Bills

Statutes Amendment (Decriminalisation of Sex Work) Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 19 June 2019.)

New clause 21A.

The CHAIR: We have completed clause 21. We have a series of amendments that are seeking to insert additional clauses after clause 21 but before clause 22. The first one filed is amendment No. 25 [Scriven-1].

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The intention of this amendment was to ensure that where a person was receiving money in prostitution for herself only, as in a sole operator, but was supporting a dependent child up to the age of 25, the child would not be criminalised, with the intention that penalties for the exploiters would be retained. However, based on the outcome of discussions last night in this chamber, I will not proceed with that amendment. I would note, though, that it illustrates that there are amendments that can be made to address some of the issues in the current law without the full decriminalisation model but, based on the expressed will of the chamber in regard to some similar amendments, I will not be continuing with this one.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Maher–1]—

Page 6, after line 14—Insert:

21A—Insertion of section 26A

After section 26 insert:

26A—Review of decriminalisation of sex work etc

(1) The Attorney-General must cause a review to be undertaken of the operation of—

(a) this Act, to the extent that it was amended by the Statutes Amendment (Decriminalisation of Sex Work) Act 2019; and

(b) a provision of any other Act that was amended or inserted by the Statutes Amendment (Decriminalisation of Sex Work) Act 2019.

(2) The review and the report must be completed before the third anniversary of the commencement of this section.

(3) The Attorney-General must cause a copy of the report submitted under subsection (1) to be laid before both Houses of Parliament within 6 sitting days after receiving the report.

This amendment inserts a review clause, as oppositions tend to do. They find reviews very useful in a piece of legislation. This one in particular is a significant reform that we are proposing to make in passing this bill. It does change the way part of our society and a sector of our economy operates quite fundamentally, which I am very much in support of, but with such change I think it is appropriate that we do revisit and look at how the laws are operating, if they are operating as effectively and efficiently as they need to, particularly to protect people involved in this industry.

We have heard in this chamber, particularly from the Hon. Tammy Franks, that other jurisdictions, when they have enacted different models, have found, some very quickly, some over time, that they need to revisit them to make them work, depending on the reality of how it works in that jurisdiction. It is not being pedantic or anally retentive to want to put such a clause in. I think it is sensible to put in such a clause to have a review of the operation of this new scheme.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I indicate that I will be supporting this amendment. A review clause is indeed something that oppositions want to do, and it is very welcome in this case. I understand it is also welcomed by the government. I would hope that that review will be quite comprehensive and will address some of the issues that I raised last night in regard to police powers and this industry.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I indicate that I will be supporting the opposition's amendment.

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

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I will be supporting it, Chair.

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS: I will be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I will be supporting this amendment.

New clause inserted.

New clause 21B.

The CHAIR: We now come to amendment No. 26 [Scriven-1].

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: This amendment is in regard to what are colloquially called exit programs. This is an acknowledgement of the fact that there are many women who have expressed their experiences in a prostitution environment, in a decriminalised environment. As members who listened to my second reading contribution may recall, those experiences of women are often of severe abuse and many of the improvements that are supposed to come from decriminalisation certainly did not come in their circumstances. This is in acknowledgement of their voices. It intends that the minister will be required to put in place some programs to assist those people who want to leave prostitution.

I fully acknowledge that the amendment is not perfect. It is somewhat vague. As a member not in government, I cannot attach any dollar figures to it. I acknowledge that that is a limitation within this amendment. However, it is, nevertheless, important to support it because it starts the process of acknowledging that there are people, predominantly women, who are exploited, trapped, abused and who have post-traumatic stress disorder in a trade where PTSD rates are similar to those experienced by people in the armed forces in battle.

We are told that, under decriminalisation, women will be able to report to police more easily. Even if that does prove to be the case, that does not address any of the issues in terms of assistance to exit. The mover of the bill says that having the conviction spent will be of assistance to women exiting. Of course, not all women in the sex trade have convictions so that will not affect every woman by any means. In any case, it is only one very small part of assisting women who want to exit the sex trade. What is needed is support to be able to do that. I encourage members to support the amendment.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I rise to indicate my strong support for this amendment. Whilst I acknowledge that there will be some women in particular—I understand there are men as well, but largely women—involved in this business who are happy doing so, there are of course, I suggest, a not insignificant number who are not happy doing so and who would look for a way out if there were one.

In fact, my conversations with a few individuals who have found themselves in this line of work have indicated to me that if there was a way out, they would take it. That has been over an extended period, not in recent times, I would confess, but a number of years ago. It was my experience in talking with at least three women who were involved in the sex trade that they would seek to get out if they could. I also spoke with a couple of parents of young girls involved in the sex trade who were seeking to assist their daughters to leave the trade.

If we are serious about providing a framework that actually assists people, there will be those who do not want to leave—I accept that—but there certainly will be those who do. I think the Hon. Ms Scriven is quite right: this amendment probably is not perfect; maybe there is more work to be done in the other house or before the bill is proclaimed. This forms a good basis, I think, to acknowledge that there will be women in particular, probably some men as well, but especially women, looking to leave the trade. For that reason I support the amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I support this in principle. I ask the mover if she is willing to change the language—which I find demeaning and offensive and I know that many in the industry do as well—from 'a person who is engaged in prostitution', where that appears or 'who wishes to leave prostitution', where that appears, to reflect the decriminalisation model with the use of the term 'sex worker'.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: For the record, I will be supporting the opposition's amendment.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: To answer the Hon. Ms Franks' question, I would acknowledge that to change the language is certainly somewhat insulting to those women who consider that they have been in abuse. However, if that is the requirement to have support for this amendment, I think that the women who are experiencing this abuse and who are desperate to exit, would certainly prefer that there was some opportunity for an exit program to be set up, even if it did mean using the language that they object to. My question then is: is the Hon. Ms Franks proposing that amendment, and I ask, Mr Chairman, whether I should move it in amended form.

The CHAIR: I think probably the best course of action at this point in time is that you can actually amend your own motion, the Hon. Ms Scriven. I cannot ask the Hon. Ms Franks to speak on it, but if we could have some understanding of what words are and are not, and then we could probably frame a motion if that is to the concurrence of the council.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Thank you, Chair. You understood correctly, I did ask the honourable member to change her own amendment to reflect the more appropriate wording, and I think those words have been well canvassed in this debate.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Again, I appreciate the intention of the mover of the amendment and what she is trying to do here, but I have some significant concerns. One of them is to deal with the language, and I am very happy to see if she can change the language on the fly, but it is incompatible with determinations we have already made in terms of the clauses so far. I also have difficulty in plugging into a decriminalisation bill, if you like, something that is essentially a program that should be run by the government in another forum, not as part of legislation.

If the government wants to come forward with a program to do these things, that is good and proper, but this is a decriminalisation bill, and this is ancillary to it, and I do not think part of the process. Whilst we seem to be very free with our intentions in this debate, particularly this afternoon, I have to say the wording of the amendment is incredibly open-ended, and if I was in government and I was faced with such a proposition I would be concerned about what it might mean in terms of budgetary appropriation and programs.

As I say, I think it is more appropriate—and I will be opposing the amendment—that if the government wants to put in place schemes to address the issues raised by the amendment, then they should do that through appropriate programs, but not by putting addendums to a bill which is essentially meant to decriminalise the industry.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I will be opposing this amendment.

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS: I will be opposing this amendment.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: For the record, I think there is some merit in this amendment but I am mindful of the concerns that have just been outlined, particularly by the Hon. Mr Hunter, and I do wonder if we could get some clarification in relation to exactly what is being proposed and perhaps this is one of those amendments that we might give further consideration to between houses.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Certainly, I note those who have expressed support either for the amendment directly or for the intent. I will make some changes to the wording, but I will put on the record that the sole reason I will be making those changes is to assist the passage of the amendment because it is such an important one for the women who are being abused in the sex trade. If we then pass that amendment, obviously there is an opportunity between the houses for other amendments to be proposed for the lower house, but it will ensure at the very least that the voices of those women who want to exit the trade, who feel that they are trapped in it, who feel that they are exploited and abused, will be given some attention. I therefore seek leave to move it in an amended form.

The CHAIR: That is the easy way of doing it, because you actually have not moved the amendment. I suggest—but it is a matter for you—that you move the amendment standing in your name as amended by deleting the word 'prostitution' where it appears, and inserting in its place 'sex work'. That is my reading, but I am happy to be guided by honourable members. If that was moved, I think that achieves what the debate has been seeking; so if you move it in those terms.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am happy to move it in those terms. Do I need to therefore repeat that for the record?

The CHAIR: No, we will take it as read.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am happy to move it in those terms, as follows:

Amendment No 26 [Scriven–1]—

Page 6, after line 14—Insert:

21B—Insertion of section 26A

After section 26 insert:

26A—Minister to arrange assistance for persons leaving sex work

(1) A person who is engaged in sex work and who wishes to leave sex work may apply (without charge) to the Minister for assistance under this section to do so.

(2) An application under this section must be made in a manner and form determined by the Minister.

(3) On receipt of an application under this section, the Minister must cause such assistance as the Minister thinks appropriate to be offered to the applicant for the purposes of making their transition from sex work as easy as is reasonably practicable.

(4) Without limiting the kinds of assistance that may be offered to an applicant, such assistance may include 1 or more of the following:

(a) the provision of information about Government and other resources and services available to the applicant;

(b) the provision of education and training services;

(c) assistance in finding accommodation;

(d) assistance in finding employment;

(e) assistance in accessing legal advice and health services;

(f) counselling and support services.

(5) If an applicant accepts an offer of assistance, the Minister must take reasonable steps to provide such assistance, or cause such assistance to be provided, to the applicant.

(6) However, an offer of assistance under this section does not create legally enforceable rights or entitlements.

(7) In this section—

Minister means—

(a) if the regulations prescribe a Minister for the purposes of this definition—that Minister; or

(b) if the regulations do not prescribe a Minister for the purposes of this definition—the Attorney-General.

The CHAIR: Before I put the question, is there any more debate on that matter?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I have one final question, because the mover in the entire time has only referred to women. Will this also refer to men and trans members of our community?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The amendment says 'a person', so obviously it will apply to all people.

The CHAIR: The question is that new clause 21B, as proposed to be inserted by the Hon. C.M. Scriven, in this case as filed and then subsequently amended on the floor, be so inserted.

The committee divided on the new clause:

Ayes 11

Noes 8

Majority 3

New clause thus inserted.

The CHAIR: We now come to amendment No. 27 [Scriven-1], which seeks to insert a new 21C.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I will just draw to the attention of members that this was in relation to police powers and sought to ensure that while police would retain powers they would not have been able to enter a sole operator house unless there was underage prostitution or exposure to children and underage prostitution suspected. However, given the passage of the amendment to police powers that proceeded last night, I will not proceed with this amendment.

Clause 22.

The CHAIR: We are now on clause 22 and there is an amendment filed. In fact, there are two amendments filed: the first one is amendment No. 1 [Ngo-1] and then amendment No. 6 [Bourke-2].

The Hon. T.T. NGO: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Ngo–1]—

Page 6, lines 15 and 16—Delete clause 22 and substitute:

22—Substitution of Part 6

Part 6—delete Part 6 and substitute:

Part 6—Restrictions on provision of commercial sexual services

Division 1—Preliminary

27—Interpretation

In this Part—

commercial sexual service 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;

council area, in relation to a local council, means the area for which the local council is constituted under the Local Government Act 1999;

local council means a council constituted under the Local Government Act 1999;

payment includes any form of consideration;

premises includes a part of a premises;

restricted area means an area declared to be a restricted area under section 29;

sex worker means a person who provides commercial sexual services.

Division 2—Provision of commercial sexual services near certain premises prohibited

28—Offence to use premises for purposes of sex work near certain kinds of premises

(1) An owner or occupier of premises must not provide, or cause or permit the provision of, commercial sexual services at the premises if the premises are located within the prescribed distance from protected premises.

Maximum penalty: $5,000 or imprisonment for 3 months.

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

(a) in relation to premises that first become protected premises after the owner or occupier of particular premises has commenced providing, or causing or permitting the provision of, commercial sexual services at the premises; or

(b) to an owner or occupier of premises who causes or permits the provision of commercial sexual services at the premises if—

(i) the sexual services are only provided to the owner or occupier; or

(ii) the sexual services are provided to another person and the owner or occupier is genuinely acting in the course of their duties as a carer (however described) for that person; or

(c) in any other circumstances prescribed by the regulations.

