this is a really important amendment in that there is a potential in this industry—and other industries, it is not just this industry. In fact during the conversation I had with the commissioner he mentioned that he also wanted similar access as the law currently provides for tattoo parlours and licensed premises and the like. This amendment deals with that issue and I support it.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I will be supporting this amendment. As I said last time we discussed this bill, I find it ludicrous to think that they would want the police shut out entirely from going into this industry. This bill, if it is passed, decriminalises prostitution, but unfortunately we know that there are criminal elements that will infiltrate it, as they have elsewhere, and there is the likelihood or possibility that there will be exploitation and there will be money laundering. I have spoken to the police about this on a couple of occasions and they have serious concerns that they will not be able to crack down not only on outlaw criminal gangs infiltrating these establishments here—and it is likely to happen—but also overseas criminal organisations, triads.

There are a couple of cases currently before the courts. I will not go into it, but had it not been for police intervention they would not have been able to raid those premises. They were able to expose the human trafficking that was going on and also a great deal of illegal activity and money laundering. We need to be responsible with this. We need to be able to give our law enforcement officers, officers of integrity agencies, the opportunity and ability to be able to crack down on criminal elements that will undoubtedly be attracted to this. We need to make it pretty difficult for them to be able to get into that business to try to manipulate it for illegal or ill-gotten gains.

In saying that, I strongly support the amendment from the Hon. Stephen Wade. I urge all my other colleagues in here to recognise the work that the police must do to keep our community safe and protect us from the criminal gangs that will undoubtedly be attracted to this type of business.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: I also rise to support this amendment. Before I make my contribution, I would like to take back a comment from my second reading contribution a couple of weeks ago. I used the word 'heartless' and I would like to take that word back. In terms of discussing the sex trade, I should have maybe used the word 'passionate'. Some members were 'passionate' about this. I want to put on the record that maybe the word 'heartless' was a bit too strong, so I apologise for that.

Getting back to this matter, I, too, support this amendment because I think that it is very important that we send a message to the criminal elements of this industry that there are police who are able to come in and raid it if there is a problem. In my second reading, I spoke mainly about the sex trade from Asia. Most of these women being used in the sex trade do not speak a lot of English. If this amendment does not get up, it will send the wrong message to the criminal elements. The criminal elements might tell those women who are trapped in the sex trade that the police cannot enter now, so just do what you have been told. I think it is very important that we give the police as much power as we can to deal with the criminal elements of this industry.

During the select committee on this matter that went for two years, the police twice came in and gave evidence. They, too, have concerns with this proposed clause. In the recent briefing from the police, they raised similar concerns that taking away the police power of entry would make their job very difficult in terms of trying to protect some women used in the sex trade. I, too, urge honourable members to support the Hon. Stephen Wade's amendment. If it does not get up, I will be calling for a division.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: If I heard the Hon. Stephen Wade correctly, I think he may have conceded that the wording was not perfect. I think there are some serious problems with this. I will just explain, and maybe my fears will be alleviated, but it seems to me that there are two tests. Test number one is that the officer has to have reasonable cause to suspect that an offence has been committed, is about to be committed or that there is evidence of an offence. So that is one element of the test: the officer has to have a reasonable suspicion. But that suspicion only applies in relation to premises at which sexual services are provided.

There is a definition of commercial sexual services, but what is unclear to me is whether those services have to be being provided at the time the suspicion is formed and the entry occurs. Unless there is a sign on the door saying, 'Buy sexual services here' and unless it was really clear—if it was a private home, for example—there is nothing in here that says the police officer just has to suspect that the premises are being used for commercial sexual services. The police officer has to know that they are being used for commercial sexual services. The mere suspicion is not enough.

So in the absence of a sign on the door, or absolutely clear unequivocal evidence like a facility that is well known with multiple workers, whatever it might be, it strikes me that the way this is worded, the police are in all likelihood going to have a court tell them that their search was illegal. Unless it is crystal clear, unless they catch someone in the act as it were, I would have thought it would be very difficult for them to prove that these are premises at which commercial sexual services are provided, unless they were being provided when the police officer visited.

