Bills

Summary Offences (Prostitution Law Reform) Amendment Bill

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (17:16): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Summary Offences Act 1953 and to make related amendments to the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (17:17): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I bring this bill to the chamber to allow conversation, discussion and debate on a different model around the sex industry. In doing so, I would like to firstly acknowledge the work of the Hon. Michelle Lensink, the Hon. Tammy Franks, and others in this place and the other place over a long period of time, who have indeed acknowledged that the current laws are not working and have not worked for decades. We must look to protect and empower women, because as Malala Yousafzai said:

I raise up my voice—not so that I can shout but so that those without a voice can be heard...we cannot succeed when half of us are held back.

I bring this bill to the council as a credible alternative to full decriminalisation. I bring this bill, which many other countries have already embraced—countries such as Norway, France, Sweden, Canada, Iceland, Ireland, Northern Ireland, Israel and South Korea. These countries have identified the need to change the model of prostitution, to employ an innovative approach to policy that is not based on standard legalisation or criminalisation principles. It is a differentiated model of asymmetric decriminalisation where the selling of sexual services is decriminalised, but the buying of sexual services is criminalised.

The fundamental innovation of this model is that it targets demand. The model recognises that it is the demand for sexual services that promotes the expansion of the sex trade and sex trafficking. The model proceeds from an understanding of prostitution as gendered violence, which creates a very different framework than those who identify prostitution as either labour or work.

Whilst I acknowledge that both men and women can be involved in the sex trade, we know that over 95 per cent of people involved are women. There is no getting past this statistic; it is gendered. I bring this bill to the council in the name of equality for women. I bring this bill to the council as a pathway to protect those in prostitution, a way to ensure that women in prostitution themselves are decriminalised and are free to make their own decisions—choice and autonomy—because it has been stated in this place many times before that it is a woman's right to choose what she wants to do with her body.

However, too often the sex industry is not a choice. It is by far the case, and not the exception to the rule, that many women who find themselves in the sex trade do not do so by choice and are often vulnerable as a result of childhood sexual abuse, domestic violence, coercion, homelessness, and drug and alcohol addiction. Only last weekend, The Advertiser reported a story on a former nurse who had become homeless after an injury and was utterly destitute when she turned to prostitution for money in 2016. These are the real stories out there. These are the real lives and these women need our laws to protect them.

There is endless research and literature that supports this statement. According to Mathieson, Branam and Noble, 'Prostitution Policy: Legalization, Decriminalization and the Nordic Model', printed in the Seattle Journal for Social Justice in 2016, Swedes, in viewing prostitution as a consequence of structural injustices (including sexism, racism and heterosexism), called for the provision of social service support to survivors of prostitution and for the criminalisation of those abusing their greater socio-economic power by buying women who are prostituted for their own sexual gratification.

According to these researchers, any country committed to advancing the welfare of the majority should not economically institutionalise the sexual subordination of women to men, nor should they justify segregating marginalised populations in an economy (the sex industry) where these disenfranchised citizens would be expected to sexually service their social superiors, for instance those with more economic power, for survival.

In a modern-day society, when we are championing gender equality, reduction or abolition of gender pay gaps and striving to create a fair and just society where all individuals have equal opportunities, how can we rationally tolerate legislation that protects those with more power? I bring this bill to the chamber to create a more equitable and respectful society. This bill challenges the power inequalities found within the sex trade. The bill has been drafted with the following core components in mind:

to criminalise the act of offering or providing money or other benefit in return for a person performing sexual services;

to remove criminal sanctions currently applied to sexual exploitation victims;

to criminalise the acts of enabling and profiting from the prostitution of another person; and most importantly

to provide a comprehensive resourced network of support and exiting services for victims of sexual exploitation.

In doing so, it is an act that amends the Summary Offences Act 1953 and makes related amendments to the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935. It repeals sections 25, 25A and 26—that is, those sections relating to the current laws around prostitution—then inserts part 5B, sections 26F through to 26K. In doing so, it makes it an offence to request the provision of, or to be provided with, a commercial sexual service.