(3) In proceedings for an offence against subsection (1), it is a defence for the defendant to prove that the defendant did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to have known, that particular premises were protected premises.

(4) In proceedings for an offence against subsection (1), it is not necessary for the prosecution to establish that—

(a) a service of a kind referred to in the definition of protected premises was, in fact, being provided at the protected premises at the time of the alleged offence; or

(b) that a child or other person was, in fact, at the protected premises at the time of the alleged offence.

(5) In this section—

Adelaide central business district means the area of the City of Adelaide bounded—

(a) on the north by the southern alignment of North Terrace; and

(b) on the south by the northern alignment of South Terrace; and

(c) on the east by the western alignment of East Terrace; and

(d) on the west by the eastern alignment of West Terrace;

child care centre means premises in which more than 4 young children are, for monetary or other consideration, cared for on a non-residential basis apart from their parents or guardians;

prescribed distance, from protected premises, means—

(a) if the protected premises are located within the Adelaide central business district—50 m; or

(b) in any other case—100 m;

protected premises means premises that are regularly used—

(a) as a child care centre; or

(b) to provide kindergarten, preschool, primary school or secondary school services; or

(c) to conduct religious services; or

(d) to provide any other class of service declared by the regulations to be included in the ambit of this definition, but does not include a home school, a private residence or any other premises of a kind excluded by the regulations from the ambit of this definition.

Division 3—Restricted areas

29—Declaration of restricted area

(1) Subject to this section, the Attorney-General may—

(a) on an application by a local council made in a manner and form determined by the Attorney-General; or

(b) on the recommendation of the Commissioner; or

(c) on the Attorney-General's own motion, by notice in the Gazette, declare a defined area comprised of 1 or more public places to be a restricted area for a period, or periods, specified in the declaration.

(2) A local council may only apply for a declaration of a restricted area within the council area of that local council.

(3) The Attorney-General may only make a declaration in relation to an area under subsection (1) if satisfied that—

(a) sex workers regularly loiter, or solicit persons, in the area for the purpose of providing commercial sexual services; and

(b) there is a reasonable likelihood that such conduct, or other conduct relating to the provision of such services, is adversely affecting, or is likely to adversely affect, public use or enjoyment of the area; and

(c) the declaration of the area is a reasonable response to the adverse effect on public use or enjoyment of the area.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (3)(b), the conduct referred to in that paragraph—

(a) need not be that of a sex worker providing commercial sexual services in the area; and

(b) may, but need not, amount to a risk to public order and safety.

(5) The Attorney-General must cause notice of a declaration under this section to be published on a website determined by the Attorney-General to which the public has access free of charge.

(6) The Attorney-General may, by subsequent notice in the Gazette, vary or revoke a declaration made under subsection (1).

30—Offence to provide commercial sexual services in restricted area

(1) A person who provides a commercial sexual service in a restricted area is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: $2,500.

(2) A person who—

(a) accosts or solicits a person in a restricted area for the purpose of providing commercial sexual services; or

(b) loiters in a restricted area for the purpose of providing commercial sexual services, is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: $2,500.

31—Police officer may order certain persons to leave restricted area

(1) If a person is in a restricted area, or a group of persons is assembled in a restricted area, and a police officer suspects on reasonable grounds that—

(a) the conduct of the person, or of 1 or more of the persons in the group, is adversely affecting, or is likely to adversely affect, public use or enjoyment of the area; or

(b) an offence of a kind that may pose a risk to public order and safety has been, or is about to be, committed by the person, or by 1 or more of the persons in the group, the police officer may order that person, or persons in that group, to leave the restricted area.

(2) However, subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a person who resides, or is lawfully employed, in the restricted area.

(3) A person who, having been ordered to leave a restricted area under this section—

(a) remains in the restricted area; or

(b) re-enters, or attempts to re-enter, the restricted area during the following 24 hours, is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: $2,500.

(4) If a person fails to leave a restricted area when ordered to under subsection (1), or re-enters a restricted area in contravention of subsection (3)(b), a police officer may use reasonable force to remove the person from the restricted area.

Division 4—Prohibition on advertising commercial sexual services

32—Prohibition on advertising commercial sexual services

(1) A person must not advertise the provision of commercial sexual services.

Maximum penalty: $2,500.

(2) An owner or occupier of premises must not cause or permit a person to advertise, at or on the premises, the provision of commercial sexual services.

Maximum penalty: $2,500.

(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to an advertisement or other action of a kind prescribed by the regulations.

(4) For the purposes of this section, a person advertises the provision of commercial sexual services if the person—

(a) places or displays a sign in, or that is visible from, a public place that promotes the provision of commercial sexual services; or

(b) distributes to the public any unsolicited leaflet, handbill or other document, that promotes the provision of commercial sexual services.

(5) In this section—

sign includes a painted or printed sign, lettering, image, signboard or visual display screen.

Division 5—Miscellaneous

32A—Power of police to enter premises used for commercial sexual services

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.

I move, in an amended form, that only divisions 1, 2 and 3 be voted on; divisions 4 and 5 I want to be withdrawn. So it is only divisions 1 to 3. I have also been told that I need to move the whole lot, divisions 1, 2 and 3, but I am able to, hopefully, speak on them separately and vote on them separately.

The CHAIR: You can do that. Just so that I understand: you are moving as your filed amendment, amendment No. 1 [Ngo-1] which deletes clause 22 and inserts a substitute clause. In that substitute clause as filed there are a number of divisions. You do not intend to pursue divisions 4 and 5 as filed, but you also wish me to put the question per division.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: That is correct, yes, so that honourable members get an opportunity to vote on them separately, not as a whole.

The CHAIR: I will just get some clarification on the sequencing of amendments. Just to set the scene: we have two amendments, and the Hon. Mr Ngo has indicated how he wishes the question to be put in relation to his amendment. We also have amendment No. 6 [Bourke-2]. Both amendments seek to remove clause 22 and place other clauses in the body of the bill. Both sets of amendments, in the sense of the clauses they are both seeking to insert in the body of the bill, are not mutually exclusive.

After the debate I will be putting the question, so that we know where we are going to end up, that clause 22 stands. That means that, if you do not like either the Bourke amendment or the Ngo amendment, you will vote yes because you want clause 22 to stand. But if you either want one or both of them, you must vote no because you want 22 out. I am giving you the landing point before we start the debate. How I propose to go forward is that I think we need an understanding of the Hon. Mr Ngo's amendment but also the Hon. Ms Bourke's so that a decision can be made by members whether they want 22 to remain in. Does anyone object to that course of action?

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: No for Ngo.

The CHAIR: And no for Bourke.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: And no for Bourke.

The CHAIR: We do not necessarily need to have the Hon. Ms Bourke move her amendments at this point in time. The Hon. Mr Ngo, you can speak to your amendments, please.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: New section 28 really tries to restrict a brothel from operating too close to certain premises. I have certain premises, such as childcare centres, religious places and schools. I have set the CBD around 50 metres and metropolitan areas 100 metres. I think it is a fair compromise because, at the end of the day, I believe some of those premises need some kind of protection from a brothel operating too close to them. I believe it is a reasonable distance—I am not asking too much.

This clause also protects an existing brothel from, say, a new childcare centre or new place of worship coming in after them and then requesting the brothel move away. It protects an existing brothel from being asked to move because it is too close to a school. It also deals with a number of unintended consequences, such as if a residence is being used for some kind of sexual services due to a person having a disability, in which case it is exempt. To cut it short, proposed section 28 is really to restrict brothels from operating too close to an existing school, childcare facility or other premises which are outlined clearly in the definition.

Division 3 contains proposed section 29—Declaration of a restricted area. Proposed sections 29, 30 and 31 deal with the issues I consider very important, since the council last night passed the provision to allow street sex workers. Proposed section 29 allows the Attorney-General to declare an area—it could be a road or a place like Rundle Mall—a restricted area in terms of public soliciting at the request of the police commissioner or a local council.

There is no strict period, and I am not specifying any area in this clause. I know some honourable members thought I was adding Hanson Road in there, but I am not. I am leaving it up to the Attorney-General of the day to decide, based on whatever advice he or she has, to declare whether any area is appropriate for public soliciting or not.

This provision activates tools for the Attorney-General to use. It may never be used; however, at least it is there. We do not know how the street sex worker provision that we voted on last night will operate in five or 10 years' time, but I just thought it would be great for the Attorney-General, at the end of the day, to have that ability to restrict an area if it causes some nuisance. I will just read out some of the conditions under which a restricted area can be declared. I have:

(a) sex workers regularly loiter, or solicit persons, in the area for the purpose of providing commercial sexual services; and

(b) there is a reasonable likelihood that such conduct, or other conduct relating to the provision of such services, is adversely affecting, or is likely to adversely affect, public use or enjoyment of the area; and

(c) the declaration of the area is a reasonable response to the adverse effect on public use or enjoyment of the area.

Proposed section 30 just outlines the penalties. In terms of proposed section 31, once the Attorney-General signs off, a police officer may order a certain individual to leave the restricted area for 24 hours. If a police officer suspects on reasonable grounds that the conduct of an individual is adversely affecting or is likely to adversely affect public use or enjoyment of the area, then they can be ordered to leave. Also, if an offence of a kind that may pose a risk to public order and safety has been or is about to be committed by a person or group of people, then an officer can order them to leave, so it is not necessarily about public soliciting.

Proposed section 31 also addresses some of the potential unintended consequences. It states in subsection (2) that if a sex worker lives in the area, then he or she is protected and this clause does not apply to them. It also allows the police officer to use reasonable force to remove someone if they refuse to leave. That is the bulk of my two amendments.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I want to address division 2, which relates to what we know in the trade as separation distances. I will start by saying that the concept of separation distances is not unknown in regulatory regimes. The EPA famously publish a list of separation guidelines where they say, for example, that you should not build houses closer than one kilometre, I think it is, to an abattoir. The reason is that abattoirs are pretty smelly places and if you build a house close to a smelly place, clearly it is going to cause nuisance and it is going to create problems.

The concept of separation distances is not unknown. What is, I think, almost unknown is to arbitrarily try to second guess the impacts that might arise from a certain activity and to entrench separation distances in an act of parliament. Let's go back to first principles. The idea of a separation distance is that you have an activity that causes a problem. It causes a nuisance, it causes traffic snarls, it causes noise pollution or whatever, then you try to have some separation distance from what they often call a sensitive receptor, which is most commonly a residential property. That is the concept of how it has worked.

Where this division fails, I think, is that it is arbitrary. There is no wriggle room and no room for variation. It makes some assumptions and I think the number one assumption is that every place that is used for commercial sex work will cause a nuisance, that it will be noisy and that it will create traffic snarls. Light spill is another one. You often get people opposing ovals putting up light towers because they are worried about light spill. So there is some assumption that a premises used for commercial sex work will create a nuisance.

As we discussed for several hours last night, some of the places we are talking about are private homes. They are private homes where a room in that home might be used for commercial sex work. I think it misses the target by assuming nuisance value will associate with every premises used for commercial sex services. That is the first thing.

The second thing is that what we call the sensitive receptors are limited to childcare centres, kindergartens, schools, churches, places where religious services are conducted or anything else the government can think of and put in regulation. I find that quite a perplexing list. If we take kindergartens, for example, and we take the honourable member's separation distance of 100 metres, what we could be looking at is a premises that is a private home that might be used for the provision of commercial sexual services. It could be 100 metres away in a different street from the kindergarten with no common point of access.

They might be one-way streets: access to the kindergarten is one street and access to the house is on another street. There might be, in a practical sense, absolutely zero interaction between those two premises. It makes no sense at all to have an arbitrary rule like that, which is why I said last night that the proper way to manage these things is by using existing town planning principles and, on a case-by-case basis, work out what type of land use might be incompatible with another type of land use.

I think that what is at the heart of this, whether the honourable member will concede this or not, is more the idea. It is the idea that you know something is going on in that premises down the road. You know that something you do not like is happening. It is called commercial sex work. Otherwise, I cannot see what the connection is with a place conducting religious services. Unless there is some notion that the commercial sex premises are going to be interrupting the church service, in all likelihood it is more likely to be the other way around. I do not pretend to have done acoustic testing at brothels or places providing sexual services, but I have been past some noisy churches. There are people singing, they are worshipping, they are making noise.

I think what is at the heart of this is that there will be people—people of faith, people who strongly disagree with commercial sexual services—and it is in their heads that they do not like what is going on 100 metres from those premises. That is what this is about. It has nothing to do with there being a real, live, proven nuisance impact from one activity to the other. I think it makes no sense at all.

