Motions

Prostitution

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. T.A. Franks:

That this council respectfully requests the Attorney-General to task the South Australian Law Reform Institute (SALRI) with reporting on—

1. The impact of the ongoing criminalisation of prostitution; and

2. The legislative options for the decriminalisation of adult, consensual sex work in South Australia.

(Continued from 4 September 2025.)

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Deputy Premier, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State) (22:35): I will speak briefly on this motion and indicate my support for this motion. I think it would not be any surprise that I support legislative reform in this area. In doing so, that does not necessarily mean that there will end up being a referral to SALRI. SALRI is conducting a number of reviews as we speak, so it will depend upon their capacity, amongst other factors.

In speaking very briefly to this I want to acknowledge the massive amount of work that the honourable member putting forward this motion has done in this area of law reform. I think it is entirely inevitable that we will see significant reform in this area. In my view, it is not a question of if we see reform; I think it is when we see reform.

Reflecting on this, it is very similar to the honourable member's former colleague the Hon. Mark Parnell, who spent many years seeking reform in another area that is often treated as a matter of conscience, voluntary assisted dying, and it was soon after he left this chamber that that eventually passed. As I say, I think at some stage in the very near future this will pass, and it will be one of the more significant legacy items for the Hon. Tammy Franks.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (22:36): I rise to support the motion. I think it is no surprise to members that I support the decriminalisation of sex work. Indeed, it is long-term Greens policy. It is also my personal view. It is certainly my view that sex work is work and should be treated as such, and this is a reform that is long overdue. So the idea of referring this matter on to the South Australian Law Reform Institute for their consideration I think absolutely makes sense.

I echo the comments made by the Deputy Premier with respect to the Hon. Tammy Franks' work on sex work in South Australia. I know it is an issue she has put a huge amount of time into over the years. I agree it is one of those areas where reform is inevitable, and when that does eventually happen it will be in no small part due to the significant contribution the Hon. Tammy Franks has made in pushing that debate forward on many different occasions. I note there have been multiple private members' bills over the years.

I think this is a really important step to get an investigation going. Let's see what they come up with. Before I conclude my remarks, I indicate that I will not be supporting the amendments of the Hon. Nicola Centofanti.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (22:38): I rise today to speak to the motion calling for the South Australian Law Reform Institute to examine our state's prostitution laws and to signal that I will be looking to extend that review to look at all models of law reform. With that, I move:

Paragraph 2.

Leave out all words after 'The legislative options' and insert 'for prostitution law reform, including but not limited to criminalisation, full decriminalisation, partial decriminalisation (equality model), and legalisation/regulation frameworks, to ensure a comprehensive assessment of international and domestic approaches and their effectiveness in reducing harm, exploitation and demand.'

This parliament has debated prostitution law reform for many years. Those debates have been passionate, deeply personal and often polarising. Yet one thing in my mind has always been clear—that is, that we have a responsibility to protect the vulnerable in our society, we have a responsibility to reduce exploitation and we have a responsibility to ensure that our laws do not entrench harm but work to prevent it.

The motion before us, as amended by myself, does not prejudge the outcome, because it must not prejudge the outcome. If we are to approach law reform around prostitution with the seriousness and integrity that such a complex and sensitive issue demands then we must ensure that all legislative models are examined, not just the ones preferred by particular advocates or interest groups.

Genuine reform cannot begin with a predetermined outcome. It must begin with a willingness to look at the full spectrum of international approaches, their evidence base, their successes and their failures. Anything less risks making decisions based on ideology rather than outcomes, and on assumptions rather than realities across the world.

Different jurisdictions have grappled with the social, legal and human implications of prostitution. Some have adopted full decriminalisation, others retain criminalisation, some have chosen to legalise and attempt to regulate prostitution models, and an increasing number have adopted partial decriminalisation, or the equality model, where those exploited in the sex trade are decriminalised and supported, while those who purchase sex and those who profit from the exploitation of others are held to account. Each of these models carries lessons. Each has real-world consequences for vulnerable women, for community safety, for organised crime and for public expectations around dignity, equality and violence against women.

