Bills

Summary Offences (Prostitution Law Reform) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 27 September 2023.)

The Hon. J.S. LEE (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (21:03): I rise today to indicate my support for the Summary Offences (Prostitution Law Reform) Amendment Bill 2023. I wish to thank the Hon. Nicola Centofanti for bringing this bill to the chamber and allowing us the opportunity to have a robust and respectful debate on the sex industry and prostitution law reform. The fact that we have found ourselves in this place as legislators engaging in intense consultations, debates, research and deliberations on this issue over many years demonstrates that there is a genuine need to reform our current laws.

I believe there are good people on both sides of this debate who care deeply about people, mainly women, and their welfare and safety in the sex industry. Today we are asked to consider the Nordic model in this bill, also called the equality model. It is a system of partial decriminalisation. It exempts people who work in the sex industry, mostly women, but reprimands those who procure sex for others (such as pimps) and third-party profiteers (such as brothel owners), as well as those who pay for sex (mostly men).

The Nordic model also offers assistance or exit programs for those who want to leave the sex industry. I note that the Hon. Dr Centofanti has already spoken extensively on the specific amendments to the Summary Offences Act 1953 and the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 proposed in this bill; therefore, I will not be going into details of those in my contribution. I wish to speak more broadly to the intention of this bill and the very real and empowering impact that it will have on the vulnerable women who are victimised and exploited in the sex industry.

The Nordic model was first adopted in Sweden in 1999 and has also been implemented in Norway and Iceland. This model has now been enacted in other countries, including Canada, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, France, Israel and South Korea. It is also under consideration in Spain, Latvia and Lithuania, while the European Parliament has shown its support for the model. While men are also involved in the sex trade, over 95 per cent of people involved are women. Of these women, approximately 80 per cent enter the sex industry due to extreme circumstances, such as financial distress, homelessness, addictions and abuse.

Indigenous women and women of colour are also over-represented in the sex trade. These are women who continue to be physically and financially exploited or coerced by their mostly male clients and mostly male pimps or brothel managers. Women who are already often victims of sexual abuse, experiencing domestic violence, drug and alcohol addictions or homelessness find themselves making harsh choices to avoid utter destitution. These women need laws which will protect them, and they need a tangible pathway to exit the sex industry and be free to make their own decisions.

During my consultation with stakeholders on this bill, I have met with Ashlyn Vice, State Director of the Australian Christian Lobby. I have spoken to Hindu and Buddhist community leaders and many multicultural community leaders. They have all expressed views similar to mine and indicated their support for this bill.

Earlier this year, I met with Amanda Brohier, the President of Women Ending Exploitation by Prostitution (WEEP), who was also accompanied by a young woman who previously worked as a prostitute and has since left the industry. To protect her identity out of respect, I will not name her in parliament, but the story she told was very confronting and left a deep impression on me.

She came from a dysfunctional and disconnected family. At 18, she became involved in the first of many abusive relationships with men who used her for sex. She would later turn to drugs to ease her pain, but with no money to support her addiction, she felt that she had no choice but to sell her body. This was the beginning of an even more turbulent and difficult time for her. She was constantly used, abused, threatened and robbed by her clients. She felt she had no choice but to work longer hours, inviting her to further dangers. She became isolated, associating only with other sex workers and drug dealers. She was stuck in a vicious and self-sustaining spiral with seemingly no way out.

While she was eventually able to escape from her horrible life, it came at the cost of her physical health and mental wellbeing. To this day, she continues to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, a condition that is also all too common amongst women because of their tormenting experiences in the sex industry. I want to thank this young woman for her courage and strength to meet with me and many others so that she can tell her story, share her experience and advocate for meaningful and effective change for women who have become trapped in the sex industry. As she says:

No one enters this industry simply by choice, there are always underlying issues.

Another case study is from Rose Hunter, who is an author and a sex industry survivor. I would like to quote why she supported the Nordic model. She said:

I support the Nordic Model because, in my 10 years in the sex industry, I never saw an exit service, or even dreamed that I might deserve such a service—and I so wish I had.

As part of its exit service component, the bill that will be voted on this year in South Australia suggests assistance in education and training, accommodation, employment, and access to health and legal services.

In addition to the immense help this would have been for me, the assistance of programs like this would have sent me a vital compassionate message: that I deserve more than the sex industry—our laws said so.

I support the Nordic Model because, in my experience, the sex industry cannot be made safe for women—either physically or psychologically. It is not, and cannot be made into, acceptable work.

I support the Nordic Model because it describes a society I want to live in—a society in which men's sexual use of disadvantaged and traumatised women is not acceptable and is not tolerated by our laws.

What kind of society do we want? We can decide that we believe our women and girls deserve better than being exploited in the sex industry.

We can legislate to change societal attitudes. Other countries have already done it. I hope South Australia will be the first Australian state to prioritise the welfare of our women and girls and enact the Nordic Model.

I recognise that those who advocate for full decriminalisation are seeking to help and provide the necessary support for women in prostitution. However, by not proactively tackling the inherent inequalities in the sex industry, decriminalisation will never be able to achieve the ultimate goal of empowering and protecting vulnerable women. The decriminalisation model in other jurisdictions has failed to achieve its goals of increasing safety, improving health and human rights, decreasing stigma and eliminating fear of criminal repercussions.

I now want to point out a case study looking at a jurisdiction that has already decriminalised prostitution, namely, New Zealand. Five years after decriminalisation in New Zealand, a government report found that a majority of sex workers interviewed felt that decriminalisation of prostitution could do little about the violence that occurs in the sex industry, and few reported incidents of violence against them.

According to the report, despite decriminalisation the social stigma surrounding involvement in the sex industry continues. Street prostitution in New Zealand's biggest city, Auckland, increased dramatically, with numbers more than doubling just a couple of years after decriminalisation. Child prostitution also became rampant in some cities, with girls as young as 10 years selling sex.

These case studies found that women had no say in setting the price of sexual services, with prices often changed without consultation. Brothel owners would have workers pay a bond or withhold payment as a means to compel women to work. Workers would get fined for refusing to perform particular sexual acts, and it was difficult for workers to make complaints, due to the control exerted by brothel owners. This is why it is necessary that any reform we consider in this place actively seeks to fix the power imbalance between those who sell themselves for sexual services and those who participate in the buying of sexual services.

This is what this proposed bill seeks to do—to reduce the demand for sexual services, create a platform to restore equality and then provide the necessary help and services that are required for those who may want to exit the industry. It is vital that this bill provides a framework for real support that helps and empowers women to transition away from sex work.

Once again, I would like to thank the Hon. Nicola Centofanti for introducing this bill, and the many women, individuals and organisations who have advocated and campaigned strongly for this bill. With those remarks, I commend the bill.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (21:14): I will be supporting this bill that seeks to introduce the Nordic or equality model, which makes the buying of sex a criminal offence along with associated third parties like pimps, while selling sex is decriminalised. I do not think you would ever be able to stop the practice, which has been in society for thousands of years, but there are ways it can be restricted.

I cannot support measures that create an industry from it. The ones who really benefit are the promoters, in particular the pimps who run these rackets and who may be linked to criminal organisations and drug traffickers. This is a far more acceptable model. It works successfully in reducing the practice of prostitution in several European and Scandinavian countries, where it has been in place for several years.

After we last debated a bill to legalise prostitution, which was lost, I travelled to Norway in 2019 to speak with the head of the police unit overseeing sex work and human trafficking, KOM, Chief Inspector Tore Hellebust. Their law was passed in 2009. Previously, prostitution was illegal, much like here. By 2000 the focus was more on human trafficking, and in 2003 Norway ratified the Palermo Protocol made by the UN to prevent and combat trade of humans, especially women and children—slavery. In 2003/2004, Norway had changed its laws to also include human trafficking because of a change of focus regarding sellers and buyers of sex.

During that time, Oslo was inundated with prostitutes from Nigeria. Chief Inspector Hellebust said there were between 200 and 300 girls working on the street daily, indicating these girls were victims of human trafficking. That is when they changed the law to criminalise the buyers and reduce the demand. It proved to be successful. Over time, there were fewer girls on the street. He provided me with Oslo police district arrest data between 2009 and 2018. Pimping dropped by almost 40 per cent while buying sexual services plummeted by 67 per cent.

The Norwegians concentrated more on education programs than on busts, as it was difficult to police because they had to catch people in the act to lay charges. He said fears from NGOs that violence against people would increase against prostitutes who sold sex from apartments was not supported by evidence, although they had reports of rapes and robberies of sex sellers. However, many girls did not report robberies or acts of violence to police in fear of being deported or because they came from a country where they distrusted authority.

Figures of sellers advertising for sex online have stabilised in Norway, as has the number of sex workers. Initial concerns that the laws would drive the practice underground proved unfounded. I met with Ida Elin Kock of the NGO Pro Sentret, who told me that in recent years persons from Romania and Bulgaria have been trafficked in Oslo, forced to work in the sex industry out of desperation because of financial destitution in their home country, a lack of education, illiteracy, coming from a minority background, or reduced cognitive abilities.

Another Pro Sentret NGO, Ulla Bjomdahl, from Sweden wrote a report, 'Dangerous liaisons', on the violence committed against female sex workers. It found they were frequently victimised privately and in prostitution, with the violence experienced characterised as 'severe to very severe'. A survey of sex workers found they wanted more police presence and severe penalties for those who were violent. Pro Sentret has called for more action to prevent violence against women.

In Sweden, media campaigns were effective in educating society about violent aspects of prostitution, with men's perception of prostitutes changing to viewing it as a more social problem, and a form of male violence against women. The Nordic model there has successfully reduced the number of men buying sex, compared to countries where prostitution was fully decriminalised. It is interesting that critics of this model who support full decriminalisation claim it will pose financial hardship on those wanting to exit the system while claiming decriminalisation would result in a safer environment. The bill does propose to assist prostitutes to find other alternatives of work and support.

Opponents also claim decriminalisation has been successful in New Zealand, New South Wales, Northern Territory and Victoria without providing substantive evidence. In forums conducted here by the Hon. Nicola Centofanti, we heard from Ally-Marie Diamond of Wahine Toa Rising, a survivor-led organisation for women and girls in the trade. Their stories were powerful and reflect the difficult and dangerous conditions they endured.

I also had the pleasure of meeting with Jonathan Machler, the executive director of CAP International, the Coalition for the Abolition of Prostitution, which is made up of 35 global organisations. They supported more than 18,000 persons around the world from marginalised groups. CAP showcases the voices of survivors in reports that delve into practices, including human trafficking and exploitation, emphasising the domination of men over women.

Ironically, here we are today in this country with the Prime Minister and state leaders meeting to find ways to reduce the horrendous spate of violence against women, yet there was no mention made of one key area where this also occurs constantly, and that is prostitution. Yet, they raise concerns about violent online pornography and misogyny. You could not find a more misogynistic world than prostitution, where pimps and thieves exploit and harm women.

CAP International's goals are to eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls, including trafficking sexual violence and other types of exploitation. For many women, prostitution is a necessity to meet financial needs. It affects the most vulnerable and the poorest women and children in our society. They do not want to do that work. They are crying out for help. Full decriminalisation is not going to do that.

France, perhaps one of the most liberated and progressive nations in the world, passed an historic law in 2016 to strengthen the fight against prostitution and provide support for prostituted persons. The laws consider them to be victims of violence, and a violation of human rights and dignity. Not only does this law prohibit paid sex and decriminalises prostituted persons, but there is also a mandated national policy for persons to exit the industry. There is protection for those persons, and it is assured, regardless of their nationality. There are stiff jail terms and penalties for those violating these laws. What is interesting is that these laws received overwhelming support from all political persuasions: socialists, lefty socialists, communists and even conservatives.

