Bills

Statutes Amendment (Sex Industry—Exit Strategies and Spent Convictions) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 5 June 2024.)

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (19:59): I rise today to speak briefly on this private member's bill and indicate that I will reserve my right on my position until hearing other people's contributions and the deliberations that others have, including possible amendments.

It is no secret how I have voted in the past on matters concerning the rights of sex workers. I fundamentally believe that, like any other worker, a person working in the sex industry should be afforded the right to safe workplaces and should not be exposed to a stigma for their choice of work or treated as a victim who cannot think for themselves and make decisions about their own life.

I have spent many occasions over the years sitting down with representatives of the sex work industry and with sex workers to hear their views on how proposed law reforms such as this might affect their lives. In discussion with these groups and these individuals on this proposed bill, there have been significant concerns raised about the implications of these changes, particularly with regard to the main elements of the bill, the spent convictions regime and the ministerial assistance scheme for exiting the industry.

I wish to briefly relay some of the concerns voiced by representatives of the industry and also some of my own as to the legal and practical impacts, particularly from a government perspective. Firstly, in regard to the proposed spent convictions regime, the bill proposes that a prescribed prostitution offence conviction can be spent if an application is made by the convicted person to a magistrate, who can make an order for that conviction to be spent providing other conditions are met first. A person can only make an application for their eligible conviction to be spent if they can first demonstrate that they have exited the sex industry.

The requirements around proving a person has in fact exited the industry are particularly onerous and a significant departure from current practice within the highly nuanced spent convictions regime. Namely, under this bill a person must demonstrate that they no longer engage in that relevant behaviour and that they have not done so for at least three months before making an application. They must also demonstrate an intention not to commit any of those relevant offences at any time in the future and, somewhat bizarrely, that they have made an application to the minister for assistance to exit the industry, regardless of whether or not they have in fact already left the industry or want to make such an application to the minister.

I wish to note that the involvement of the minister in the first instance in a spent convictions regime is highly unusual and would be a very significant departure from the usual practice within the confines of the highly complex spent convictions regime in this state.

It is unclear why the honourable member has included any involvement of the minister in this proposed expansion of the spent convictions regime. It is also unclear why it has been chosen to be an arbitrary three-month period for the person to demonstrate they have been out of the industry and, similarly, why there is an intentionally drafted ability for SAPOL to prosecute a person for past behaviour if they return to an industry that they otherwise would be protected from if they remain out of the industry. Representatives of the industry are acutely concerned that this would unfairly target certain workers and increase the potential of police surveillance of them.

Regarding the minister's assistance strategy proposed in this bill, industry representatives have also raised concerns about how this might operate and its implications for sex workers. It is seemingly modelled on some elements of what is commonly known as the Nordic model. This scheme poses further concerns in regard to the ministerial involvement in an individual's life circumstances and would greatly depart from the practice of most ministerial responsibility. Further, with no legislated caps on the time or cost allocation to any one individual application, the potential resource implications on any government are extraordinary to the point of being unquantifiable.

Such assistance provided by a minister would likely be subject to judicial review by a court and so the resources dedicated to any applicant may amount to be extraordinary to the point of being, in some cases, possibly ridiculous, even if such assistance is needed or not desired by the applicant. Again, questions need to be raised about how a minister might satisfy themselves that the applicant genuinely wishes to exit the sex industry—another patronising and potentially degrading aspect of the bill to the applicant.

Finally, I wish to point out a concern of mine and industry representatives with the proposed amendment to the meaning of 'procurement for prosecution' in section 25A(2) of the Summary Offences Act 1953, which would delete subsection (a)—that is, 'procures another to become a prostitute'—and replace it with 'causes, assists, facilitates, persuades or encourages'. The concern with this change to the existing criminal offence is that the new words 'cause', 'assist, 'facilitate, 'persuade' or 'encourage' have the potential to capture a broader scope of behaviour than is currently criminalised and may have unintended consequences.

I do not find this bill in its current form to be workable or reflective of what is desired for reform from those who participate in the industry, which is the very community this bill purports to be for. I look forward to hearing contributions of other members and, as I stated at the outset, I will indicate my position on the bill as it progresses, and I indicate that there will be a substantial number of questions about the operation of this bill and its clauses.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO (20:05): I rise today to indicate my full support for this bill. I commend the Hon. Nicola Centofanti for introducing it and for her obvious desire to protect and provide for some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Her hard work and commitment in this area are admirable. I would like to recognise the rigour she has invested in formulating the provisions of this bill. It is clear that she has great thought to the legislative framework that will assist prostituted people to exit the industry.

There are also many courageous women and men who deserve thanks for the creation of this bill, particularly the advocacy of WEEP, with Amanda Brohier and her family and the broader ACL team, but most importantly the brave survivors of the industry who have stepped forward to tell their stories. Thank you to everyone who has contributed: without you, we as members cannot bring forth bills like this.

As I have indicated in my previous speech in this place, I am a strong supporter of the Nordic model of prostitution reforms as a means to reduce the prevalence of prostitution and support for those wishing to exit the industry. Sadly, that bill introduced by the Hon. Nicola Centofanti was not successful, but I am greatly heartened by this bill, which continues in the vein of the previous bill in affirming the rights of the individuals to seek better and safer livelihoods.

In essence, this bill provides benefits to those who have a genuine desire to exit the industry, so in a real sense incentivises their exit. Should they choose to leave the industry they are afforded protection from prosecution and, after a certain passage of time, they will be able to have their prostitution-related convictions spent. It is important to note that under this bill, should a person return to offending, their protection from prosecution ceases to apply; their immunity, so to speak, is lifted.

Most importantly, in my view, the bill provides prostituted people with real practical help should they choose to exit, by offering access to education, vocational training, job placement services, health care and legal support. It fosters long-term self-sufficiency and reduces the likelihood of them returning to prostitution. The assistance contemplated in this bill includes providing the person with information as to what resources and services are available, including non-government services as well as providing direct assistance. Any assistance is likely to involve the collaboration between the minister, government agencies, non-government organisations and community groups. There is clear evidence that exit strategies help.

A 2010 Swedish study found that a significant portion of those who sought help through government-supported services were able to transition out of prostitution. Similarly, in the Netherlands, data from various NGOs in government reports suggests that exit programs have helped many individuals leave the industry.