No credible review can ignore international evidence simply because it may not align with a preferred policy thesis. No independent law reform process should have its conclusions predetermined by restrictive terms of reference that exclude consideration of alternative models. If we are sincere about reducing exploitation, supporting exit pathways and preventing the commercialisation of vulnerability, then we must make space in this process for the equality model to be assessed alongside all other frameworks.

We have a duty to test assumptions, to interrogate experiences in other nations and to ensure that our choices are informed, not by simplified narratives but by reality, data and evidence. Reform should not be a foregone conclusion. It should be a fair process, one that examines all models objectively and chooses the path that best protects vulnerable women and best reflects the values of society, dignity and fairness in our state.

My amendment simply ensures South Australia examines other models, including the equality model, and considers what truly serves the safety, dignity and long-term welfare of those involved in prostitution. Members in this place know where I stand on this issue. I strongly support the partial decriminalisation, or the equality model. Why? Because it reduces demand, it disrupts exploitation and treats prostituted women as victims of circumstance, not criminals.

We must recognise the reality: prostitution, for the overwhelming majority, is not a free choice industry. It intersects with family violence, with childhood trauma, with homelessness, with addiction, with coercion and, increasingly, organised crime. Most women, not all but most, do not wake up one day and decide that prostitution is their dream job. They arrive there through a lack of opportunity, a lack of safety and a lack of support.

The equality model says that women in prostitution are decriminalised, buyers and profiteers are held accountable, and support services are funded to help women exit the industry. This is about harm prevention strategy. We know full decriminalisation removes criminal sanctions but it also normalises the industry. It treats prostitution as simply another form of commerce and, in doing so, it opens the door to more demand, more trafficking and more organised criminal involvement. Jurisdictions that have fully decriminalised prostitution have subsequently seen growth in the size of the sex industry, expansion of pimping and brothel operations, and increased trafficking of vulnerable women. Full decriminalisation does not dismantle the power imbalance, it legitimises it.

The equality model now adopted in Sweden, Norway, France, Ireland and Canada, to name a few, offers a different vision, a vision where a woman in prostitution is not criminalised but is also not abandoned to a commercial sex industry that profits from vulnerability. It says to women: you deserve a path outward, you deserve dignity, you deserve real choice, not the illusion of choice created by economic desperation. It says to men: you do not have the right to purchase another person's body.

If we truly believe in reducing violence against women, if we believe in tackling coercion and exploitation, if we truly want to give vulnerable women every chance to rebuild their lives, then I firmly believe that we must at least—at the very least—examine this model thoroughly and transparently. Those are my thoughts. Some people in this place agree with me. I also appreciate that there are others in this place who do not agree with me; however, my amendment ensures that all models of law reform are looked at within this process because that is what is needed.

This motion, as amended, calls on the Attorney-General to task the South Australian Law Reform Institute with undertaking a comprehensive review of prostitution laws in South Australia. It requires SALRI to examine not only the impacts of ongoing criminalisation and the legislative options for decriminalisation but all possible legal frameworks. This includes, obviously, ongoing criminalisation, full decriminalisation, partial decriminalisation through the equality model, and legalisation or regulatory approaches.

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that South Australia considers every international and domestic model, evaluates their real-world outcomes and does not predetermine the direction of reform before the evidence is assessed.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (22:45): I apologise. I do not think I was listed to speak, but I will make a few brief remarks supporting this motion and acknowledging and thanking the Hon. Ms Franks for her persistence and tireless advocacy in this space. We have had another conscience vote this evening which was the subject of a review by SALRI, and I firmly believe that these are precisely the sorts of issues that do need to be removed from politics and to be directed to the sort of independent and impartial analysis and review that SALRI can provide.

They are emotive issues. We know that they come with all sorts of considerations which often skew our thoughts in terms of how to approach this issue. The benefit of having a referral made to SALRI speaks for itself in terms of addressing all those issues, removing all the sorts of things that we struggle with in this place and providing us with a detailed, impartial analysis of an area of law that becomes the subject of, often, much-heated debate in this place.