Prostitution is neither sex, nor is it work. I received a heartbreaking statement from Maz Bell, a member of WEEP, who gave a graphic and disturbing account of her life as a prostitute, and how it eventually descended into a traumatised world fuelled by drugs and then homelessness. She sought help through the Coming Project and, after six years, Maz says she is healing. She said, and I quote:

I believe that regardless of what the women in the sex industry say, how much they enjoy it and how empowered it makes them feel, it is denial and self-preservation. It can also be a coping strategy. No one enters this industry simply by choice. There are almost always underlying issues.

When I look back I admire my own strength to leave. Even though in my head I was convinced that that was what I wanted, deep in my heart I was longing for something more.

With that, I reiterate that I support the bill by the Hon. Nicola Centofanti.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON (21:25): I indicate that the Summary Offences (Prostitution Law Reform) Amendment Bill is a conscience vote for the Liberal Party, as is standard practice for such matters in our party. Like many of my colleagues, I have received a large amount of correspondence from individuals and groups sharing their views on how they believe prostitution would most appropriately be dealt with. I thank members of the community for their time in sharing their views.

For many in this place, their position on prostitution or sex work is already recorded for the public record. Being a relatively new member of parliament, my position on prostitution is not yet in the public domain. I seek members' indulgence as I briefly address my position on the decriminalisation of prostitution in my speech. I hope in doing so I can provide clarity on my views on this matter.

I acknowledge the hard work of the Hon. Nicola Centofanti MLC in introducing this bill to the parliament, an issue she is very clearly passionate about. In the contributions members have made, it has been clear that at the heart of their decision on which model of prostitution they support and whether to support this bill or not the safety of women has been at the forefront of that decision. Ultimately, we differ on how that is best achieved.

Throughout my contribution, I will refer to the impact upon women, as those who are prostituted are more often women. I acknowledge that this is not solely applicable to women. Given the existing legislation and the proposed bill use the term 'prostitution', I will too, but I mean no disrespect in doing so.

Throughout my contribution in relation to this bill, I would like to make it clear that when I am speaking about prostitution I am referring to consensual prostitution in which the individual is a willing participant. It is my view that where there is abuse, assault, rape or sex trafficking these are separate yet sometimes interrelated issues but not the act of prostitution and therefore not what is being legislated for here today. My contribution is in no way intended to say that these other offences do not occur or are not issues; they absolutely are, but it is important to remember what we are legislating for here today.

I note that there are existing federal laws that account for trafficking, and of course state laws which account for abuse, assault and rape. I would say that if these laws are not adequate then the federal and state parliaments should address these issues, but that is not what we are debating in this bill.

In my preparation for this debate, I have read Hansard and the reflections of some of the previous decriminalisation debates. I wish to share with this chamber an excerpt from the Attorney-General's favourite former member of parliament, the Hon. Rob Lucas MLC, when he said:

…can I say at the outset that I absolutely support the right of members we have had in the past, and if there are members here in this chamber today, whose judgements they bring to bear on this particular legislation or others that are governed almost completely by their personal moral code or their belief system. I defend to the end their right to interpret their role in this chamber as a legislator in that particular way…

He says there is no right way and there is no wrong way. It is largely my values that underpin my view on this debate. In considering the proposed legislation, I believe it is important to reflect on the existing framework. Prostitution in South Australia is currently partially criminalised. Brothels are illegal. Keeping, managing and receiving money paid in a brothel in respect of prostitution or permitting premises to be used as a brothel is prohibited. Authorised police officers may at any time enter and search premises which are suspected on reasonable grounds to be a brothel. Street prostitution is illegal. Escort agencies are not mentioned in legislation and there is nothing in the act specifically about private operators.

Pursuant to the Summary Offences Act, other relevant offences include permitting premises to be frequented by prostitutes, being on premises frequented by prostitutes without reasonable excuse, soliciting or accosting a person in a public place or within the view or hearing of any person in a public place, loitering in a public place for the purpose of prostitution, engaging in procurement for prostitution, knowingly living wholly or in part on the earnings of prostitution of another person.

The Criminal Law Consolidation Act creates offences relating to commercial sexual services, sexual servitude and the use of children in commercial sexual services. Pursuant to this act the common law offence of keeping a common bawdy house is punishable by imprisonment of no more than two years.

In consideration of this bill my office has conducted a series of freedom of information requests to determine how the existing framework has been applied. These FOIs found nil arrests and fines for keeping or managing a brothel during the date range of 25.9.22 to 26.9.23. There were, however, five reports for the offence of keep brothel within this date range.

There were no fines issued for soliciting for the purpose of prostitution during the date range of 25.9.22 to 26.9.23; no arrests or fines issued for living off the earnings of prostitution of another person, including escort services, during the date range 25.9.22 to 26.9.23; and no arrests or fines issued for procurement for prostitution during the date range of 25.9.22 to 26.9.23.

I have had people raise with me that the status quo is not working. I have heard this from those who support the Nordic model and those who support the full decriminalisation model. I appreciate that the decriminalisation of prostitution is something that has been debated many times in this place.

As I have not put my position on the record, I will address the full decriminalisation of prostitution, as I have had multiple groups and individuals approach me in support of a full decriminalisation model. I believe it is important to pin my colours to the mast and stay true to my convictions. I do not see my position changing regarding the decriminalisation model should further bills be brought on this issue.

I do not support decriminalising prostitution. I do not believe that prostitution should be a viable career prospect. I believe that individuals should be deterred from entering prostitution. I equally believe that individuals should be deterred from purchasing sexual services and from exploiting women. I do not believe that decriminalising prostitution is in the interests of society as a whole or of the women who are involved in prostitution. To decriminalise prostitution would essentially serve to be cultural approval and normalise such behaviour.

Sex should not be an expectation. No woman should be able to sell sex or to have their bodies bought for sex. I disagree with the objectification of women that prostitution allows for. The value of women should not be based on their physical appearance and sexual appeal, which is something that underpins prostitution. It is my belief that the right to access women for sex for money reduces prostituted women to a commodity.

As I see it, even if prostitution was decriminalised and heavily regulated and normalised there would always be an imbalance of power. It comes from the very nature of the client procuring a service that is that personal in nature. It comes from the reality that often female prostitutes will likely be smaller than their clients and operate in an isolated and secluded environment. This inherently leaves them vulnerable.

No workplace should ever place its workers in such vulnerable positions. Economic independence should not come with the risk of harm or abuse. I appreciate that those who support the full decriminalisation model will likely say that to decriminalise prostitution would address safety concerns. I respectfully disagree and think that the inherent nature of prostitution will always leave prostitutes vulnerable and subject to power imbalance. This is an unacceptable risk, in my opinion.

The best way to protect women is not to decriminalise or regulate the industry but to reduce it and criminalise it. It is one of the oldest professions, so I am not naive enough to think that it will cease to exist, though it is with the acknowledgement of this reality that I have attempted to balance in my approach the need to reduce women entering the industry, to stop men from purchasing sex and exploiting women, and to provide avenues for support for those who are vulnerable within prostitution and exit strategies for them if they look for them with the reality that there will inevitably still be women who remain within the sex industry.

It is important that those who seek to exit the industry have the support that they need to be able to do so. Just because this is one of the oldest professions in the world does not mean that it cannot or should not be changed. Ultimately, it is my aim that there is a reduction in those who enter prostitution to begin with, and that those who are within prostitution have exit strategies to leave prostitution, should they choose.

In my belief, the Nordic model does not go far enough. In all honesty, I support full criminalisation of prostitution with what I would call safe harbour provisions. In my conversations with people on either side of the debate and in my consideration of this difficult issue, I must say I fully appreciate there are concerns the criminalisation of prostitution leaves people—often women—vulnerable to physical and sexual violence, which can mean that prostitutes are reluctant to report assaults for fear of themselves being charged with prostitution-related offences.

I have often wondered whether the establishment of safe harbour provisions would be beneficial within a fully criminalised model: a model where both the sale and purchase of sex would be criminalised, but where there is a carve-out, if you will, where the prostitute could not be charged with prostitution-related offences if they fell within set exemptions and where they could declare that they have been operating as a prostitute when reporting offences to the police—for example, if they have been raped or stolen from—and in seeking housing and welfare assistance, health care, etc., without the fear of prosecution.

The intention would be that women would be able to declare that they have been operating as a prostitute in seeking this assistance, without fear of prosecution from the authorities. Importantly, it would assist those who are already within the industry in seeking help and getting out, if they choose. For obvious reasons, these women are currently not able to do this, and I think it is important for them to be able to do so.

I do not necessarily agree with criminalising only one party, whether it be the sale—as it currently is—or the purchase. It is my view that, where one side of the equation is criminalised, the other party knows that they are causing, assisting and/or facilitating an offence by the other person. Both parties should be responsible for their actions and both parties should equally be deterred. I find it peculiar that you would be able to deliver a service you know is illegal for someone else to purchase. In a sense, it is like punishing a drug buyer while the dealer gets off free.

All things considered, my preferred outcome for this issue would be a model where you could criminalise the sale and purchase of prostitution-related offences, but have a legislative framework where those who are seeking police support, health services, HIV treatment and prevention, sexual health services or housing support could not be charged with prostitution-related offences when seeking those supports. I appreciate that at this time the support would likely not exist in this chamber to enable such a model of criminalisation to pass.

With that pragmatic acknowledgement that this place is built on its numbers, I now turn to the Summary Offences (Prostitution Law Reform) Amendment Bill, which is a bill based on the Nordic model. The Nordic model seeks to decriminalise those who are prostituted and seeks to criminalise the purchaser. It looks to provide support services to help prostitutes exit the sex industry, while trying to work to reduce the demand that drives prostitution. For this reason, I can see the benefits of the Nordic model that would allow a prostitute to seek that help to be able to exit the industry and to be able to seek the assistance needed.

In considering this bill, I reflected on a quote I have shared in this place a couple of times now. It reads:

Before we voice a preference on public policy, whether in the voting booth or talking with family members over dinner, we should consider one question with two parts.

First, what are the costs of choosing the wrong policy? And second, who would have to bear those potential costs?

If the wrong solution is chosen, a problem will likely persist as before or even be made worse.

From speaking with those who have previously worked as prostitutes and those who work closely with prostitutes, the existing framework deters prostitutes from being able to seek the help that they need, and some would say it is not working. I acknowledge there is a stigma associated with working in prostitution that can make it difficult for those who may be looking to exit the industry. For this reason, I can see the benefit for a change from the status quo, a change that would see better support and protection for those working as prostitutes who seek to leave the industry. I can see that the Nordic model presents the opportunity to create that support.

The intention behind the Nordic model is a noble one. It is to protect those who work in the sex industry to give them the support they need to be able to exit prostitution. It also holds the purchasers, who exploit prostitutes, to account through criminalising the purchase. The intention of this is something I support.

In considering whether to support this bill, I thought about what my aim is within a legislative framework for prostitution. I will try to briefly summarise my top three key objectives. The first is deterring women from entering into prostitution. It is my belief that the best way we can support women is to stop them from being in such vulnerable positions to begin with. This is something that I believe the existing framework or status quo better achieves than the proposed Nordic model, as it provides a deterrent for those considering prostitution, as they would be breaking the law.

The second is to stop the purchase of sex and to hold those who are exploiting women to account. This is something the proposed legislation addresses where the existing framework is, in my view, lacking. The third is to provide support to women in prostitution and to those who are seeking to exit the industry. This is something the proposed legislation addresses, where the existing framework is lacking.

It would be remiss of me to not highlight where my views differ from those of the Nordic model. I will place on record the reflections of the Nordic model but, to be clear, these are my reflections on the Nordic model more generally, and not reflections on the work of the Hon. Nicola Centofanti. The Swedish government, which has implemented the Nordic model in its jurisdiction, has been explicit in its understanding of prostitution and why it chooses to implement the criminalisation of the consumer model. The Swedish government fact sheet provided that:

The Swedish Government and parliament have, through the implementation of the Legislation pertaining to the Protection of Women, defined prostitution as men's violence against women.