I might have got it wrong and it may be that this is a reflection of some other law that previously existed. But it seems to me that, if this amendment gets up, then perhaps between the houses there may need to be a little bit of work done on it because it strikes me that it is unlikely to be effective, other than in very clear cases of what people are calling brothels where everyone knows what goes on. But if we are talking about private homes, I think this is fraught with danger. I am not saying it is the reason I am going to oppose it or anything like that. I am just saying that it appears to have a fair bit of support in the room. I reckon it needs to be looked at between the houses.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I do not share the concerns of the Hon. Mark Parnell. In many situations it would be very clear, even by observation, for a cottage-style place where commercial sexual services are being delivered. In terms of hotel room-type contexts, yes, I appreciate it would be harder. But the police have said that they would find it hard to regulate places that they already are policing without such a power in the context of a decriminalised industry.

I strongly urge the council to support this amendment. There certainly would be questions in terms of evidence in cases, as I said, nondedicated use at nondedicated premises and the like. There may well be an opportunity for the Minister for Police and the Attorney-General to consider it between the houses. But I think the issue of implementation of these laws by the police is not their great concern. Their great concern is to have the powers. So I urge the council to affirm the request of police to be able to have the powers to protect society from criminal elements in this industry and, if there is an opportunity to make the amendment clearer in the other place, so be it.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I am not actually opposed to this clause, but to give some clarity, if an officer had to have a reasonable belief that something is going on, why could they not get a warrant? Or is this for circumstances where an officer is driving past, sees something occurring and then takes an instant reaction in going into that premises? If an officer has the power to cause considerable damage entering a premises and inside the premises, wouldn't you think that, if he had good reason to believe there was something going on, he would be able to get a warrant? I do not know what process it takes to get a warrant or how long it takes to get a warrant, but why should that process not be gone through?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: That process should not be gone through in this circumstance because, in my view, this is an industry that is particularly vulnerable to criminality. It is not dissimilar to provisions under the Second-hand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Act 1996, the Tattooing Industry Control Act 2015 and the Hydroponics Industry Control Act 2009.

This parliament has identified a range of industries which it believes are particularly vulnerable to criminal activity. It has, if you like, given police greater capacity to use search and related powers without a warrant. They still need to have a reasonable belief, but I think that we should respect the request of police to have affirmation of their search powers. We are not proposing that it be open slather. Let's be clear: police need to have a reasonable belief.

Those who are supporting decriminalisation do not want to put on the sex industry the risk of inappropriate harassment by law enforcement authorities. This, in my view, is an appropriate, balanced set of police powers for an industry that I believe is vulnerable to criminal infiltration and other related activity.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: At what point is reasonable belief tested? Say police break into someone's home, believing that there is something going on, and there is nothing going on and considerable damage is done to the property. At what point do they actually prove that they had a reasonable belief? Where is it tested?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Obviously, the reasonable belief is in the mind of the particular police officer. Every police officer is trained in terms of the law and the powers of police. Police also know that misuse of their powers may well lead to consequences in terms of evidence or even disciplinary action by the police or adverse findings by the court. I do not think we need to revisit the whole gamut of the operation of criminal law.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I have been a sceptic of some of the powers that police have insisted on in relation to these matters. I made some fairly florid comments in the previous parliament in relation to some of the correspondence we received from the police commissioner. I think this is a reasonable compromise. I do accept the concerns that police had. I am pleased to see that we are able to reach some form of compromise in terms of limiting the scope of the existing clauses in the existing legislation. So I do accept that there may be circumstances under which they may need to have these powers, because there are some exceptions.

I am pleased they are actually cooperating in this way, because certainly in the previous parliament that was not the experience of the select committee and the parliament. It seemed to me as the Chair of the committee that there was very much a sort of blocking activity in terms of obtaining firm evidence from police about what was really taking place in terms of where that underbelly might be, if you like, so I will be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Just to address some of the concerns that the Hon. Russell Wortley had, I cannot see the police just barging into somebody's home.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: People may say that, but in my experience of dealing with the police for many decades, they do not just go barging into people's homes without some sort of understanding or some intelligence gathering that indicates that something is happening there. They would put a place under surveillance and if they suspect there is criminal activity—the presence of outlaw motorcycle gangs, drug dealers, or whatever—that is when they would take the next step and look at going into those premises.