It is on that basis that I fully endorse and support the referral of this matter to SALRI. I think we have everything to benefit from that referral and I am hopeful that the next parliament will be in a position to consider the body of work, which we know will be fulsome and thorough, by SALRI with respect to this issue.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (22:47): I rise to oppose the motion in its current form put forward by the honourable member. Unlike what the honourable member would have us believe, I do not believe South Australians regard prostitution as a harmless occupation or support the purchase of a woman's body as if it was a commodity. We should be doing everything we can to help women who are trapped in this industry, through legislative protection and providing lasting exit strategies for those trying to get out.

Prostitution is a system that profits from the exploitation of women. The idea that complete decriminalisation of prostitution is about women's rights and women's freedom is both dehumanising and degrading. Prostitution is violence against women, and the call to legalise prostitution is a call to legalise gender-based violence. As I have said in the past, I do not understand how on the one hand we can talk about the need to be doing so much more to stop domestic violence towards women, but at the same time we are tolerating and accepting the purchasing of a woman who finds herself in a desperate situation.

I will never agree to legislating violence and sexual abuse against women. I do, however, indicate my support for the amendment put forward by the Hon. Nicola Centofanti and urge the chamber to pursue protective reforms that reduce harm and exploitation of vulnerable women rather than enabling a dangerous commercial sex industry.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (22:48): I am not going to debate the merits or otherwise of any of the various models. It is on the record for many, many years that I support decriminalisation. It is a shame that it has not happened yet, quite frankly. We have had multiple parliamentary committees and various models of legislation put before the parliament. I would like to commend the honourable member for moving this motion. SALRI is a well-respected organisation that does good work. It has proven its worth on many occasions, and I am sure it will do a good job with a referral such as this.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (22:49): I rise to oppose this motion. This essentially outsources decisions that would be made here. We hear people say, 'Well we are still ultimately the decision-maker. Why are we asking for an investigation by the South Australian Law Reform Institute on the legislative options open for decriminalisation?' Decriminalisation is obviously the one being directed in such a motion or such a request, and therefore it is taking only that particular option as the one to be considered. The motion is entirely one-sided and, whilst we might talk about SALRI with a degree of respect, it cannot come to an impartial recommendation or model on reform of prostitution if it is directed only towards one type of reform.

When we talk about decriminalisation, what we are talking about is a model that increases demand. Any model that increases demand increases trafficking. Trafficking occurs because of demand, and therefore addressing demand is the only way to reduce trafficking and to reduce exploitation. That is why the equality model, which has been discussed in this place, but I think only once in any detailed manner, is clearly the option that we should going with.

When looking into this again, I was looking at the European Parliament resolution on sexual exploitation and prostitution and its impact on gender equality. It references many different documents, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN Convention of 1949 for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others and multiple documents referring to the exploitation of women, the recommendation to criminalise the purchase of sex to combat the trafficking of people for sexual exploitation, having regard to the Fourth World Conference on Women held in Beijing, 'Action for Equality, Development and Peace', and further actions in terms of the fight against trafficking in women. These are various documents being referenced.

It cites the resolution in regard to the elimination of violence against women, elimination and prevention of all forms of violence against women and girls, and having regard to the European Women's Lobby Awareness Raising Campaign 'Not for Sale'. It notes the following:

whereas prostitution and forced prostitution are gendered phenomena with a global dimension involving around 40 to 42 million people worldwide, with the vast majority of prostituted persons being women and underage females, and almost all buyers being men, and whereas it is therefore both a cause and a consequence of gender inequality which it aggravates further;

whereas prostitution and forced prostitution are intrinsically linked to gender inequality in society and have an impact on the status of women and men in society and a perception of their mutual relations and sexuality. It talks about healthy relationships being ones conducted with mutual respect;

whereas any policy on prostitution has an impact on achieving gender equality, affects the understanding of gender issues and delivers messages and norms to a society, including its youth;

whereas prostitution functions as a business and creates a market, with different actors being interlinked and where pimps and procurers are calculating and acting to secure or increase their markets and maximising profits, and whereas the buyers of sex play a key role as they maintain the demand in this market;