The official Swedish view is that no prostitution can be said to be voluntary. It should be noted that the rationale behind the Nordic model has not been universally supported. As Ka Hon Chu and Glass state:

Within this framework, all men who purchase are deemed to be aggressors and all women in sex work are deemed to be victims of male violence and patriarchal oppression, a framing that conflates sex work within trafficking, pathologizes male clients, and renders male and trans workers largely invisible.

I disagree with the notion that prostitutes are automatically oppressed victims because of the title of their job, and that all purchasers are aggressors. I agree that purchasers are exploiting women and that those who work as prostitutes are vulnerable. I refute the notion that no prostitution can be voluntary.

I am not naive enough to think that there are not some in our community who want to work as prostitutes. In fact, I have met with and spoken with some. I am not naive enough to think that there are not some who enter prostitution, whether it be for a romanticised notion of what prostitution could be or through desperation and vulnerability. The idea that no prostitute ever can voluntarily enter prostitution, I think, poses a few key issues.

I do query, with that logic, if no prostitute can ever voluntarily enter prostitution, whether that then does not mean that prostitutes are there against their will and, as such, do not consent to sexual relations, meaning in theory we are talking about rape and not prostitution. I do not agree with this as a broad characterisation of prostitution, and I most certainly am not asserting that this is what the honourable member is proposing. I merely highlight the importance of language in this space.

I do not believe the act of prostitution is, in and of itself, an act of violence against women, although violence can be interlinked and, sadly, from experiences I have heard in the lead-up to this debate, something which is all too common. I have heard the phrase 'paid rape' used in my preparation for this contribution. I think it is important to differentiate between prostitution and abuse, rape or assault. It is my view that where there are two consenting adults, where boundaries are respected, the latter is not a consideration. However, in instances where a purchaser has exceeded the boundaries established by the prostitute, then that is abuse, rape or assault.

I would like to think that there would be few in our community who would think that the act of accepting a client gives the purchaser a free pass to do whatever they like, especially when the prostitute says stop or no. I believe there is a power imbalance between the purchaser and the prostitute, and the underworld nature of the industry, which may make it challenging in practice to refuse a request of a client. I do, however, think that language matters, and that in the consideration of this bill it is important to reinforce that no means no, even if you pay for it. To be incredibly clear, rape, assault and other crimes absolutely would and do occur within prostitution.

I am not denying that these life-changing and unforgivable, disgusting acts occur. It is, without doubt, heinous, and any individual who rapes someone should have the book thrown at them and be punished to the greatest extent possible. I raise this, however, merely to highlight that the legislation we are dealing with here today is that of prostitution, not of rape. At the point at which any of the aforementioned offences occur, it is a different offence that would ultimately apply. At the point at which we are speaking about rape, we are no longer referring to consensual sex, paid or otherwise.

Language is so important in this space. No matter what the surrounding circumstances, no means no. Whatever the woman is wearing, no means no. Even if you paid for it, no means no. It is never the fault of the victim, and I really want to reiterate that here today. To any current or former sex workers who have been raped or assaulted in doing what you do, for whatever reason you do it, no-one should ever have to endure that.

I thank the former sex workers who were incredibly brave in sharing their stories with me in consideration of this bill. So many who have shared their stories are incredibly strong and brave to discuss what is no doubt an awful experience in the pursuit of advocacy for those who perhaps are not in a position to advocate for themselves. Whatever the outcome of today's bill, no matter which side of the debate you might sit, please take pride in your efforts to advocate for the safety of women.

As I highlighted earlier in my contribution, I believe all members approach this subject with the safety of women at the forefront of their intentions. It is ultimately how we believe this is best achieved that differs. As I have said from the outset, I absolutely think that those who are prostituted are exploited by the purchaser, most commonly men. I think it is important to differentiate between prostitution and sex trafficking and that these issues are not conflated, although they are obviously interlinked.

United Against Human Trafficking outlines that whilst prostitutes might be exploited, they would be considered to enter the sex industry as a willing participant. Whether through direct or indirect exploitation, they use prostitution as a means for income. That is different from someone who is a victim of human trafficking, who is forced into the sex industry against their will by some measure of force, fraud or coercion. Whilst both of these instances will have women and men who need support in exiting prostitution, their situations are not always the same.

United Against Human Trafficking outlines the elements of sex trafficking and the elements of prostitution. The elements of trafficking: the act is recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons; the means is threat or use of force, coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or vulnerability, or giving payments or benefits to a person in control of the victim; and the purpose is prostitution of others, sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, or slavery. The elements of prostitution: the act is a sexual act or contact with another person in return for giving or receiving a fee or a thing of value; the means is to invite, entice, offer, persuade or agree to engage in prostitution.

As previously highlighted, my ideal model in respect of the issue would have three key objectives. The first is to criminalise the sale of sex as a deterrent for entering prostitution; the second is to criminalise the purchase of sex to hold men accountable for exploiting women, which reduces demand; and the third is exit strategies for women to get out of prostitution, coupled with safe harbour provisions.

To address the first objective, criminalising the sale, I note that I think the existing framework is unfair. It prosecutes the woman for selling sex; meanwhile, the man who is exploiting women who may often find themselves in this position due to desperation or vulnerable circumstances is not criminalised. It is my belief that both the sale and the purchase should be criminalised.

Perhaps I could give the example of selling drugs. I think it would be seen as quite unusual in the community if the person selling hard drugs was not criminalised but just the purchaser alone was. Both parties know that what they are doing is wrong, and both are held accountable for their actions. I note this is consistent with the general approach that is taken when people are involved in criminal activity, even when there may be drug addiction, economic disadvantage or other circumstances involved. If I could use another example, just because someone is on drugs does not mean that they are not charged with theft when they steal.

Even when only one side of the transaction is criminalised, the other willing participant who is not criminalised is aware that they are aiding, abetting and/or procuring the offence. In preparation for this bill, I have heard that prostitution is not a choice, that no-one chooses prostitution, that when it comes down to paying your bills or engaging in prostitution, there is no choice. I respectfully disagree.

As a Liberal, one of the key values in our party is the belief in personal responsibility. At some point, personal responsibility must be taken into consideration. To say that prostitutes do not enter the industry voluntarily removes that personal responsibility for one's actions and the deterrence that goes with it. Whatever the reason, a decision was ultimately made to go down this path, even if through desperation.

Even though vulnerability is involved, this does not necessarily mean that these women are unable to make a decision or that there is no choice. I appreciate that I may differ in my view from some of my colleagues on this. I once again reiterate that I am referring to prostitution—meaning consenting adults—and not to rape, assault, sex trafficking or other offences, offences which, of course, take away that personal agency.

We must also remember that there are some who do genuinely want to work in the industry. No, Mr President, I am not thinking of the movie Pretty Woman; I am being realistic. I have met with current and former prostitutes who have told me this. I do not have rose-coloured glasses, I do not think it is a job like any other, I do not think it should be a viable career option, nor that it would be a pleasant existence. If we are to look at how to address the issue at hand, we must be realistic: there are some in our community who, no matter what barriers are placed, will still remain to be prostitutes.

This place exists for the purpose of determining what it, the parliament, believes is in the best interests of society as a whole. There are probably a number of people who want to sell hard drugs for a living, but that does not mean that we should enable this. Preventing entry is at least as important as efforts to help women to exit after they have been harmed. I am concerned that by decriminalising the sale of sex we are removing a deterrent, that we are removing an obstacle from people entering prostitution to begin with, particularly in a tech-heavy world where OnlyFans exists, where the proliferation and payment for sexually explicit material is available at the click of a button and with the tap of a credit card.

Ultimately, in weighing up the existing model that criminalises the sale with the bill which does not, I thought it more important that men be accountable for exploiting women and more important that women have the support to exit the industry. Whilst this bill does not criminalise a sale, I believe it is moving in a positive direction by criminalising the purchase of sex, holding those who seek to exploit women to account. It is by no means a perfect outcome, and I have laboured over whether to support this bill. It has not been a linear process or a clear outcome from the outset for me.

I have tried to grapple with whether decriminalising the sale of sexual services, which is something that I disagree with, is something that sits with my conscience. I am someone who probably could be described as stubborn and firm in my views. In this, I am clear on my beliefs. I have arrived at the decision to support this bill in this instance, but state clearly that it is still my view that it does not go far enough, and I have sought clearly to put on the record my reservations.

I disagree with the language of some of the logic used in the Nordic model but, in putting that one side and looking at the bill before us, this model addresses two out of the three aims I wish to see in any legislative framework around prostitution. Ultimately, when the only options on the table are to either punish the vulnerable woman who is being exploited or to punish the purchaser or abuser who is exploiting vulnerable women, I will take the second option every day of the week.

Where there is currently no option on the table to criminalise both parties, I believe the people who would bear the potential costs of a remaining status quo are those who are vulnerable and will be impaired in their exit from the industry or in seeking intervention when offences are committed against them. I think it is more important in weighing up the two models that we see women exit the industry and receive the support that they desire.

I have given much consideration to whether I should support this bill in circumstances where the Nordic model is not my ideal model. However, I indicate that I will be supporting this bill today. As I conclude my remarks, I acknowledge the immense work that has been put into this bill by the Hon. Nicola Centofanti and her office. Her dedication and passion to this worthy cause should be commended. I acknowledge her courage in bringing this bill, a model that is different from what is often brought to this place.

When members bring these bills—conscience matters—they know it will not be an easy path, with legislation that is closely scrutinised. I have no doubt that the Hon. Nicola Centofanti will continue her advocacy in giving a voice to those who may not be in a position to speak for themselves. With that, I indicate my support for this legislation and commend the bill to the chamber.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (21:55): I rise in support of the Summary Offences (Prostitution Law Reform) Amendment Bill. This is a landmark day. This is the first time to my knowledge that the equality model of prostitution reform, sometimes known as the Nordic model, is being voted on in an Australian jurisdiction. This is the first time that a model of reform that promotes respect for women is before an Australian parliament. This is the first time that any Australian parliament has the opportunity to vote for a model of reform that has gained traction around the world in places such as Canada, France and Sweden, among others. The very fact that this bill has made it to this parliament is a win for women.

There are four reasons why, and why this bill should be supported. The first is women's equality. The bill supports the status of women as equal with men, with the right to not be objectified and to not be commodified. The second is that the model reduces human trafficking by addressing the key reason sex trafficking occurs, which is the demand for sexual access to women's bodies. The third is that the equality model increases safety for prostituted persons and the fourth is the positive effects for local communities.

I will expand on each of these tonight, but first I would like to outline the key elements of the equality model, which is the basis of this bill. The equality, or Nordic approach, directly targets the demand for prostitution by criminalising the actions of pimps and buyers instead of the actions of prostituted persons. The prostituted person does not commit an offence by being bought for sex.

The model acknowledges that the vast majority of buyers are men and that the vast majority of prostituted persons are women and girls. This approach recognises prostitution as a form of violence against women and that it is incompatible with women's equality. It also incorporates public education programs, discouraging the purchase of sex and encouraging truly respectful relationships. It also provides comprehensive exit programs and social support to assist prostituted persons to leave the industry.

This is a holistic approach to prostitution reform. There are some key points to note about this model. It is often referred to as the Nordic model because it originated in Sweden, but it originated from secular, left-wing and feminist groups. It is a normative and educative approach to change attitudes and behaviour, including public education campaigns to curb demand for sexual exploitation. The model understands the sex industry as a serious site of violence against women and a barrier to gender equality.