The story of Anna (a fake name used for privacy) paints a clear picture of a strong role exit strategies play in helping those who wish to leave the industry. Anna had entered the industry due to financial difficulties and became trapped, struggling with addiction and trauma. It was near impossible for her to leave the industry, but thankfully Anna heard of the Amsterdam Prostitution Information Centre, a government-funded organisation. She reached out to them and they provided her with a range of resources, including counselling, addiction treatment and job training programs. Anna was also helped with accommodation and health care. After several months of support she was able to secure a stable job in a different sector and has today successfully left the industry.

In Canada the end-demand strategy provides for exit support services. Local reports and evaluations of specific programs show positive outcomes, including improved access to health services and employment opportunities. The UK government's prostitution strategy, which funds exit programs, has seen notable success. The Streetwise project in London has provided a combination of support services, and in doing so has helped individuals leave street prostitution.

We cannot underestimate the importance of spending convictions for those who wish to exit. I recently came across the story of Fiona Broadfoot from the UK, who had been groomed into prostitution as a teenager and had accumulated a total of 39 convictions for soliciting and loitering by the time she was just 17 years of age. Despite leaving prostitution, her criminal record continued to severely limit her employment opportunities and perpetuated the stigma associated with her past.

In 2018, Ms Broadfoot, along with two others, won a High Court case where they successfully argued that the disclosure of the convictions for working in the sex trade many years ago was disproportionate and a breach of article 8 of the English Human Rights Act, the right to a private life. Were it not for the decision of the High Court in this case, she would still be in a disadvantaged position.

Here in South Australia we have an opportunity through this bill to provide expungement for past offences through a relatively simple application to a magistrate, at no cost to the applicant. By offering protection from prosecution and expunging prior convictions, this bill removes substantial barriers to a fresh start and alleviates the stigma associated with past involvement. The exit strategies empower people to rebuild their lives in dignity and opportunity.

It is high time we recognise the value and worth of people caught in prostitution and do all we can to assist them if it is their wish to leave. This bill provides an opportunity for South Australia to lead the way in reforming the sex industry. Again, I commend Hon. Nicola Centofanti for its introduction and I look forward to seeing this bill receiving the requisite support in this place.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (20:11): I rise to oppose this bill. I imagine that it will come as no surprise that the Greens, who have a policy position, a party position, from our grassroots membership right to every MP, support the decriminalisation of sex work right across this country. Unfortunately, South Australia has some of the most punitive laws and is still the furthest away from decriminalisation of any state or territory in this nation.

This is a bill that purports to be trying to help people. It infantilises people; it treats workers as criminals. I tell you what: rather than spending convictions for people who engage in adult consensual sex, how about we stop convicting them? That would be the progressive way forward.

We have a system that currently sees our SAPOL resources put into entrapment of adult consensual sex workers and their clients—people simply making an honest living, providing a service in exchange for reward as workers. What we should be debating here tonight is ensuring that they have workers' rights, good conditions and that our laws are reflective of decriminalisation—decriminalisation that now exists not only in New South Wales and New Zealand but Queensland, Victoria, the Northern Territory and so many other jurisdictions that are now far ahead, treating sex workers with the dignity and respect that they deserve.

This parliament could work towards that, but we have found it too hard so far. What I would suggest is this parliament should look at decriminalisation of sex work, as those other jurisdictions have done and in the same way that Queensland did—and my goodness, Queensland is leaps and bounds ahead of us right now—and refer this matter to the South Australian Law Reform Institute. This will allow us to have a proper, informed debate and not these fairytales and fantasies and stories about so-called 'prostituted people'—who, I would note, in that particular story in the contribution by the Hon. Heidi Girolamo, if they were under 17 were actually being trafficked. They were a minor and that was not sex work.

But continually in this debate, proponents purporting to try to help people conflate sex trafficking with sex work. One is consensual and adult, the other is a crime. One deserves real protections, and those real protections come with rights and respect, the ability to unionise, the ability to organise and having their voices heard. With that, I oppose this bill, but should we get to the committee stage, I of course do have amendments.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD (20:15): I rise in support of this bill. From the outset, I want to sincerely thank the Leader of the Opposition in this place, the Hon. Nicola Centofanti, for her extraordinary efforts in bringing two Australian-first pieces of legislation seeking to reform prostitution in South Australia. Nicola, you have done a tremendous job, and as well as Amanda Brohier and her team at WEEP, you deserve praise and recognition for your many months if not years of hard work and advocacy in this space.

After the recent debate and unfortunate defeat by just one vote of the Nordic model bill proposed by the Hon. Nicola Centofanti, we have before us today another proposal that seeks to assist those who are involved in prostitution but have a desire to leave the industry. This bill proposes similar exit strategies to those proposed in the previous iteration on this issue. In brief, this bill provides that the prostituted person who wishes to exit the industry can avail themselves of the following support mechanisms:

assistance from the minister upon application, who must take all reasonable steps as the minister deems appropriate;

the prostituted person will be granted immunity and treated as if they had not committed a prostitution-related offence upon leaving the industry; and

all prostitution-related offences will be spent upon application and after showing that they have been out of the industry for three months.

In essence, this bill provides women with the opportunity to leave a vulnerable and exploitative industry and rebuild their lives. In her second reading explanation, the Hon. Nicola Centofanti noted the great success France has had since the introduction of the equality model of prostitution in that country. The French Ministry of Equality, in April 2023, reported that 1,247 people—almost exclusively women and girls from marginalised groups—accessed state-supported exit initiatives.

Incredibly, 95 per cent of those completing the program successfully and permanently exited prostitution, heralding a transformative and positive outcome for their lives. Financial assistance, legal aid, housing and access to education and job training have enabled many French women to transition to new and fulfilling careers.

The practical support that this bill before us provides is essential for women to successfully transition to new livelihoods. The bill removes the stigma associated with prostitution, enabling them to better access employment and social opportunities. I reiterate my support. I thank the Hon. Nicola Centofanti for her exit strategies and spent convictions amendment bill and wholeheartedly commend it to the chamber.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (20:17): I rise to speak against the Statutes Amendment (Sex Industry—Exit Strategies and Spent Convictions) Bill. In so doing, I draw on the longstanding policy of the Greens. We have always supported the decriminalisation of sex work. Indeed, on a personal level, I have always supported the decriminalisation of sex work, and I think it is high time South Australia joined other states in legislating in that regard.

I think it is relevant to this debate to look at the views of people who work in this industry, so I do want to take a few minutes to read the statement that has been provided to me by SIN, the Sex Industry Network. SIN is a peer-based organisation funded by SA Health to promote the health, rights and wellbeing of SA sex workers. Reading from their correspondence:

We are a member-based organisation and are best placed to deliver broad and consultative feedback on legislation affecting sex workers.

