HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2019-10-30 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Statutes Amendment (Decriminalisation of Sex Work) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 25 September 2019.)

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (10:32): I rise to complete my remarks that were commenced on the last occasion, so I do not propose to take a fresh chunk of time even if that were to be offered to me. I think I had about a minute to go on the last occasion. What I do want to say in concluding my remarks, and what I did not quite have a chance to acknowledge in my remarks on the last occasion, was the level and depth of engagement that I have received from community organisations of a wide variety.

I have had the opportunity over a period of time to sit down with individuals and groups expressing a range of views from the point of view of the community groups within which they work, and I want to particularly acknowledge the work of the YWCA and of Zonta. I have also engaged with the Australian Christian Lobby. Those communications have been ongoing. This has been a process of engagement that I have valued and found informative. Most recently among those, I received a letter from Bishop O'Kelly of the Catholic Archdiocese of Adelaide. That is a letter dated yesterday.

If there is one thing that characterises the engagement that I have received and participated in, and I think this point might fairly be made, it is that in no area of that—and it is fair to say that there is a fairly wide range of views that have been expressed—is there a desire to criminalise prostitutes, to criminalise sex work. That is a position that has been reiterated by Bishop O'Kelly in his letter that has been sent, it seems, to a number of us in this place, including me.

While he notes, indeed suggests, that his community of Catholics ought to have deep reservations about legislation, he reiterates that there is no wish on his part personally to see people engaged as prostitutes classified as criminals. I want to make that observation to underscore what I said at the outset, and that is my support for the second reading. I look forward to participating in the debate as it proceeds.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta—Minister for Education) (10:35): I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this bill and have fairly similar views to those of the member for Heysen, I suspect. In making a contribution on the Statutes Amendment (Decriminalisation of Sex Work) Bill, I seek to put on the record both my views and some of the matters that have been raised during engagement with my community in Morialta.

I have been in parliament for about nine years now and a number of these conscience vote debates have taken place. Those are the matters on which our respective parties do not form a firm view. We have 47 House of Assembly members who must each form their own view. I take the view that MPs must vote on these matters in the way they believe will serve their states and communities best.

Our job requires us to consider the status quo as a starting point and ask: are we best served by making no change at all on whatever the matter at hand may be? If our existing laws are not serving our community well, then once the bill has had a second reading, if indeed it does, we must consider amendments from the point of view of how we might believe our community can be best served. The perfect is ideal, but we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Sometimes we compromise and sometimes, across 47 points of view, negotiation and compromise are not possible. I think that is why issues of conscience often fall short, despite prevailing views in the community that might think that with a simple proposition, if it was a yes or a no, you might get one answer, but when you look at the nuance and details, sometimes, with 47 different points of view, the compromise does not get there.

Usually, these bills also attract a fair deal of public interest. It is not unusual for many constituents to share their points of view. Our own principles in the application of our judgement must come first. It must be the basis on which we cast our vote, but it is really important for us to be informed of community sentiment and views on these matters and give serious consideration to the arguments put.

Obviously, during the course of debate, we need to keep in mind the unforeseen consequences of well-intended laws and that the nuance and detail of legislation sometimes can be a great deal more complex than can be hacked in a survey. I also think it is important for us to listen to each other's speeches on these matters in particular. People are arguing and they may well sway debate with a well-made argument. I am not claiming ever to have done that myself, but I have certainly been swayed by others on occasion. We must listen for perspectives that we may not have considered, and for that reason I thank all those members who have made considered contributions. I have appreciated the opportunity to hear and read them, too.

Also, many people across the state—stakeholders, academics, researchers, people who are interested in the bill—have provided their perspectives to all members. Some have come and given briefings in the parliament. That is a community service and I thank people who have done that. I have read the material more than I have met with community stakeholders, but I have been particularly interested in the views of people from within my electorate.

On this bill, I have not only read the correspondence and listened to the views of a number of constituents who proactively contacted me but I have gone to the next step on this occasion and written to everyone in my electorate seeking their views to help inform my considerations. Given the level of response that that provokes, time willing, in the future on these matters I will propose to use the same approach to similar issues.

In the correspondence I provided to members of my community, I also directed them to a website that included the debates from the Legislative Council so that those constituents who wanted to better inform themselves of the arguments can do so. I received nearly 800 responses from constituents and I thank that large number of Morialta residents who have taken the time and trouble to share their views.