Whilst I am not saying that every property that might be used for commercial sexual services is appropriately located next to every other property, whether it is a school or a house or a kindergarten or whatever—I am not saying that—but you certainly do not try to say in legislation, 'This is the rule,' because the rule does not make any sense. You have to look at it on a case-by-case basis.

It may well be that, when the decriminalisation regime goes through, council start looking at their industrial estates and start thinking, 'Yes, that's a good spot.' They might have different rules in relation to the size of operations, if it is in a person's house and it is not interfering with anybody else. I can think of other businesses that I would like next to me less than I would like a home where a neighbour was offering sexual services—a doctor's surgery, with cars coming and going; a takeaway food outlet, with cars coming and going. There are lots of land uses that would be far more disturbing to a person's residential amenity than the places that are sought to be regulated under this amendment.

Like I say, I will be generous enough to say the concept of separation distances is not unknown to the South Australian planning system. It is inappropriate to try to put it in legislation, and it needs to be evidence-based and focused on what exactly is the nuisance that is sought to be overcome. This is too crude a tool to actually achieve the result that I think the member wants.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: This is a question for the mover of the amendment arising out of the Hon. Mr Parnell's statements. My understanding, and perhaps the member could confirm, is that in regard to section 29(3), the Attorney-General could only make a declaration if indeed there were adverse effects on public use or enjoyment of the area. Rather than simply saying, 'I don't like what is happening around the corner', the Attorney-General could only make declaration if indeed there was a problem. Is that a correct understanding?

The Hon. M.C. Parnell: It's the next division; that is division 3. I just addressed division 2.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am going to support the amendment in an endeavour to keep it alive. I think this is the sort of amendment that lower house members are going to be particularly interested in. I expressed my views on the second reading—that is, I believe there will be a lot of local communities and a lot of local members who represent their local communities, who will say, 'I don't want a large or medium-scale brothel operating next door to a childcare centre. I do not want a medium or large-scale brothel operating next to the primary school.' I think and I hope that a number of local members representing their local communities will take up the battle in relation to this particular issue.

I think there are some issues in relation to the right distance—the premises that are to be protected, I guess, or given this special designation, are they the only ones that should be or are there other definitions? I read the amendment differently to the way the Hon. Mr Parnell has read the amendment, I must admit. He has made great play of the fact that it could be a private home. But as I read the definition of 'protected premises', it says 'does not include a…private residence or any other premises of a kind excluded by the regulations'.

It seems pretty clear to me that the sort of example the Hon. Mr Parnell was referring to is actually a bit of a furphy used by the Hon. Mr Parnell to try to deflect attention in relation to the true intent of the mover's amendment. That is fair enough. The Hon. Mr Parnell is not supporting amendments to the legislation, and he can interpret the amendments. I think, to be fair, the amendment is pretty clear. It does exclude a private residence, and the sort of example that the Hon. Mr Parnell was talking about is not accurate, in my view.

I do think that these sorts of issues are difficult, and ultimately I would accept there is probably a better way of drafting something along these lines, but this is an endeavour to keep this issue alive and to put a flag in the sand to lower house members to say that there are at least some members in this chamber who actually do believe that the notion of trying to stop a full-scale brothel next to a childcare centre or a primary school is a cause worth fighting for.

Should we be unsuccessful in the Legislative Council, I hope there will be a full-scale debate in the House of Assembly, because it is House of Assembly members who are going to be answerable to their local constituents should the end result of this be great concern from a local community when a full-scale operating brothel is approved right next to a childcare centre or, indeed, a church or a primary school.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I did make a reasonable contribution, and if the honourable Treasurer had not challenged my legal analysis, I would not have jumped up. Where he is wrong is that where it says the words, 'does not include a home school, a private residence or any other premises of a kind excluded by regulations' that is from the definition of 'protected premises'. That is nothing to do with the definition of the place in which the sexual services are provided, which can be a private home.

Basically, what it is saying is, if we use the example of the school, you cannot operate the sex work premises within 100 metres of the school, but if the school is a home school, that does not count. That is really what the definition says. I just want to make sure members clearly understand that. The way this is crafted is that a person would be subject to a $5,000 fine or three months' imprisonment for undertaking sex work in a private home that just happens to be within 100 metres of a church, that might only meet on Sunday mornings and that is in a different street, and the people attending both premises never even pass in the street or anywhere else. That is a consequence of this.

I know the Treasurer said, 'Let's just keep the idea alive.' I do not think that there is enough merit in this to keep it alive at all, because I think it is the wrong tool. These separation distances do not belong in an act of parliament. They belong in a case-by-case look, mostly done at the local council level. Let's look at each case on its merits. These arbitrary rules make no sense at all and, as I say, they do not meet that threshold test of nuisance, because whilst the Treasurer can talk about these massive brothels, presumably with huge car parks and lots of people coming and going, they equally cover a single person operating part time from a private home. I just do not think that it belongs in the legislation at all. I certainly will not be supporting division 2.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The Hon. Mr Parnell has stolen my thunder, in a much more eloquent manner than I could possibly have talked about. I just wanted to raise the same issues. The Treasurer talked about large-scale brothels and medium-scale brothels being built next door, but the bare wording of this amendment also applies to small home-based sex work establishments as well.

My concern about such a rigid set of rules being put in place in this legislation is that effectively it will mean there will not be an ability to conduct sex work almost anywhere, certainly not in the City of Adelaide and certainly not, probably, in most of the places where it currently is being conducted, notwithstanding the fact that the Hon. Mr Tung Ngo has a provision in there to grandfather existing places of sex work, I think, as I read it.

The Treasurer spoke about the exclusion 'but does not include a home school, a private residence' etc. The Hon. Mr Parnell talked about that. My concern is paragraph (d), which provides 'any other class of service declared by the regulations to be included in the ambit of this definition'. Yes, a childcare centre is included; yes, kindergartens, preschools, primary schools, secondary schools are included; places for religious services are included; and then you have paragraph (d), which provides 'any other class of service declared by the regulations to be included in the ambit of this definition'.

Forgive me for being a sceptic, but if I am drafting legislation to decriminalise sex work and there is an ability to put into a regulation that sex work cannot be conducted within 50 metres or 100 metres of any other class of service declared by regulations, then effectively, I think, you do not have decriminalisation of sex work. For that reason, I will be voting to keep clause 22 as it stands.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I will be voting in support of the Hon. Tung Ngo's motion. I support the views of the Hon. Rob Lucas in terms of the manner in which this amendment has been drafted. In terms of what the Hon. Mark Parnell says, I think the intent of the Hon. Tung Ngo's amendment is to actually prevent a place becoming a nuisance. It is not to say that they are a nuisance and we do not want them here. As the Hon. Rob Lucas pointed out, there will be people who will probably support and who are in support of decriminalising sex work but who would prefer that it not be in the types of areas that the Hon. Tung Ngo has indicated.

The other part of his amendment is the restricted areas, which again I fully support, particularly in light of the move last night where, if this bill is passed by both houses, street work will be allowed. I can see that, once that does happen, there will be a stronger visible presence of street workers than we actually see now. If it is going to be legal, we are going to see a very strong presence and this amendment actually safeguards areas, events or places where families and others gather and they would want to be able to control the activities that go on there.

The aspect of the increase in streetwalkers and pimps has been further confirmed today by an interview on ABC's AM. I do not know whether my colleagues have heard this, but Abul Rizvi, former deputy secretary of the immigration department, says that there has been a tripling of numbers of those who have arrived on planes—something like 60,000—mostly from China and Asia, on temporary visas who then have applied for asylum.

The issue there, apparently, has been that many of these people have been exploited by dodgy labour hire operators, putting many of these people into underpaid work. Another aspect that was highlighted by Abul Rizvi was that a great number of them actually find themselves forced into sex work. They were highlighting the fact that human trafficking is happening, it is happening right under our noses, it is quite significant and it has been on the increase for some time.

I can imagine that, once sex work has been legalised and we have the ability for sex workers to use the streets, we are also going to see many of these people who are being forced into sex work probably being forced into that kind of work there. So it has been confirmed, and by official sources, that human trafficking is actually happening. It is happening at quite an extensive level, to a worrying level, where a federal department is so concerned about it that it has gone public and released these figures.

You may recall that in my second reading speech I highlighted the account of a person who came to see me, who has been conducting his own intelligence in the city at various locations, and he has reported to the police—he has also been in contact with some of these people who have been engaged in sex work—that they are coming here, either on these temporary visas or tourist visas and then overstaying and seeking a protection visa, basically to extend the time that they are here, and then either being coerced or going into sex work. It is obvious that it is happening and I would imagine that it would happen in the areas that the Hon. Tung Ngo has mentioned, in the city and the CBD. So I think there is merit in his amendment.

I do not share the same views as the Hon. Mark Parnell in relation to the distance from churches and childcare centres, and that you cannot have an arbitrary figure. I think if a person is going to carry out legal sex work, once this bill is passed, they need to be mindful of where they are going to conduct their business. If they live in a place or they rent a place that is within a childcare centre, a church, a place of worship, a kindergarten or a school, I think they are going to have to go and look for somewhere else to ply their trade because I do not think the community is going to be accepting of it. In saying that, I will be supporting the Hon. Tung Ngo's amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I will not canvass the areas around planning and local government because I think my colleague Mark Parnell has done that quite admirably, very honourably indeed. What I would say on that topic, however, is that the New South Wales experience has had teething problems, absolutely, but we have a lot to learn from their experience. I think in these next few weeks and months, there is an opportunity to engage more fully with councils, and I would hope that that will be undertaken.

I do believe that, while the Hon. Tung Ngo is being well-meaning with these amendments with regard to that, they are a blunt tool and they are not the tool at the moment that is actually the way forward, but the conversation is certainly one to be had. While I will be opposing, I certainly do not see that I need to support that amendment to keep this issue alive because this issue will be well and truly alive in the other place.

On the declared public precincts and restricted areas, I commend the Hon Tung Ngo for being quite open and transparent with his intention that he does not want to see sex work on Hanson Road. At that point, I want to talk about what happens to sex workers on Hanson Road. I have actually raised this before, Chair, but it was in fact before your day and so I refresh members' memories, for those who were around in 2010, but perhaps provide a new insight for other members of this council and, indeed, the public.

The ANZAC Day long weekend of 2010 saw the 'Anzac long weekend hooker catch and release game' encouraged on Facebook. A group of some 241 members were encouraged to taunt and harass street workers and record their antics on Facebook. The game was created and promoted by a founder of another sex worker hate site 'Hooker spotting on Hanson Road'. That Facebook group at the time had some 1,000 members. Sex workers that weekend were abused and harassed. They had eggs, rocks and beer bottles thrown at them. One member of the game even claimed that he squirted chilli sauce in the face of the worker. Quoted on Facebook, he wrote:

I couldn't help myself the game was quite appealing, Did 1 game of catch and release at 11.30pm fri but added a part i like to call spray the bitch with chilli sauce lol. Petrol = $20 Bottle of squeezable chilli sauce = $3.45. The look ya get when ya spray em in the face wid chilli sauce = Priceles…

One sex worker was badly bruised when she was hit in the chest by a marble thrown from a car. Another sex worker was cut and bruised by a full bottle of beer hurled straight at her. Both had been also pelted with eggs. Sex worker Sophie was quoted in response in The Advertiser:

We knew the attacks were on the cards over the weekend because a few of us saw it on Facebook…There were more idiots out than normal. We're easy targets. These idiots don't see us as someone's sister, daughter or mother, they just see us as whores.

Or, indeed, prostitutes. Well, I see these sex workers as workers and people, and I see Hanson Road as a problem that does not need a criminalising solution because when you criminalise these people you make them victims of crime.

In terms of the amendment the honourable member brought today, in regard to a declared public precinct, it does differ from the current operations of a declared public precinct in that it continues to criminalise sex work itself. It does not focus on the public order and nuisance provisions that are currently available under current laws. I note that, where the declared public precincts currently exist, it is indeed the police commissioner who asked the former attorney-general for these powers and the Attorney-General that grants these powers.

I strongly oppose this amendment in this form, but I do also put on record that is my understanding that both the Attorney-General and the police commissioner oppose this amendment. Could the Hon. Tung Ngo or any other member of the committee please provide me with clarity on that?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes, Mr Chair, I am happy to advise that that is the case. I have received advice from the Attorney-General's office. In relation to restricted areas, they are similar in concept to declared public precincts. I will attempt to read from my phone.