In June of 2024, the Honorable Nicola Centofanti, MLC, introduced a Bill to amend the Spent Convictions Act 2009 and the Summary Offenses Act 1953. The Bill seeks to do the following—

Expunge certain sex work/sex industry related convictions under strict parameters.

Apply for Ministerial assistance to leave the sex industry.

Change the definition of sex work in current legislation.

While SIN, and the broader sex worker rights movement, support spent convictions and expedited assistance for sex workers, we have grave concerns regarding the following—

and I will read out some of their concerns for the benefit of Hansard—

The parameters for accessing the spent convictions and amendments.

In [the Hon. Nicola] Centofanti's bill an individual must 'demonstrate' they have been out of the sex industry for a minimum of 3 months; they must also 'demonstrate' an intention not to engage in sex work in the future. It is not clear how or what demonstration may involve. The inclusion of these caveats is stigmatising and discriminatory. The bill is effectively saying that the only cohort able to access spent convictions amendments are those who have renounced the sex industry and positioned themselves as victims. These amendments DO NOT recognise sex work as work and do not acknowledge the value inherent in spent convictions for sex workers broadly.

The parameters for accessing Ministerial assistance.

The bill requires the minister to be 'reasonably satisfied' that the applicant 'genuinely' wishes to leave the sex industry. Leaving the sex industry involves demonstrating an intention not to engage in sex work in the future. The nature of this demonstration is not clear, nor are the government's financial and administrative responsibilities and parameters regarding assistance.

The barriers existing criminalisation laws cause.

Under the current criminalised framework, many sex workers have no appetite to engage formal government support. The Ministerial assistance program proposed by [the Hon. Nicola] Centofanti's bill will require disclosure of sex worker status to a government body. This, coupled with a requirement to demonstrate a genuine desire to leave the sex industry, will cause many past and present sex workers to reject the strategy outright.

Finally, the correspondence notes:

The title of the Bill and the language in the Bill.

Language is powerful. Using the word 'Exit' is stigmatizing and derogatory. This is targeted language that we don't use for any other industry. We recommend removing any mention of exiting the sex industry and using alternative language instead.

I am inclined to agree that a lot of the language in this debate features quite paternalistic and patronising assumptions about people who work in sex work and assumptions about their life conditions and their personal circumstances. It continues:

SIN recommends opposing the Bill in its current form.

And I support their recommendation.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (20:21): I rise to speak in strong support of this bill, which seeks to implement comprehensive exit strategies for those in South Australia who are engaged in selling sex and seeking to leave the sex industry whilst receiving immunity from existing criminal penalties.

It is indeed the first bill of its kind to be introduced in Australia, as I understand it, and I commend the Hon. Nicola Centofanti for her initiative in pursuing these legislative reforms in our parliament. This bill, of course, follows the honourable member's efforts to introduce the Nordic model in our jurisdiction, which, again, was the first attempt to do so in our nation, as I understand it. As members would recall, that bill was defeated by just one vote in May this year, which indicates there are aspects of that particular framework that warrant further consideration by this parliament.

An essential component of the Hon. Nicola Centofanti's Summary Offences (Prostitution Law Reform) Amendment Bill was the provision of a well-resourced network of support and exiting services for victims of sexual exploitation, most of whom, of course, are women. I will use the term 'women' in this speech to refer to all those who are involved in the sex industry because they are predominantly women.

As I mentioned in my second reading contribution to that bill, there are unfortunately far too many accounts of women who have been lured into selling sex at a young age, having been recruited either by force, fraud or coercion in some cases, or because of the need to simply survive financially.

In instances where women attempt to leave the sex industry, some are forced to return for a variety of reasons, including a lack of alternative employment opportunities. An increasing number of countries throughout the world with varying approaches to managing the sale of sex are recognising the vital need for government assistance for those leaving the sex industry and are taking action accordingly. So there is precedence for introducing similar measures here in South Australia, as we are debating tonight.

It is important to note that one of the most extensive research papers on the sex industry to date—with some 854 participants residing in nine different countries, so quite a varied sample—found that 89 per cent of people wanted to escape the sex industry but lacked suitable options and alternatives to do so. That is nine out of 10, roughly, which is obviously a very substantial number and, I believe, somewhat compelling when it comes to validating the need for our state parliament to develop exit strategies for people who find themselves in that exact situation here in South Australia.

Even those who are adamant that there are those working in the sex industry who willingly entered and remain in the industry willingly would have to admit that there would be a vast number who have not entered willingly and are not staying in the industry willingly, and they deserve our attention and assistance accordingly, as this bill purports to do.

It would be a travesty not to provide every assistance and opportunity for those who are in the sex industry against their will—against their will, and of course, as I said, that study indicated something like 89 per cent were, in that study at least, in the industry against their will. It would be a travesty not to assist them to leave the industry and move on to other pursuits according to their own will.

This bill, therefore, rightly provides for a person who provides sex in exchange for payment to apply to the minister without charge for assistance to exit the sex industry. On receipt of this application the minister must, if satisfied that the applicant genuinely wishes to exit the industry, cause such assistance as the minister thinks appropriate to be offered to the applicant to facilitate this successfully. The type of assistance may include, but is certainly not limited to:

the provision of information about government and other resources available to the applicant;

the provision of education and training services;

assistance in finding accommodation;

assistance in finding employment; and

assistance in accessing services such as those provided by health and legal practitioners.

This is reflective of what many countries throughout the world are already providing to those in their own jurisdictions who wish to exit the sex industry.

One of the most significant aspects of exit strategies is the provision of safe and stable housing, which, of course, is a problem for so many in our society at the moment. Some women who sell sexual services are either homeless or living in precarious situations which may force them to remain in the cycle of exploitation—and, as previously stated in the study I mentioned, some 89 per cent would exit, in that study at least, if they felt they could reasonably exit.

Education and vocational training is also often essential, as many would find themselves without the skills and qualifications necessary to secure stable employment should they exit the industry. Programs that provide job training and education give these women the tools to pursue new careers, empowering them to achieve financial independence, which not only helps them leave the sex industry but also breaks the cycle of poverty that can sometimes drive it.

Mental health support is, of course, equally essential. People selling sex can suffer from trauma for all sorts of reasons, including from childhood abuse, potentially; exploitation whilst they are in the industry, possibly; or even just the societal stigma of the job that they do. Exit strategies that incorporate counselling and mental health services give women the opportunity to heal and recover and they are entitled to that, in my view.