I just want to point out a clear-cut example of where this happened. We all saw the City of Adelaide close down a few years ago when there was a siege at a well-known brothel in King William Street involving Rodney Clavell, who was heavily armed. It was police intelligence that alerted them that Mr Clavell was actually holed up in this brothel. Police had to mount quite a big operation because they were seriously concerned about the welfare of the people in that brothel who were being kept hostage, or they understood that perhaps the lives of those people were at risk because of a dangerous fugitive who was on the loose.

Is Mr Wortley telling me that in a circumstance like that police should not have mounted an operation and gone in and tried to at least rescue and bring some law and order? There is a clear-cut example of where a brothel, an illegal one, was used by a person who was wanted by police to seek some kind of refuge. It happens; criminal elements are attracted to those establishments. Again, echoing the words of my colleagues here, I seriously urge people to take into consideration the fine work that our police force does. We need to encourage them and give them the opportunity to be able to uphold the law and protect our community.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I will be rising to support this amendment as I have the identical amendment within my licensing amendment No. 6.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: In regard to the clarity from Mr Pangallo, I can understand why in the case of Mr Clavell, which was a very rare case, the police would have had powers, I would have thought, to enter a premises without any warrant, or whatever, to save a life. Where you indicate that this is done through surveillance, and there is obviously a time of surveillance, surely if they had a reasonable belief that something was going on they could get a warrant. I do not know how long it takes. Would someone like to tell me how long it takes to get a warrant?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I think the intention here was to prevent the police from even going in there, and I think that is what worries a lot of people.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can I start by addressing that last point that my colleague raised in relation to preventing them from going in, insofar as there are already a number of instances where the police, obviously, would be able to enter those premises, even if the specific power that they are concerned about was removed in its entirety.

That said, I am sure members would be pleased to know that I will be supporting this amendment. I do so on the basis that I think it strikes the right balance between what the police have been asking for and what we ought to have in terms of powers for police to enter premises. In doing so, I note that police, as I just mentioned, already have a number of powers in relation to other illegal activities, and this amendment will not detract from them. So if there are serious and organised crime concerns, they will already have the powers to enter. If there are concerns about firearms, they will already have the powers to enter.

Indeed, there is a list of South Australian acts, including the Controlled Substances Act, the Criminal Assets Confiscation Act, the Criminal Investigation (Extraterritorial Offences) Act, the Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Act and, of course, the Summary Offences Act, which would still enable police to enter these premises and conduct searches as they can and do now.

This amendment, if anything, adds another layer of comfort for us, but it certainly does not detract from any existing powers that police already have to enter those premises. I note for the record that that is not an exhaustive list. There are obviously other offences, and there are commonwealth offences as well, which would still enable police to enter. As I said, I think this strikes the correct balance and, as such, I will be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: While I understand that the police do want powers—and currently they have extraordinary powers under section 32 that they would like to keep—I also understand that the reason we have decriminalisation in New South Wales is because of police corruption. Indeed, the reason we had law reform in Queensland is because of police corruption. Currently, under section 32 and those search powers, we have police entering a woman's flat sometimes as many as six times a year without warrants. We have police going in undercover, posing as clients, and then, once money is exchanged, we have four or five other police officers entering a woman's home or flat, and these powers are currently, to my mind, being abused.

Currently, they have a very low threshold to enter these premises, so I certainly ask the Attorney-General, in consideration of these powers, to ensure that they are appropriately used. These are still powers that give some concern to me, when we know the context of this industry is not just that it is attractive to the criminal element but that it has been attractive in the past to the criminal element in the police force, and it is something that is open and has in the past been the subject of people being blackmailed or presenting bribes to be left alone. Those relationships will not disappear overnight with decriminalisation, and we must be wary of those relationships.