On that point, women's equality and the status of women, the equality model is an innovative, holistic form of sex industry policy that is gaining traction internationally. It is a progressive approach, and the only option available that is consistent with a feminist human rights framework. It explicitly recognises the gendered nature of demand for sexual exploitation; that is, women, especially marginalised women, make up the majority of prostituted persons and men make up the vast majority of sex buyers. Figures I have seen are that 95 per cent of the people involved in providing prostitution so-called services are women and 98 per cent of buyers are men. Therefore, throughout my contribution tonight I will refer to the women in prostitution on that basis, acknowledging, however, that there are others who are also involved in the sex industry.

It was introduced in Sweden and has been in effect since 1999 in that country. Gunilla Ekberg, writing for the Swedish Ministry of Industry, Employment and Communications explains the reasoning. She says:

In Sweden, it is understood that any society that claims to defend principles of legal, political, economic and social equality for women and girls must reject the idea that women and children, mostly girls, are commodities that can be bought, sold, and sexually exploited by men.

The law aimed to change attitudes, both those of the general public and those of men who had previously purchased [so-called] 'sexual services'. Thus, the law had a significant normative or educational element. It was not aimed primarily at mass arrests, but rather to deter the purchase of sex in the first place. The passing of the law and the associated public education campaigns have affected attitudes in Sweden. In 1996, only 45 per cent of women and 20 per cent of men were in favour of criminalising the purchase of sex. By 1999 this had jumped to 81 per cent of women and 70 per cent of men in favour of [what was then] the new law. In 2014, the number of women supporting the law had risen to 85 per cent.

When we are talking about the status of women we need to look at the attitudes of men. Members may or may not be aware that there are online review sites where men post reviews and rank the women with whom they have bought sex. Their attitudes to women, as revealed on these sites, are instructive. Some comments include, 'She's a sad waste of good girl flesh' or 'If you want an attractive receptacle for your semen, she will do.'

The study by Farley and others, Comparing Sex Buyers, reveals that men who pay to sexually exploit women are aware of the harms they inflict. It found that two-thirds of both the sex buyers and the non sex buyers who were in the study observed that a majority of women were lured, tricked or trafficked into prostitution and that 41 per cent of the sex buyers used women who they knew were controlled by pimps at the time they used her. This awareness, however, did not stop them.

This study—and here the attitudes are clear—found that sex buyers tend to regard the women they buy as less than human and as solely existing for their sexual use and enjoyment. Men who purchase sex are often quite open about their belief that their entitlement to sex should take precedence over the wellbeing of the women they buy.

Common themes emerge: one is that the sex buyers regard the women they buy as mere objects for sexual gratification. They appear to despise the women they buy and require of these women absolute compliance and submission to the sex acts demanded of them. The Comparing Sex Buyers study crucially finds that in systems of prostitution, sex buyers are motivated by the opportunity to control and dominate a woman.

We are probably all familiar with the expression 'not all disrespect ends in violence, but all violence starts with disrespect'. Are these the attitudes we want to support? I am sure that there is no-one in this place who does. The question arises: is male sexual entitlement acceptable in Australia in 2024? If we want to change attitudes to women to prevent sexual and gendered violence, we need to address it at all levels. If some women can be bought and sold for sex because men have the social and economic power to do so, the status of all women is undermined.

I have heard the argument that women should be able to do what they want with their own bodies, but prostitution is not about women doing what they want, it is about men doing what men want with women's bodies. This week, we have had attention on the tragic statistic that at least 28 women have been allegedly killed by a current or former partner in Australia so far this year. The commentary has rightly been that attitudinal change is needed. Well here is an opportunity to start that attitudinal change, to say that women's purpose is not to serve men and that men's sexual entitlement is not acceptable.

The second reason to support this bill is in regard to sex trafficking because it addresses demand. Sex trafficking exists because of demand, the demand of men to use women's bodies solely for their own wants. The equality model reduces trafficking because it addresses demand. The Coalition Against Trafficking in Women Australia argues that no effective policy can be developed against the trafficking of women into prostitution, which is the most common form of trafficking, without an understanding of its connection to the industry of prostitution. Research shows that the full legalisation of prostitution, or decriminalisation, tends to increase inward flows of trafficking.

The equality approach recognises that systems of trafficking and prostitution are largely driven by demand, and accordingly it targets the overwhelmingly male buyers rather than the predominantly female people who are prostituted. The report Does Legalised Prostitution Increase Human Trafficking? by Cho, Dreher, Neumayer states the following:

Most victims of human trafficking are women and girls. The vast majority end up being sexually exploited through prostitution.

That was quoted from the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime. Many authors, therefore, believe that trafficking is caused by prostitution and combating prostitution with the force of the law would reduce trafficking. The US Department of State has stated, as the official US government position, that 'prostitution is inherently harmful and dehumanizing, and fuels trafficking in persons'.

It is interesting that this particular paper investigates the impact of legalised prostitution on human trafficking inflows, with two opposing effects. It deals with the scale effect of legalised prostitution leading to an expansion of the prostitution market, increasing human trafficking based on the well-known assumption that an expansion of demand will expand your business—it is a basic business model.

On the other hand, there is an argument that there is a substitution effect, that the substitution effect reduces demand for trafficked women as legal prostitutes are favoured over trafficked ones. The empirical analysis for a cross-section of up to 150 countries in this study showed that the scale effect dominated the substitution effect. On average, countries where prostitution is legal or decriminalised experienced larger reported human trafficking inflows. It is by addressing demand that trafficking will be reduced, which is why this bill is so important.

The third reason this bill should be supported is for the increased safety of prostituted persons. I have spoken to many women who are survivors of the sex trade. Their stories are graphic, confronting and harrowing. In my speech on decriminalisation in 2019, I related a number of accounts of women, their paths into prostitution and the abuse that they endured. I would encourage anyone who wants to know the reality of prostitution instead of the sanitised version pushed by the exploiters to read those accounts. They are the voices that so often are silenced. I will quote one woman. She says:

To say that every woman enters the sex industry by 'choice' is a lie. To make a choice you need to have the facts about what you are choosing. I believe all prostituted women are held captive, not just physically as in the case of trafficked women, but by the lies of the sex industry. The industry knows once you're lured in it's hard to get out.

She talks about the amount of trauma that the industry left her with. The information on the harms of prostitution and trafficking, however, is sanitised. It has to be culturally, psychologically and legally denied, because otherwise it would interfere with the business of exploitation.

The risk of being prosecuted for an offence changes men's behaviour. Even for those who will still choose to use women for prostitution, under the equality bill, the bill that is in front of us, they know that if they do break the boundaries that woman has put in place, if they do physically abuse her, if they do rape her, they are likely to be prosecuted, because simply by buying her for sex they have already committed an offence.

This changes their behaviour. It means that, should they choose to use women for prostitution, they will be constrained. They will have to treat her with more respect and dignity than would otherwise be the case, because just by purchasing prostitution, purchasing women for sex, they are committing an offence. This is not, as I mentioned earlier in regard to Sweden, about mass arrests. This is about changing behaviour. This is about ensuring that those men who do continue to use women for prostitution do not rape her, do not physically assault her. This is about changing that behaviour.

A report published in the Journal of Trauma Practice on prostitution and trafficking in nine countries provided an update on violence and post-traumatic stress disorder. It revealed the results of statistical analyses indicate that violence is prevalent within the world of prostitution and tends to be multi-traumatic—71 per cent had been physically assaulted in prostitution, 63 per cent had been raped, 75 per cent had been homeless at some point and 89 per cent wanted to escape prostitution but had no options. Another 68 per cent met the criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder. The abuse that is inherent in prostitution is why it is so crucial that men's behaviour is changed.

In 'Prostitution and trafficking in nine countries: an update on violence and posttraumatic stress disorder', the following was reported: the harm perpetrated against women who are prostituted is not accidental and should be addressed on a global level as a human rights issue. A study of male customers of prostituted women reported the following:

Advocates for prostituted women argue that one of the characteristics of men who perpetrate violence against women is the expectation of service by women and that prostitution is an institutionalised domination of women that may contribute to this violence.

Further, it:

…suggests a sexual stereotyping of prostituted women that allow some women to be seen as 'other', women whose feelings of pain do not need to be considered. Consequently, violent behaviour perpetrated against prostituted women can be justified [by those men]. It may be that these patriarchal attitudes towards women contribute to some men's violence towards women.

I say again: if any women are considered able to be bought and sold, to be considered commodities, to be considered as not needing to have their feelings of pain considered, then all women's status is undermined.

The fourth reason to vote for this bill is more practical. In a very simple way, it will reduce the harassment of girls and women, including those who are not involved in prostitution in any way; for example, the sorts of things that no doubt many of us here in this chamber and in the gallery would have experienced over time as a teenage girl, a young woman or a not-so-young woman walking down the street—having car-fulls of men call out, 'How much?'

Those sorts of attacks can be laughed off, but they are distressing, they are scary and they are intimidating for many women. There are many examples of girls and women being approached for sex, particularly in areas around Hanson Road, for example, including schoolchildren. Parents in the area have raised this issue on many occasions.

If this bill passes, if you are a teenage schoolgirl walking down the road and a man comes up to you and asks for sex, or offers you money for sex, that man will be committing an offence. This will result in changes in behaviour by such men, and that will result in huge changes for girls and women, improving their chances to live their daily lives without such harassment.

Finally, the features of the bill have some provisions that can allay some concerns that people have. The first is that it allows for an expiation for a first offence of seeking prostitution. It also encourages the option for the court to order an educational program on respectful relationships. The former allays the concerns of those who do not want a criminal record for what they see as simply perhaps a stupid act; for example, an 18 year old being a bit stupid and potentially having his career or future impacted forever. There would be different views on whether that should be the case, but this bill does include a provision to have only an expiation and therefore no criminal record.

The option for the court to order an educational program on respectful relationships—truly respectful relationships—is an important component of ensuring that this bill, should it pass, is about changing attitudes. It is about men learning that women are not commodities. It is about expanding the viewpoint of those who want to use women to realise that is not conducive to equality and not something that our society will accept.

It is fair to say that the equality model is still not well-known in Australia. As I mentioned, to my knowledge tonight is the first time that any Australian jurisdiction will be voting on the equality model. The lobbyists used by brothel owners and profiteers have propagated misinformation about the equality model. Of course they would: it has the potential to destroy their business model. This is something that will be overcome in time as more people examine the positive impacts it has for women's equality and the positive outcomes in the countries around the world that have adopted it.

As an example, I note that the Police Association sent a letter to all MLCs last year, indicating they did not support this bill. But, following a meeting where additional information was provided, they have since indicated that they do not oppose it. While they have not indicated that they support it, they are keen to watch the debate. This is not uncommon as people realise some of the misinformation that is being spread about the equality model and some of the benefits that come from the equality model: benefits for women's equality and status, reduction in human trafficking and increased safety for prostituted persons. As they become more well-known, there is more and more support for it.

The equality model has been introduced in the following countries: Sweden in 1999, as I mentioned; Norway in 2009; Iceland in 2009; Canada in 2014; Northern Ireland in 2015; France in 2016; the Republic of Ireland in 2017; Israel in 2018; and just last year the US state of Maine also adopted the Nordic model. There are others, and there are others with slight variations.

I look forward to seeing South Australia move forward in true reform of prostitution law, move forward to a society where women are not commodified and not objectified and where the law says that that cannot be done.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (22:18): I will only make a brief contribution because I have said many things in the past in relation to reforming our laws. I think generally it is well understood that our laws in South Australia are poorly understood, and it is unfortunate that we have not been able to reach reform when other jurisdictions have made some changes that I think improve the situation. In some time past I actually chaired a select committee that looked into, particularly, the decriminalisation model. We took a lot of evidence and, as a result of that, further down the track those laws passed the Legislative Council.