Furthermore, legal support is crucial for those seeking to exit the industry as well. Assisting in navigating legal systems, which can be entirely complex to someone who is not familiar with them, ensures that these women are not trapped in the legal consequences of decisions they may have made in their past and the legal ramifications thereof.

In countries where exit strategies have been properly funded and implemented, such as France, and there are others, but France is a good example, women have not only been able to leave the sex industry but in many cases—and they study it closely in that country, as I understand it—have gone on to make meaningful contributions to their communities in other endeavours and, no doubt, enjoy the opportunity to do so.

These programs, when properly resourced and supported by government—which, of course, is the object of this bill—demonstrate a tangible reduction in the number of women selling sex for a living, while improving social cohesion and, probably, public safety. As the Hon. Nicola Centofanti previously noted, according to a report released by the French ministry in April last year, some 1,247 persons in sex work, almost all of whom were women and girls, accessed state-sponsored exit programs and 95 per cent of these individuals successfully left the industry. I believe that provides the impetus for our parliament to follow France's lead.

I firmly believe that exit strategies for those trapped in the sex industry are a logical and essential step in the right direction with regard to reform here in South Australia. It is, after all, in the end their own choice—their own choice. No-one is forcing them to leave; it is their choice. The proposed amendments in this bill will only prove to benefit our community as I believe, and certainly help those who voluntarily choose to leave the industry and are provided with the assistance they require.

I should point out that I will be strongly supporting this bill. Just for the chamber's information, I am in a paired arrangement this evening with the Hon. Michelle Lensink who is determined to opposed the bill at the second and third reading. I will be supporting the bill at the second and third reading, so we will both be paired out. My vote will counteract hers or vice versa, whichever way you like to look at it. Of course, the same will be said of some of the amendments that we will encounter tonight. Again, I reiterate: I strongly support the bill.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON (20:30): I indicate that the Statutes Amendment (Sex Industry—Exit Strategies and Spent Convictions) Bill 2024 is a conscience vote for the Liberal Party, as is standard practice for such matters in our party. I appreciate the passion that the honourable member has for this topic, as she has previously brought legislation as well.

As the parliament has only recently (in the last few months) dealt with a bill relating to legislating for prostitution, I do not propose to relitigate the issue more broadly. Should those listening or later reading the Hansard be interested in my philosophy around prostitution, I refer them to my contribution on 1 May 2024.

I indicate from the outset that I will not be supporting this bill as I believe it goes too far toward decriminalisation and deviates from what I would like to see in a legislative framework for prostitution. It is my concern that this bill seeks to weaken the existing legislative framework rather than strengthen it. In my belief, this legislation is a progressive step in the direction of decriminalisation, and, as such, I cannot support it in principle.

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. I would like to make it clear that when we are referring to prostitution throughout my contribution, it is my starting presumption that we are referring to consensual prostitution in which all individuals are willing participants.

Today, we are not legislating for rape, assault, abuse or sex trafficking. Whilst they are sometimes interrelated issues, they are separate offences and not what is being legislated for here today. Should that legislation not be sufficient, the state and federal parliament should address those issues, but the issues should not be conflated.

I appreciate that I may take a different and probably more conservative approach to this issue. One of the great privileges of living in Australia with a robust democracy is that we are able to have these debates and to share different views. One of the great things about being a member of the Liberal Party is that we are able to exercise our conscience in such votes. The day that people feel that they are not able to exercise their conscience is a day that we should all be concerned. It is with my conscience that I vote today.

It continues to be my view that the best way to legislate for prostitution is through the full criminalisation of prostitution with what I would call safe harbour provisions, 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 disclosing the offending for the purpose of seeking those supports whilst also providing exit strategies.

This is a model that I have previously spoken about and I refer to my contribution from 1 May. As acknowledged at that time, the support for such a model would likely not exist in this chamber. I raise this model today to clearly articulate where I sit on the political pendulum in looking at a legislative framework for prostitution. In determining whether to support the bill before us today, I have sought to determine whether I believe the status quo or the proposed bill better align with my values on this issue. It is my view that the status quo better achieves this.

The bill before us today provides for spent convictions that are, in my opinion, too generous, reduces the existing criminalisation of the sale of prostitution by providing immunity provisions going further towards a decriminalisation model rather than a criminalisation model, does not target the purchaser, and addresses exit strategies. As a general principle, I support the provision of exit strategies and would have been willing to consider spent convictions had they been stricter in their application.

In speaking with current and former prostitutes, I appreciate there are many barriers to leaving prostitution and this is particularly the case if someone has a conviction. I think it is important to highlight that, as an example, between 1 January to 30 June 2024, no person received a conviction in court for the section 25 and section 28 offences under the Summary Offences Act.

I also think it is important to note, on information I have been able to gather via FOIs, that there were no arrests and no fines imposed for keeping or managing a brothel during the date range of 25 September 2022 to 26 September 2023. There were, however, five reports for the offence of keep brothel within this date range.

There were no fines imposed for soliciting for the purpose of prostitution during the date range of 25 September 2022 to 26 September 2023. There were no arrests or fines issued for living off the earnings of prostitution of another person, including escort services, during the date range of 25 September 2022 to 26 September 2023. There were no arrests or fines issued for procurement for prostitution during the date range of 25 September 2022 to 26 September 2023.

Despite this, we must still be satisfied with the legislation this parliament passes for when it is utilised by law enforcement. I have a series of concerns with the provisions set out in this bill for spent convictions. Some of these include the ability for those who have been keeping and managing a brothel to apply for spent convictions. It is my view that these persons have been exploiting the vulnerability of women and, as such, any spent conviction being granted is fundamentally a very different proposal to providing spent convictions to prostitutes, who are often vulnerable and exploited.

I do not support an extension of spent convictions to those keeping and managing brothels. I believe the requirement for the prostitute to not have been providing sex in exchange for payment for at least three months to be insufficient. I do not believe that three months is sufficient time to be able to establish sustained change of pattern of behaviour. I believe that ultimately this presents the risk that someone may be able to have their conviction spent and then later go back into prostitution.

The bill also establishes that the exclusions set out in the Spent Convictions Act do not apply to a prescribed prostitution offence, which is otherwise spent under section 8D. Practically, what this means is that people who are applying for a working with children check or a police check do not have to disclose their conviction and, as such, prior offence is disregarded. It means that someone who is looking to care for children (vulnerable people) or to work for SAPOL, for example, will not have to disclose their conviction. I do not support the removal of these exclusions.