This provision seeks to criminalise the act of buying sexual services. It also makes it an offence to procure a person to provide sex in exchange for payment. For all purposes, a person procures a person to provide sex in exchange for payment if the person: (a) causes, assists, facilitates, persuades or encourages a person to provide sex in exchange for payment; (b) advertises that the person (or some other person) is willing to employ or engage a person to provide sex to another person in exchange for payment; or (c) approaches another person with a view to causing, assisting, facilitating, persuading or encouraging the other person to accept employment or an engagement to provide sex to a person in exchange for payment.

It is also illegal to keep and manage a brothel, to advertise a commercial sexual service or to permit premises to be used as a brothel. These provisions target both pimps and brothels, and unashamedly so. According to testimonies from sex trade survivors in Australia, it is often not the woman being sold who walks away with the bulk of the money for their work: it is pimps and brothel operators. There are fees charged for towels used to clean themselves after a client. Fees are charged if they run overtime with a client, even if the client refuses to leave of their own accord. Fees are charged to get taken to call-outs or offsite jobs. Penalties are given if they need time off between clients, even if they have been abused and their bodies are hurt or bleeding.

New Zealand's well-publicised Chow brothers, Michael and John Chow, made millions of dollars off the backs of women in brothels and strip clubs. The Chow brothers operated these businesses openly due to the decriminalisation of prostitution in New Zealand. They have since sidestepped into diversified property and investments, having reportedly raked up close to $400 million prior to diversifying away from the sex industry. A hearing in 2014 heard how there was a high drinking culture, with encouragement to package up 'one hour with a girl and a free bottle of champagne'. There were reported rampant sexual assaults from intoxicated clients, and workers would lose shifts if they did not meet quotas.

The Chows are a classic case of men and brothel and property owners—noting that many women reported being encouraged to rent rooms upstairs in the premises for $200 per week—making money at the expense of women's bodies and their abuse. The Chow brothers state that they worked closely with the New Zealand Prostitutes' Collective and that no women on their books had complained to the police, but when women are reliant on the income, when women are intimidated—as was reported in the 2014 hearing—and when women are not provided with assistance and are powerless to speak up, it is highly unlikely they will complain to either their bosses or the police.

Under this bill, a person who receives payment or some other material benefit that the person knows is derived directly or indirectly from a payment made to another person in exchange for the provision of sex is also guilty of an offence. However, I would like to acknowledge that there may be some situations where a person would be dependent on the earnings of someone in prostitution for legitimate reasons, such as a person who is living with someone in prostitution on a genuine domestic basis or someone who receives payment as a result of a duty of care owed by the individual, for example, the provision of a carer for a disabled family member or the provision of childcare services for a child.

In these circumstances, it is important that these individuals are protected. It does not allow for circumstances, however, where there is coercion, the use of drugs, alcohol or other intoxicating substances, intimidation or the abuse of trust, power or authority in these relationships. That should never be tolerated, no matter what the situation is.

The last provision is arguably the most important provision, and that is the provision of comprehensive social services to women in prostitution. There are two types of support: support services from the government and those from non-government organisations. In Sweden, public agencies are responsible for these support services, and these are termed prostitution units. These units act as intermediaries and facilitators with broader social services to help women access housing, financial assistance, psychosocial support and more.

Services offered by the units are entirely free, and clients of the units are under no obligation to leave prostitution in order to receive services. With a client demographic that includes men, women and those in the transgender community, the employees meet people with any prostitution-related experience, from stripping and pornography to street and brothel prostitution. The units do not have specific exit programs, but rather employees will ask clients what they need help with to tailor the social service supports to the specific needs of each client.

The most comprehensive Swedish unit, located in Stockholm, offers access to two therapists who are also street and internet outreach workers, a trafficking specialist, street and internet outreach workers, social workers, a midwife, a part-time gynaecologist, a general practitioner and a psychologist. The unit contains an onsite medical office, which is critical to ensure these individuals have access to the medical treatment they need.