I think any review of this bill must include whatever police powers of entry are approved in these situations. Before this matter is debated in the other place, the Attorney-General should issue a public report available to all members of parliament, but certainly the house for their debate, about the current application of section 32 powers. How many times have those powers been used? How many times have charges been laid or cautions issued, as we are so assured happens more often than not? How many times have repeat visits been undertaken with no charges, no cautions, no consequences, other than women left afraid that they will fall foul of the police, that they are on notice and that they are indeed bullied and intimidated by these behaviours I have just described?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am happy to address this question either to the mover of the amendment or the mover of the bill. I was wondering if you could provide clarity as to the difference between the police powers under this amendment compared with the existing section 32 provisions in the current act.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Section 32 simply requires that the police believe that premises are being used as a brothel. This amendment says that they need to have a reasonable suspicion that another offence has been committed, because there is no offence in the provision of sexual services.

While I am on my feet, I would like to address the concerns of the Hon. Tammy Franks. If the Hon. Tammy Franks thinks that bribery, blackmail and corruption are not adequately dealt with under South Australian law, I think she needs to go back and look at the statute book. We have established an ICAC and we have established police oversight bodies in recent years in South Australia, and police who are motivated by those sorts of actions would face the full force of the law.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The people who are subjected to bribery and intimidation are currently criminalised and unable to take action.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The point is that this is in the context of a decriminalisation model. My amendment is to a bill that seeks to decriminalise, so it is irrelevant to suggest that my amendment will be ineffective because certain bad behaviour by police occurs in a criminalised model.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: For the record, I would like to indicate that I will be supporting this amendment. It is crucially important that all tools are available to identify organised crime, particularly in the area of trafficking. In a decriminalised environment, where evidence from other jurisdictions is that trafficking increases in a decriminalised environment—notwithstanding the fact that the proponents of the bill disagree with that and will present alternative evidence—it is very important that the police are able to have these powers and are able to enter premises where they have a reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed. My particular concern is around trafficking.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: With regard to these particular powers, the Hon. Clare Scriven has just referred to trafficking. Was she not at the same briefing that I was at, where SAPOL officers admitted that that would be a Border Force activity?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Sorry?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Were you not at the same briefing that I was at, where it was admitted that that would be a Border Force activity?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Indeed, but my understanding is that other aspects of criminal activity that might point to trafficking could be caught by this amendment.

New clause inserted.

Clause 21.

The CHAIR: We now come to clause 21, and there is some complexity. We have two amendments: amendment No. 24 [Scriven–1] and amendment No. 5 [Bourke–2]. Amendment No. 24 [Scriven–1] seeks to delete clause 21 and insert a new clause 21, which, in effect, deletes sections 25 and 25A of the Summary Offences Act. The current bill before us seeks to delete sections 25, 25A and 26.

Amendment No. 5 [Bourke–2], which was filed subsequently, seeks to delete clause 21 in its entirety, which means that it does not delete sections 25 and 25A of the Summary Offences Act and instead substitutes a new clause 26, which is in the body of the amendment. This means that there is some complexity in the questions I put. I would ask both members to move their amendments and talk to them. When we have finished the debate, I will have to construct what questions I put.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I move:

Amendment No 5 [Bourke–2]—

Page 6, lines 14 and 15—Delete clause 21 and substitute:

21—Substitution of section 26

Section 26—delete section 26 and substitute:

26—Dealing in proceeds of commercial sexual services

(1) A person who, directly or indirectly, engages in a transaction involving money or other property the person knows, or ought reasonably to know, to be the proceeds of commercial sexual services is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty:

In the case of a natural person—Imprisonment for 2 years.

In the case of a body corporate—$100,000.

(2) However, subsection (1) does not apply to—

(a) the sex worker who provided the commercial sexual service to which the proceeds relate; or

(b) a genuine dependant of the sex worker aged less than 25 years of age; or

(c) a person of a class, or in circumstances, prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph.

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to proceeds of commercial sexual services provided in accordance with this Act.

(4) For the purposes of this section, a reference to a transaction includes a reference to any of the following:

(a) receiving money or other property;

(b) being in possession of money or other property;

(c) concealing money or other property;

(d) disposing of money of other property.

This amendment keeps current legislation in place. Just to clarify, my amendment is the opposite of the Hon. Ms Scriven's. This amendment keeps current legislation in place for section 25 for soliciting and 25A for procurement of prostitution, which will continue to make it unlawful to loiter in a public place for the purpose of soliciting.