Whether someone has had a conviction and shown a pattern of behaviour where they have been breaking the law, especially if they were managing a brothel, is directly relevant to whether they would have been deemed a fit and proper person. I am not saying this to disparage people or to suggest that their past conduct should forever jeopardise their future, and it is not to say that someone who had a prior conviction would not get a future role, but it is relevant to whether or not a person is suitable in some industries, particularly when working with vulnerable people or in a position of power.

Whilst I do not support the provision of spent convictions as set out, it is important for all legislation in this place to be workable. I highlight some of these practical issues despite my not supporting it. I question how someone will prove that they have left the industry and to prove they do not intend on going back. This is something that has been raised as a concern with me by sex workers. It is my understanding that this is predominantly a cash-based industry and, as such, I imagine this may prove difficult.

There is a requirement for an application to the minister be made to access spent convictions. I note my thoughts on the application to the minister set out here also apply to the proposed amendments to the Summary Offences Act. I acknowledge it is highly likely that there would be an inherent mistrust in coming forward and disclosing offending in an application to the minister.

It should also be acknowledged that there may be literacy barriers or English as a second language barriers that may make accessing such provisions challenging. There is no requirement for the applicant to have meaningfully engaged with the exit strategies prior to accessing spent convictions or the immunity provisions, merely that an application needs to be made. As a result, I fear that such application effectively becomes a tick box exercise.

As a Liberal member, I believe in minimal government intervention. As such, I query why those who may be able to seek employment or housing independently and not look to the government are not able to access the legislative framework unless they have gone to the government. Whilst I do not support the framework, I merely look to query why government intervention must be thrust upon people in order to benefit from the provisions this bill seeks to achieve.

The bill seeks to amend sections 25 and 28 of the Summary Offences Act, which deal with soliciting and keeping and managing brothels, to provide what has been described as immunity. This is one of my key, fundamental issues with the bill as proposed. The starting position is that someone has committed an offence under the Summary Offences Act. This bill does not remove soliciting or keeping and managing brothels as offences, and by creating immunity provisions through this legislation we are acknowledging that these offences still exist. Despite this, a person would be given a free pass from future charges being laid for prior offending, if you will, should they meet the criteria set out in the bill.

In my opinion, you either commit an offence or you do not. If you are soliciting or keeping and managing a brothel, such activities are either offences or they are not offences. Immunity provisions operate, in my view, in a manner which can lead to clunky and perhaps undesired consequences. Put simply, if we are going to view soliciting and managing and keeping a brothel as a criminal offence then it should be treated as such. Similarly, if components are to be decriminalised as, for example, in the Nordic model proposed earlier this year, then they should be treated as such without exemption.

In my view, therefore, laws around prostitution are either all in or all out, and immunity provisions seek to muddy the water in this respect. Perhaps if I could use the example of selling drugs: if a drug dealer ceases to sell drugs, it does not mean that they have not previously committed an offence and should not be held responsible.

I disagree with the premise that because someone has decided to no longer commit an offence and has decided to seek help through the minister, their prior offending is absolved. Whatever the reason, a decision was ultimately made to enter prostitution, even if through desperation, even if vulnerability is involved.

To be clear, I am not saying that someone does not deserve a second chance or that prior judgement should determine what opportunities one has in their life, but personal responsibility should not be negated, and in my opinion such personal responsibility serves as an important deterrent from entering prostitution in the first place.

Further, I disagree with such immunity as it weakens the existing legislative framework. As mentioned, I support the full criminalisation of prostitution. The proposal of providing immunity moves too close to a decriminalisation model for my comfort by working to erode the existing criminality. This is not something that I support.

Whilst I disagree with immunity being provided for soliciting, I take particular concern with the provision of immunity for keeping and managing a brothel. I appreciate that the member has made clear in her second reading contribution that the bill 'does not give the benefits of spent convictions and immunity to those who are running brothels in the conventional sense or to those large-scale operations' and that she has 'deliberately confined it to a narrow group of people'.

However, I am not comfortable allowing immunity for those who have operated a brothel, no matter how small it may be. If someone is managing a brothel, in my belief, they are preying on the vulnerability of other women and should not have the privilege of immunity purely because their operation was smaller. In my opinion, managing a brothel is unethical, and postulating about what size a brothel is is irrelevant.

I further note concerns around the wording provided for in the clause—'not more than 2 persons provide sex in exchange for payment in the brothel at any 1 time'. I query if the unintended consequence is that it establishes a loophole for organised crime and for more than two people to ultimately be operating out of a brothel.

It should be noted that unlike the definition of 'exited the sex industry' provided for in this bill for the Spent Convictions Act, the definition set out in the bill for 'exited the sex industry' for offences under the Summary Offences Act does not provide any time requisite for the individual to have been out of the industry to access such immunity. This is not something I support. I further note this leaves open the possibility for loopholes to be exploited.

I have already highlighted my concerns regarding the workability of the application to the minister to access exit strategies and do not propose to relitigate them. I do, though, highlight that when someone puts in an application to the minister they do not have to have exited the industry already. This further shines a light of the lack of waiting period before someone can access said immunity and opens the possibility for someone to use this as a loophole.

To be clear, I support exit strategies, but a series of questions have been put to me, and I seek to pass them on:

Are supports that are to be offered intended to be new supports and programs, or is the intention for the minister to refer to existing services?

Is it proposed that there would be an additional budget for these services?

Is it the honourable member's intention that provision of education and training services means to pay for degrees or qualifications for applicants, or is it to direct them to existing opportunities?

What is the burden on the minister? Is it merely providing a phone number that will satisfy this obligation?

Is the applicant to be given long-term or short-term housing, noting that we are in a housing crisis?

Is there an obligation for those applying to the minister to be given higher priority for housing than others on the list?

Does assistance in accessing legal practitioners mean referring to legal aid or does it mean assisting in costs?

This bill seeks to delete a phrase like 'engage in procurement for prostitution' and substitute it with 'procure a person to provide sex to another person in exchange for payment', or delete 'prostitution of another person' and replace it with 'sex provided by another person in exchange for payment', or remove 'prostitution' and substitute it with 'sex provided in exchange for payment'. In my opinion, it appears contradictory for such changes, which would ordinarily be used to normalise an offence or even decriminalise it, to be inserted when the bill retains criminal offences for prostitution, with spent convictions and immunities therein. If we are retaining prostitution as an offence I do not support changing language around this.