We do know in South Australia that our legal framework here has resulted in many workers becoming victims of violence, theft and other criminal behaviour and witnesses to serious crimes. Their fears that disclosure to SAPOL will lead to informants having that information used against them as evidence of sex work activities leads to criminal acts going unreported and offenders free to continue committing crimes. My belief is that this legislation largely continues that regime and is not going to assist the people that it is purported to assist.

I have no doubt about the sincerity of the intent behind it. All of the contributions that I have been listening to tonight show that we all share as a common goal the best interests of, particularly, women who work in the sex work sector. However, the evidence that I have been provided with through that select committee, which had extensive powers to call witnesses and the like, very much has left me with the view that sunlight is the best disinfectant and decriminalisation is the model that serves sex workers the best.

It is a bit dated now, but I did write to the then Minister for Justice, the Hon. Michael Keenan, in 2015 because one of the issues that often gets raised is human trafficking and exploitation. I also commend the Hon. Laura Henderson for highlighting the fact that there are actually existing laws which are often used in debates against decriminalisation and in favour of other models, pointing out that there are laws with severe penalties in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act already in relation to exploitation, for underage children being used and exploited for sex work. There are very strong penalties in those that already exist, and also in terms of human trafficking.

I return to the response that I received from the Hon. Michael Keenan. I will not read it all, but he said at that time in 2015 that:

There is little reliable data about the nature and extent of human trafficking at a global, regional or domestic level. However, when compared to global trends it is clear that instances of human trafficking remain relatively uncommon in Australia.

He quoted some statistics that already exist on the Hansard from previous debates.

As I have said many times before, I think the representatives of sex workers in South Australia are against this model. They as a group do not want this model. Their concern is that it will negatively impact their work and will increase barriers to them accessing health care and also police support when they require it.

Our committee was very keen to hear about any of those people who I believe are in the minority, if you like, as a group who represent that underbelly of people who are working against their will. That was very hard to find. Sunlight, I believe, is the best disinfectant and I think we should listen to the voices of lived experience in this space and also to the women's groups who are represented through the National Council of Women, Zonta and BPW.

I do not accept the sort of infantilisation of women which is the main narrative that opposes decriminalisation and also purports to drive the reason for this bill before us. I just do not accept that argument at all, and I certainly do not accept that it further has an impact in relation more broadly in our community in increasing violence towards women. I think those are very separate issues. Because there is a fairly low number of sex workers, I do not see how that can have an impact on the broader society. I think there are other drivers for that as well, and it is also not borne out in evidence by a number of our domestic violence clearing houses and research organisations, so, unsurprisingly, I will not be supporting this bill.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (22:25): I also rise to indicate that I will not be supporting this bill. I think this is the first time I have had an opportunity to talk on the issue of sex work during my nearly three years in this parliament, and so I wanted to take this opportunity to make my support for the decriminalisation of sex work in our state clear, and to put that on the public record.

I am concerned that in criminalising the clients of sex work, as this bill attempts to do, there will be negative consequences that will flow on to these workers. We know that laws that criminalise the clients of sex workers have the potential to result in an increase in violence, in sexually transmitted infections, and exploitation within the sex industry.

Criminalising the clients also keeps the entire sex work industry underground and jeopardises the harm reduction strategies that sex workers can use to keep themselves safe, and leaves them vulnerable to predators and to criminals. I do agree with the comments made by the Hon. Michelle Lensink that sunlight, and indeed regulation, is the best disinfectant in that regard.

Sex workers in countries where sex work laws like the ones being debated here have been implemented are frequently threatened and harassed by law enforcement and, indeed, I understand that criminalising clients has resulted in police raids on brothels in those countries, which are psychologically and physically harmful to those workers. These encounters often result in sex workers experiencing isolation and stigma due to being outed in their community.

Sex work is work, and no-one should assume that sex workers do not have choice or autonomy. I am concerned that the patriarchal view of sex work that has been presented in this place by some in this chamber is a dangerous threat to the bodily autonomy and freedom of choice of women, and also other marginalised groups. I recognise the efforts of SIN and other advocacy groups here in our state in terms of advocating for the rights of sex workers.

I also just want to point out that we should not also assume that the clients of these sex workers are seeking to exploit people either and, indeed, I know from representations that have been made in the past from people in the disability sector, for instance, that access to sex work can be a very important aspect of the lives of some people dealing with disability, and there are a range of other scenarios where people may wish to access that service.

I do want to just reference some research in this regard looking at the Nordic model that was published by May-Len Skilbrei and Charlotta Holmstrom of the University of Oslo. It was in 2013, but an extract was published in The Conversation, under the title 'The "Nordic model" of prostitution law is a myth'. The article references prostitution law. That is not a term I use, but that is the term used in the article. I will quote an extract for you. It talks about the concerns around the way that this law might apply to particularly marginalised groups. It says:

…prostitution laws targeting buyers have complex effects on people far beyond those they are meant to target. In addition to this complicating factor, the Nordic countries also police prostitution using various other laws and by-laws. Some of these regulations do, in fact, assume that the women who sell sex are to be punished and blamed for prostitution. This goes to show that one should be careful in concluding that Nordic prostitution policies are guided by progressive feminist ideals, or that they necessarily seek to protect women involved in prostitution. The most telling example of this is the way Nordic countries treat migrants who sell sex.

In Sweden this is embodied by the Aliens Act, which forbids foreign women from selling sex in Sweden and is used by the police to apprehend non-Swedish or migrant persons suspected of selling sex. This reveals the limits of the rhetoric of female victimisation, with clients framed as perpetrators: if the seller is foreign, she is to blame, and can be punished with deportation.

It goes on to talk about the experience in Norway, where, the article says:

…we see similar gaps between stated ideology, written policies, and practice. Even though it is completely legal to sell sex, women involved in prostitution are victims of increased police, neighbour and border controls which stigmatise them and make them more vulnerable. The increased control the Norwegian police exert on prostitution markets so as to identify clients includes document checks on women involved in prostitution so as to find irregulars among them. Raids performed in the name of rescue often end with vulnerable women who lack residence permits being deported from Norway.

The research concludes that:

Taken together, the Nordic countries' ways of approaching prostitution have been presented nationally and understood internationally as expressions of a shared understanding of prostitution as a gender equality problem, an example of how women's rights can be enshrined in anti-prostitution law. But after looking closely at how the laws have been proposed and implemented, we beg to differ.

So I do question some of the claims that have been made in support of this bill.

Decriminalisation is the preferred legal framework for the majority of sex workers, and indeed sex work lobbyists. It is supported by a range of human rights organisations, including Amnesty International, the United Nations, the World Bank and the World Health Organization, as the best method to protect the rights of these workers, reduce violence, increase their ability to access the justice system and ensure that they have appropriate access to health services.

I want to recognise the work of my colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks in this place, who has long championed the decriminalisation model. Indeed, this is consistent with the policy of the Greens and it is a policy that I am proud to support. We believe that decriminalisation decreases the incidence of violence against sex workers, decreases the incidence of sex trafficking, reduces the stigma of workers and their clients, and increases community health and safety. With that, I conclude my remarks and reiterate that I will not be supporting the bill.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO (22:32): I want to first thank the Hon. Nicola Centofanti for bringing this important bill to the chamber. I wholeheartedly endorse all the measures in this bill and believe that it is a small step but something we must do today to protect women from harm. It is a bill that will protect women from harm within prostitution, a bill that will provide an obligation for the government to support exit strategies from prostitution, a bill that supports women.

Let's face it, the majority of prostituted people are women. Many are vulnerable and impacted by disadvantage, domestic violence, trauma, exploitation and more. The equality model allows for the full decriminalisation of all prostituted persons, provides comprehensive exit pathways, and fights against the demand for the purchase of sexual acts. This bill also fights against pimping and trafficking, through criminalising any form of profit made on the prostitution of another person. Finally, it encourages training for frontline services in the implementation of this model.

The equality model is proven to reduce the number of people entering prostitution, trafficking and other forms of exploitation. It protects women; it provides access to effective exit strategies; it decreases demand, penalising the buyer; and it shifts the criminal mindset aspect of the prostituted person to the buyer. Germany, where more than one million men buy sex every single day, is an example of a country that has legalised prostitution and seen dramatic increases in murders, rapes and organised crime, including brothels run by Albanian clans, the Russian mafia and bikie gangs.

Behind the argument for the legalisation of prostitution lies the massive financial interest of the pimp industry. In 2019, The Guardian reported that Germany's sex trade was worth €15 billion a year. In the same article prostituted women who work in German's male wellness centres pay a €69 entry fee, a daily tax of €25 plus an additional cost of a dormitory bed if they spend the night, but sex with one of these women costs a mere €50.

Germany is a model case study of the detriments of legalisation of sex work. Between just 2016 and 2019, 18 prostituted persons were murdered in Germany. In a staggering comparison, since 1999, when Sweden adopted the Nordic model, zero murders of prostituted persons have occurred.

Whilst an accurate percentage of migrant sex workers in South Australia is unknown, research and reports indicate that the majority of South Australian sex workers are non-English-speaking background migrants many of whom feel that if they were to leave their roles as prostitutes they would face deportation back to their original countries, a system of sexual and economic exploitation.

I know that there are some who choose to enter prostitution. That is their choice. My concern and the reason why I am strongly supporting this bill is that the vast majority of women in prostitution are not there because they want to be; they are there because they have no other option. Many do not speak English and come to this country with no other choice of employment. Some have drug and alcohol addictions. Some have experienced lifelong abuse, and many have partners or other associates forcing or manipulating them into the industry. Under this bill, women in prostitution can continue to work in this industry without fear of prosecution. They will have access to exit strategies if they choose to access them.

I would like to take the opportunity to speak of the stories of three women who have been in prostitution, so that I can better articulate my concerns with our current laws in regard to prostitution. The stories are provided by BaptistCare HopeStreet and Women Ending Exploitation by Prostitution (WEEP), and I would like to thank WEEP for their support and advocacy in this area. All women have had their identity details, such as names, changed for privacy reasons.

I will start with Coco's story from BaptistCare HopeStreet's women's services. Coco, a woman in her late 20s from a financially struggling family in China, faces the dilemma of being unable to afford her child's school fees. Discovering an opportunity to work in a Sydney brothel, she sees it as a short-term solution to find financial support for her family.

Arriving in Sydney with minimal resources and a language barrier, Coco finds herself in a brothel with other Chinese women, where her limited English becomes a significant obstacle. The language barrier proves not only challenging for everyday tasks like navigating the city and making appointments but also hinders Coco from seeking proper sexual health check-ups. Unaware of the laws regarding condom use in sex work and struggling to communicate with clients, she sometimes complies with unsafe practices to avoid confrontation and losing income.

Working long hours without breaks, Coco prioritises earning as much as she can in her limited time in Sydney. Coco's motivation stems from her deep desire to provide for her child back in China. Despite the financial support she sends home, she grapples with the fear of judgement and disappointment from her family and friends. Coco keeps the nature of her work a secret, fearing societal stigma and wanting to shield her loved ones from the reality of her situation.

My next story is Dee's story, which has been provided by WEEP. Dee's life took a dark turn when facing various challenges. She entered the world of prostitution as a means to cope with financial struggles and drug addiction. Initially it seemed like a quick solution, but her experiences quickly spiralled into a nightmare cycle. From dangerous clients to threats and the physical toll of her job, she found herself trapped in an isolating and exploitative environment.

Despite the common misconception that sex work is a woman's choice, Dee reveals the vulnerability and lack of control faced by many in the industry. Condoms breaking, the risk of STDs and the emotion toll of the work became a harsh reality. Dee's story unveils the harsh truth that even within the supposed camaraderie of the industry, individuals are ultimately alone, driven by the pursuit of money and the protection of their clients.