We have heard during this debate that there are currently approximately 20 sex workers engaging in street work in South Australia, predominantly on Hanson Road. Considering the current numbers engaging in street work, I see little reason to potentially expand this area of sex work. I would rather see the government of the day work with the 20 people engaging in street work and support them by other means.

By decriminalising street work, I feel that the safety and welfare of those who do not choose to be in the sex industry have been duly regarded. By removing sections 25 and 25A from the bill, the law would remain as it is under this section. I appreciate the concerns surrounding clause 26 under the Summary Offences Act, which makes it an offence to live off the earnings of a prostitute, which is within the current act. For this reason, my amendment goes on to update and modernise clause 26, dealing in proceeds of commercial sexual services to reflect the concept of lawful sex workers and the need to support their dependent family members.

I refer committee members to proposed new clause 26(2)(b). This line will exempt a genuine dependant of a sex worker aged less than 25 years of age from being deemed as benefiting from the proceeds of commercial sexual services. Subclause (c) would also reflect similar circumstances.

Section 26 prevents pimps and standover persons from benefiting from a sex worker. However, it creates a situation of a child unwillingly or helplessly breaking the law. I am trying to amend that by modernising the amendment of clause 26. This proposed section 26 honours and maintains a prohibition on pimps, while being updated to reflect the proposed lawful industry of sex work. I therefore move this amendment to keep street work unlawful.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Within this amendment there is a definition saying 'genuine dependant of the sex worker aged less than 25 years of age'. How is that 'genuine dependant less than 25 years of age' category arrived at? What precedence is it based on, and would it then criminalise an elderly parent of a sex worker living on the premises rent free?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I will determine that with parliamentary counsel. I note the member's legitimate concerns about what would happen in the situation of a carer. The age of 25 was created to support children, more so than reflecting a carer. I guess that was not determined under the dependency of the age being created of 25 years.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I raise that because it obviously occurred to me to ask: where did this genuine dependent concept come from? Certainly, my mother was determined to be a genuine dependant, as the carer for my brother when he passed away, under the law. That was because, in fact, she and he were in the same household and in many ways she was dependent on him, so when he passed away she did receive his superannuation. Are we criminalising parents with this definition?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: That certainly was not the intention of the bill and I will seek to see if an amendment can be made to address that issue.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Again, I indicate that I will not be supporting the amendment or the amended amendment because this is a licensing scheme attempting to be inserted into a decriminalisation scheme. In fact, the amendments that this one is contained with are actually longer than the bill we are currently debating: some 11 pages compared to an eight-page bill. What I suggest is that if the member is serious that this come before us as a licensing bill, because that is what it is, and not purport to be a decriminalisation bill.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I appreciate your feedback but we do not have a licensing bill before us today; we have the bill that you have introduced to this parliament. I am therefore seeking to provide amendments that I feel reflect the needs of protecting the community, and that would be by removing sex workers from the street and having other avenues where they can work lawfully—which would be in a brothel or a sex workers establishment, or in the residence of their own home. This is about removing sex workers from the street and having them work lawfully in another residence.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I rise to indicate that I will not be supporting the amendment. I do so because oftentimes in this debate we get hung up on what is before us in terms of the bill that we are debating and we forget the existence of what is going on all around us in terms of sex work for the last God knows how many years. People are performing sex work on the streets now.

The Hon. Ms Bourke, in her amendment, wants to seek to keep that criminalised, while we decriminalise other aspects of sex work. Inherently in that there are problems but if people are providing sex for money on the streets now currently when it is illegal, all that the Hon. Emily Bourke's amendment is going to do is to keep it illegal—it will not take people off the streets. They are there now. You, in leaving this proposition in the amendment, will not do anything to remove them from the streets.

It might provide a safer option in terms of working from home or in a small cottage industry but I can see absolutely no way that this will actually do what the Hon. Emily Bourke hopes it will do, which is to take sex workers off the street. They have been with us for a long time on the street; you are not doing anything in this proposition before us in this amendment to take them off the street, you are just saying they will still be illegal, they will still be criminalised, and that defeats the whole purpose of a decriminalisation bill and, therefore, I cannot support the amendment.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I do appreciate the Hon. Mr Hunter's concerns about this and I respect that he will not be supporting this amendment. However, there is a consideration that has not been given, and I appreciate that you are saying that it is already an unlawful act, but we are about to decriminalise sex work in South Australia. By doing so you are not having any limitations or anything within this bill about where you can perform sex work.