The CHAIR: Be careful what you do, the Hon. Ms Lensink.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: In relation to declared public precinct legislation, this was:

…enacted to maintain public order and safety in a defined area for which there is an apprehended level of danger to personal safety or property for a specific period or periods.

There must be an apprehension of danger to personal safety and property in the precinct and the declaration is warranted to ensure public order and safety. At present, SAPOL are required to clearly articulate recommendations to the Attorney-General on the establishment of a DPP with regard to the heightened risk to public order and safety to persons using the specified public space during that specified time.

The amendment would legislate for that being sufficient ground for declaring a public precinct, bearing in mind that we are talking about restricted areas. The explanation continues:

Sex workers operate fluidly across various areas depending on the time of day and associated offence in the vicinity. Sex workers would simply work adjacent to the declared area. They could cross a street and operate outside the declared area. SAPOL's position is that a DPP is not 'fit for purpose' for sex work. The declaration of an area for sex workers would also potentially affect all other persons using the area without their knowledge or participation.

The proposed amendment would allow a Council to apply for a DPP. This would create the potential for dozens of DPP's across the metropolitan and regional areas of varying sizes affecting varying population sizes. SAPOL's position is that this concept is operationally unworkable. Similarly, the reporting obligations contemplated by the amendment are too onerous for SAPOL to administer.

Clearly, SAPOL do not support this amendment and the Attorney's office has advised me that neither does she. If I can try to paraphrase: part of the reason is that it is going to delete the existing use of those precincts and police would find that there are too many loopholes. I think the best approach to this would be for consideration to be given between the houses and amendments, as appropriate, adopted in the House of Assembly.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I would like to follow on from the remarks of the Hon. Michelle Lensink and echo both elements of the contribution of the Hon. Rob Lucas and the Hon. Michelle Lensink, in that I think there is a lack of consensus here on models that deal with issues such as street work and, shall we say, the proximity of premises. Considering that the other place has both the Minister for Police and the Attorney-General in the one chamber, and considering, shall we say, the particular interest of House of Assembly members about the impacts within their local communities, I will not be supporting this amendment, but I do express my interest in further consideration of these issues by the house.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: With all due respect to some of the comments that have been made, including those of my colleague in support, I have to say that I am not even brave enough to challenge the analysis that the Hon. Mark Parnell provided today, despite the Hon. Tung Ngo's best intentions. However, I am keen once again to let the lower house do some of the heavy lifting that we have alluded to and consider some alternatives and, indeed, to hear back from councils in relation to this same issue.

I want to make one point in relation to the nuisance issue, and perhaps I could give an example. That is, for a number of years I frequented one of my local ethnic supermarkets in the western suburbs. It was a small family business and I probably visited there for about five or six years before somebody said to me, 'Do you realise that there's a brothel next door?' I said, 'Where?' They said, 'That place right there,' and so I was caught by surprise. Indeed, an amazing little French bakery then opened in the adjoining building to the brothel, so they were effectively connected by a wall. I continued to visit that French bakery for as long as it was there. I can say without hesitation that on not one occasion—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I never visited the brothel if that is what the honourable member is asking, but I can say without hesitation—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Ironically, it was next door to a bakery. I can say without hesitation that I never once witnessed a sex worker and I never once witnessed any disruption for any of the tenants in that little group of shops and commercial entities that I have alluded to. As I have said before, and I will say again, the western suburbs—my neck of the woods and I understand that it is also the Hon. Tung Ngo's neck of the woods—is peppered with brothels, but you would not know unless you went looking for them. I know I have said it on the record before that I did go looking for them and I found them but not because they were causing a nuisance or any sort of disruption. They are there, they are going about their business and they are not impacting anybody.

For those reasons, and while I appreciate the intent behind the amendments, I am also not supportive of this amendment, certainly not in this form. I am also extremely mindful of the advice that has been provided—formally or informally—by the Attorney but also by SAPOL, and so on that basis I will not be supporting this amendment but I certainly welcome any further developments that transpire between the houses.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I will be relatively brief. I think members have had a good say on this one but there are just a few points I would like to pick up on. The first one is that a number of members have mentioned that the lower house members will be particularly interested in this issue and I think that is absolutely right. In fact, just today, while I was in the Blue Room quickly grabbing some lunch, I was approached by two of them randomly. I had not discussed this issue with them previously, and their interest was in exactly this issue; that is, where can these premises be and where can't they be essentially?

There is interest in this issue, particularly for lower house members. They, in a sense, because their seats are much smaller, can be argued to be closer to their constituency, and the exact location of these sorts of premises are certainly of interest to at least two of them—that much I can confirm. They are to me, too. I think a number of people will have a strong feeling, rightly or wrongly, that these sort of premises, brothels or otherwise, are best located not near certain other premises, as the Hon. Mr Ngo has outlined in his amendment. I am broadly supportive of that approach.

Turning to the comments of the Hon. Mr Parnell, he made some valid points, as he usually does, but one of the major points on which I would differ with him is, by the very nature of the sort of sexual services being sold in these premises, it often but not always can occur late or very late at night or in the early hours of the morning. That is not exclusive to this business; of course, you have some fast food venues that operate 24 hours a day as well, but these sort of things tend to happen in the evening, late at night, maybe even in the early hours of the morning.

Despite the other reasons that I would support for having restrictions on where they can or cannot be, I think that alone means they have the potential to cause greater disruption than a bakery, for example, or a church, as the Hon. Mr Parnell used as an example. I am conscious that people can come and go from these sort of premises all hours of the day and night, and that can cause disruption, as just one example of the potential for disruption.

Turning to the amendment itself, I agree with the general commentary, namely, this is not a perfect amendment at all. I mean no criticism of the Hon. Mr Ngo, but there are a number of issues in here that I will not go through now but I have outlined on my reading of it will pose questions that will need to be answered before this bill passes into law.

Briefly, proposed section 28(1) talks about the owner of the premises. Does that include landlords, for example? I presume it does. There are questions. We do not want landlords pulled into these things if things are happening on their premises that they know nothing about; they should not be punished. There are questions about people sharing a home, for example, in subsection (2)(b). The distances, as the Hon. Mr Parnell raised—50 or 100 metres—do seem somewhat arbitrary. Is that the right measurement? We need to look to other legislation to get a better feel on whether or not that is right.

There are a number of things, and I will not go on through all the details, but I have made a number of notes here that outline genuine questions and full debate that needs to be had, and no doubt will be had in the other place. That said, I think the premise is right; I think we do need to have some control on where these places can and cannot be, and that alone is enough to get my support. Furthermore, I think the honourable member has gone into some detail and forms the basis of what is a pretty good model, sufficient to draw my support, anyway.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I rise briefly to make comment and say that I appreciate the intent of these amendments, but I will not support them. I echo some of the comments I made previously. Whilst it might be by regulation or by further debate on this in the other place that some sort of scheme is brought in, there are planning laws that dictate how and when businesses can operate.

As the Hon. Connie Bonaros pointed out, there are many, many brothels in operation everywhere that most of us would not know about because they operate without interfering in the lives of everyday people. Quite some time ago my wife and I lived in a cottage in the CBD. There were six cottages in the row, and for many years, until someone much more worldly-wise than I pointed out, two of the six cottages operated as brothels. We had no idea for years that two of the six cottages operated as brothels.

I remember a time when former premier John Bannon drove in, parked his ute in our street, just after we had found out what two of these six cottages were used for, and we were all very concerned about what former premier Bannon was doing, but he was going to the crash repairers across the road. It just showed that there are these operating all throughout the city, throughout the suburbs, and most of us are completely oblivious to it. Once under the decriminalisation model, we will continue to be completely oblivious to it; it does not change that.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I would like to reflect particularly on the most recent comment from the Hon. Mr Maher and others who are talking about the fact that apparently brothels cause no disruption. When I lived in Adelaide I lived up the road from a small home brothel, and I can assure you it did cause disruption. We had people knocking on our door at all times of the night. At the time I had three young girls—my three daughters—and it was very disruptive, I can assure you.

However, that is not the main point of my comment. We are talking about what it has been under a criminalised regime where brothels cannot advertise, where they cannot easily have perhaps 10 people providing services and therefore many, many more numbers of clients. We are talking about what has been, whereas the potential disruption under a totally decriminalised model will surely be very different; otherwise we would not be debating it. If nothing was going to change, then we would not have any need for this debate.

The point is there may well be larger brothels that may not be contravening any planning laws; there may well be far more disruption to local neighbourhoods or to local people. At the moment there will be nothing to stop people walking up and down the front of those premises to advertise themselves for sexual access. So all of that can easily change and would be likely to change under a decriminalised model, so to argue that because under a criminalised model there has been little disruption—although some of us have different experiences—and that there therefore would not be under a decriminalised model I think is not taking into account all of the facts.

In regard to an earlier contribution by the Hon. Mr Hunter with respect to his concern about the provision relating to sex work not occurring near certain kinds of premises in proposed section 28 and his concern that there is a part that refers to 'any other premises of a kind excluded by the regulations from the ambit of this definition', my understanding is that parliament has the opportunity to disallow regulations; therefore, I would think that that should not be such a concern. I am happy to be corrected if that is not the case, being still relatively new to this place, but that is my understanding.

In terms of the substantive nature of the various amendments, I join with other members in saying that they are certainly not perfect. I have considerable concerns about moving prostitution into one area and not another—whether it just moves it around. I have some issues around the distances—whether in fact they are the right distances—and so on. Again I do not think these are ideal, but they do go some way to addressing the valid concerns of people in the community who will have to live with the effects of this bill when it does pass into law.

The CHAIR: Have honourable members exhausted what they wish to say in relation to the Hon. Mr Ngo's amendments? Because I will now ask the Hon. Ms Bourke to talk to her amendment No. 6 [Bourke-2].

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

Amendment No 6 [Bourke–2]—

Page 6, lines 15 and 16—Delete clause 22 and substitute:

22—Substitution of Part 6

Part 6—delete the Part and substitute:

Part 6—Licensing of sex worker establishments and related matters

Division 1—Preliminary

27—Interpretation

(1) In this Part—

child means a person under 18 years of age;

commercial sexual service 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;

Commissioner for Consumer Affairs means the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs under the Fair Trading Act 1987 or the person for the time being acting in the office of Commissioner for Consumer Affairs;

council area, in relation to a local council, means the area for which the local council is constituted under the Local Government Act 1999;

criminal intelligence means information relating to actual or suspected criminal activity (whether in this State or elsewhere) the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to prejudice criminal investigations, enable the discovery of the existence or identity of a confidential source of information relevant to law enforcement or endanger a person's life or physical safety;

director of a body corporate includes—

(a) a person occupying or acting in the position of director or member of the governing body of the body corporate, by whatever name called and whether or not validly appointed to occupy or duly authorised to act in the position; and

(b) any person in accordance with whose directions or instructions the directors or members of the governing body of the body corporate are accustomed to act;

domestic partner means a person who is a domestic partner within the meaning of the Family Relationships Act 1975, whether declared as such under that Act or not;

licence means a licence under this Part;

licensee means the holder of a licence under this Part;

local council means a council constituted under the Local Government Act 1999;

operate a sex worker establishment and operator—see section 29(2);

payment includes any form of consideration;

premises includes a part of a premises;

prescribed organisation—the following are prescribed organisations:

(a) a declared organisation within the meaning of the Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Act 2008;

(b) a criminal organisation within the meaning of Division 1 or Division 2 of Part B of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935;

(c) any other organisation prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this definition,

and a reference to a member of such an organisation is to be construed in accordance with the relevant Act;

sex worker means a person who provides commercial sexual services;

sex worker establishment means premises in which 2 or more sex workers provide commercial sexual services (whether at the same time or otherwise, and whether or not other services are also provided at the premises) but does not include premises at which accommodation is normally provided on a commercial basis if the commercial sexual services are provided under an arrangement initiated elsewhere.

(2) For the purposes of this Part, 2 persons are close associates if—

(a) 1 is a spouse, domestic partner, parent, brother, sister or child of the other; or

(b) they are members of the same household; or

(c) they are in partnership; or

(d) they are related bodies corporate (within the meaning of the Corporations Act 2001 of the Commonwealth); or

(e) 1 has a right to participate (otherwise than as a shareholder in a body corporate) in income or profits derived from a business conducted by the other; or

(f) 1 is in a position to exercise control or significant influence over the conduct of the other.