Finally, I would like to share Violet's story. Violet, a young woman with a dream of independence, found herself enmeshed in a series of unfortunate events. Struggling with a physical abnormality, she moved to the city for study and work, hoping to find a better future. However, a deceptive job opportunity led her into a scam, and the ensuing financial pressures pushed her to take on low-paying and exploitative positions, including a stint as a topless waitress. As Violet's financial struggles intensified, she welcomed a seemingly affluent flatmate who, unbeknownst to her, would further exploit and manipulate her. The flatmate's glamorous appearance hid a dark reality, and Violet became a victim of coercion, substance abuse and assault within her workplace. Trapped in a cycle of exploitation, Violet sank deeper, unable to escape the torment.

There is an argument that is often put forward that sex work is work, that it is liberating and that they love what they do. But the supply comes from the demand. Without the entitlement of the use of a body, the normalisation of porn and the sex industry, there would be no need for sex as a product. Women should be able to feel liberated without selling their autonomy. The sex industry is stigmatised and a taboo subject for a purpose, and that is because it is unfair and it is unbalanced in its power.

This conversation must take place because there are many already in brothels, whether here in Adelaide or throughout the state, and women behind those doors deserve to be able to live without fear or shame. Whilst I acknowledge there are a small number of prostituted people who enjoy their work, the reality is that most women choose prostitution as a desperate last resort, if it is a choice at all. These women deserve an option to be able to escape. They deserve a release from further trauma which will not be caused by another client or a pimp.

This is an incredible opportunity for this parliament to lead the way to support women in prostitution to find a better way, a proven way, a way that has worked effectively in the Nordic model. This bill has my full support and I thank you, Mr President, for the opportunity to speak today.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (22:42): I rise briefly to put forth my views and how I will be voting on this bill. First of all, I would like to indicate that I prefer to call people working in the sex industry sex workers, not prostitutes, and I think that is the general view of people who actually work in the sex industry. I also agree with the Hon. Laura Henderson that it is absolutely ludicrous to make it legal for somebody to sell a service, yet make it illegal for someone to purchase that service.

The actual crux of this bill is not so much to provide an exit strategy—and I will get into that a little bit later—but to force women out of the industry by depriving them of the ability to earn an income. When the Hon. Dr Centofanti introduced this bill, I was listening to the early morning ABC radio program where they were interviewing representatives of the sex work industry. They made it clear on that program that they had reached out to the Hon. Dr Centofanti to speak to her, but she refused to engage in any discussion with them. I find it amazing how someone could actually introduce a bill which has such an impact on people in the sex industry without talking to the actual people who represent sex workers in this state.

I also received a brochure from the Sex Industry Decriminalisation Action Committee. I looked up their website just to make sure there was some legitimacy to this. I will go through that a little bit later.

It is obvious that people who represent sex workers actually do not support the Nordic model. While I do agree that there are some women who are forced into the sex industry because of very unfortunate circumstances that they might find themselves in, many women actually do it because that is their profession. That is how they make their living. Their trade is selling sex, but the only difference is that they do not have the rights that every other worker in this country enjoys, because they are regarded as criminals. I find that absolutely appalling.

My view is, and I have always had this view, that if you want to clean up the industry—you will never get rid of it, so all this fanciful nonsense about the panacea of getting women out of the sex industry is absolute nonsense—what you can do is decriminalise it entirely so that you can then regulate it. You then clean it up. By decriminalising sex work you do not allow criminals to flourish. The criminal activities involved in that industry are still illegal. All you are doing is providing protections for the people actually working in the industry. You are providing protections that are available to every other single person, every other worker.

The Hon. Ms Girolamo made the comment that 18 women sex workers were killed in Germany last year. Germany has a population of about 83 million people. In Australia, we have one-third of the population and over 200 workers were killed in their workplace, and tens of thousands were injured, some terribly. I do not think that is a real argument—that is a really good argument for deregulating the sex industry, so that we can make it safe, make it much safer than what it is now, while still having the laws to prevent criminal activity.

I looked up the website of the sex workers representatives which basically straightaway says 'Say no to the Nordic model'. I will read some of it out to you. I seek leave to hand up this brochure.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: This is from their website:

Decriminalising sex work ensures sex workers can access workers' rights & it ensures the sex industry is regulated by the same laws that apply to other adult industries…Right now in South Australia, sex workers are forced to work under the most archaic sex work laws in the country. Workers are working every day without workplace protections, workers' rights & without being able to unionise.

Sex workers are not asking for extra rights, just the same ones that everyone else has at [their workplace]. Only then will stigma, social and legal disadvantages, risk of violence & discrimination be able to be addressed.

Commercial sexual services between consenting adults are targeted by SAPOL. Soliciting, keeping a brothel & 'living on the earnings' of sex work are offences. SAPOL are able to enter suspected brothels simply based on 'suspicion' & the definition of 'brothel' is so broad that SAPOL mostly use this power to enter and search people's private residences.

Over 2 years SAPOL increased charges laid against sex workers by over 1,000%! SAPOL claimed they were looking for 'syndicates' operating in hotels/motels, drugs & human trafficking. However [freedom of information] shows that over 60% of premises SAPOL entered were private residences. Less than 16% of premises entered that year were hotels/hotels.

South Australia has the most outdated criminalising sex work laws in the country. Criminalisation prohibits sex work or aspects of sex work, putting workers engaging in these activities at risk of entrapment, arrest & charge. 'Soliciting', 'procurement', 'keeping a bawdy house' & 'living on the earnings' of sex work are all current offences & police are empowered to enter any premises they suspect may be used for sex work while officers can also pose as clients to entrap & arrest sex workers. Clients & third parties are criminalised under SA's current laws, but police typically target only sex workers.

A 2015 SA Committee reviewed models available for sex work regulation & reported that evidence submitted to the Committee supported decriminalisation of sex work. Since then, Northern Territory & Victoria have joined New South Wales & New Zealand in decriminalising sex work with Queensland currently in progress.

Decriminalisation repeals laws criminalising sex work & only laws applicable to sex work. Sex work then becomes subject to the same regulations that apply to other workplaces. Decrim does not repeal laws against legitimate criminal behaviour. Crimes may occur like in any other industry & police are still able to take appropriate action like in any other industry. Decrim isn't deregulation because normal regulation will apply as they do in other businesses including taxation laws, health & safety requirements, local planning & business controls.

As I said before, sex work is a profession that has been happening for thousands of years and will continue to happen for thousands of years ahead of us. This bill will not stop sex workers. What it will do is make life very hard for them because sex workers will then be in a situation where they have a legal right to sell their trade but, when they engage with a client, they know that that client is breaking the law.

There is also an issue about people with disabilities. Many people with disabilities rely on sex workers to meet their sexual needs. There are also some people out there who have very strong sexual urges and require or go to sex workers to relieve them of those sexual urges. If you deprive them of that, if you deprive them of that service, one can only imagine there will be people out on the streets with very strong sexual urges that they cannot get relief from.

I think this bill has been pretty poorly thought out. I also believe that the only way forward on this is to deregulate the industry in its entirety. Let us begin to clean up and make safe an industry which, as I said, will be there for another thousand years. With that contribution, I oppose this bill.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD (22:53): I rise in strong support of this private member's bill, and I thank the honourable Leader of the Opposition in this place for pursuing this issue with the passion that she has. At its most fundamental level, this amendment bill seeks to shift the burden of criminality away from those engaged in prostitution and onto those who exploit them.

This Nordic model, this equality model, which was pioneered in Sweden in 1999, has also now been adopted in Norway, Iceland, Finland, Canada, France, Ireland, Northern Ireland and Israel. Most recently, the United States state of Maine has adopted partial decriminalisation, making it the first US state to do so. The Nordic model, the equality model, champions empowerment, amplifies prostituted women's voices and guarantees robust support from our law enforcement and social welfare agencies to ensure that those who are in the grip of this exploitative industry have a clear path to exit.

The Hon. Nicola Centofanti aptly summarised its essence in August last year. This bill pledges comprehensive assistance inspired by proven models. From psychological support to financial assistance, medical care to legal aid, it aims to facilitate a smooth transition for those aspiring a different path. The bill ensures that prostituted women will not be disadvantaged in the labour market should they have a criminal conviction as a direct result of their prostitution.

Prior to addressing the bill in detail, let's consider the global perspective. Following in Sweden's footsteps, Norway adopted the Nordic model in 2009. A study conducted in 2014 by the Norwegian government found that the model had reduced the demand for sex, leading to a decrease in the volume of sex work and a significant reduction in human trafficking. Similarly, in Iceland, where the Nordic model was also implemented in 2009, there has been a marked decline in the visible sex trade. The Icelandic police have reported that the number of individuals involved in street prostitution has decreased and there has been a significant drop in the number of foreign women travelling to Iceland for sex work.

In Canada, where some aspects of the Nordic model have been adopted in 2014, there has been a shift in public perception. The focus has moved from viewing those engaged in prostitution as criminals to seeing them as victims needing support and protection. Furthermore, in Northern Ireland, the adoption of the Nordic model in 2015 led to a 61 per cent reduction in the number of online sex ads, indicating a decrease in demand for paid sex.

France, which adopted the Nordic model in 2016, conducted a review in 2018 and the findings were promising. There was a 30 per cent reduction in prostitution clients, showcasing the model's effectiveness in deterring buyers. In late last year, Germany began pushing to overturn their own decriminalised prostitution laws to reverse their reputation as Europe's biggest brothel. The German Chancellor, Olaf Scholz, has expressed a desire for greater legal restrictions on the purchase of sex, which he considers unacceptable and a practice that should not be normalised.

South Australian parliaments have long debated the issue of whether to fully decriminalise prostitution in this state. Those many attempts have so far failed to deliver meaningful change in this area. We are subsequently stuck with the status quo, which I know many members past and present are not satisfied with, and of course does nothing to improve the many issues faced by those engaged in prostitution in South Australia.

To my understanding, this is the first time we have had a genuine opportunity to deliver meaningful reform in this space. The Nordic model presents us with a compromise between progressive, conservative and libertarian perspectives on how society should legislate prostitution. Past attempts at the progressives' preferred option of full decriminalisation have failed. Given the current make-up of the Legislative Council, should that model get put forward once more it would similarly end in failure.

This amendment bill and the Nordic model, or the equality model that it is centred on, presents us with an opportunity to move forward and to overcome the status quo so that many members and those in the community agree that it is no longer tenable. The bill before us today has four core components: it criminalises the act of offering money or other benefit for the return of sexual services; it decriminalises the current sanctions that apply to those offering sexual services; it criminalises the act of enabling or profiting from the prostitution of another person; and it provides a comprehensive suite of support services for victims of sexual exploitation.

In doing so, the bill would deliver a number of important principles that are at the heart of this issue. Firstly, it would drive down demand for prostitution. When the buyers of sex become criminals, rather than those who offer the services, it will restrict access and reduce interest from those considering the purchase of sex. This was shown to be the case in Sweden, where a 50 per cent reduction of street prostitution resulted within 10 years of its enactment. As demand winds down, it follows that the market for purchasing sex will also contract, and subsequently a second principle is achieved: the exploitation of vulnerable people will also decrease.

Those in favour of full decriminalisation will make the argument that complete legalisation of prostitution will empower women, and that it is their right to pursue prostitution if they choose. The issue here is that many women—and I say 'women' because data suggests that they form up to 95 per cent of sex workers—are not provided with a clear-headed choice in this matter. Vulnerability, exploitation, drug and alcohol abuse, poverty, bullying, standover tactics and control are all factors that reduce the agency of women who become involved, or are forced into prostitution, and increases the difficulty of leaving the industry where they wish to do so.