Yes, at the moment it might be predominantly in one area but by decriminalising this across the entire state would it not therefore be an opportunity to expand, because it is now not an unlawful act, it becomes a lawful act. That would be one reasoning. I also think that in the lower house there are many concerns being raised about this particular part of the bill. There is an issue that at a community level they would appreciate that we respect what the community would potentially think we should be doing in this house, and that is to provide a level of protection for the community. That is why I think sex workers should be removed from the street and they can work within a lawful residence.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I make the point that, in relation to this provision—and I stand to be corrected—this bill does nothing to take away from existing provisions that apply in relation to indecent behaviour, gross indecency and so forth. When we say that this could happen anywhere in the street, it cannot happen in a car park, it cannot happen on the street and it cannot happen on a beach because those instances are already offences under the existing legislation. So when we say that this can happen anywhere, I think that is pushing the envelope a little because we know already that this cannot happen anywhere.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: Thank you for your feedback. In previous committee discussions, we have had concerns raised about Hanson Road, for example, and that area needing to be addressed. I fear that if you say you cannot perform street work on Hanson Road but you could potentially do it elsewhere, I do not think that is a plausible answer either.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: With respect, Chair, the point I am making is that we are not watering down the existing laws and the existing penalties that apply. It may very well be that someone provides sexual services in a car park, but the fact of the matter remains that that is an offence under the existing laws, and this bill does nothing to detract from that.

We are not saying that having sex in the car park at the local supermarket after hours for cash is now going to be a legal activity. Indeed, I think we are saying the complete opposite of that. We are saying that you will continue to be subject to the existing offences that apply now. For the record, it is worth noting that to suggest merely that we are saying that you can have sex anywhere in the state, and that it is not going to be an offence, is not only false but it is misleading and incorrect.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I would like to clarify: I did not say that you would be able to have sex anywhere.

The Hon. C. Bonaros: Sex for money.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: Yes, well that is a very different thing to what you have just proposed. I am proposing that people are not soliciting on the street. I am not saying that they should be having sex on the street. I did not suggest that at any point, and I have not suggested that you have watered it down and said that people can have sex anywhere in South Australia.

What I am saying is that you should remove people from the street who solicit sexual services and have them provide sexual services within a lawful premises, which would be, therefore under this bill, a licensed sex establishment or within the residence of their own home. I did not for one instance say that people should be having sex in the street, and I did not say that that is what you were suggesting by this amendment.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I agree with the Hon. Tammy Franks, in that amendments Nos 5 and 6 from Ms Bourke effectively put in place a licensing regime. This parliament has had before it a clear choice for a number of years now: do we stay with the criminal model, do we do decriminalisation, do we take a licensing approach or do we pursue the Nordic approach? Every time it has come before this parliament I have said that I am open to other alternatives, but for years now the only option for reform that has been put before this parliament is decriminalisation.

As I have said in previous contributions, the fact that no alternative model has been brought forward suggests to me that, in spite of parliamentary contributions indicating attractions to other models, the proponents either do not believe in reform or do not believe that any other model is viable. I want to make it clear before I make any further comment that I will not be supporting the licensing aspects of what has been put forward by the Hon. Emily Bourke.

Having said that, I do share her concerns about public soliciting, street work and the like. It is disappointing to me that, in spite of what seems to be significant concern in the parliament, no consensus model to deal with that has come forward. It does not look as though it is going to happen in this house; it may well happen in the other. I will just indicate that, whilst I do not support a licensing model, I am open to matters that would help support public order.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Just to reiterate, going back to the contribution prior to the Hon. Mr Wade, the amendment that the Hon. Ms Bourke is moving is in relation to soliciting. The topic is whether we allow or do not allow soliciting anywhere and everywhere, which is the effect of the bill in its current form. I think I am not going to be alone in having great difficulty in looking at this amendment because on the one hand we need to weigh up community concerns.