28—Application of Part

This Part is in addition to, and does not derogate from, any other Act or law.

Division 2—Requirement for licence to operate sex worker establishments

29—Requirement to hold licence to operate sex worker establishment

(1) A person must not operate a sex worker establishment unless licensed under this Part to do so.

Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years or $100,000.

(2) For the purposes of this Division, a person (the operator) operates a sex worker establishment if the person, whether alone or with others—

(a) employs or supervises a sex worker to provide commercial sexual services at the sex worker establishment; or

(b) receives or retains all or a portion of the proceeds of commercial sexual services provided at the sex worker establishment;

(c) determines or otherwise has control over the provision of commercial sexual services at the sex worker establishment (whether or not the person provides sexual services) including by determining—

(i) when or where an individual sex worker will provide commercial sexual services in relation to the sex worker establishment; or

(ii) the conditions in which sex workers provide commercial sexual services in relation to the sex worker establishment; or

(iii) the amount of money, or proportion of an amount of money, that a sex worker receives as payment for the provision of commercial sexual services at the sex worker establishment; or

(d) employs or supervises a person who does any of the things referred to in paragraph (c) in relation to the sex worker establishment; or

(e) undertakes any other activity prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph.

Division 3—Application and grant etc of licence

30—Application for licence

An application under this Part—

(a) must be made in a manner and form determined by the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs; and

(b) must be accompanied by the documents and information required by regulations and any other documents or information required by the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs; and

(c) must be accompanied by the prescribed fee.

31—Applications to be given to Commissioner of Police

(1) The Commissioner for Consumer Affairs must give a copy of each application under section 30 to the Commissioner of Police.

(2) As soon as reasonably practicable following receipt of an application, the Commissioner of Police—

(a) must make available to the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs information about any criminal convictions; and

(b) may make available to the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs other information to which the Commissioner of Police has access,

relevant to whether the application should be granted.

32—Discretionary powers of Commissioner for Consumer Affairs

(1) Subject to this section, the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs may, in the Commissioner's absolute discretion, grant or refuse an application under section 30 on any ground, or for any reason, the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs considers sufficient.

(2) An applicant for a licence must satisfy the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs—

(a) that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold the licence; and

(b) if the applicant is a trust or corporate entity—that each person who occupies a position of authority in the entity is a fit and proper person to occupy such a position in an entity holding a licence.

(3) An application must be refused if the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs is satisfied that to grant the application would be contrary to the public interest.

(4) A minor must not—

(a) hold a licence; or

(b) occupy a position of authority in a trust or corporate entity that holds a licence,

(but a minor may be a shareholder in a proprietary company or a beneficiary of a trust that holds a licence).

(5) A person may hold 2 or more licences.

(6) If the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs considers that an applicant should satisfy the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs as to a certain matter for the purposes of determining the application, the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs may, if the Commissioner thinks fit, nevertheless grant the application on the condition that the applicant satisfies the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs as to the matter within a specified period.

(7) If a licence is granted on a condition under subsection (6), the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs may, on failure by the applicant to comply with the condition, cancel the licence.

32A—Annual fee

(1) A licensee must, in each year, pay to the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs an annual fee in accordance with the regulations.

(2) Without limiting the matters that may be dealt with in the regulations, the regulations may—

(a) fix the day of the month on or before which the fee is to be paid in each year; and

(b) fix the period of 12 months (the annual fee period) in respect of which the fee is to be paid.

(3) If a licensee fails to pay the annual fee in accordance with the regulations, the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs may, by written notice, require the person to make good the default as specified in the notice and, in addition, pay to the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs the amount prescribed as a penalty for default.

(4) If a licensee fails to comply with a notice under subsection (3), the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs may, by further written notice, cancel the licence.

Division 4—Cancellation of licence

32B—Cancellation of licence by Commissioner for Consumer Affairs

(1) Subject to this section, the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs may, at any time and in the Commissioner's absolute discretion, cancel a licence by notice in writing to the licensee.

(2) The Commissioner for Consumer Affairs must cancel a licence—

(a) if the licensee is convicted of a prescribed offence; or

(b) if the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs is satisfied that the licensee is no longer a fit and proper person to hold a licence; or

(c) in any other circumstances prescribed by the regulations.

Division 5—Prohibition on profit sharing

32C—Prohibition on profit sharing

Subject to this Act, if a licensee—

(a) enters into partnership with an unlicensed person in relation to the sex work establishment carried on under the licence; or

(b) enters into any agreement or arrangement under which an unlicensed person may participate in the proceeds of the sex work establishment carried on under the licence; or

(c) remunerates an unlicensed person by reference to the proceeds of the sex work establishment carried on under the licence; or

(d) permits an unlicensed person to conduct, superintend or manage the sex work establishment carried on under the licence; or

(e) permits an unlicensed person to exercise control or substantial influence over the sex work establishment carried on under the licence,

the licensee and the unlicensed person are each guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years or $100,000.

Division 6—Authorised officers

32D—Powers of authorised officers

(1) An authorised officer may, at any reasonable time, do 1 or more of the following:

(a) enter, remain on and inspect premises to which a license relates (and, if entry is refused, may employ such force as is reasonably necessary to gain entry);

(b) require any person (whether on such premises or otherwise) who has possession of any records relevant to a business conducted under a licence to produce those records for inspection;

(c) examine, copy or take extracts from such records;

(d) remove and retain such records for so long as is reasonably necessary for the purpose of making a copy of the record;

(e) require any person found on premises to which a licence relates to state their full name and address and date of birth.

(2) A person who—

(a) hinders or obstructs an authorised officer in the exercise of powers under this section; or

(b) fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with a requirement of an authorised officer under this section; or

(c) falsely represents that the person is an authorised officer,

is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: $5,000.

(3) In this section—

authorised officer means—

(a) the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs; or

(b) a police officer; or

(c) authorised officers under section 76 of the Fair Trading Act 1987; or

(d) a person, or a class of persons, authorised by the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs to be an authorised officer for the purposes of this Act.

Division 7—Prohibition on advertising commercial sexual services

32E—Prohibition on advertising commercial sexual services

(1) A person must not advertise the provision of commercial sexual services.

Maximum penalty: $2,500.

(2) An owner or occupier of premises must not cause or permit a person to advertise, at or on the premises, the provision of commercial sexual services.

Maximum penalty: $2,500.

(3) To avoid doubt, subsections (1) and (2) apply whether the advertised commercial sexual services are provided in accordance with this Act or otherwise.

(4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to an advertisement or other action of a kind prescribed by the regulations.

(5) For the purposes of this section, a person advertises the provision of commercial sexual services if the person—

(a) places or displays a sign in, or that is visible from, a public place that promotes the provision of commercial sexual services; or

(b) distributes to the public any unsolicited leaflet, handbill or other document, that promotes the provision of commercial sexual services.

(6) In this section—

sign includes a painted or printed sign, lettering, image, signboard or visual display screen.

Division 8—Miscellaneous

32F—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 2 years or $100,000.

(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) provide 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 the child; and

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

32G—Offences by bodies corporate

(1) If a body corporate is guilty of an offence against this Division, each director of the body corporate is guilty of an offence and liable to the same penalty as is prescribed for the principal offence unless the director proves that they could not by the exercise of due diligence have prevented the commission of the offence.

(2) The regulations may make further provision in relation to the criminal liability of a director of a body corporate that is guilty of an offence against the regulations.

32H—False or misleading statements

A person must not make a statement knowing that it is false or misleading in a material particular (whether by reason of the inclusion or omission of a particular) in information provided under this Part.

Maximum penalty: $20,000.

32I—Evidentiary provision

(1) In proceedings for an offence against this Act, an allegation in the information—

(a) that a specified person is or is not, or was or was not on a specified date, the holder of a licence under this Part; or

(b) that a specified person is or is not, or was or was not on a specified date, an authorised officer,

will be accepted as proved in the absence of proof to the contrary.

(2) In any legal proceedings, a document apparently certified by the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs to be a notice or other document issued under this Part, or to be a copy of such a notice or other document, will be accepted as such in the absence of proof to the contrary.

32J—Regulations

The regulations may make further provisions in relation to the licensing of sex worker establishments (including, to avoid doubt, by prohibiting the granting of licences, or the establishment of sex worker establishments in specified areas).

This is an amendment to substitute part 6. Part 6 of the bill would repeal part 6 of the Summary Offences Act, which includes the interpretation of 'brothel' and 'keeping and managing a brothel'. Amendment 6, which I have tabled, seeks to introduce a level of protection for the industry and community and, importantly, to bring this adult commercial service in line with other adult commercial services.

This amendment introduces a positive licensing scheme for sex work establishments and related matters. As highlighted in my second reading speech, regulation is imposed on other adult commercial services to provide a level of protection to the community, workers and other businesses. There are several other jurisdictions that have moved down the path of licensing, including New Zealand. The New Zealand parliament passed a Prostitution Reform Act in 2003, establishing a licensing regime. New Zealand has a system of regulations such that the operator of a sex work business must be licensed and certain persons are disqualified from holding a licence.

The New South Wales parliament's Select Committee on the Regulation of Brothels inquiry handed down in 2015 recommended that New South Wales' decriminalised framework be modified to introduce a licensing scheme for most premises where sex work takes place. The commissioner found that a licensing system would help solve identified problems in the industry, assisting the proper enforcement of planning laws protecting sex workers from being exploited and being in danger, assisting to fight organised criminal elements in the industry and ensuring that only fit and proper persons control and operate a brothel.

While this licensing scheme proposed in amendment No. 6 is not as onerous as a liquor licensing scheme, it will provide a number of oversights to ensure a person not deemed as a fit and proper person cannot run a sex work establishment. A licensing scheme will also provide an opportunity for the government or a Commissioner for Consumer Affairs to address other proximities of sex work establishments to address the concerns we have just been discussing about where a brothel can be located.

An application for a licence would need to be undertaken in accordance with any other document or information required by the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs and it would be unlawful to run a sex work establishment without a licence. Like many other licensed commercial services, including car yards, the applicant would be required to be a fit and proper person to hold a licence. An applicant must be refused if the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs is satisfied that to grant the application would be contrary to the public interest.

The Commissioner for Consumer Affairs must cancel a licence if the licensee is convicted of a prescribed offence or if the commissioner is satisfied that the licensee is no longer a fit and proper person. A person may hold two or more licences. If a licence fails to comply with the notice under subsection (3) of paying an annual fee, the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs may, by further written notice, cancel the licence.

Consideration has been given to police powers, as suggested by SAPOL. The identical part of this amendment was passed yesterday and reflected what the Hon. Mr Wade put forward. There are another two provisions within the licensing scheme: one has already been supported and I believe the other one probably will be.

The prohibition of advertising reflects the same amendments that will be tabled shortly. Division 8 will make it an offence to employ a child for purposes related to provisions of commercial sexual services. Again, that is highlighting the Hon. Rob Lucas' Baker's Delight-Brothel's Delight analogy. I am happy to take you through the amendments if that is the best way—

The CHAIR: It is up to you, but it is normal practice.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: As this amendment seeks to introduce a licensing scheme, interpretations have been included. For the sake of the committee, I feel some of them are more relevant interpretations the committee members may wish to note. The interpretation of a sex worker remains as interpreted by the bill before us. Therefore, it does not require an individual sex worker to apply for a licence under this amendment such as is seen in the Northern Territory, where a worker must register with the police. They will remain as the bill has sought to do: a standalone sex worker.

A sex work establishment means a premises in which two or more sex workers provide commercial sexual services. However, I understand this does not prevent, for safety purposes, another adult being present on the premises at the same time, as long as they are not providing commercial sexual services.

Section 28—Application of Part, is just a standard administrative amendment to highlight this licence exists in addition to other South Australian laws relevant to this industry. It is just a new regulation to overlay the existing scheme. Section 29 is the requirement for licence. This amendment provides the foundation of the licensing scheme and requires that you cannot operate a sex work establishment without a licence. It highlights the roles and responsibilities of an operator and sex work establishment. Section 30 is just a procedural step to gain a licence.

Section 31—Applications to be given to Commissioner of Police. This is a licensing process where the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs must give a copy of each applicant's application to the Commissioner of Police, where they will be required to make available, as soon as reasonably possible, information of any criminal convictions to the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs. Again, this is just bringing back to the thought that I had in my second reading speech about having a fit and proper person.