whereas prostitution reduces all intimate acts to their monetary value and diminishes the human being to the level of merchandise or an object to be used by the client;

whereas the vast majority of prostituted persons come from vulnerable groups;

whereas procuring is closely linked with organised crime;

whereas organised crime, human trafficking, extremely violent crime and corruption flourish in the shadow of prostitution, and any framework of legalisation primarily benefits the pimps, who are able to transform themselves into 'businessmen';

whereas the prostitution markets fuel trafficking in women and children;

whereas more and more young people, among whom alarmingly many are children, are forced into prostitution;

recognises that prostitution, forced prostitution and sexual exploitation are highly gendered issues and violations of human dignity, contrary to human rights principles, among which gender equality, and therefore contrary to the principles of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, including the goal and the principle of gender equality;

stresses that forced prostitution, prostitution and exploitation in the sex industry can have devastating and long-lasting psychological and physical consequences for the individual involved (even after they have left prostitution), especially children and adolescents, in addition to being both a cause and a consequence of gender inequality, while perpetuating gendered stereotypes and stereotypical thinking about women selling sex, such as the idea that women's and underage females' bodies are for sale to satisfy male demand for sex;

recognises that prostitution and forced prostitution can have an impact on violence against women in general, as research on sex buyers shows that men who buy sex have a degrading image of women; suggests to the competent national authorities, therefore, that the ban on the purchase of sexual services should be accompanied by a campaign to raise awareness among men;

stresses that the normalisation of prostitution has an impact on violence against women; points in particular to data that show that men buying sex were more likely to commit sexually coercive acts against women and other acts of violence against women and often presented misogynist attitudes;

notes that 80 to 95 per cent of prostituted persons have suffered some form of violence before entering prostitution (rape, incest, paedophilia), that 62 per cent of them report having been raped and that 68 per cent suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder—a percentage similar to that of torture victims;

draws attention to some of the effects, mostly negative, of mass media production and pornography, especially online, in creating an unfavourable image of women, which may have the effect of encouraging the human personality of women to be disregarded and of presenting them as a commodity;

stresses that the normalisation of prostitution has an impact on young people's perception of sexuality and the relationship between women and men;

stresses that prostituted persons should not be criminalised and calls on all member states to repeal repressive legislation against prostituted persons;

believes that looking upon prostitution as legal 'sex work', decriminalising the sex industry in general and making procuring legal is not a solution to keeping vulnerable women and underage females safe from violence and exploitation, but has the opposite effect and puts them in danger of a higher level of violence, while at the same time encouraging prostitution markets—and thus the number of women and underage females suffering abuse—to grow; and

urges the commission and member states to mobilise the necessary means and tools to fight trafficking and sexual exploitation and to reduce prostitution as breaches of women's fundamental rights, in particular with regard to minors and gender equality.

I thought all of those were a good summary rather than going into full detail, but I would encourage members to have a look at that. It comes back to the fundamental issue of women's equality, that women are not commodities to be bought, that trafficking occurs because of demand and decriminalisation increases the demand.

The mover of this claimed, when referring to decriminalised jurisdictions interstate, that supposedly 'we have seen workers live in greater safety, able to organise, able to unionise, and able to mobilise and speak for themselves'. I would suggest that such a view ignores the voices of people in prostitution who have had the exact opposite experience when operating in decriminalised jurisdictions.

The basic tenet of the motion, which is that only decriminalisation should be investigated, is incredibly flawed and incredibly dangerous to women. Secondly, there is the principle that the parliament should investigate such matters, the parliament should make decisions and the parliament should be willing to do their job.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (22:58): I thank those members who have made a contribution this evening: the Hon. Kyam Maher, the Hon. Robert Simms, the Hon. Nicola Centofanti, the Hon. Connie Bonaros, the Hon. Sarah Game, the Hon. Michelle Lensink and the Hon. Clare Scriven. I note that there is a foreshadowed amendment and indicate that I oppose that amendment.