The argument that it is right to be able to purchase sex is ultimately a misogynist one. I have no doubt in my mind that there is a cohort of women who have experienced little, if any, of these negative aspects of prostitution and who consider that they have made a rational decision to enter the trade, but I am not convinced, however, that they are either the majority of sex workers or that their considered choice to become sex workers overrides the well-known injustices that occur to many victims involved in this trade.

Honourable members here tonight have spoken about the rights of people with disability, that somehow a person's disability can trump someone else's bodily autonomy, that somehow someone with a disability can, through prostitution, essentially cause a disability in someone else through the trauma that many of these sex workers come to hold and to bear throughout their life.

Should this bill pass, the third principle will also be achieved, by offering a further step towards gender equality as it dismantles a system of objectifying women for male pleasure. Make no mistake: this bill stands as our vehement opposition to the objectification of women. Women involved in prostitution will be provided with greater agency to leave the trade as they will now have the support of police and social services, where they were previously treated as criminals and dealt with accordingly.

As the Hon. Nicola Centofanti passionately referred to—arguably the most important provision of this bill—sex workers will be offered comprehensive support and access to government and non-government services. Accessing a whole range of services will become easier, and addressing any physical and mental health issues faced by these women will be central to that. Exactly what type of support services will be offered will ultimately be up to the responsible minister, but there are many international examples to pick and choose from.

The French model, for example, offers a unique and holistic approach to helping sex workers leave the industry. Their exit strategy involves collaboration with NGOs and social service agencies to provide counselling, psychological support and social reintegration for those wishing to leave. Additionally, financial assistance, health care, legal aid, education and training and housing are also available to make it easier for sex workers to transition into different forms of work. It will be up to this parliament and state governments to decide on the final make-up of these services. This bill provides the framework of principles that will inform what is ultimately to be the South Australian model of partial decriminalisation of prostitution.

Considering these global success stories, it is evident that the Nordic model offers a balanced and effective approach to addressing the challenges associated with prostitution. It recognises the issues' complexities, focuses on reducing demand, while providing robust support mechanisms for those caught in the exploitative web of what those who seek to downplay the harm caused by it deem sex work. It is not work: it is the objectification of women and sometimes men as a means to an end for sexual gratification.

I thank the many survivors of prostitution who have shared their deeply personal stories, which has led to the culmination of this important bill. I thank Amanda from WEEP, Maz, Ally-Marie, Jonathan, Clare, Nathalia and Christopher. I also thank my colleagues the Hon. Michelle Lensink and the Hon. Tammy Franks, who have long advocated for reform in this space, although I know we do not agree.

The Nordic model offers a proven, effective and compassionate approach to addressing the challenges of prostitution. It is time for South Australia to join the global community in adopting this transformative model. I urge all members to support this bill. Let's make history this evening.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (23:03): I rise briefly to put on the record that I support this bill. I have spoken in this chamber extensively before and have done a matter of interest speech on my support of the Nordic model. I agree with many of the sentiments from my Liberal colleagues who have spoken in support of this bill, and I certainly want to acknowledge the brilliant contribution from the Hon. Clare Scriven—I agree with every word she said.

I want to acknowledge WEEP and all the work that they do for these vulnerable people who engage in sex work. It is difficult to understand that we are here in 2024 having a debate about whether we want to tolerate the abuse of these vulnerable people who engage in sex work to put clothes on their children or food on the table. It really is a fantasy, certainly a male fantasy, that this is in any way a voluntary activity. It really is not. It is not a voluntary activity. Women do not want to be engaging in sex work for money. That is certainly a fantasy that needs bursting.

This bill acknowledges the vulnerable state that these sex workers find themselves in. I just want to put on the record that I have engaged with people with lived experience. I am not sure why we want to say that lived experience views are paramount when we are dealing with people who are very vulnerable, possibly in a poor state of mind and possibly having an addiction of some sort.

When I did engage with these people, and I went in with an open mind, I just thought how tragic to hear them tell me that the purchasers of sex treated them so much better than the boyfriends they had had—they treated them so much better. I am not sure that we can argue that these people are not highly vulnerable people. They are victims, which this bill acknowledges.

We need, as was mentioned by the Hon. Clare Scriven, an attitudinal change. We are talking at the moment, as we rightly should be, about domestic violence. I do not understand how on the one hand an individual can say we need to be doing more about violence towards women but at the same time we need to be tolerating and accepting the purchasing of often a woman or a sex worker, any person really, who finds themself in a desperate state.

It is actually really hard to think about the moments these people are having for money because they are that desperate, many of whom have children and families at home. With that, I support the bill.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (23:06): I rise as the second speaker for the Greens today to oppose this bill before us and indicate that the Greens' position is to support decriminalisation of sex work. It is our policy position. It is also our policy position to oppose what is called the Nordic model and which in this case has been called the partial decriminalisation model. It has all sorts of fantasy names actually.

I acknowledge that today is May Day and the Greens' position is born from respecting workers' rights. Sex work is work. Let's talk about who a sex worker is and what sex work is as well. Sex work—according to the Amnesty International definition and, indeed, the definition of many organisations which have long, both authentically and with proper rigour, examined this issue—is the consensual exchange of sexual services between adults for some form of remuneration, money or goods, with the terms agreed between the seller and the buyer. It is not the person selling themselves but selling a service, I note.

A sex worker is an adult person who is 18 years of age and older of all genders who receives money or goods in exchange for the consensual provision of sexual services, either regularly or occasionally. For the purposes of the Amnesty report, they refer to people as sex workers who are engaged in adult consensual sex for some sort of money or other reward. They sell a service.

The first time I had conversations with sex workers when I came to this role as a member of parliament, I spoke to a sex worker who had been a hairdresser. She conveyed to me that it was very similar: she provided a service. Sometimes she might book a chair in a hairdressing shop, sometimes she might do the work at home, sometimes she might be a paid employee on the payroll at a particular salon, but the service was about making the client feel good and providing her expertise to provide a service.

That, to me, really exemplified how a sex worker views their work. They are not selling themselves: they are selling a service, and to insinuate that a hairdresser is bought and sold by providing you with a haircut or a masseuse is bought and sold by providing you with a massage would be the logical extension of some of the arguments that I have heard tonight.

What I have not heard much of tonight—although I note that some speakers have, and I note that the Hon. Russell Wortley did bring the voice of sex workers and sex workers from this state into this—is what sex workers think of this bill. I will share with the chamber, and with those listening at home and those reading Hansard and those in the gallery, the position of the Sex Industry Network on this bill. Their press release with regard to this bill is titled 'Harmful sex industry bill introduced to South Australian parliament'. It states:

The South Australian Sex Industry Network (SIN) calls on all South Australian politicians to reject the Summary Offences (Prostitution Law Reform) Amendment Bill 2023…SIN is the South Australian sex worker organisation that is run for and by sex workers.

If passed, the Bill would add criminal penalties to clients of sex workers, as well as people who 'cause, assist, facilitate, persuade or encourage' sex work. This approach is commonly called the 'Nordic model' or the 'End Demand Model'. The model is internationally opposed by sex workers, but has been implemented—

They go on to list countries. It continues:

In each of these jurisdictions [SIN contends] the model has harmed sex workers. Studies have shown a direct correlation between laws that criminalise clients and an increase in violence against sex workers, rates of sexually transmissible infections, and exploitation in the sex industry.

So on this day of workers—May Day—I would hope that we might reflect on what the workers want in this debate. I also pay tribute to the work of the Sex Industry Decriminalisation Action Committee, which does also have sex workers on it but it has a range of women's organisations, health organisations and human rights organisations as well, and they oppose this bill. They note that the bill calls itself the 'equality model', the 'end demand model', the 'Swedish model', the 'sex purchase ban', 'client criminalisation' and, as has been canvassed several times in this debate, 'partial decriminalisation'.

I found it interesting that the language of partial decriminalisation has been used here because the contention of this bill is that, unlike the contribution from the Hon. Laura Henderson, the debate to criminalise sex work has been lost, so the strategists, the backroom thinkers, have come up with this idea to call it 'partial decriminalisation' and to purport to be there to protect and defend the poor old sex worker who cannot possibly think for herself—because in this fantasy model she is always a woman, she cannot possibly think for herself, she cannot possibly have autonomy and agency and the ability to consent herself—and protect her, this damsel in distress, by this idea of partial decriminalisation.

'We will not punish what are called "the prostituted women". What we will do is we will punish the purchaser of this person or the person who benefits from the exchange of a sexual service.' The logical end result of that is that we have police who will be sniffing sheets and confiscating condoms, as they currently do. We will have clients who will seek to avoid the law, and we will have sex workers told they are allowed to provide a service, they are allowed to do their work, but they are not allowed to be paid for their work. Do you know what I call that? I do not call that partial decriminalisation: I call that slavery.

I am not here to support slavery. I am not here to strip women in particular away from their rights over their own bodies, their ability to work in their chosen profession and be paid a fair day's wage for a fair day's—or night's—work. That is the basis, in fact, of our whole industrial relations system, is it not? We pay people for the services that they provide, for the work that they do. We do not say that they are allowed to do that work but they cannot possibly accept money or any other reward for it and, if they do, the person who attempts to pay them for the service will fall foul of the law.

It is little surprise then that the police have raised their concerns about this bill. I will go first to the police minister's words. In a piece of correspondence, I asked the commissioner—but it was the acting commissioner at the time because the commissioner was on leave—for the opinion of SAPOL on this bill. The response that I got from the former minister Joe Szakacs MP was dated 20 February 2024, and it reads:

I refer to your letter to the Acting Commissioner of Police seeking comment on the Summary Offences (Prostitution Law Reform) Amendment Bill…and information as to whether South Australia Police (SAPOL) supports the Bill.

SAPOL's consistent advice on various bills, briefings and Parliamentary Select Committees over many years is that it does not oppose or support any particular model.

Nonetheless, SAPOL advises that it considers a regulated industry where brothel owners are subjected to fit and proper person provisions is a necessity.

The Summary Offences (Prostitution Law Reform) Amendment Bill 2023 and current legislation criminalise prostitution as an unregulated industry. SAPOL advises that it would continue to monitor and investigate brothels should the bill pass.

So in the opinion of SAPOL this creates an unregulated industry.

It also, I think, provides the police with a very grey area to police. It is no wonder then that in correspondence dated 27 November 2023 written to all members of the South Australian parliament the Police Association of South Australia's president, Mark Carroll, has written to us cautioning us about this very bill:

The Summary Offences (Prostitution Law Reform) Amendment Bill ('the Bill')

We refer to the abovementioned Bill as introduced by the Honourable Nicola Centofanti MLC, which I understand is to come before the Parliament in the near future.

We understand that, in summary, the intent of the proposed legislative amendment is to:

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

remove criminal sanctions applied to sex workers;

criminalise the acts of enabling and profiting from the prostitution of another person (so, the keeping of brothels or the conduct of escort services would remain unlawful); and

to provide for the comprehensive resourced network of support and exiting services for sex workers.

We respectfully advise that the Police Association of South Australia does not support the Bill.

As well as believing that should the proposed legislative amendments become law, policing of such laws by our members would present extreme difficulties, we are persuaded that the Bill ought not to be supported given the type of dilemmas faced in Northern Ireland which (by way of example), has in place laws essentially the same as those proposed by the Bill.

We note that:

Amnesty International is opposed to the model of prostitution regulation that the Bill is based on;

a reasonable held view is that the relevant model conflates sex work provided by way of choice and the scourge of trafficking; and

rather than meeting the objective of minimising harm to those providing commercial sexual services—the vast majority of whom are female—there is a considerable risk that the model would actually force sex workers further underground and increase the inherent risks to their physical, psychological and sexual health.

The Police Association of South Australia respectfully submits that the decriminalisation and effective regulation of prostitution services would be a more worthy outcome than the current state of the law, or the approach proposed by the Bill.

So sex workers oppose this bill. The police oppose this bill.