I want to make clear that it is not and nor was it meant to be a scientific survey. For the reasons outlined, I am not seeking to outsource and I do not think people should outsource their decision-making to a simple test of which side provides more responses in the mail. For what it is worth, if that had been the goal, it would not have worked anyway because the opinion in my electorate is very close. It has gone back and forth from week to week, and next week there may be a different response from this week.

At the moment, there are more than 350 responses in either direction, so that would not make sense. It also reflects similar research that I am aware of conducted in my electorate before the last election that showed 40 per cent in favour, 40 per cent against and 20 per cent somewhere in the middle. I wanted to encourage residents to share their point of view, but I particularly wanted residents to provide some of the arguments that informed their point of view.

I can tell all those residents that I have read their responses and I appreciate their contribution. While the points of view of citizens in my electorate are spread evenly across the spectrum, there was a lot of clarity and passion and some really good arguments were put forward, and I propose to share some of those with the parliament now so that those constituents' voices can be heard.

For people with concerns about the bill, some of their arguments were that it would create problems for councils. They were concerned about the potential that it would become 'wide open for future crime'. One person wrote, 'Although this is a complex issue, and we want sex workers protected, in my view decriminalising it will make it easier for other young women to see this as a career or be coerced into this in various ways.'

There were some people who wrote variations on a description of prostitution being legal as immoral. Somebody wrote, 'It will increase crime and sexual abuse.' Someone wrote, 'Keep our mothers, sisters and daughters safe.' There were a number of people who suggested that decriminalisation would result in an increase in prostitution, which they saw as certainly a negative or immoral thing.

Some people wrote in favour of the bill. Some of the quotes included, 'Health care is needed for sex workers' and that decriminalisation would 'keep organised crime out of it'. One person wrote, 'Ensure the law concerning the clients is fair and does not cause harm to the sex workers.' Another person wrote, 'Decriminalisation would lower the rate of abuse of sex workers by pimps, criminals and police and the fear they live in.' It was written that sex workers should be supported to prevent exploitation and slavery. A couple of people wrote that it was a 'long overdue reform'.

A number of people expressed their concern that under the existing arrangements we have an industry that is controlled by bikies, and they suggested that law reform is necessary to get bikies out of a position where they control women. One person wrote,' This may stop other sex crimes,' and someone else wrote, 'It has been around for millennia and is never going away.'

Perhaps one of the most persuasive arguments that came across was from somebody who did not necessarily themselves feel that they wanted prostitution to be legal but expressed support for the bill on the basis that it would prevent the situation where women feel at risk when going to police to express that they themselves were in fear of being vulnerable to abuse or violence because they were concerned that the nature of their profession would leave them exposed in that circumstance, and that is a risk that we are very concerned about.

Other comments were that people with criminal records or gang relations should not be allowed to own brothels. There were a lot of suggestions on how the bill should operate if it were passed. A lot of people wrote about restrictions being required regarding where they could be located, police powers and advertising. A number of people were in favour of or against the reforms, but they also wrote about their concerns regarding brothels operating in residential areas or in school or church precincts.

A number of people wrote of their concerns with the practice often described as street walking, and the police commissioner's concerns were raised by a number of people. At the same time, a good number of people also wrote that brothels should be treated like any other business. I included some specific questions in the survey in relation to some of the issues that have been raised as potential amendments, and there was strong support in the survey responses for some of the issues raised by the police commissioner. Should this bill get to the committee stage, I indicate that I will be supporting those amendments foreshadowed that deal with a range of the issues raised by the police commissioner.

On the principle of the matter, does our current legislation serve our community well? Can the reforms suggested in this bill, albeit potentially subject to further amendments, serve our community better? I believe that we can do better than the status quo and I will support the second reading. I anticipate supporting the amendments that will be presented by the Attorney-General and encouraged by the police commissioner to improve the bill, and there may be other amendments.

On a potential third reading vote, we will see what the bill looks like after the committee stage, but my decision will be based on whether the bill will improve on the existing legislation in a number of areas. Are we reducing the risk of exploitation in relation to people who may have found themselves in a position they do not wish to be in and to maximise opportunities for people to live the lives they want to lead? Are we reducing the risk of people trafficking or sexual servitude? Will we reduce the risk of criminal elements and organised crime from profiting from prostitution and using it as a vehicle to support criminal activities?