We need to be mindful that people in areas where street soliciting is happening are being accosted, women are being accosted and girls are being accosted, and others. We have had statements that boys are being offered sexual services. All of those things are valid community concerns. However, on the other hand, I very much take the point that the women—mainly women—who are street soliciting are often the most vulnerable women in this sex trade industry. I have great concerns about them continuing to be criminalised when we are decriminalising every other aspect.

For the record, I will not be moving the amendment that was lodged in my name for two reasons: firstly, there was an error between what was lodged and what was my intent, and secondly, I do not think my amendment will sufficiently balance up what are two competing issues of valid community concerns and high vulnerability for the people who are street soliciting.

The CHAIR: So, the Hon. Ms Scriven, you are referring there to amendment No. 24 [Scriven-1]?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Correct. I will not be proceeding with amendment No. 24 [Scriven-1].

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I will be supporting the amendment of the Hon. Emily Bourke. As we know, there is a groundswell of support in the community to decriminalise sex work, but I think there is also a strong expectation from the community that they do not want to see soliciting on public streets or at events, or whatever. They are accepting of the fact that it happens, but I do not think they want to be overtly reminded of this industry and particularly where you have individuals who are essentially pushing these women out on the street and exploiting them.

It just so happened that I was having a coffee in Hindley Street in a well-known location last week, and I spotted one. I actually spotted this young pimp at work with this young girl, who actually did not look comfortable even being there. I was watching him and he went towards her a couple of times to encourage her to approach people in the street. Quite frankly, I do not understand why we need to allow this to be happening. The Hon. Tung Ngo has an amendment coming up as well that will be addressing this, so I guess that is going to be something that we need to go through. I think essentially the community would expect us to not allow this to be happening on the street.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I would like to clarify that this has nothing to do with the licensing scheme. This is a standalone amendment to say that we should be keeping the current laws in place that make soliciting unlawful. It is nothing to do with a licensing scheme.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I am going to support this amendment. I have had discussions with the Hon. Ms Bourke about this amendment, and I think there is a general understanding, and we have been told, that there are approximately 20-odd sex workers soliciting on the street. That is while it is unlawful; if we make it lawful, that could expand to 100, and who knows how far it will go. I have a concern because I find soliciting on a street a much more unsafe work practice and environment. I feel much more comfortable knowing that someone is working in a premises where there may be other people around or whatever.

The very thought that a person, probably a woman, could be on the street at 2 o'clock in the morning to be picked up by some person, who could be well intoxicated, and taken to a very dark and isolated place to deliver the service I find extremely dangerous. I spent my life improving work conditions for working people, and the very thought that I would be supporting something that puts a person in a potentially very dangerous situation is something I am not prepared to do, so I will be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I indicate for the record that I am not dismissive of the concerns that have been raised around soliciting, but I do not support these amendments. Indeed, if lower house members have concerns, as has been raised, and we do not support the alternative amendments that have been put to us today, then my suggestion to those lower house members would be that they can do some of the heavy lifting in this debate, that they can move alternative amendments to those that have been proposed here today and that we will have the opportunity to consider those in due course.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I want to place on the record the number of offences under the Summary Offences Act that currently address public nuisance and disorder matters—they already enable police to intervene and charge offenders—and they certainly are the ones that I would say should be addressing public order and nuisance. Under the Summary Offences Act, these include but are not limited to, section 6A, use or threat of unlawful violence against persons or property; section 7, disorderly or offensive conduct or language; sections 9A and 9B, supply of prohibited items, including drug paraphernalia; sections 17 and 17A, trespass; section 18, loitering; and section 23, indecent behaviour and gross indecency. They do all continue to exist.

What has also continued to exist for well over a century is that we have already criminalised street soliciting, and it has not worked. While it may be something that I think everyone in this council will agree with, that we do not actually want to see people on the streets, criminalising it has not worked. Some people do not have a home or a brothel they can work out of; they only have the street. By taking away the protections of decriminalisation with this street soliciting amendment, the homeless woman in the South Parklands, the opportunistic person, will then be subjected again to police entrapment, to being criminalised for commercial sex services—not for public nuisance and disorder as perhaps would be a better tool.