I note these are not my only concerns about the bill, but I articulate some of my key reasons for why I will not be supporting it today. Fundamentally, I take a more conservative approach to this issue. Given that there are no recent convictions recorded, I see no urgency in rushing through legislation that, whilst having good intentions, has not addressed the unintended consequences for vulnerable women and has many components that do not sit with my conscience.

It is my firm view that the existing legislative framework or status quo better provides for the criminalisation of prostitution and that the proposed bill acts to further decriminalise certain behaviour should the individual meet the established criteria. I think the criminalisation of prostitution acts as an important deterrent to entering into an industry that I do not believe should be a viable career prospect, particularly for young women. It is my belief that the best way we can support women is to stop them from entering the industry and to criminalise the sale of prostitution in the first place.

In summary, I oppose the provision of immunity and believe the spent convictions provided for in this bill are too lenient, and I am particularly concerned about the extension of immunity for those keeping and managing brothels. Unlike the honourable member's previous bill, based on the Nordic model, this bill does not address the purchase of sex or hold those who are exploiting women to account by criminalising the purchase. As such, given the proposed bill is walking away from some of the existing criminal elements but not addressing the gap in reducing demand, I cannot support it.

For the avoidance of doubt, I do support providing exit strategies for those who are in need, should they want to access them. I indicate that I will be supporting amendment No. 1 [Centofanti-1] and that I will be opposing the amendments in the name of the Hon. Tammy Franks and the Hon. Emily Bourke. With this, I conclude my remarks.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (20:47): I rise to very briefly speak on this bill. Despite the opinions on another bill that were expressed in this place earlier today, namely, the bill dealing with the termination of pregnancy, it is my firm view that what we ought to be doing is referring this matter to the South Australian Law Reform Institute and receiving back an impartial report that considers all of the issues, all of the proposals and all of the alternatives. Clearly, we are divided in our views, and rather than proceed with what can only be described as a piecemeal approach that will not deal with this issue once and for all, or all of the issues that surround it, that is the most sensible way forward. It is clear to me that we cannot even agree on appropriate language, let alone policy, in this area.

I note for the record also the previously stated position of SAPOL in relation to this issue and the need to take that into account when considering exit strategies, decriminalisation or the regulation of the sex industry.

Regulated, decriminalised, exit strategies—whatever your position is I think it is clear that we need a properly informed debate, and we are not getting that on our own. If we think we are, then the only ones we are kidding are ourselves. Even the bill before us, no matter how well intended it might be from the mover's perspective, has given rise to more questions than it has solutions. We can see that by the views that have been expressed today and the amendments that have been filed, the differing views in relation to the appropriateness of all elements of the bill from both sides of the spectrum, as has just been demonstrated.

This is not a way forward. It is not a good way forward and it is not good lawmaking, especially for members who are sympathetic to both sides of the debate. It is a no-win situation and I am not inclined to support no-win situations when we have available to us, when we have at our disposal, the assistance and guidance of SALRI, who can separate fact from fiction, who can test the veracity of the varying views that are being expressed, who can test the veracity of the various models, who can take into account the views of industry bodies, who can take into account the views of SAPOL, who can help us find workable solutions to all the issues, including exiting the industry, including how to deal with convictions.

We can keep coming back here and doing more of the same, which is what we seem to be doing, or, as we did in the termination of pregnancy debate, we can refer this issue to SALRI and be in a position to come back here and make informed decisions based on impartial expert advice. I think regardless of your views on exit strategies, there are views on both sides. There are views saying exit strategies are good and there are views saying exit strategies, even the language around them, are not good.

This proposal is not the answer. That is clear, and I think that has been made clear tonight simply by the different views that have been expressed. I have said it before and I will say it again: if we rely only on our conscience in these debates in the absence of facts, we are not going to get anywhere. We are not going to get anywhere, because clearly we all have very different views and that is not assisting this debate.

We are relying on numbers to make decisions around people's lives. That is not a good outcome. It is not a good outcome for anybody. We have seen the benefits of referring a matter to SALRI previously, and we have that opportunity available to us again. I would urge all honourable members to consider that option seriously.

Do you know what? When you get a report like that back, whether you like what is in it or not at least you know it is based on informed decision-making. It is based on fact. It is not us putting ourselves in a position where we are tearing ourselves apart because we do not know which side to land on. We have some experts helping, guiding us through that process. That to me is the only sensible solution in this debate. I do not agree with piecemeal approaches. I do not agree with approaches that are not going to resolve the issue overall. On that basis, I will not be supporting this proposal and this bill.

The Hon. J.S. LEE (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (20:53): I rise today to indicate my support for the Statutes Amendment (Sex Industry—Exit Strategies and Spent Convictions) Bill 2024. I wish to thank the Hon. Nicola Centofanti for her courage and her passionate and tireless efforts to address prostitution law reform in this place, and commend her on bringing this new bill to the chamber.

Honourable members may recall that I spoke in support of the honourable member's previous bill and shared the disappointment with many that it was unsuccessful at the time. But we should never walk away from trying again for law reform that will provide practical support to help empower and protect vulnerable women in our society.

Many reports have shown that 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. Sadly, Indigenous women and women of colour are also over-represented in the sex trade. Unfortunately, these women continue to be physically and financially exploited or coerced by their mostly male clients, and mostly male pimps or brothel managers. Many women want to leave the industry but feel completely helpless because they don't know how to get help.

These women need laws that will protect them and a tangible and practical pathway to exit the sex industry, and be free to make their own decisions. While I will not repeat all of my remarks from my previous contributions to the debate on the last bill, I want to highlight the importance of the exit strategies and provisions outlined in this bill. It is vital that those who want to leave the sex industry can access a comprehensive resourced network of support and exiting services, including practical assistance that many honourable members who support the bill already mentioned earlier.

Women seeking to exit the sex industry face significant and complex barriers, such as lack of social connections and trusted people in their lives, a lack of alternative income, the lack of a safe place to stay, coercion and threats of further harm along with profound feelings of shame and mental health challenges resulting from the trauma and exploitation they have experienced. These barriers need to be addressed to provide all those who wish to choose a tangible pathway to exit the sex industry and be ready to make their own decision and have the opportunity to build a new life.