I think an important question to ask is: will changes make people in our community, particularly people in vulnerable circumstances, safer or more at risk from violence, exploitation or harm? To be clear, prostitution exists in our communities at the moment. Whether or not people believe that that should be the case, I do not think there is anybody who can satisfactorily argue that the current legislative arrangements work well for anybody.

Are they serving anyone's interests? Whether or not you believe that prostitution should be taking place, or you are benign on it, our legislation is not working as intended. The question we must ask is: what would be the impact of a change? These are the bases on which I would support the second reading of the bill and the foreshadowed amendments I have identified. There may nor may not be others. Should the bill be successful in passing the second reading, those are the questions I will be considering once amendments have succeeded or failed and the final third reading is put.

Dr CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (10:45): It is an interesting job, this one. It is a particularly interesting job when you are a member of a major party and you reserve most of the debates for inside your party room rather than in this chamber. Most of the time, you are resolving your collective position behind those closed doors.

The beauty of a conscience vote is that we get to resolve our debates collectively in front of the public and in front of each other. We get to articulate exactly how we as individuals feel about an issue. These issues tend to be very difficult. Some are not—some are straightforward and, to my mind, quite mystifyingly labelled as conscience votes—but some are of weight and complexity. Anyone who accuses a person with a different view of being simply wrong is probably being unfair.

This bill is the product of so much work from the community, so much work from the sex work industry and so much work from individual members of this parliament. I do not include myself in that number; I am grateful to be allowed to speak on this and to vote on this, but I pay tribute to the women, largely, and some men, who have gone to extraordinary efforts to make sure that we have the opportunity to debate this. This bill has in so many ways been a very long time coming. This is the time and this is the bill, where we finally have the opportunity to decriminalise sex work in this state.

This is the bill where we finally have the opportunity to say that the people—again, largely women—working in this industry deserve our recognition and our protection. This is the bill that confronts all that weighty complexity and all those issues that some of us do not really want to have to deal with and would rather look away from. This is the bill that gives us the opportunity to stare them in the face and do what I regard to be the right thing: to put the workers front and centre in our thoughts and our considerations.

There are people who are opposed to this bill. I would like to make it clear that, in my view, that opposition is legitimate and fair. However, it is their view on how they want to manage the issue of sex work, rather than a legitimate or fair criticism of this bill. This is a good bill and, in my opinion, it will be better still when several of the proposed amendments are able to be considered and incorporated.

This is not a flawed legislative approach. This is a strong and well-considered approach, particularly with the addition of some of those amendments, that allows us to make a moral choice. Which side do we want to be on at the end of this complex debate? For me, that has not been an easy 'yes, whatever; tick, happy to do it' process. For me, it has been a journey. As a feminist, I do not want women to be exploited. As a humanist, I do not want anyone to suffer because of a decision I have made in here.

So I have asked the question: does this bill mean that there will be less suffering and less exploitation? Yes, it does, in my opinion, and that is why I will be voting in favour of it. It is not because I think we can get rid of sex work if only we try harder, because we cannot, and not because I think sex work is a profession that every person should aspire to, because it patently is not. I am voting in favour of the bill because it is a profession that many people work in, have always worked in and will always work in, and we can make the conditions of that work better by the decisions that we make in this chamber. That is a legitimate moral position to hold.

In the journey of my decision to support this bill I have learnt about the journey of the industry itself. This is not an industry, as one might consider from the very privileged and safe fireside when thinking about how one wishes the world could be, that is simply full of downtrodden, exploited people. There is an element of that for sure, but this is an industry that has been evolving its internal capacity to have a voice, to ask for what it deserves, for what its workers deserve, and it has been increasingly able to articulate to this parliament what it expects of us as the representatives of all people in South Australia.

This bill can only help that evolution. If you have an industry that is complex and hard and has exploitative elements, the best thing that you can do is empower the people who want to make it better and safer. In my opinion, the only way to do that is to decriminalise it and to reform the law to facilitate that. I have also learnt on my journey about how important this industry is for vulnerable South Australians.

I even had—a little disconcertingly, I must admit—a card put in my letterbox at home by someone I do not know, or maybe I do know but I do not know who it was who put it in there, telling me about their use of the sex industry and, because of their PTS and their disability, how important that intimacy and human contact were, and how the generosity and kindness of the people they employed had made a difference to their lives. That is one little tiny story amongst many.