Section 32—Discretionary powers of Commissioner for Consumer Affairs. Under this section, the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs may, in the commissioner's absolute discretion, grant or refuse an application under section 30 on any ground that the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs considers sufficient. This comes back to the locality of a premises. If the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs deems that it is not an appropriate location for the brothel, they can deem that they cannot be there. The commissioner will have similar powers to that of other licensed industries, such as used car yards, to be satisfied that a licence holder is a fit and proper person. A person will not be limited to a number of licenses that they can hold.

Section 32A provides that there is an annual fee, and that date would be set on an annual basis. Section 32B—Cancellation of licence by Commissioner for Consumer Affairs. If the licensee is convicted of a prescribed offence or if the licensee is satisfied the person is no longer a fit and proper person, the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs may, at any time, cancel a licence. That has to be done in writing. Again, these regulations are similar to any other adult commercial service, but probably not as onerous as some, and car yards as well.

Section 32C seeks to keep income within the licence of a sex work establishment. This is making sure that those that are licensed and are legitimately meant to be receiving the money are the ones receiving this money. It is to stop other people coming over the top and forcing that money from those establishments. Section 32D supports the call from SAPOL, which I have previously discussed, and minister Wade has already moved that amendment.

Section 32E is the prohibition on advertising, which, again, will be moved shortly, and I believe will be supported. I support that as well. Section 32F is the same as the one Hon. Ms Bonaros moved recently and was supported by this chamber. Section 32G—Offences by bodies corporate. This is to ensure that people cannot hide behind a corporate veil, essentially, and that their unlawful actions will be deemed as unlawful. I am happy to take comments.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Why has the mover chosen a positive licensing scheme rather than a negative licensing scheme, given SAPOL's recent public comments?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: It was something that I tussled over for quite some time, I have to say—whether to go with a positive or a negative. I felt that a register of some kind or a way of administrating the licence would be easier under a positive licensing scheme.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: What is the Law Society advice on this licensing scheme that is being attempted to be inserted into a decriminalisation model?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I appreciate the member's feedback. I have not sought their advice, as I have not had time on my side to do that. Again, I take that on as my responsibility that I have not done that. I feel that the bill before us today is missing an element of regulation, as reflected across all other adult commercial services, but I note that I probably have not been able to advocate widely enough for this.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Does the mover anticipate that that kind of consultation would happen in between the bill being considered by the upper house and by the other place?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I am most happy to consult on this much further. I will sit down and have a discussion with anyone I need to have a discussion with about this amendment. I completely appreciate what the Hon. Ms Franks is saying, but unfortunately I have not had time on my side in regard to this amendment.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I would like the Hon. Ms Franks to enlighten me now on what is the Law Society's position on licensing and the decriminalisation bill.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Certainly, with the tattooing industry, the Law Society has grave concerns. With this bill, which was consulted on over many years now, which is the replication of the previous bill, a select committee took three separate submissions from the Law Society, which gave some suggestions for amendments but supported full decriminalisation and not a licensing scheme.

I note that both the Northern Territory and Queensland currently have what you would call licensing schemes. Both of those governments' attorney-generals have now admitted that the licensing scheme is in fact a failure. It does drive parts of the industry underground. It continues to have the police as both prosecutors and protectors. It sets up that dual purpose. You cannot have the police being both the prosecutor and the protector. It simply does not work, particularly with this industry.

In the Northern Territory, they are quite far advanced with a discussion paper into decriminalisation, and they hope to beat us to the punch to have basically the model of decriminalisation that we are debating now by the end of the year.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I have the Reforming the Regulation of the Sex Industry in the Northern Territory document here. In the Northern Territory, it is currently illegal. I know a licence is required for the specific planning requirements. A licence is required for an individual, and you have to register that with the police. I am not seeking that an individual needs to have a licence. I am purely seeking that an establishment is required to have a licence, just like a car yard, just like a pub, just like a tattoo parlour (which I appreciate is a negative licensing scheme), just as many other adult commercial services have a licensing scheme.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: For the elucidation of members of the council, you have that report because I provided it to all members of this parliament. I am so glad that some people have actually read it. I do hope that some people understand that they have acknowledged the failures of their system there, that these attempts, well-meaning as they were at the time, to overly regulate what is called 'legalisation'—but that is a confusing word; your licensing is indeed a legalisation model, as was the Northern Territory, as has been Queensland, as has been Victoria—have actually criminalised people.

I spoke briefly yesterday about Ireland, which has pursued a Nordic model, which was supposed to criminalise buyers and supposed to criminalise these people who are supposedly pimps. Of course, two women, one of whom is pregnant, are facing prison for nine months because they were both working in the same building, in the home where they lived with each other. Both have been charged with pimping each other because they were working together.

In Queensland, what happens is that in fact a worker must be solo. The regulations around this, requiring certain things of workers, requiring certain words not to be used, requiring them to work alone, mean that they cannot even make a phone call to a friend or family member and tell them that they are about to take a job. It means that they are unable to do the vetting that ensures their safety, that allows the screening.

They are not able to use services in Ireland, such as Ugly Mugs, which can actually promulgate information about clients who have been abusive or aggressive or who have failed to pay. That is what we are talking about when we are talking about these types of regulations around this industry. That is why we are seeking decriminalisation, where in fact what we are doing is moving the criminal element away from these people and treating them as workers with all the rights, of course, but all the responsibilities and all the regulations that go with those responsibilities applying to them.

Again, this is a legalisation or a licensing model. There are the three types of models that we have discussed, that Michelle Lensink has ably outlined many times in this place. These are the three options. This is a decriminalisation model. It is the model supported by sex workers themselves. It is the model supported by 100-plus organisations the last time the bill, in a different form in the lower house, came before the parliament.

Those organisations included the Working Women's Centre, SA unions and they also included the support of Amnesty International, the World Health Organization, and locally, of course, organisations like SHINE SA and the ASU. Decriminalisation has been well promulgated, put out for proper feedback from groups such as the Law Society and, indeed, there have been many submissions and many witnesses. Quite extensive community consultation has taken place for the bill and this particular clause as part of the bill over many, many years—not even just months, but many, many years.

So at the last minute, the day before and the day of the debate this time, when we have in fact had this piece of legislation in this parliament this time for over a year, and we had two months' notice that we were going to debate it, this is substandard. I understand that the intentions may be that there is a better way. If the member believes there is a better way, the bill should come before us as a standalone bill, be sent to the Law Society and sent out for feedback, take that consultation process, go to a select committee if need be, and then come back to us in a form that is not attempting to insert itself into a decriminalisation bill.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I want to note a number of the examples that the Hon. Ms Franks has just referred to. She talked about the Nordic model and various other models that are not being presented, as I understand it, in this amendment, so I do not think most of those examples are relevant. While on the topic, I might take the opportunity to respond to some—

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Point of order: I know that I talked about the Nordic model yesterday and gave examples about how that, while well intentioned, criminalises women. I hardly see how that is irrelevant to a debate about decriminalisation.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: It was brought up in regard to what the Hon. Ms Franks calls the 'licensing model' that Ms Bourke is talking about in this amendment. That is why I point out that the examples are referring to a different model from that which the Hon. Ms Bourke is moving in this amendment.

I want to put on the record that there have been a number of discussions from the Hon. Mr Wade that he is willing to be open to supporting other models that have not been brought to this parliament. I would like to remind members that some members have not been here for eight years, 10 years, 16 years, 20 years, 200 years in the case of the Hon. Mr Lucas and that is why we need to make sure that anything we vote for is a better model. Other models may well come forth, but simply because something has not come before the parliament in the past is no reason to say that we will vote for something that is clearly very flawed, as I believe this is.

I have a specific question for the Hon. Ms Bourke in terms of section 32(5) which provides that a person may hold two or more licences. My concerns, as I have outlined a number times in this chamber, are around the exploitation of others as opposed to an individual selling sexual access to themselves only. I want to clarify: does that mean that a person could be the licensee for many, many different brothels? Is that correct?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: As it stands, that is correct.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Thank you for the clarification.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: As I have made quite clear, I am supportive of decriminalising sex work. I think the most fundamental aspect of decriminalising it is having proper regulation. I commend the Hon. Emily Bourke for going down that path. I also appreciate the words of the Hon. Tammy Franks, where she does not think that this is the right path to take in the bill for that.

Nevertheless, we need to have this discussion and perhaps, again, there are aspects of this amendment that may have to be reworked or rehashed. In essence, it is imperative that we do have regulation and that we know who is actually running this industry, not so much the women and the men or those who work in it but also those who control the brothels. We need to know whether they pass character tests and that they do not have a criminal history where they are going to be exploitative.

There are a lot of questions that need to be asked about the people who are going to be running these brothels. As the Hon. Clare Scriven pointed out, in a note I have made here, 'A person may hold two or more licences.' I am a bit uncomfortable with that. If this is correct, Ms Bourke, you are actually inviting people to monopolise this industry. Can you see that that could pose an issue? Do you not have a problem with that?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I appreciate that that could be an issue. Again, I would be happy to discuss this and make amendments between this house and the following house but I guess, if we were to reflect what is trying to be achieved here, where this is becoming an industry, then they could have multiple licences. But, if that is a concern of the chamber, that could be addressed as well.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: In proposed section 32—Discretionary powers of Commissioner for Consumer Affairs, there does not seem to be any mention about whether the ownership of these licences should be only made available to Australian citizens or permanent residents. Should it preclude foreign owners for instance?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: That would come back to the commissioner's discretion of what is a fit and proper person.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Another question: I do not know if you clarified it, or I may have missed it, but is there some requirement for sex workers themselves to be licensed or some form of registration?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: Again, this is not about the individual, this is about the owner of a sex worker's establishment. An individual would not have any licence on them unless they are within a facility that has two or more people providing a commercial sexual service. An individual working within their own home would not require a licence. If they had another person in their home who was not providing a commercial sexual service at the same time they would still not need a licence, but they would need a licence the second there are two or more people within one residence.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Should licence holders be listed publicly on a business and consumer affairs website?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I am not aware of what happens currently for other businesses but I am happy to see if that is what happens with other businesses.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: If you go to the website for the office of Consumer and Business Services, you can actually find out whether people have appropriate building licences and whatever. Should this apply in this case? Should we know who holds the licence for a particular premises?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I do not believe there is an element that would make sure that that would be publicly available but, again, I am happy to look at that if that is something that the chamber so seeks.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Division 4—Cancellation of licence. Where consumer affairs can cancel a licence, how long is it before they can get it back? Should there be a provision in there in relation to the length of time for them to be able to reapply for a licence?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I think that that would come back to the commissioner determining whether they are a fit and proper person to hold a licence.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: You do not see a need that there should be a restriction on them returning back into the industry if there is a serious breach of the conditions?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I think, if they seek to apply, the commissioner would determine that they would not be a fit and proper person to have that licence. So the person applying for that licence would be wasting their time because the commissioner would say that they were not a fit and proper person if they had a conviction. When the commissioner provides the application to the police, the police would advise the commissioner that that application cannot be approved because they have a criminal conviction.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I refer to division 6, proposed section 32D—Powers of authorised officers. Subsection (1)(b) states:

require any person (whether on such premises or otherwise) who has possession of any records relevant to a business conducted under a licence to produce those records for inspection;