Certainly, they will not be given homes and supports, as they potentially should be, because by criminalising them we are actually not taking that approach. We are making them criminals. We are not offering them compassion with this measure.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: As stated in my opening comments, I would be more than happy for the government of the day to provide assistance for the approximately 20 people who engage in street work. Again, I appreciate your comments, but I do think that removing street workers from the streets and allowing them to work in a licensed premises or a brothel or a place of residence is an appropriate way to address the community's concern.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: At the risk of boring people with my opinion twice, I cannot for the life of me see how people in this place can kid themselves that keeping a criminalisation on the legislative book that has not worked for a hundred years is going to work into the future. This is legislation by wishful thinking. If you want to try to take people off the streets by keeping criminalisation on the statute book, you are just whistling Dixie: it ain't going to happen. Stop pretending that it will. Try to grapple with the issue that might come up with a better solution, but this will not be it.

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS: I will not be supporting the amendment for the reasons that the various speakers who are opposed to this amendment have already indicated.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Whilst I have some doubts about aspects of it, in the interests of endeavouring to keep this issue alive, I am going to support the amendment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: For the record, I will not be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I indicate that I will be supporting the amendment. I also indicate that I have some concerns, that is, that it is not perfect, but I think that it is an issue worth pursuing.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Certainly, I do not think that the amendment is perfect, but I would like to address some of the previous contributors' comments and ask: can we really compare what we are proposing here, including this amendment, with what we have had for the last hundred years? For the last hundred years, or whatever time period it has been—more than that, I suspect—there has been no option to work (to use the term) legally, so one would be a criminal working on the streets or one would be a criminal working in a brothel or from one's own home.

I think that the intent of the amendment is firstly to ensure that street soliciting does not increase so that it is not more of an issue. That speaks to the community concerns. I take the point that there are not going to be any options for those who are homeless, but I would point out that maybe we are addressing the wrong issue then. For those who are homeless and obviously have no economic stability whatsoever, are they freely choosing to be in prostitution? It comes back to some of the original problems with this bill. Is it a free choice, or is it their only option? Are they not given any other options? I think that is ideally where we should be addressing our attention.

I will be supporting this amendment, albeit with great reservations because of the vulnerability aspect, but I also think that it will be a different situation going forward because, if this bill becomes law, there will be options for people to be engaged in prostitution legally. Therefore, there may be more alternatives for those who are in street prostitution, and it will not increase street prostitution if this amendment is in.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I rise to indicate for the benefit of whether or not we have a division that I will not be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I will not be supporting this amendment.

The CHAIR: The first question I put is that clause 21 stand as printed. If you oppose the Hon. Ms Bourke's amendment, you will vote in the affirmative. If you support the Hon. Ms Bourke's amendment, you will vote in the negative. The question, again, is that clause 21 stand as printed; that is, it remains unchanged. If you support the Hon. Ms Bourke's position you will vote no, if you oppose the Hon. Ms Bourke's amendment you vote yes.

The committee divided on the clause:

Ayes 11

Noes 8

Majority 3

Clause thus passed.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Given that we are through that particular debate, I am going to move to report progress, as other members are aware. I think staff have been working without a break for 4½ hours. We have made good progress. There has been one division during the committee stage of the debate. Members have not been filibustering.

I think there are three issues remaining of some substance: advertising, the Hanson Road amendments and the licensing provisions. As I have done before, I indicate on behalf of the government that we are prepared to roll this over into tomorrow into government business time. I am advised that there is one bill of some substance, which is really in the hands of a couple of members in the opposition as to how long that takes. It should not take longer than an hour or so, but it is really in the hands of the leader, as I understand it, and one other member in terms of the time that takes, with the youth treatment orders.

There are two other issues: the Supply Bill, which I have a five-minute reply on, and encryption orders, which is just, as I understand it, the Legislative Council insisting on its position, which will be a five-minute job as well. Potentially, we could recommence the debate late tomorrow morning, given that we are starting at 11, but I am prepared to guarantee that, even if government business is not concluded in the morning, we would commence the discussion again straight after question time.

I am confident that we can finish the bill one way or another and have a third reading before dinner time tomorrow evening. I think that is a reasonable proposition to put on behalf of the staff and members. I therefore move:

That progress be reported.

The council divided on the motion:

Ayes 12

Noes 8

Majority 4

Progress thus reported; committee to sit again.