I would like to pay tribute to the people who have been advocating for this reform, particularly from the industry, for the way in which they have been able to personalise those stories for us, to understand that beyond our safe little middle-class environments there is a whole world of experience and a whole world of generosity and kindness that we may not have first thought of when thinking about the sex work industry. I want to pay tribute to the women and men, but largely the women, who are engaged in that work and who make people's lives so much better and so much fuller of human intimacy and a sense of connection.

As I have noted, there are many elements to this bill and many amendments we will be considering, but I am not going to canvass all of them. I know that some of the criticism which has been made, and which I have received in my office, of course, is completely unfounded. There is nothing in this bill that facilitates children being anywhere near sex work, let alone participating in it. There is nothing in this bill that encourages the exploitation of anybody. There is nothing in this bill that adds to the harm in our society.

However, I would like to note the importance of the three-year review. If we in this parliament pass this, we are doing something that, for South Australia, is bold and new. I accept that in many ways we are behind some of the other states, but I am grateful to the people who crafted this bill, that they saw fit to say, 'We know what we want from this and we know that we want to make sure that is what happens.' A proper review done at the conclusion of three years of having this in place will help determine whether there is more that could be done to make sure that the workers are safe.

A sex worker came to chat to me when I was standing outside a supermarket in North Haven, as I do from time to time as part of making sure that I am accessible to my community, and she talked to me about the way she has been treated by law enforcement. This is a woman who is older than I am, who is leading a dignified life in a profession that suits her, yet she has been fearful of engaging with the police when she has had threats to herself. She has felt threatened at times through the fact that what she is doing is regarded as illegal.

I want to help that woman. I want to help every woman and man involved in this industry to feel safer, more dignified, supported by this parliament and recognised by the community of South Australia. I fervently hope that this bill gets through, and I congratulate everybody who has been involved in bringing it together.

Mr PATTERSON (Morphett) (10:55): I take this opportunity to speak in parliament today about this amendment bill, which sets out to decriminalise sex work in South Australia. I acknowledge from the outset that it is certainly a difficult issue for all of us here in the house to consider. It has come to parliament quite a number of times in previous years.

In my case, it is the first time that I have had to consider a bill to reform prostitution and how it could affect not only my electorate of Morphett but also the wider South Australian community. I will say from the outset that I come to this debate seeking to understand whether this bill will reduce the amount of prostitution in our community. I believe that this bill, which seeks to treat sex work like any other business, will normalise prostitution over the years. In so doing, it will increase prostitution in our community, so I will not be supporting this bill.

I think about what is going on at this time of year. I have started attending school graduation ceremonies. I attended Brighton Secondary School's graduation, where 350 year 12 students graduated, many of whom have studied hard and look forward to entering the workforce, either immediately or after their tertiary studies or VET. In the same month, I also attended my daughter's graduation from her school alongside 200 students. They were announced to the proud audience, who were told the career hopes of each of those students, what they wish to pursue after school.

Unsurprisingly, none of them indicated that they hoped to enter prostitution or run a brothel. I feel that I would be letting down both my daughter and her fellow female graduates—I will say why I concentrate on females a bit later—if they are sent off into the next stage of life where an option to get by financially is to become a sex worker, if legislation that this house and I look to pass makes it easier to buy or procure them for sex work.

I make this decision with respect for those who are trying to make changes to legislation to improve the health and safety of sex workers who operate under the current laws. I agree with them that, as many others have said here in the house, change in this area is required, but the way this bill proposes to address the issue is not, in my belief, the way to go about it. The bill seeks to address the issue by taking a decriminalisation approach rather than a more regulated approach. In so doing, the bill seeks to treat a brothel as any other business and leaves things to the open market.

The effect is that brothel owners would be considered to be reputable business owners. It would have the effect of normalising sex work. The bill as it stands would also allow sex workers to solicit work on the street. In a popular tourist destination like Glenelg, which is in the heart of Morphett, this could see an influx of sex workers setting up on and around Jetty Road in places that the local council has worked hard to make family friendly.