I would also like to thank Amanda Brohier, President of Women Ending Exploitation by Prostitution, and all the WEEP members for their insights, and for sharing information with me. I also thank them for their enduring advocacy for exit programs and strong support for this legislation. In their latest newsletter, WEEP highlight a study undertaken jointly by the Sexual Exploitation and Research Program and Ruhama, an Irish NGO that offers support to women impacted by the sex trade. The study looked at women's journeys out of prostitution and the response to their complex support needs.

For most women, exiting is rarely a simple linear process, and for some it can take many, many years. The study found that support must be provided in a person-centred and non-judgemental way according to each woman's needs and wishes at the time she accesses the service. This bill proposes to provide exit strategies and a safe pathway out for those who would otherwise remain trapped in the sex industry. It provides a framework for real support that helps and empowers women to transition away from sex work if they choose to.

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

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (20:58): I rise in support of the Statutes Amendment (Sex Industry—Exit Strategies and Spent Convictions) Bill. This bill has two components: the first is that it seeks to provide support for people who have been in prostitution and wish to exit and it provides a broad framework for the type of assistance to be made available, such as information about government services, other resources and services available, education and training services and assistance in finding accommodation or employment. Why is this necessary? Why should people exiting need any assistance to gain employment or other support?

According to Prostitution Research and Education quoted in The Pimping of Prostitution by Julie Bindel, 70 per cent to 95 per cent of women in prostitution experience physical assault during work—'work' in inverted commas—60 per cent to 75 per cent are raped, and 95 per cent experience sexual harassment that in other industries would result in legal action.

A study by Roxburgh, Degenhardt and Copeland in 2006 titled 'Posttraumatic stress disorder among female street-based sex workers in the greater Sydney area,' reported that nearly half had symptoms that met DSM-IV criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and one-third reported current PTSD. I looked up what DSM-IV criteria for PTSD is. According to the Public Patient Psychiatric News, Volume 37, No. 20, it is described as this:

A. The person has been exposed to a traumatic event in which both of the following were present:

1. the person experienced, witnessed or was confronted with an event or events that involved actual or threatened death or serious injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of self or others.

2. the person's response involved intense fear, helplessness, or horror.

B. The traumatic event is persistently reexperienced in one (or more) of the following ways:

1. recurrent and intrusive distressing recollections of the event, including images, thoughts, or perceptions

2. recurrent distressing dreams of the event

3. acting or feeling as if the traumatic event were recurring…

4. intense psychological distress at exposure to internal or external cues that symbolize or resemble an aspect of the traumatic event

5. physiological reactivity on exposure to internal or external cues that symbolize or resemble an aspect of the traumatic event

C. Persistent avoidance of stimuli associated with the trauma and numbing of general responsiveness (not present before the trauma), as indicated by three (or more) of the following:

1. efforts to avoid thoughts, feelings, or conversations associated with the trauma

2. efforts to avoid activities, places, or people that arouse recollections of the trauma

3. inability to recall an important aspect of the trauma

4. markedly diminished interest or participation in significant activities

5. feeling of detachment or estrangement from others

6. restricted range of affect (e.g. unable to have loving feelings)

7. sense of foreshortened future…

D. Persistent symptoms…(not present before the trauma), as indicated by two (or more) of the following:

1. difficulty falling or staying asleep

2. irritability or outbursts of anger

3. difficulty concentrating

4. hypervigilance

5. exaggerated startle response

E. Duration of the disturbance…is more than 1 month.

F. The disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

To have such a large proportion of a cohort displaying such symptoms indicates a significant need for assistance. Further, many in prostitution do not have qualifications or do not have current qualifications or do not have experience that enables them to find employment. This can be a major barrier to moving on with their lives and exiting the prostitution industry.

The second main part of this bill enables convictions to be spent so long as the person has exited the industry and the convictions were essentially—and I am paraphrasing here—not for keeping a brothel or pimping others. Women with such a conviction where they had operated from their own home with one other person and who had exited the industry could have their conviction spent. That is a concise summary of it.

This attempts to differentiate between the pimps and brothel keepers, the exploiters in the sex industry, and people who are simply operating together due to, for example, safety concerns. One of the barriers to moving on into employment can be having a criminal record. Work or training that has relatively few entry requirements, such as disability or aged care, will likely not be possible. Therefore, the option of spent convictions may be the enabler for those who wish to exit.

I have heard arguments that people exiting prostitution should not be getting so-called special treatment. I refer to some comments by Marian Hatcher, who works in the human trafficking section in an office in the USA. She is a sex trade survivor who works with law enforcement. She says:

The derogatory references to 'sex work' or 'sex worker' imply a chosen way of meeting your basic needs: an occupation. In reality, it is not a chosen path to gaining economic security. It is forced servitude, most often by an opportunistic male such as a pimp or trafficker and in other instances an undesirable choice for basic survival. Fuelled by the johns who consume it, the sex trade is not a noble place in society; it is a human rights violation that perpetuates slavery.

Most people, I think would not argue against someone released from slavery being granted assistance.

In terms of language, referring to 'sex work' and 'sex worker', Ms Hatcher goes on to say:

It is a travesty to coin a phrase that diminishes the harm and attempts to normalise it.

It is certainly true that language does matter.

Many who have left prostitution refer to themselves as survivors. Many consider they have been coerced or manipulated into the industry. I have certainly spoken with women who relate to the description of slavery. For this reason I cannot agree with the comparison of someone who is involved in this and who has been prostituted with someone who is selling drugs.

I would also like to take the opportunity to thank the many women who have spoken to me who either are in or have been in the prostitution industry. I would like to thank them for their bravery and I would like to acknowledge them and particularly the fact that they feel so often that their voices are silenced. Often, they say, they are silenced by the paid lobbyists in the sex industry.

The Hon. Ms Franks in her contribution referred to, and I am quoting, albeit from memory, 'conflating sex work and trafficking' This is a constant refrain from those who like to pretend they are separate. It is the issue of demand that fuels both. The bill that was presented earlier this year by the Hon. Ms Centofanti would have potentially addressed that demand. Sadly, that was defeated, albeit just by one vote.

We are left with: what else can be done? Is this a perfect bill? Probably not. There are a number of proposed amendments and I will be keen to listen to the debate on these if we progress to the committee stage. Some will say that the assistance being outlined is not prescriptive enough, that more should be detailed.

Despite this, one contributor suggested that resource implications would be significant, given the looseness of the wording in regard to assistance, namely that 'assistance that may be offered to an applicant may include one or more of the following' and then lists some of the items that we have mentioned.