Can you be specific on what you mean by 'records'? Do records include telephones, laptops, tablets, any other digital data or phone accounts?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I will seek to clarify that for you. I feel I have been given a lawyer's answer to this, so I am not sure if it is going to make sense for me. If it was deemed as a piece of information, usually this would come down to documentation, but if the phone itself was seen as a piece of information it could be.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I refer to proposed section 32D(3), authorised officers. You mentioned the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs and police officers. I imagine it is only the local jurisdiction? Would it be SAPOL or would federal police fall under that? Under section 76 of the Fair Trading Act, authorised officers requires that persons or a class of person authorised by the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs be an authorised officer for the purposes of this act. Can you expand on that? Would this include council inspectors, SafeWork SA, border security or perhaps home affairs on a federal level?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: Again, I will seek advice on that. Paragraph (b) 'a police officer' is a South Australian police officer. Paragraph (c) is the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs, and paragraph (d) is in regard to whoever—it could be whoever the commissioner deems fit to appoint.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Division 7—Prohibition on advertising commercial sexual services. I know we will be covering that again but I might as well throw some questions at you now. I am actually leaning towards not supporting a prohibition on advertising for some reasons that I will outline later. However, how can that be controlled effectively when there is extensive advertising that happens online, on Twitter, Facebook and newspapers? It is going to be difficult to control. Do you see that there could be an issue with that?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: As I understand it this would not impact advertising within a newspaper and, therefore, that would not change. Is that what you were asking?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Regarding 32E(1) 'A person must not advertise the provision of commercial sexual services.' Why would a newspaper be exempt from that?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: The definition of advertising provisions is highlighted in subsection (5) and the provision of advertising in a newspaper does not appear within those two—either paragraph (a) or (b)—so, therefore, you would be able to advertise in a newspaper still.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Why a distinction with newspapers? Also, you have not answered the question in relation to advertising online: what happens with that?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I completely appreciate that advertising online will be an issue but it does not fall within the powers of the state parliament to be able to control that area.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: You can see where I find this is going to be quite unworkable, to try to ban the advertising. I would like some clarification, even though it is probably obvious, in division 8—Miscellaneous, 'to employ child for a purpose related to provision of commercial sexual services', and (2)(d) 'purchasing goods (however described) intended to be used in the provision of commercial sexual services.' Can you clarify for me or expand on 'goods'? What type of goods are we talking about here?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: This has already been passed by this chamber under the Hon. Connie Bonaros but that would be, as I understand, if they were asked to go and purchase a product on behalf of that establishment.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Could this also catch out the Uber Eats or the Domino's delivery boy or girl?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: No, because they would not be paid by that organisation—they would only be delivering a product to that organisation.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I have no other questions.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Just for clarity for the Chair, I will be voting in support of clause 22 as it stands. I think the interaction between the Hon. Mr Pangallo and the Hon. Ms Bourke illustrates very clearly for me why I would caution the Hon. Mr Pangallo, attracted though he is to a regulatory model, not to vote for this one. I know that other members may well be attracted to a regulatory model also, but I say this: the model put forward by the Hon. Ms Bourke essentially is an attempt to bolt on to a decriminalisation bill a deregulatory and a licensing model, which, not to be disrespectful to the Hon. Ms Bourke, has not been well-thought out, has not been through the select committee process, whereas an actual decriminalisation bill has been examined by a select committee process. That bill has been consulted on widely through the community and through parliament. The Hon. Ms Bourke's deregulation and licensing regime has not.

The Hon. Mr Pangallo has asked some tricky questions, which should be asked and should be thrashed out through a much more thorough process. My strong recommendation to those who favour a licensing model is to take the same process that the decriminalisation bill has done: draft a bill, take it to a select committee, thrash it out, go through all those problematic areas that people have been raising and can think of and correct them through that process and then present the bill to the parliament for consideration. I do not think it is appropriate to do it through an amendment to a decriminalisation bill today for the reasons I have just outlined.

I say that without any disrespect. I know the Hon. Ms Bourke has thought this through very heavily and carefully and has come up with a position that she thinks she can support, but for the reasons I have outlined I think it is flawed. I encourage people who may be attracted to further regulation and licensing to not support it today and to perhaps consider going down the path we took with decriminalisation, which admittedly took a number of years to get there, but to thoroughly go through it, research it, perhaps put it through a select committee process and consult very broadly on it. For those reasons, I will not be supporting the Hon. Ms Bourke's amendment and, as I alluded to previously, nor will I be supporting the Hon. Mr Ngo's amendments: I will be voting to support clause 22 as printed.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I only have one question for the mover, and that is: assuming that some of us are happy with the current criminalised model that exists and do not want to move towards a decriminalised model, why is it that the penalties under a licensing regime are so much higher than the penalties that currently apply under provisions? I note that there are provisions in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, but specifically under provisions in the Summary Offences Act that already apply with these issues.

For instance, section 27 of the Summary Offences Act deals with brothels and in that provision the maximum penalty that somebody could receive is an imprisonment term of three months for a first offence or a penalty of $1,250, and $2,500 for a subsequent offence or imprisonment for six months. I note that the same penalties apply also in the provisions relating to soliciting, procurement and living on the earnings of prostitution. Why is it under this model that the penalties are so much higher?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: Yes, you are correct. They do not align, but the penalties provided within this amendment are seen to bring it in line with other modern penalties that align with the tattooing and hydroponic industries. So again the reasoning for this amendment is to bring it in line with other adult commercial services, and that is why the penalties would be similar.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I accept that—if we were going down that path, but again for the record I think it is worth noting that the penalties that already exist under our current laws, which if this bill were to fail will be the penalties that continue to exist, are significantly lower, even in terms of subsequent offences. As I said before, three months for a first offence and six months for a subsequent offence are the absolute maximum imprisonment terms that you could receive under the existing provisions, and $1,250 and $2,500 are the maximum penalties you could receive under the existing provisions versus a term of up to two years' imprisonment or a $100,000 penalty under the proposed changes. I just make that point for the record.

Also for the record, for the reasons that I think have been thrashed out in some detail, I indicate that whilst I acknowledge the work that has gone into this and whilst I acknowledge the Hon. Ms Bourke's intentions, I will not be supporting these measures.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Whilst acknowledging some of the concerns about the model that has been put forward in this amendment, I would just like to contrast that with what we will have if this clause in its form as moved by the Hon. Ms Franks passes. People with rape convictions will be able to run brothels. People with histories of exploitation, with significant criminal histories, will all be able to run brothels. The total decriminalisation model does mean that there will not be any limit on who will be able to run brothels; therefore, that problem of potential exploitation, possibly extreme exploitation, is a bigger risk in my opinion than the concerns that are being raised with the model being put forward in this amendment.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I just want to put my position on the table. I do have some attraction to the distance from a childcare centre or a school or whatever, as moved by the Hon. Mr Ngo. I do not support restricted areas. I think, at the end of the day, once this bill is passed and sex workers are working in a legal framework, there should not be a position where they can be moved on at the whim of a council or anybody else.

In regard to licensing, I do believe there should be some sort of licensing regime. All businesses and the like are somehow registered or licensed. I grew up as a plumber and gas fitter, and I was always licensed, and there were all sorts of things I had to do to keep my licence. I would have thought being licensed would provide some sort of protections for the people in the industry. But as the forensic questioning by the Hon. Mr Pangallo has shown, it is not all straightforward, and there are a lot of issues that need to be looked at.

I suppose we are learning now that, even though sex work has been therefore a million years, with it now becoming decriminalised the realisation comes that there is a lot of work to be done when we are looking at trying to get a licensing regime for that industry. But as I said, I would have thought that it would actually provide some protections for people who work in the industry.

This particular amendment from the Hon. Ms Bourke is well-intentioned and, as I said, I do have some sympathy with introducing a licensing regime, but maybe this is not the time. Maybe there has to be a process we go through to thoroughly consider all those issues. There are probably many more that are there that have not been highlighted today.

I will probably be opposing the licensing regime, but I am sympathetic to it. If it was properly done and there was a regime put in front of us that we could look at, dissect and the like, I would probably support it, as long as all the t's are crossed and the i's are dotted.

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS: Can I just indicate that I appreciate the sentiments expressed by the Hon. Tung Ngo and also the Hon. Emily Bourke. I am unable to support Mr Ngo's amendments, which I would colloquially refer to as 'not in my backyard'. Likewise, I am unable to support the amendments of the Hon. Emily Bourke for two reasons. One is we are currently discussing a bill to decriminalise sex work. We cannot superimpose on that bill a model that requires licensing. I think the two need to be separated and possibly considered separately, but it will only confuse and complicate this bill if we attempt to include amendments that are at the heart of licensing.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: Could I just quickly summarise? My first amendments are regarding certain premises. I know they are not perfect; however, there are people out there who would not like a brothel to be operating near a school, a childcare centre or even, as I said in my second reading speech, a place of worship. This is to give those people to an opportunity to have their concerns heard. I know the Hon. Mr Parnell raised some concerns and I acknowledge some of those concerns, but I hope when this bill gets to the lower house, they have some time to consider maybe moving better amendments.

In regard to proposed section 29—Declaration of restricted area, like I said, at the end of the day, it is up to the Attorney-General of the day to declare whether it is a restricted area or not. The council can put in a request, but if the Attorney-General disagrees, he or she will not approve it. I do not know where the loophole is in there.

At least a tool is there for the Attorney-General to decide in future years, if they find what we approved last night potentially causes some issues that we do not know of in terms of street sex workers. I think it is important that we provide some tools just in case what this house approved last night does not work out. I hope that honourable members support it because it is, at the end of the day, not fixed but it is something that is there.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: Very briefly, I appreciate that this is the bill before us today, but I do feel that it needs to be brought in line with other commercial services. That is why I brought the amendments forward that I have tabled in this chamber.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I will be brief as well. My suspicion is that both of these amendments will fail but, for the record, I will be supporting them both.

The CHAIR: Both the Hon. Mr Ngo and the Hon. Ms Bourke have moved their amendments. Both amendments seek to delete clause 22. The question I am putting is that clause 22 stand as printed, which means that if you are against both amendments, or one of the amendments, you vote yes. If you are for one or both of the amendments, you vote no.

The committee divided on the question:

Ayes 11

Noes 8

Majority 3

Question thus agreed to; clause passed.

New clause 22A.

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Pnevmatikos–1]—

Page 6, after line 16—Insert:

22A—Insertion of section 26A

After section 26 insert:

26A—Prohibition on advertising commercial sexual services

(1) A person must not advertise the provision of commercial sexual services.

Maximum penalty: $2,500.

(2) An owner or occupier of premises must not cause or permit a person to advertise, at or on the premises, the provision of commercial sexual services.

Maximum penalty: $2,500.

(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to an advertisement or other action of a kind prescribed by the regulations.

(4) For the purposes of this section, a person advertises the provision of commercial sexual services if the person—

(a) places or displays a sign in, or that is visible from, a public place that promotes the provision of commercial sexual services; or

(b) distributes to the public any unsolicited leaflet, handbill or other document, that promotes the provision of commercial sexual services.

(5) In this section—

commercial sexual service 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;

payment includes any form of consideration;

sign includes a painted or printed sign, lettering, image, signboard or visual display screen.

I want to make a few comments about this amendment. I will start by saying that we have heard a lot of discussion and debate on this bill over the last few days and also in the second reading speeches. I must admit, if somebody heard or saw the debates yesterday and today, or read Hansard this morning, they could be forgiven for thinking that these debates occurred a century ago. They did not.

The input from members on the debate ranged from positive and constructive through to ill-conceived and ill-informed. The issues and arguments raised by those opposed to the decriminalisation bill were in most cases not new or helpful. They were simply a rehash of longstanding arguments, allegedly on the basis of concerns for women or the community. However, the proponents of those views have not provided any alternatives or a bill to reflect their issues and concerns; not this time or any time before when these matters have been discussed.

This is not to ignore that there were attempts by some members to understand and make a positive contribution through debate and suggested amendments. At the end of the day, this bill offers the only alternative for change on sex work. This bill proposes, in decriminalising sex work, to afford increased safety and reduced discrimination for sex workers in South Australia.

The reality is that sex work operates irrespective of its legal status. Various studies by the UN and others have illustrated that there is no evidence that the occurrence of sex work increased with decriminalisation. In fact, the Ministry of Justice in New Zealand reported in 2008, some five years after sex work was decriminalised, that the sex industry had not increased in size.

We need to dispel some of these myths; it is our obligation as lawmakers. The research on sex work has been compelling for a decriminalised model in the sex industry. The bill is not about protecting pimps, but any suggestion that criminalising certain aspects of the sex industry whilst affording protections for sex workers is without foundation. The reality is that any laws which criminalise brothels, for example, often result in sex workers being arrested and prosecuted under so-called pimping laws.

Licensing of the sex work industry should not be regarded as a sizeable or appropriate legislative response. Experiments of licensing have in the most part failed. This is what the research and the actual realities tell us. One of the unintended consequences has been the threats to public health of a model of licensing.

Decriminalisation, however, does not equate to deregulation. This bill will be seen by some as going too far and some others as not going far enough. For the majority, this bill will do what it has set out to achieve and that is decriminalisation of the industry and rights and protections under existing laws for sex workers.

To be frank, some of the questions by ministers and shadow ministers on this debate have been appalling. We as lawmakers have a responsibility to inform ourselves and at least undertake the necessary research to have an understanding, particularly in the areas of our portfolios. I am not criticising concerns and questions that have arisen from amendments, as they have come at the eleventh hour. However, this bill has been here for some time. I believe there would have been fewer amendments had it been given the due consideration it deserves. We are not placing sex workers above the law, but as equal citizens, with laws to protect sex workers against exploitation, discrimination, abuse and trafficking.