The bill provides no restrictions on where brothels can be set up and operate. Again, streets close to Jetty Road would be attractive places to set up. Also on the streets close to Jetty Road are schools, such as St Mary's Memorial School, and churches, such as St Andrew's by the Sea, St Peter's and Our Lady of Victories. They all fall within the Jetty Road catchment. I acknowledge that there are filed amendments associated with the bill that seek to address some of these issues, but the bill as it stands allows for this. Further to this, there are a number of commercial zones throughout Morphett that are on the boundary of residential zones. The bill would offer the opportunity for brothels to be set up close to nearby residential houses, a prospect that I believe would horrify many in our community.

If we turn to the characteristics of the sex work industry in general, which this bill seeks to treat the same as any other legal business in South Australia, studies indicate that over 90 per cent of the prostitutes are women, hence my reference before to the graduation ceremonies and the female cohort going through, but I acknowledge that males are also involved in prostitution. Interestingly, what surprised me was that 98 to 99 per cent of sex buyers are men. So, it is an industry driven by men and their attitudes to women predominantly, but also to men, in purchasing their bodies for sex.

The reasons that primarily women but also men turn to prostitution is, in the majority of cases, a story of poverty, financial disadvantage, isolation and homelessness, a story of turning to prostitution as a last resort. As I said, no graduates from school envisaged their career being in prostitution, I am certain. Overseas reports indicate that 60 per cent of workers were sexually assaulted as children and 75 per cent had been homeless at some point in their lives.

Further, a study into prostitution and trafficking in nine countries found that 68 per cent of people in prostitution met the criteria for post-traumatic stress, with symptoms in the same range as battered women, rape survivors and combat veterans. While the legislation does set out to improve the health and safety of workers I think in the physical environment, we should also consider the psychological harm that could result from prostitution. Out of those statistics, it is little wonder that over 80 per cent of sex workers indicate that they want to leave the industry. Even the bill we talk about today recognises this. It recognises and writes into legislation the requirement for the minister to help people leave the industry.

If we are talking about treating sex work as any other business, I ask myself and others in this house: what other business explicitly has to put an obligation in law for a minister to arrange assistance for persons to leave the industry? I do not see the Minister for Skills and Industry trying to promote people leaving; I see him trying to promote jobs in our community. At the same time as encouraging sex workers to leave the industry, the bill would see prostitution less regulated than alcohol, gambling, hydroponics and tattoo parlours.

I refer to a 2015 parliamentary committee report into the regulation of brothels in New South Wales, where they have a decriminalised approach. The committee received evidence of serious instances of criminal involvement, with around 40 brothels having a recorded connection to outlaw motorcycle clubs. With this in mind, it is imperative to keep outlaw motorcycle clubs from being able to own or control brothels.

If we touch on jurisdictions that have decriminalised, New Zealand being one, it was found that an advantage of decriminalisation was that it did reduce the power of the police over the sex workers. However, after about six months of decriminalisation, the newly legitimised business owners running these brothels realised that they now had power over the sex worker, and similarly the buyer of sex also realised this. This has led to New Zealand brothels offering all-inclusive deals, whereby buyers pay a flat fee and they can have sex with as many sex workers as they please. The sex workers have little choice or control, as the brothel owner has the power, the control.

So, while I acknowledge that decriminalisation has given sex workers access to employment benefits and rights that others in other industries are entitled to, the power the brothel owners exert really limits the access in a practical sense to these benefits via contracts and power. In fact, violence is still occurring in the industry.

Another consequence of decriminalisation is that it leads to the normalisation of sex work in terms of the attitude towards sex of the general community and society, and as a result of this acceptance there is an increasing demand that is about 90 per cent related to men. The Netherlands, which introduced a decriminalised model as an early adopter, is starting to understand the impacts of sex workers, where they have sex tourism. People come from other countries to their jurisdiction, and they have moved to increase the legal age of prostitutes from 18 to 21 because they understand that young vulnerable children—I call them children—young adults, are being exploited.

I feel that, as a parliament, we need to look at laws that shift the focus to men's demand. Sweden has enacted laws, which have become known as the Nordic model, which criminalise the purchase of sex and decriminalise those being paid for sex. Under this model, sex workers would be able to receive the health and safety protections this bill is seeking to achieve. It could also be augmented with policies to assist them to leave the industry.