Then there are situations like in Seattle, where non-government organisations have stepped up to provide these services to women. Seattle has not eliminated existing full criminalisation laws, but it enforces them differently as a key component of the countrywide initiative to shift the focus of legal efforts onto the buyers who fund the sex industry.

In Seattle, the women who are arrested are encouraged to seek services as an alternative to penalties. They receive referrals for shelters and rehab clinics from a survivor advocate. Advocates also offer transportation, food and clothing if necessary at the time of the arrest. The primary organisations serving the specific needs of prostitution survivors are OPS and REST, and both of these organisations provide mentorship, support programs, therapeutic care, as well as access to basic supplies such as hygiene products and clothing.

I certainly do not envisage to suggest to the relevant minister how she would go about ensuring these women are supported, suffice to say that I would expect her department to look at other countries and jurisdictions that currently have this successful model implemented. But I think it is important to impress on this chamber that the support needs to be real, it needs to be timely and it needs to be executed with diligence, dignity and compassion.

It is important during the discourse of this legislative debate that we acknowledge the reality of those living in the sex trade. I would like to take some time to share quotes from survivors as they tell the truth that so often gets hidden when we only speak in legal terms. One 12-year-old girl said:

I started hanging out on the streets to escape my nightmare of a home. But unbeknown to me, the streets would be even scarier—but at least the men paid.

This does not sound like a 12-year-old child's first choice. One woman spoke about the barriers to obtaining safe accommodation. She said:

No-one wanted to rent to a young, coloured woman, who had no references, no legit job, and no payslips.

They often feel like they are trapped with no ability to realistically and safely exit the sex trade. Often they do not even realise the trap they are in while they have to live it every day. A survivor wrote:

He said I was coming up to my use-by date, and all I was good for was [sex] and once I was not good for that anymore, I should just go and kill myself because no-one would want me—not even if I offered it for free. It was not until he said that, that I realised that these guys were creeps. My skin literally crawled. I felt like I had just woken up from a deep sleep, realising the life I had been living was pure and actual hell.

Another survivor said she would do anything to avoid going back to her home or being homeless, so she turned to prostitution—a story repeated many, many times. She goes on to state:

The industry relies on women and girls who have learnt to devalue themselves…who have learnt to regard abuse as normal.

There are plenty of very simple statements:

I didn't want to have sex with any of them, yet I had to if I wanted to pay rent.

I tried again, and failed again, to get and keep a real job…I also got involved in a relationship with a violent man who reinforced all the negative ideas I had about myself.

In bringing this bill to the chamber, I would like to acknowledge and thank several people who have been instrumental in their advocacy around this model.

I would like to thank the survivors and the women in the sex industry who have spoken with me over the journey. In particular, I would like to thank the founder of Wahine Toa Rising, Ally-Marie Diamond, for her strength and courage to speak out publicly about her experience. Wahine Toa Rising stands for Warrior Women Rising. It is a survivor-led support group operating in Australia and New Zealand. I would also like to thank WEEP, Women Ending Exploitation in Prostitution, and other advocacy groups who have been calling on this change for years.

The inherent nature of the sex industry means that many young, vulnerable, socially disadvantaged women and girls enter the workplace and become trapped. Are all of these women trafficked or coerced? Absolutely not. Therefore, current laws around trafficking and coercion do not protect a lot of these women. Some, because of their own disadvantaged circumstances, turn to this industry as a fast way to make money because, as we have heard in evidence given in a committee, 'It may be the only place for women.' Is this a choice? It does not seem like a choice to me. These women do not have a choice, and they deserve one.

In this bill there is a pathway for these women. There is a pathway so that these women can say enough is enough. There is a pathway that enables these women to not only leave the profession without a criminal offence record but be assisted and supported in leaving the profession. I seek members' support on this piece of legislation, which at the heart of its core is designed to protect and assist society's most vulnerable because, as Ally-Marie Diamond once said, 'As we let our own light shine, we give others the courage to shine their own.' I seek leave to conclude my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

There being a disturbance in the gallery:

The PRESIDENT: Order!