I have heard some contributions tonight, and I will note that the Hon. Ben Hood noted that the bill allowed for spent convictions. The bill does not allow for spent convictions. That is why there are two sets of amendments filed, the first of which was mine, to ensure that if the fantasy that somehow this was supporting and protecting sex workers was to be upheld perhaps they should have thought about including spent convictions in the original bill. It really shows up the lie of what the intention of this bill is. The intention of this bill is to eliminate sex work, to cast it as a crime and to continue to devote police resources to criminalising it.

If we had wanted people to have an easy way to leave the industry we would have passed spent convictions well and truly by now. I hope that we will, one day in the near future, which is why I have put that up as an amendment. But I also note it is not in the original bill, and I think that goes a long way to exposing the intention of the original bill.

I note also that the Hon. Jing Lee spoke of Auckland and cited girls as young as 10 selling sex. I have a few points there: the New Zealand report that she referred to goes on to further say that in fact street work had not increased in Auckland. Certainly, with regard to girls as young as 10 on the street, that is not consensual adult sex work; indeed, that is a whole range of other crimes, including child sexual abuse, which would be taken very seriously.

Further, the idea that sex workers' voices have not been listened to in this debate is pretty shocking. Where they have been spoken about, people have been either infantilised or dismissed. I do not know of any other industry where we do that. But because this is a predominantly female industry that historically has had criminal attitudes towards it—not always but historically, by and large—we have treated these women with contempt. And it continues: not in the form of locking them up but in infantilising them.

I would also draw members' attention to the country reports, in particular from Norway and Ireland. Amnesty International's country reports on the Nordic model in those two jurisdictions show that workers suffer under this recriminalisation model. They are forced to go further underground, they are forced to not use their safety techniques that they previously had access to, and the ability to screen their clients is diminished. Indeed, they are putting themselves at risk should they report to the police any violence against them. This is not a good outcome.

To further criminalise this industry by presenting clients with the option of being criminalised for rape or sexual assault or being criminalised as a client of a sex worker is not something I think we should be changing the culture of in this state, with the idea that we are somehow going to eliminate the existence of people having sex for some remuneration or other exchange for that service. It has been going on for a very long time. The data shows that the Nordic model, the recriminalisation model, does not actually end the existence of either sex workers or clients.

The cherrypicked data that I have heard tonight is interesting, but it is more fairytale than factual. I look forward to people reading full reports; for example, with regard to the Auckland report in terms of the New Zealand review five years after decriminalisation. I note that the so-called 50 per cent rise in Auckland's street prostitution is often cited, but that report, as I say, goes on to note that the 2006 figures must be treated as an underestimation of the number of street-based sex workers in the region. The report specifically stated:

The Committee endorses the findings of the Christchurch School of Medicine study that 'the number of street-based sex workers have remained stable since the enactment of the PRA, with a comparable number on the streets to estimates done prior to decriminalisation'.

That is the Prostitute Law Review Committee of 2008, the same report that was referred to but actually goes on to say something different at the end of the paragraph. The cherrypicked statistics are all well and good, but if you read the full report they are shown to be a fantasy, much as this bill is.

As I say, it is International May Day. I would love to be at the May Day dinner right now, perhaps singing Solidarity Forever, because the union does make us strong. I think sex workers deserve to be recognised for their work, to be paid for their work and to be provided with the ability to make the choices that they want to and not treated as infants who are unable to make decisions over their own bodies and their own lives. With that, solidarity forever with the sex workers. I look forward to opposing this bill and I say bring on decriminalisation for South Australia.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (23:25): I rise to speak briefly to the bill that is before us. I can say in summary that I cannot in good conscience support a bill when we know the devastating effects this model has had on the safety and wellbeing of sex workers in other jurisdictions. This bill in my view is littered with both technical issues and problematic fundamental principles which, if passed, would see profoundly worse outcomes for people engaged in sex work.

I will briefly mention a few of these issues, which are highlighted by the experience from jurisdictions where this model has been in practice for some years. We are fortunate on occasions when we have issues like this, particularly issues that are conscience matters, that we can turn to other jurisdictions and have a look, and look at the proper peer-reviewed evidence of how they have worked.

This bill seeks to criminalise all aspects of the sex work industry other than the workers themselves, that is, to criminalise anyone who either gives money in exchange for sex or anyone who knowingly facilitates that exchange. It is unclear to me whether that would capture—and I suspect it would—examples such as taxi or Uber drivers, a person with a disability, a landlord, a cleaner, an accountant or family members. They would be potentially criminalised under the model that is being put forward tonight.

Jurisdictions that have introduced this model commonly refer to it as the Nordic model because it includes countries such as Sweden, Norway and Iceland. As the Hon. Tammy Franks mentioned, a report by Amnesty International in 2016 studied the impact of the Nordic model in its effect in Ireland and demonstrated that there was a notable spike in sexual assaults and murders of sex workers since the model was introduced.

Further peer-reviewed studies on this Nordic model have reported that police surveillance patrols aimed at locating clients drive sex workers onto the street and into more remote public areas to be discreet for clients who, if found out, would be prosecuted for illegally seeking such services, and consequently sex workers are made more vulnerable to experiencing violence.

A bill that makes sex workers more vulnerable to experiencing violence is something that I cannot support, and I implore others in this chamber to not support, in any sort of good conscience. It would further do harm by driving the sex work industry further underground, greater stigmatising the profession, and put sex workers at greater risk of danger.

Looking back on some of civilisation's oldest records tells us, as the Hon. Russell Wortley spoke about, that this profession is not going anywhere. This bill is ignorant of that fact, and through that pursuit it will cause significant harm and discrimination to sex workers and anyone who supports the industry.

I am proud, as the Hon. Tammy Franks has mentioned, to stand with the vast majority of sex workers who oppose this bill and indeed hold grave fears for what this bill could mean not just for their livelihoods but, more importantly, for their physical safety. I will not be supporting this bill, and I would implore my colleagues in this place to not support this bill for the effect it could have on sex workers and their safety.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (23:29): Firstly, I would like to thank the honourable members for their second reading contributions: the Hon. Jing Lee, the Hon. Frank Pangallo, the Hon. Laura Henderson, the Hon. Michelle Lensink, the Hon. Rob Simms, the Hon. Heidi Girolamo, the Hon. Ben Hood, the Hon. Sarah Game, the Hon. Tammy Franks, the Hon. Clare Scriven, the Hon. Russell Wortley and the Hon. Kyam Maher.

The Hon. Russell Wortley made some assertions about my consultation process during his second reading speech, and I would just like to correct the record. Let me be clear, I have spoken with and listened to many individuals in the sex industry, including the Sex Industry Network. I sat on a committee that looked into full decriminalisation where we heard from dozens of witnesses, and received many submissions, and I would just like to remind the chamber that of those submissions received by that committee, 50 per cent of those were against full decriminalisation, and the vast majority of those were in support of the equality model.

I have done a lot of listening to people in the industry, and I have been in very close contact with several women who were formerly part of the industry, and they have very candidly spoken with me about the emotional, mental and physical harm that they experienced while they were engaged in prostitution. Their stories have persuaded me more than ever that measures need to be in place that criminalise the user and the procurers, and reduce this industry and, most importantly, protect these women and provide them with exit strategies to safely leave the industry.

I reject the Hon. Russell Wortley's assertions, and I do say to the honourable member that, despite my office contacting him on several occasions, it is a shame he did not see fit to attend any of the forums that I hosted here in Parliament House to ensure that he also consulted widely with sex industry survivors. I think it is also important to reiterate that the Hon. Clare Scriven in her contribution updated the council on the position of the Police Association of South Australia who neither oppose nor support the legislation, and are watching the debate with interest.

Members would be aware that I have introduced some amendments to my bill, primarily to strengthen the assistance given to those wishing to exit the industry, and to spend their convictions. Twenty years ago, the New Zealand parliament voted in favour of full decriminalisation. In 1995, New South Wales voted in favour of full decriminalisation. Twenty years ago, Germany voted in favour of legalisation and, 20 years ago, Sweden voted in favour of the equality model. This really provides us with an excellent opportunity to objectively analyse the data when it comes to these three different models, and I want to sum up this debate by doing just that.

The first approach is the sex work model, whether that be full decriminalisation or legalisation. By giving a transactional value to sex, it has normalised the purchase of sexual acts and the objectification of women, leading to an increase in male demand for sexual acts as well as sex tourism. This has led to an explosion of the prostitution market, and thus an increase in human trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation. Far from improving the situation of prostituted persons, it has only strengthened the hold of pimps and traffickers on these women who can then hide behind a legal facade.

Let's be very clear, legalising or decriminalising prostitution does not change the often inherently violent nature of the sexual act obtained in prostitution itself. As one prostitution survivor stated in the forum that I organised here in Parliament House, and I quote: 'Prostitution is paid rape.'

The New Zealand model of full decriminalisation, which was instigated in 2003, is failing women, particularly those from marginalised backgrounds. For three consecutive years, New Zealand has been reduced to a tier 2 trafficking country. This means that the New Zealand government no longer meets minimum standards.

In New South Wales, prostitution has been decriminalised since 1995, and in 2015 the New South Wales parliament conducted an inquiry into the decriminalisation model in their state entitled The Regulation of Brothels. The inquiry made some damning findings as to the extreme vulnerability of people in prostitution and their inability to exercise free choice. It also found that there was a substantial underground sex services industry still operating in New South Wales, that SafeWork New South Wales found it difficult to protect workers and that the policing of foreign sex workers was near impossible. These findings were made in a decriminalised jurisdiction right here in Australia and they clearly point to the need for a different model.

Countries that have legalised prostitution are becoming hotspots for sex tourism and human trafficking, countries like Germany, the Netherlands and Spain. According to the BBC, Germany is now referred to as 'the brothel of Europe', with one million men going to a brothel every day. In Spain, where prostitution is also legalised, it has become normalised for young people to go to a brothel to celebrate a birthday or a success, and between 32 and 39 per cent of men acknowledge having paid for sex at least once.

In the Netherlands, it is now legal for a driving instructor to request a sexual act as a means of payment from their students. The practice even has a name: 'a ride for a ride'. By comparison, in abolitionist countries such as Sweden surveys indicate that the percentage of Swedish men who purchased sexual acts fell to 7.4 per cent in 2014 from 13.6 per cent in 1996 and that only 0.8 per cent claimed to have purchased sexual acts in the past year.

The equality model, aside from decreasing demand and providing support services for those who wish to exit the industry, also targets trafficking and pimping networks, through improving the relationship between law enforcement and prostituted persons. In France, three years after the adoption of similar legislation a 54 per cent increase in criminal proceedings against pimps was observed, as well as a seven times increase in the compensation received by victims, according to the report by Argus in 2020 on the evaluation of the French law.

The criminalisation of the demand for the purchase of sexual acts has a strong legal basis in international human rights law, in treaties that have been signed and ratified by Australia. My bill is consistent with international human rights law and standards. There is a common observation at the international level that the demand for the purchase of sexual acts is the fundamental reason for the existence and development of networks of prostitution and trafficking in human beings for the purpose of sexual exploitation.

In closing, I would like to express how grateful I am to be here in this place where I can use my position of privilege to help others. I truly believe that the equality model is the way to help protect and empower women, a way that recognises the dignity and value of women caught in prostitution, a way that provides them with the means to escape the industry, should they wish, and a way that does not stigmatise them but supports them.

It is time that the sex industry is reformed, and I am hopeful that with some hard work and determination we will see changes in South Australia that will benefit some of our most vulnerable. I urge members in this chamber to help South Australia lead the nation in prostitution reform by supporting this bill tonight.

The council divided on the second reading:

Ayes 9

Noes 10

Majority 1

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Second reading thus negatived.

At 23:43 the council adjourned until Thursday 2 May 2024 at 14:15.