In the time remaining, I briefly note that other countries have adopted this Nordic model—Norway, Iceland, Canada, France. I think laws that contemplate this approach can only be considered by this parliament after the current bill is not proceeded with, if that is the will of the house. Again, I indicate I will not be supporting the current bill but I indicate that I look forward to members of both houses looking at this Nordic approach to try to deal with and address the adverse conditions that sex workers are facing in order to give them the health and safety benefits but also to put pressure on and remove the acceptance of sex buyers, predominantly men, in this state.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee) (11:05): I, too, rise to speak on the Statutes Amendment (Decriminalisation of Sex Work) Bill. As the member for Morphett has just said, we are the latest iteration of multiple attempts of the parliament over many years to try to grapple with reform in this area. It has certainly been my view that, being a relative newcomer to this issue, perhaps in the same way that many other members have thought throughout all those iterations of parliament attempting to deal with this issue, there is certainly a need for reform in this area. In that respect, I think the Hon. Tammy Franks in the other place and the Deputy Premier need some recognition and adulation for being willing to take on the stewardship of trying to achieve some reform in this area.

The bill, if I can be so general to describe it as it started out in the other place, is a full decriminalisation bill in an attempt to bring in a pretty radical reform, as I understand it, to try to substantially change the operation of the industry as we have it today and to provide those people who are engaged in the industry with much greater freedom, much greater legal protection and much greater access to support services than what they currently are able to under the current operation of the industry. I understand and appreciate the thinking that goes behind that.

I have been very grateful for the representations I have received as a member of parliament from both proponents of the bill and opponents of the bill, and those representations have only reaffirmed the view in my mind that there needs to be something quite substantial done in this area to improve the conditions of the operation of the industry. From both the proponents and the opponents of the bill, I heard similar stories about the shocking and appalling treatment of people who are involved in this industry.

Sex workers have long been open to the worst sorts of abuses—assaults, rapes, at times murders—and, throughout, exploitation. I am sure it is not fair to generalise the whole industry as being like this, but it is my understanding that there are very strong and predominant criminal gang interests in the operation of much of the industry. Those criminal gangs, I think it is reasonable to say, would certainly be exacerbating and significantly contributing to the exploitation of sex workers, if not some of that behaviour also leading to abuse, assaults, rapes and murders of participants in the industry.

That is an abhorrent situation in which we find ourselves in South Australia, let alone in any other places where reform is needed where this industry is in operation, which I think we can be honest enough to admit is in most places around the world. I have spent a lot of time thinking about what sort of reform is needed and I still do not feel that I know the answer to that question. I have been very sceptical of the concept of decriminalisation, as it has been put to me, and in the original form of the bill, as it was first presented to the other place.

I acknowledge that there were a number of amendments put, some of which were accepted. There is also a further range of amendments slated for the committee stage of the bill in the house, if it proceeds to that basis, to try to provide some restrictions around how the industry could operate if it were to be decriminalised in some form.

I realise that there are some proponents of the bill who brook no regulation whatsoever. The view of those individuals is that only full decriminalisation will be effective in ensuring that they have unfettered access to the protection of the state and the protection of the law and better access to support services and so on.

There are also some people—and perhaps I could go so far as to characterise some other members in this place—who think that there needs to be some regulation and some restrictions on how the industry can operate in the community to provide some balance or some comfort to the community that a decriminalised model for the sex work industry will not mean that those members of the community who would prefer not to be exposed to the industry are not inadvertently exposed to it. I see from information that has been circulated by the Deputy Premier that there are proposed amendments on restrictions around soliciting, for example, and proximity to churches and schools and so on.

I represent a part of the western suburbs dominated by housing, with very little, if any, industrial precincts or manufacturing precincts. Those housing areas are really only interrupted by institutions such as schools, churches or retail shopping precincts in the suburbs of Semaphore Park, West Lakes, Grange, Seaton and Royal Park. It has been my experience in the representations that I have received from my constituents that many people are very concerned about the prospect of things like solicitation on streets—and, again, I understand that is to be addressed through amendments to be brought to the house—and they are very concerned about living in close proximity to a brothel.

I understand the motive of the filed amendment to restrict the operation of a brothel to fewer than five people as some sort of compromise between having a fully decriminalised model and a free-for-all in terms of how the industry can operate throughout metropolitan Adelaide, and that is designed to try to provide some restriction to alleviate some concerns in the community about having mega brothels or large operations in their local area.

In my opinion, that model still leaves the ability for criminal gangs, if not people who are not sex workers but seek to run these operations, to run such brothels restricted. Whether it is five people, 10 people or fewer than five people, it still provides the opportunity for there to be some form of employer-employee relationship or pimp and prostitute relationship, as it has traditionally been called for many decades, where the sex worker is still liable for exploitation. It is the exploitation of the sex worker and the associated mistreatment of that sex worker that I believe is what we need to be focused on addressing.