I remind members that I brought this motion to this place, in fact, in the wake of the South Australian Royal Commission into Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence. I remind members of the commissioner's words at chapter 8, which was the commissioner's recommendations for further work:

The Commission heard from the Sex Industry Network Incorporated (SIN) that people who work in the sex industry, and who are experiencing domestic, family and sexual violence, often feel dehumanised and judged when seeking support. This is particularly problematic in jurisdictions such as South Australia where sex work is still criminalised.

And:

The Commission recognises that sex work has been decriminalised in other jurisdictions and that criminalisation, and the resulting stigma that is attached to sex work, creates barriers to reporting violence in the sex industry.

The commission urges the South Australian government to explore law reform in this area, specifically in the form of decriminalisation—not further criminalisation, not equality models, not partial criminalisation and not every single jurisdiction in the entire world. This motion looks at the current impact of criminalisation of prostitution in South Australia, because a review of that would be useful to inform any debate, and calls for the legislative option of decriminalisation to be explored by SALRI, consulted upon and recommended.

Obviously, we had an abortion debate earlier this evening. That was actually a law reform that was a decriminalisation of abortion referral to SALRI that saw a 560-page report produced that informed expert and thorough advice that canvassed all opinions on that matter and provided members of this parliament the ability to exercise their conscience votes with that tool.

I do not for a second assume that many people's votes on decriminalisation will be massively swayed one way or another by the SALRI report if they have views that they hold firm. What I do believe is that we will be provided with expert information on such things as planning laws and recommendations around planning, on industrial relations and on the ability to define brothels. Brothels are currently not defined under our laws. They are so broadly defined they include a person's bedroom. A single bedroom is a brothel in this state under our laws, and yet a large establishment is also a brothel. They are clearly not the same thing, yet our law treats them as if they are.

This takes on board as well the experience particularly of Queensland most recently, which in 2021 sent to their version of the law reform institute a term of reference to look at decriminalisation in Queensland. Lo and behold, they were then able to have a piece of legislation that has now passed where members of that parliament were able to be informed and supported in the exercise of their conscience vote. That does not mean that everyone voted for decriminalisation, but it does mean that when the debate was had those who supported it had the information and the advice they needed, and that the minutiae that are so difficult for a private member to produce and address, such as various planning laws and the like, were able to be extensively supported in the debate, expertly assisting those members of parliament.

Similarly, Victoria has had a two-stage process of moving from regulation or licensing through to decriminalisation. They also referred that matter off to a similar body to what we have in SALRI. They did it in a two-phase process. I suspect there would be much nuance in what SALRI would need to explore and advise. Given South Australia has yet to see our laws around sex work move very far in many, many decades and that we are surrounded by jurisdictions—the Northern Territory, Queensland, Victoria, New South Wales and across the ditch in New Zealand—that all have decriminalisation, surely SALRI could easily learn from their experiences and provide a report that was useful for those people who are interested and elected to exercise their vote.

Decriminalisation is something that has been urged for by sex workers themselves. It is also supported by the World Health Organization, by UNAIDS, by Amnesty International, by Human Rights Watch, by our own chief public health officer in this state, and by various women's groups such as Zonta, BPW and YWCA. That is because it actually treats sex work as work and gives sex workers rights. It gives them the right to unionise and to organise.

It would mean that, in this state, rather than sex workers only being represented by the union for their representative body of SIN (the Sex Industry Network) in the ASU, individual members would be able to join UWU, as they do in Queensland, the Northern Territory or New South Wales. Perhaps there might be a demarcation dispute between the ASU and other unions. That is yet to come and I look forward to that debate unfolding.

I certainly think that unless we see a focus on what has, in the past, been supported through this chamber as the preferred model of health and of women and sex workers themselves, as well as industrial bodies, we will never see this debate progress much further and it will continue to be something that sees women in particular, and sex workers in general, unable to report crimes against them to the police because the police are not their protectors. They are currently their persecutors and that is not a situation, I think, that should continue in this state.

The council divided on the amendment:

Ayes 9

Noes 10

Majority 1

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Amendment thus negatived.

The council divided on the motion:

Ayes 10

Noes 9

Majority 1

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Motion thus carried.