The amendment that I move in my name is in part a response to concerns raised by members throughout the discussion of the bill. The reality is that we have myriad laws, regulations and rules that govern advertising for adult services. These amendments acknowledge and restate those keys elements. I will not read out the provisions of the amendment. I think it is abundantly clear.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I acknowledge that the Hon. Emily Bourke's amendments came late, but as a person who has grumbled over years about the lack of alternative models being put forward, I thank the Hon. Emily Bourke for giving the parliament an opportunity to consider other models. It is not preferred, but it was a contribution to the debate, which I appreciated.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I will be supporting the Hon. Irene Pnevmatikos' amendment and I think it strikes a balance between the concerns raised by many members and, indeed, the realities of the industry in terms of the discretion that they use and the means by which they conduct their business. While there has been a lot of talk about people worrying about brothels being next to them, there has just been a UK study done in Brighton where people actually quite like brothels as neighbours because they are good neighbours. I imagine it will go some way to giving peace of mind to the community that they will continue to be good neighbours.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: For the record, I indicate that I support these amendments. I was hoping the mover would also clarify or confirm that they would apply to instances that were raised yesterday, I think it was, with respect to the careers expo, for instance, and whether or not we would be able to advertise commercial sex work at those expos.

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS: The provisions in the amendment clearly indicate that one would not be able to advertise in a public place and, therefore, if there was advertising of commercial sexual services at the expo, that would be prohibited.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I have a question following on from that: the amendment says that a person must not advertise the provision of commercial sexual services. Can the member explain how, in the example given by the Hon. Ms Bonaros, advertising career options could be interpreted as advertising the provision of services?

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS: From my perspective, I think they are one and the same thing. You cannot advertise that you are providing commercial sexual services or hold yourself up in that way in a public place.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: So a careers expo that talks about job opportunities is not advertising, the organisation that is providing that? We have all been to careers expos and there might be, for example, an organisation that might have many different outlets, which will talk about the various job opportunities within its outlets. It appears to me as though that would not be prevented by this amendment.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: They are legitimate questions. If the question is an advertisement for a job, for example, whether that is at the career expo or anywhere else, in a place that is providing commercial sexual services, the way I look at this provision is it says that a person must not advertise the provision of commercial sexual services. I think that is broad enough to cover someone who is being invited to apply for job in a place that provides commercial sexual services. That reference would be there and I think it would cover it.

You also have a regulation-making power that can help expand on the definition. I think it works for the purpose that has been intended. If people, out of an abundance of caution between the houses, want to add a clause which says you cannot advertise for people to work in brothels, we can look at that between the houses, but I think this does it.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I will support the amendment but I agree with the Hon. Mr Parnell and the point I think the Hon. Ms Scriven is making. I think the issue that has been raised there is not covered by the amendment. If this is going to pass this chamber, which I think it is given the lateness of the hour, and given that there is the capacity I suspect in the other house to improve this particular amendment, I suspect there will be support for the sort of area members have raised in relation to this.

If you are not actually advertising a particular brothel but you are saying, 'Here is a career opportunity in the sex work industry generally,' and I do not believe it would be covered by the current drafting. It may well be that it does need to be tightened up, but I think we have two options at this stage: we can try to do it on the run now in the remaining time that we have, or my preference is that we pass the amendment. We have noted it, and I am sure the Attorney-General and others will take the issue up in the House of Assembly.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: Surprisingly, I find myself agreeing with the Hon. Rob Lucas once again on this.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: It is a sad day in this state. I understand as well that this amendment does not seek to prevent someone from advertising for a position that is vacant within an organisation. I had tried to seek to amend that in other amendments that failed within this house. I do agree that this provision, however, provides a much better restriction around advertising in the community, something I think the community would anticipate that we would do. I would seek to support that this is addressed in the lower house, but I support this amendment.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Can I take issue with the Hon. Irene Pnevmatikos. I know she is quite passionate about this issue, but there are members in this chamber who have views and they have expressed them. It is a conscience vote and if you do not agree with them, okay, you do not, but to attack them as people who are almost like dinosaurs going back to the last century just because they have a point of view I think is a little unfair. I do not think that type of attack is necessary in this debate.

I will acknowledge something that the Hon. Tammy Franks has alluded to because this debate, this bill, for all intents and purposes, began as a cake mix. I think, by the time it goes through the House of Assembly, we are going to get back a pizza with the lot, and this is because everyone has—

The Hon. T.A. Franks: No, it is going to be like on Madmen when they took the dried egg out of the cake mix because people liked to add their own egg. That is actually justice.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: That is how it should be, but I think a lot of stuff has gone into it that has made it a bit unworkable. I will be supporting this amendment even though I do believe it is unworkable, simply because of the modern world we actually live in. It is just going to be difficult to enforce something like that. I have a question for the mover, and I know it is going to sound a bit silly, but can she give me her definition of advertising, apart from what we have come to accept as the norm?

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS: Can you say that again?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: What does your definition of advertising encompass?

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS: I think I am going to answer that a bit differently, that is, there are numerous regulations, rules and codes that apply, as well as laws, in relation to advertising. Most of the existing models are self-regulating models. You would be familiar with that in terms of your complaint about the firm and what happened with that complaint about the firm to actually change that. That was based on a self-regulated model, and most of the advertising is that way.

Advertising covers a range of areas: radio, TV, paper, etc. There are numerous and not all of them are covered by this amendment. Only in broad terms are the issues covered because there are various regulations that apply. When we look at films, publications and computer games, there are regulations on that issue. When we look at signage, there are council laws and by-laws on the issue. When we look at television commercials, free-to-air TV covers those and there is a code of practice about those as well. The list goes on. I can list all of them if you like but—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS: No, I will not. I have not said much over this whole debate, I might add.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I am just trying to point out this is a very complex world we are living in today with advertising. I just wanted be a devil's advocate here. Would you consider a street worker sex worker as a form of advertising?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The amendment itself actually states what advertising is. It provides:

(4) For the purposes of this section, a person advertises the provision of commercial sexual services if the person—

(a) places or displays a sign in, or that is visible from, a public place that promotes the provision of commercial sexual services; or

(b) distributes to the public any unsolicited leaflet, handbill or other document, that promotes the provision of commercial sexual services.

If, like Nick Xenophon did down Rundle Mall, a street worker placed a sign on herself and walked down Hanson Road, that would fall foul of this legislation, but if she did not place that sign on herself, it would not.

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS: Can I just also say that, no, it is not an advertisement just like the Hon. Frank Pangallo is not an advertisement.

The Hon. F. Pangallo: I would debate that.

The CHAIR: Not today.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My question is to the mover of the amendment. Given the definition, is it correct to say that a woman displayed in a window would be allowed, that it would not be covered by this prohibition on advertising?

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS: This issue has been addressed in numerous ways. It is addressed in terms of various regulations that apply to sex shops. It is addressed even in terms of online. Facebook removed photos of the breasts of women who had suffered breast cancer. So we have regulations. We have enough regulations to cover all aspects. I am sure that would be covered in some regulation. I am not an authority on all of them.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Perhaps the question needs to be addressed to the mover of the bill. Is there anything in the bill or any specific regulations that you are aware of that would prevent the display of a woman or a sex worker, as she likes to call it, in windows, similar to how it operates in Amsterdam?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: No. Perhaps I am a little older than the honourable member because I certainly remember Rundle Mall in the late eighties after school and the women in the windows. They were not sex workers but they were in the windows. I certainly did not find any need to prohibit that activity. People quite enjoyed the displays in the windows. I grew up in New South Wales where they have women and men and children sometimes doing performance arts in windows. It does not have to entail sex work.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can I make a very brief contribution to that, and perhaps add that, if we recall, just some time ago there was an issue with bikini-clad women at a massage parlour. Is that what we call them?

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: Bikini girls?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Bikini girls. Our planning by-laws and our councils were able to deal with those. In a number of instances, where it was deemed not appropriate, they were no longer allowed to stand on the streets outside their premises and promote themselves or their business for so-called massages.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: I rise to support this amendment by the honourable member. A couple of years ago when this bill came up, I tried to move very similar amendments. Unfortunately, at that time, we lost eight to 13, so I am glad that after two years those members who voted no at that time have had a change of heart. Hopefully, in a couple of years' time, I might move some of my amendments that lost today and hopefully they get up.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I rise to indicate that I will be supporting this amendment. Members may recall that it was one of the issues that I raised in my second reading contribution which I am pleased to see looks as if it will have the support of the chamber. This is not a perfect amendment, either, obviously. There are a number of things in here that I think require further scrutiny, and I presume that will happen in the other place mainly, or maybe it will come back to us, who knows?

However, one of the issues that I would raise just briefly on this is the amount of $2,500. It is certainly a reasonable amount of money to most people, but if you are running a very large business with 50 or more women involved then $2,500 could be seen as a reasonable fine and just a cost of doing business. My view is that that amount falls well short of what it could be.

Courts are sensible and they make reasonable adjustments if it is an individual. They might impose a fine of $1,000 or $500 or something but if it is an entity of many women—typically women; it can be men, I understand—involved in selling sexual services then $2,500 could be just a fraction of what extra business they could attract by advertising if others are not advertising. I think that is something that needs to be thought through as well. That said, as I said, it is not perfect but it will enjoy my support.

New clause inserted.

Remaining clauses (23 and 24), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (18:04): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (18:04): I rise with some trepidation to put on the record my acknowledgement at least of those honourable members of this place and the other place who have done the hard yards on this and similar legislation over many years: the Hon. Carolyn Pickles, the Hon. Gail Gago, the Hon. Michelle Lensink, the Hon. Steph Key, and the Hon. Tammy Franks, and of course the other honourable members currently present who have been integral to the passage of this bill here tonight, which should pass on the third riding. I just want to say that patience may very well be a virtue. We will see where this goes in the other place. But to those women who have led this debate over the last decade or so, I express my gratitude.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (18:05): It is worthwhile summarising where we are at. This debate has resulted in some small improvements to a bill, which I have stated throughout I think is fundamentally flawed. The reason for that is that it normalises that women are mere products, that they can be objectified. Many women in the community know that it is demeaning for all women, for any women, to be sold. This bill lessens the protections for women in the sex trade because the exploiters will be decriminalised.

There is absolutely no recognition for the women who have talked about the increased abuse and expectations by the sex buyers, the men who demand sexual access as their right. It has not addressed any of the concerns raised by councils. It would appear that the changes to the Equal Opportunity Act may well prevent people even putting the view that prostitution is harmful. As it appears currently under this bill, there is nothing to stop prostitution being promoted at careers expos.

Children will be able to be on the premises where prostitution is taking place, whether in a home brothel or in a large brothel with many, many sex buyers. There is nothing to improve the situations for women with little or no English, and the additional risks of vulnerability, if this bill passes, particularly since the pimps will no longer be criminalised. It will increase the likelihood of women and girls being accosted for sex, because street walking will be able to happen anywhere and any time.

In summary, the bill increases the objectification of women, it gives more freedom for the exploiters and it increases risks to children. So this is still a fundamentally flawed bill that will create far more problems in our communities, and I therefore urge members to vote against it.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (18:07): As we know, South Australia has always been renowned for being a progressive state when it comes to legislation, and I think the passage of this bill from this place today really exemplifies that, and it sort of channels that era of the 1970s when we had Don Dunstan as the Premier.

I would like to commend all the contributions that have been made by all members here, and I think it has been a worthwhile exercise for us all in being able to understand the complexities of this topic that we have had to comprehend and grasp. I would particularly like to congratulate and mention the advocacy of the Hon. Michelle Lensink and the Hon. Tammy Franks. I think she has worked exceptionally hard to get this bill to where it has got today. So, congratulations to both of them, and thank you.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (18:08): I rise just briefly to echo the statement made by the Hon. Ian Hunter and thank those women who have come before in this debate: the Hon. Carolyn Pickles and Steph Key (former minister), both of whom have followed this debate closely and perhaps are listening right now; of course, the former leader of this place for the then government, Gail Gago; and, indeed, the Hon. Michelle Lensink, now Minister for Human Services; and, also, the women to come in the other place: the member for Reynell, Katrine Hildyard, and the Deputy Premier, the member for Bragg, Vickie Chapman. All of those women have put so much effort into this, and I absolutely commend again this bill to this chamber.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you for summing-up the debate, the Hon. Ms Franks. I now put the question that the bill be read a third time.

The council divided on the third reading:

Ayes 13

Noes 6

Majority 7

Third reading thus carried; bill passed.