There are many members, both here and in the other place, who advocate the Nordic model. Maybe that would be successful, maybe not; I have to admit I have not done sufficient research to understand whether it would, in my mind, be a better alternative to what we are looking at here. However, I cannot condone a decriminalised model where there can be brothels with up to five people operating, exposing their neighbours or schools—which, in all instances in my electorate are across the road from houses—churches or community and sporting clubs or shopping strips.

I indicate that this stage I remain opposed to this bill. Like perhaps all the 69 members of both houses of this parliament, I would desperately like to do something in this area, but I do not believe a decriminalised model in the way it is being referred to at the moment is the answer.

Mr MURRAY (Davenport) (11:15): I, too, rise to speak to the Statutes Amendment (Decriminalisation of Sex Work) Bill. I said at the outset that there is no doubt in my mind that some form of reform is required. The status quo we currently have is simply not working and, more particularly, the burden of that failure is falling on those who, in many respects, are least able to bear it. There is considerable distress and exploitation, and we collectively owe it to the South Australian community to do something about it.

Before I go too much further I want to make the point that I have read considerably and spoken with a large number of people in my community and a large number of former and current sex workers. The member for Port Adelaide talked about a learning journey; I, too, have learned considerably, and the impact of the discussions I have had has helped form my view.

When talking about prostitution or sex work, call it what you will, I will use the term 'prostitution', but I am mindful of the fact that there is a distinction drawn by people, and I wish to be respectful of that. Similarly, when talking about women being involved in prostitution it is not simply women, of course, but for the sake of clarity and the sake of keeping it as short as possible that is what I will do in this instance.

In my view, the struggle before us essentially distils down, for me at least, into three questions, and those questions are whether we want much the same or more levels of prostitution than we currently have, or are we, in fact, desirous of less. If you take the view that sex work is work, then by its very definition you are not looking to decrease the amount of work available. If you take an alternative view then you are obviously disposed to a view that less is better.

I submit that the second question before all of us is: do we want to continue to criminalise women? As I said, it is not just women who are sex workers, but the question before us is whether we still wish to criminalise this activity. As my opening comments indicate, I do not believe that is sustainable or fair, and as a result I believe that collectively we need to do better than what we currently are.

The final question, for me, has been easily the most important and the most vexed. It is something I have put to both proponents of this bill who have come to see me and who I have spoken to as well as opponents, and that is the question of exploitation. It is the question of exploitation today and the question of how much exploitation will be possible—permitted, desirable, inevitable in some respects—with either this full decriminalisation model or any other prospective methodology that is on offer.

Insofar as the first question is concerned, I am of the view that on balance less prostitution, not more, is what we collectively can and should be aiming for. I note the previous comments about the need for police intervention in an industry. I note the comments about the desire for a pure decriminalised model, and I reiterate the view I have shared about the undesirable outcome of having SafeWork SA, with all its well-publicised issues, being the sole means by which the industry would be regulated were it to become fully decriminalised.

To build further on the member for Morphett's points, as the father of a daughter, I have issues with an industry which by its very nature is focused on the objectification of someone else. I am sympathetic to the view that it is wrong to enable the purchase of someone else for sexual pleasure, and of the view flowing from that, that that is something we should be seeking to discourage.

As to the second question, I am strongly of the view that we should be decriminalising women sex workers especially and, as a result, I flag that I am strongly in favour of the Nordic model. I have spoken to my community, I have spoken to members of the Liberal Party and little old ladies and there is overwhelming support for decriminalisation of some form. Things have to change. The question simply is how we change it.

Moving to the final question of exploitation, this has been the major concern for me and in many respects my view has been informed by the New Zealand experience. I spoke to several women who were former sex workers in New Zealand. One of the issues with full decriminalisation in New Zealand was the unbridled excesses of capitalism let loose on those least able to resist. More particularly, some of the experiences of people working in a decriminalised environment with what could best be described, in my view at least, as fully industrialised sex work, whereby the strong prey on the weak and market forces dictate everything: the rights of workers to negotiate what they will and will not do, prices, etc., and their working conditions. All those things were tremendously impacted by something that seemed to be fairly Dickensian in relation to its impacts.