The broadness of that, I think, indicates very clearly that resource levels would be entirely within the decision-making remit of the government of the day. Personally, I would like to see far greater and more specific assistance, but it is a starting point for some of the most marginalised women in our community. On that basis, I commend the bill. I hope it will go to the committee stage so that we can have a fulsome debate around some of the amendments.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (21:08): I rise very briefly to offer full support for the honourable member's proposal to support sex workers who want to leave the industry. It is a worthwhile measure that will empower sex workers who want to make a change but need the practical assistance to overcome some of the financial barriers preventing workers from making this move. I commend the honourable member for presenting this to the chamber and offering a pathway for sex workers who want change. These courageous people deserve our acknowledgement and support.

I want to also acknowledge Amanda Brohier and WEEP and all the education advocacy they have done in this space. I want to put on the record that I will be supporting the amendments put forward by the Hon. Emily Bourke.

The Hon. R.B. MARTIN (21:08): I rise to speak briefly on this bill. While I do not think this bill is perfect, I will be supporting it; however, I advise I will be supporting the Bourke amendments. My understanding of the bill is that it seeks to do two things: firstly, it creates the ability for a fast-track spent convictions process for sex workers. Secondly, it creates a process where a person leaving the sex work industry has the ability to seek appropriate access to social services.

I have reached out to advocates on both sides of the argument and have listened and thoroughly considered their views. I understand that for advocates of sex work decriminalisation this bill is not what they are seeking, and they have legitimate concerns about how the bill will work. They highlight the reluctance of sex workers to apply for assistance when they are legitimately wary of engaging with the justice system that considers their work illegal.

I have been lobbied to reject the bill on the grounds that sex workers need rights and not rescue, and I agree with that sentiment. I acknowledge that many sex workers are in the industry by choice and have made the decision with full autonomy, but I think it is naive to say that everyone engaged in sex work has freely made a choice to be in the industry and is happy to remain there. If there is but one worker who is in the industry because they have no other options and if this bill can assist that one person, then I think we should support this initiative.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (21:10): As we come to the close of the second reading speeches, I think it is important to reflect on the core principles and motivations that underpin my bill, the Statutes Amendment (Sex Industry—Exit Strategies and Spent Convictions) Bill 2024. This bill represents, to me, a significant step towards assisting some of the most vulnerable individuals in our society—those who seek to leave the sex industry but face systemic barriers in doing so.

I thank all of those who have made contributions to the debate this evening. I thank the Attorney-General, the Hon. Heidi Girolamo, the Hon. Tammy Franks, the Hon. Ben Hood, the Hon. Robert Simms, the Hon. Dennis Hood, the Hon. Laura Henderson, the Hon. Connie Bonaros, the Hon. Clare Scriven, the Hon. Sarah Game and the Hon. Reggie Martin. I also thank those I have had numerous conversations with over the months in an effort to negotiate a path forward to changing the South Australian laws and safeguarding those people who are looking to get out of the industry.

I would also like to acknowledge the contributions made by so many individuals and organisations over the last couple of years: the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women Australia, Wahine Toa Rising, Women's Forum Australia, Women Ending Exploitation by Prostitution, Helen Pringle, Helen Easton, Exodus Cry, Nordic Model Now, the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and children, Reem Alsalem, Rahab Adelaide, Daniel Principe, Reality Check Radio, Swedish Women's Organisation, Michelle Panayi, Coalition for the Abolition of Prostitution International and the Swedish Ambassador-at-large for combating the trafficking of women and girls. I would like to thank these organisations, and I would also sincerely like to thank those survivors who have shared their stories with me over the months and years previous and have helped shape this piece of legislation.

Members will recall that in August of last year I introduced the Summary Offences (Prostitution Law Reform) Amendment Bill, which was brought to a vote on 1 May of this year. While that bill was narrowly defeated, the level of support it garnered affirmed its fundamental merit and the pressing need for change. Whilst I was obviously disappointed by the outcome, I was encouraged by the widespread recognition of the need to provide real pathways for those wishing to exit the industry.

Together with the legislation for exit strategies, I believe we are once again presented with a nation-first initiative. A key feature obviously of my bill, one that resonates with many, is the comprehensive exit strategies. I acknowledge that, for some, the industry is where they want to be, and this bill will not affect them. But for others my bill provides a pathway out of what is, for them, a harmful industry. These strategies remain at the heart of my current proposal. This legislation is designed to provide tangible support for those who want to leave the industry, ensuring that we meet our responsibilities to help the most vulnerable in our society.

I have spent many hours talking this bill through with colleagues in this room as well as those who have lived experience, whether here, interstate or abroad. I am not going to go through the machinations of the bill, as I did so in my second reading speech. Suffice to say that this bill proposes that individuals who can demonstrate a genuine intention to leave can apply to have their prior convictions for prostitution offences spent, and they will be treated as if they have not committed an offence under specific provisions of the Summary Offences Act.

In this way the bill offers what I have termed immunity, which is a fresh start for those who want to move on from this life. Without that immunity, no woman will seek the assistance knowing that when they do they will be charged with an offence. Under my bill the immunity is contingent on a genuine attempt to exit, and if they do go back into the industry in future that immunity no longer applies. Similarly, with spent convictions a three-month period required before applying for spent convictions in my mind provides the individual with the opportunity to demonstrate that they have exited the industry.

I have deliberately kept a narrow scope regarding immunity and spent convictions when it comes to managing and owning a brothel. This legislation is designed for people who legitimately want to leave the industry but do not have the support structures to do so. This is not designed for third party profiteers as a get-out-of-jail-free card, and deliberately so.

I note the Hon. Emily Bourke has some amendments, and I am keen to work through those if we get to the committee stage as I have a genuine desire to see tangible supports offered to those wanting to exit the industry. I believe the honourable member's amendments do not fundamentally change the intention of my bill. I also acknowledge that the Hon. Tammy Franks has some amendments and, whilst I acknowledge the work she has done in this space, it will come as no surprise that I indicate I will not be supporting those amendments.

This bill is not merely a legislative exercise; it is about restoring dignity and opening opportunity to those who want to leave the sex industry. It provides practical support, wipes the slate clean for those committed to change and incentivises a better future.

Again, I thank my colleagues from around the chamber across party lines for their engagement on this issue and their open-mindedness in exploring a new path forward. I urge members in this chamber to evaluate the bill on its merits, to consider the profound impact it could have on the lives of many and to support its passage. With that, I commend the bill to the chamber.

The council divided on the second reading:

Ayes 8

Noes 11

Majority 3

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Second reading thus negatived.