As to the desirability of the industry, I am swayed by some of the statistics the member for Morphett referred to. In particular, some psychologists are quoted as saying that some 68 per cent of industry practitioners suffer from PTSD. I do fully appreciate and with the greatest respect understand the point that stats can be made to say anything, but I am compelled.

I will give the final word to Ally-Marie, who is a former—she does not like the use of the term 'sex worker'. She has had a traumatic time. I attended a function where she gave one of the most harrowing and personal accounts of her time working in the sort of environment that this legislation seeks to implement here in South Australia. She made this point:

This is my story and I don't speak for all girls in this trade, some may have been lucky enough never to experience this form of violence, and sadly some may have experienced much worse.

In Australia and New Zealand, Indigenous, Maori, Thai and Pacific Islander women and girls are enormously overrepresented in the sex trade. We are living a combination of racism and sexism. I am here to speak out for the [vulnerable], for the lost, for the weak, for the majority with no voice, for the majority too scared to speak up, for my sisters, and Inasmuch as imploring you to please hear me.

She asked us to be the voice for these people who cannot speak for themselves, and she said:

So, tell me Who protects them under Full Decriminalisation, where are their rights? who will protect your children in your communities.

She asked who would protect them from criminal organisations, pimps and brothel owners and the demand? She said:

Can you honestly tell me if you vote yes for Full Decriminalisation you will be able to go home to your own children, you will be able to walk into the schools in your communities, and look those children, and their parents straight in the eyes and say

'Today was a great day, today we voted that it is a mans right to buy your body!'

For that reason, I shall be voting against the legislation.

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (11:26): I am no defender of our current laws in South Australia in this area. They are muddled, unworkable and out of date, and they deal with a practice that is inevitable, despite what laws are passed to prohibit it. I should make clear that I do not bring any personal religious perspectives to this topic. Also, I would like to make clear that I have listened carefully to all the constituents who have contacted me, both pro and against, and considered their opinions and considerations.

There are good arguments for decriminalisation, particularly for allowing workers to have greater access to laws, protections and health services than if those workers were operating in the black economy. However, I do not believe that there are good arguments for completely deregulating the industry, leaving it open to the free market, and that is what this bill does. As a Labor member of parliament, I support a market economy, but I also support the need for regulation where it is needed, such as to protect the safety of the community and the rights and protections of workers.

It is naive to believe that this industry does not have the threat of infiltration by organised crime. We have been told as much by the Commissioner of Police, and industries with a high risk of organised crime need consideration in our law. That is why Labor introduced extensive regulation on industries, such as tattoo artistry, hydroponics dealing and second-hand dealing, given that there were considerable law and order concerns in those industries. In my view, similar regulations should also be in place in regard to this industry.

In a briefing, the police advised members of parliament that there is written advice on the bill from the Commissioner of Police to the Attorney-General. However, that has not been provided to members, despite a request made. It is naive to believe that this industry does not include threats to workers in an unregulated environment. Labor introduced regulation for labour hire companies because of the significant risk of exploitation of workers in that industry. I am unconvinced that there are no similar risks of exploitation of workers in this industry.

It is naive to believe that councils will be able to manage the local planning and nuisance concerns that are inherent in this deregulation. Particularly when I think of the issues my constituents face with the City of Onkaparinga's often mismanagement of planning issues, I do not believe that my constituents would have confidence in their council to manage these issues under current planning laws alone. Particularly when you compare this industry to other industries that are regulated or licensed, I believe that regulation is required. In this state, we have licensing for pubs, bars, food trucks, builders, plumbers, gambling, conveyancers, second-hand dealers, security, private investigators, real estate agents, pest control and electricians, and the list goes on.

Proponents of this bill of deregulation clearly view those industries as higher risk than this one. Having considered the legislation, I believe it is drafted to be a deregulation bill, not a regulatory model. I do not believe that it is drafted in such a way that it would allow regulation to be inserted through amendment, hence I cannot support it on the second reading. I think it is unfortunate that, rather than building broad community support for a sensible regulatory model and decriminalisation law reform for this industry, the government and proponents of this bill have sought to introduce such a hands-off, free market deregulation. If this regulation is not successful, I hope a better process is pursued in the future, using the full resources of the government.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (11:29): I rise to firstly thank all members for their contribution. I will be addressing a few of the matters on this. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT