HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2019-09-25 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Statutes Amendment (Decriminalisation of Sex Work) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 31 July 2019.)

The Hon. R. SANDERSON (Adelaide—Minister for Child Protection) (10:44): I rise to speak today on the Statutes Amendment (Decriminalisation of Sex Work) Bill 2018. Back in 2016, when this was last proposed, I did extensive surveying and researching not only in my electorate but also statewide. I conducted an online Survey Monkey questionnaire that around 1,000 people contributed to—several hundred being constituents of mine, so they are the ones that I have paid the most attention to. Broadly, from those I represent, around 82 per cent were supportive of decriminalisation of the sex work industry.

There were three main areas of concern, if we did decriminalise, where they wanted to put in place safeguards: ownership, so who could own brothels; where the brothels might be; and street solicitation was also of great concern. There was widespread acceptance that decriminalisation was better for the safety of the workers so that they would have access to police and be in a better position. In contrast, the safety of girls who are street workers or who work on the streets would be in contradiction to that. There were also concerns raised regarding advertising, but I believe they have already been dealt with with amendments in the upper house, which I will briefly refer to.

In the Legislative Council, amendments were passed that will require a review of the legislation after three years. They now have police search powers, a ban on advertising, assistance from the minister for sex workers who want to leave the industry and a ban on children working in a brothel. So several safeguards have already been put in place; however, there are others that I am considering. I have had amendments drafted—I had them drafted back in 2016, in fact—specifically relating to ownership, who could own a brothel.

In speaking to parliamentary counsel, their advice was that there already exists a negative licensing scheme that is used for tattoo parlours, second-hand dealers and hydroponics. That is a relatively inexpensive way of licensing and it is fairly simple to bring in because it already exists. There are two components to this: firstly, you are automatically disqualified on the basis of certain grounds, such as criminality or being a member or an associated member of a prescribed criminal organisation, as defined by the Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Act. So, if somebody attempted to open a brothel that is relevant under that act, they would be automatically disqualified. They cannot operate a brothel and there would be up to four years' imprisonment or a $250,000 fine for a corporation. I believe that that would be one way to address this.

There are other amendments being put forward by other members in this house that I would also consider, but this was the recommendation I was given as a fairly simple way of bringing that in, which already exists and is commonplace with other industries. I think that would satisfy the concerns of my constituents. There were concerns around location, and maybe I will deal with them second.

Street solicitation was broadly unsupported for several reasons but, firstly, for the safety of workers, because getting into a car with an unknown person is considered unsafe. Also, with changes in technology, it is not necessary because nowadays everybody has a mobile phone, internet or other ways of communicating. There are certainly lots of massage parlours and different ways, such as street frontages, that do not require a person to be put in any further danger.

I heard concerns from people I took on tours of Parliament House. Mothers and daughters, even a grandmother, were concerned about solicitation being legal because, while sitting at bus stops, they had already had people yell out inappropriate comments about whether they might have been sex workers. This was on Churchill Road and Regency Road in my electorate. Even a letterboxer who was handing out campaign materials in Enfield was approached for sex.

So I think if we know that it is definitely illegal, then it would be easier to prosecute and there would be less likelihood of women being approached on the street. I was actually quite surprised to hear from men who said they also find it very confronting and uncomfortable to be approached by a woman on the street. On the basis that there is not really any need for it and I think that my residents are particularly uncomfortable with the idea of street solicitation, I have drafted amendments that would maintain that as being illegal.

There is also the idea of location. If solicitation is already illegal, we do not need to worry about where it is happening. Amendments have also been drafted by the Attorney-General, I believe, regarding location. As stated in the paper on the weekend, in the city area it would be 50 metres from schools, churches, preschools (there was a range) and 200 metres in the suburbs. My understanding is that the definition of a 'brothel' would be four or more workers, so it would only limit the larger brothels.

As principals I have met with at the schools have said, it is highly likely that they are mothers of children at the school. They are local people; they are part of our community—of course they are. It is going on already. You are walking past houses right now that are not offensive to anybody. Nobody even knows what is happening. There is no risk in that continuing, so I do not see any need to really restrict locations unless it is a larger facility.

It should be subject to the same business laws. I started a business from home. I had to get permission from the Prospect council, and there were restrictions over car parking, how many people and hours you can work. There already are laws around those things if you are starting a business from home. If you are a larger business starting on a main road, there are already restrictions. Again, I know that when I started a business on North Terrace I had to go through all the planning approvals from the Adelaide city council. I had to have fire safety, air-conditioning, electricity and building approvals. There were endless approvals that any business would be subject to.

In summarising, broadly my electorate was in support of decriminalisation. This is an occupation that people would say is the oldest occupation in the world. It goes on. How can we make it safer? What safeguards can we put in place? That is my proposal.

Mr SZAKACS (Cheltenham) (10:52): I rise to indicate my support for the passage of this bill. In doing so, I acknowledge my colleagues in this place who have moved and sponsored this bill: the Attorney-General, and the member for Reynell and the Hon. Ms Franks in the other place. I also note a generation of former and current members who have worked tirelessly in pursuit of such reform.

Before coming to this place, I spent my career fighting for the rights of working people, for those who are marginalised and often exploited in our communities, to help them win fairness, justice and equality; to ensure that they come home safely from work every day; to ensure and fight for their right to enjoy the same rights as any other worker and, most importantly, as people, to be respected; and to have remedies and authorities to approach if they are mistreated or exploited at work. It is through this lens that I have come to this debate.

Every worker should be afforded basic, fundamental rights and protections. That is why I am supporting this bill. When work is criminalised, its workers are forced underground, to work in the shadows. It is said that sunlight is a great disinfectant. If we want to truly make it fairer for workers, we must take work out of the shadows. We will not end this industry no matter what form this bill takes. The industry is here, the industry exists and, frankly, outdated legal frameworks, which date back as far as 1935, have failed.

This is a debate about an industry that, while not exclusively, is predominantly female dominated. In my mind, in large part it is for this reason, like gender pay equity, that we have seen successive parliaments fail to act. What we can do is make it safer for sex workers. What this bill aims to do—and why I am supporting it—is to put a proper approach to an industry so that those working in it can enjoy the same protections afforded to every other worker: the right to organise, to have a collective voice, and to be treated with the dignity that every worker in this state deserves.

In my view, sex workers should be treated no differently from any other worker in this state. Every worker should have the same protections under workplace laws, access to the National Employment Standards, workers compensation and antidiscrimination protections, as well as the protections and obligations extended by the Work Health and Safety Act. That is what this bill will do.

I know that many members in this place have made a contribution to this debate expressing their deeply held concerns that people working in the industry are at serious risk of exploitation. I could not agree more strongly, but it is only through reform and decriminalisation that this can be realised. Any argument to the contrary simply fails to recognise the centuries of lived experience of sex workers. I want to make special note of the advocacy and courage of those sex workers, many of whom are in the gallery today. Your personal stories and experiences have been profoundly moving and profoundly compelling.

In advocating for law reform and this bill, I note that we as proponents are supported by leading organisations around the world—no less than the World Health Organization, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. This support is simple, because decriminalisation is not only about justice for workers; it is also about public health and community safety.

I do understand and respect that some members bring a particular faith-based perspective to this argument. They are often very strong proponents of better workplace protections for workers, and for community justice, and that is why I commit to continuing to work with those members for the passage of this bill. In additional to meeting with workers and their representatives, I and many others have also heard from faith-based organisations, the Equal Opportunity Commission and SAPOL.

I thank the representatives from SAPOL who have made themselves available to members of this place. During one of these briefings, one case in particular was mentioned by SAPOL as an example of the exploitation currently faced by workers in our criminalised models. There was a situation in which police officers raided a brothel after reports that women there had been forced to work 84 hours a week.

This is an abhorrent practice, but if the answer is to send in the police and report the women involved to immigration authorities, why then do we not call police to every case of worker exploitation? Where is the similar gusto? In my view, that is not the way to investigate these cases. Where these workers are exploited and investigated by SAPOL, were they referred to the Fair Work Ombudsman to recoup their stolen wages? Was SafeWork SA notified so that they could attend to assess civil or criminal breaches of the work health and safety laws? No. Instead, Home Affairs was notified and visas were breached.

This is just one example amongst many raised with me by sex workers who simply cannot raise their voices in the face of worker exploitation. Another issue raised by the police in their briefings was their concern that street soliciting is a threat to any woman, going about her own business, being propositioned by men. I hate to break it to members, but women are subjected to this kind of behaviour every single day, where they live, where they work and where they exist. To criminalise women for the behaviour of men is a disgrace. It is time that men stand up and be accountable for their behaviour and not blame women for the type of behaviour we have heard about from police.

A number of amendments have been filed by the Attorney-General. These amendments have arisen from general discussions and briefings between various organisations and members of this place. These amendments are largely threefold. Amendments will ensure that soliciting in a public place is strictly managed and prohibited in proximity to schools, kindergartens, childcare centres, religious institutions or other places, as determined by regulations. Further, an amendment will require that the three-year statutory review of decriminalisation consider, amongst other things, whether the special entry powers of police officers, as amended by the other place, have been exercised properly and to what extent.

Finally, an amendment will require an operating certificate or licence, depending upon the language used, for brothels operating with more than a certain number of sex workers. This operating certificate will take into account criminal intelligence and impose proximity restrictions to places like schools and churches. Certification may not be granted to individuals not fit and proper or those already prohibited under commonwealth or state law, for example, those individuals disqualified under the Corporations Act from holding company directorships. A certificate must not be granted to members or associates of prescribed organisations under the Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Act 2008.

I am confident that these amendments strive and attempt to strike the balance of community safeguards within this newly decriminalised industry whilst importantly and fundamentally maintaining the integrity of this bill for sex workers in the industry. These amendments have arisen because proponents of reform have listened carefully to the concerns of a number of members. These amendments address many of the concerns raised by members and allow for the support of responsible yet meaningful reform. It is for those reasons I will be supporting those amendments.

There is no other way to put it: we need reform. The current system does not work. It fails workers and it fails the community. We need to take responsible steps forward, and the very least we need to do is afford every person in our community the same rights that are fundamental to us all. That is what we stand for as a community. We simply cannot afford to equivocate when it comes to these fundamentals. This is the first step towards that.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL (Schubert—Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Local Government, Minister for Planning) (11:02): This is a very difficult issue that we as legislators are being asked to deal with. Can I say that I often see coming to this place what seems like good and benign broad principle turn into complex questions around particular points of law. No doubt, this bill will be no different; in fact, a lot of the amendments filed seek to have us go down a path point by point, looking at detail.

I believe that members of this chamber need firstly to come to an answer on a fundamental question. Before we get into the complex questions of law, we must ask ourselves a more basic truth. At its heart, parliament needs to decide whether it wants to see more prostitution in our community or less. Do we accept that this is a legitimate career, a legitimate industry? Should it be normalised and accepted? As a father of daughters, I cannot accept this premise. I think the idea that we would get to a point where a sex industry booth would appear at a careers day next to jobs in defence or hospitality or further study is absurd.

The idea that a brothel would set up shop in a country town next to a bakery or the dentist is an eventuality that our community would be horrified by. The idea that selling oneself for sex, to sell that which is most precious instead of giving it freely, I think diminishes the act itself. Far from being alarmist, this is what the bill in its current form seeks to have us contemplate. I think each of us in this place needs to come and answer that fundamental question for themselves. Do we want to see this industry grow, or do we want to see this industry shrink?

Having answered the fundamental question for ourselves, we must then turn to the bill itself. There have been debates about all traditional forms of reform over many decades in this place in relation to prostitution, and all bar one have failed: in 1980, 1986, 1991, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999—when a bill introduced by Trevor Griffin in relation to sexual servitude did pass the parliament—again in 1999, 2000, 2012, 2012 again, 2013, 2014, 2015 and again in 2017.

This is a bill and this is a notion that this parliament has considered or been asked to consider on a huge number of occasions over the past 30 years and every single time—with one exception around sexual servitude that I am sure we can all understand and realise is very important and very fundamental—the parliament has chosen to make the same decision.

This bill in its current form is by no means the most conservative of bills that is presented to this place. In fact, it is one of the more laissez faire, open versions. It is a decriminalisation approach over a more regulated approach, although I do accept that there are amendments that are now, at this late stage, being proposed. It is a bill that, instead of seeking to create safeguards, in its current form leaves things open to the market. This is a bill that would actually see prostitution less regulated than alcohol, gambling, hydroponics, tattoo parlours and even the labour hire industry, an industry that those opposite see the need to regulate to deal with illegal behaviour. This bill, in its current form, does not seek to emulate.

Make no mistake: this bill would see an increase in both legal and illegal prostitution, as has been the case and experience interstate. Wherever we create through law a more heavily taxed approach, as would happen under this bill, we create an incentive to circumvent the law, and in an industry that already has a high criminal element we would very easily create a two-step industry: a legal and a community-facing one, whilst continuing to have an illegal industry side by side.

In my view, this is not a benign industry. This is not a quiet industry. It is an industry that is often associated with drug abuse, human trafficking and the influence of outlaw motorcycle gangs. It is an industry that people need to escape from, which is something that the bill in its current form is seeking to contemplate. Clause 26AB of the bill inserts a clause providing a positive obligation on the minister to whom the bill is committed to provide assistance to persons leaving sex work.

I can understand why this clause would be put into the bill, but I ask this fundamental question of the chamber: if this is an industry that people need to seek assistance to leave, how bad is this industry in the first place? The fact that we are creating a positive obligation on a minister to provide assistance to people who are in the sex work industry says to me that there is a fundamental and explicit admission that this industry is not quiet and benign.

There are proposed amendments to define where a brothel cannot go. These have just been tabled today in the chamber, but what that amendment fails to do, though, is suggest where brothels should go—a question that communities would be forced to answer. I think this amendment is a tacit admission that people do not want to see brothels in their community.

Whether we confine that to being within close proximity to schools or churches or other institutions, the fundamental issue still needs to be addressed and that is: if we define where these businesses should not go—again, an admission that there is an issue with the fact that these businesses exist in the first place—we still have not come to a landing on where they should go, and I think that is a conversation that the community does not want to have. In fact, just last night, the Playford city council passed a motion to that effect.

I agree that there are issues with the current legislation, and the member for Cheltenham raises some extremely important issues—issues that see women exploited—and we need to change the law, but this is not the bill to fix those problems. I think that there is some common ground on this issue from all sides. The idea that we need to do more to deal with the nefarious elements of this industry is something that we all in this place can come together on, but so often it is on how we deal with this issue that this parliament so often disagrees. I think, though, that it is around this common ground of wanting to clean up and deal with those illegal elements within this industry, which result in the adverse outcomes that the police have so often talked to us about, that we as a parliament should head.

I believe that any discussion of new approaches by this parliament should consider a Nordic model. In my view, this model seeks to empower women to bring them back inside the law and give them the opportunity to look after their own fate, essentially to empower them and have the police help them to deal with some of the difficult situations that they find themselves in. But I believe this parliament should and can only consider new approaches like that after this bill has been defeated.

There are proponents who are looking to decriminalisation as a way to solve the adverse outcomes that happen in the sex work industry, which is the approach they would like to see, but I think if this parliament and this chamber make the decision that decriminalisation is not the way to go then we can actually build a broader consensus about the way that we should go and use some of these new reform approaches to deal with this issue.

As somebody who quite often falls on the conservative side of the political spectrum, I do agree in this instance that the status quo is not the way to go. I do agree that the status quo is something that we should not accept. As conservatives, I think it is incumbent upon us to put new ideas and new solutions on the table. I look forward to a number of people in both chambers of this parliament looking at these ideas so that we can actually bring forward a resolution on this issue, one that would be acceptable to the parliament and one that would be suitable to the community. I look forward to being able to work with members of all persuasions right across the spectrum to deal with the very difficult and very poor and adverse situations that are so often characterised by this industry.

Ms COOK (Hurtle Vale) (11:11): Unsurprisingly, I am speaking in support of this really important progressive legislative reform. I do not want to dwell on all the old arguments for or against decriminalisation of sex work; instead, I am going to focus on this argument from a human rights and a health perspective. To borrow some words from the Attorney-General in a recent briefing, 'I am not a sex worker and I have never been a sex worker,' but I am a health practitioner and a legislator. As a health practitioner, I know the importance of evidence-based practice and how this can intersect with traditionally held views, particularly public health initiatives, where we work to promote health and prevent disease in the whole community.

Historically, around the world health professionals have worked very hard at changing minds and often hearts of individuals when what is healthiest for the community intersects individuals' religious views, historical practices or even the interests of big business. In 2018, a global systematic review, led by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, found that any criminalisation, repressive policing of sex workers, their clients and/or sex work, increased the risk of condomless sex, increased the risk of infection with HIV and STI, and disrupted support networks and safety and risk reduction strategies. This systematic review called for urgent sex worker law reform as a public health priority.

While some people in this place may have personal feelings that this bill seems a little radical, in fact the scientific evidence is now in and both our national and state health departments have already recognised that decriminalisation is essential to achieving STI infection reduction targets. As health professionals committed to doing no harm, in light of this evidence decriminalisation is now the most ethical and evidence-based legislative response. As a health professional myself, I know that in areas of sexual health and reproductive health and reducing HIV infection, some individuals will have particular moral views that will bump up against the scientific evidence.

This bill is one of those pivotal times when we are asking those who have a particular individual view to put that aside in favour of the evidence base, the position that we now know is best for the whole community and one that the science now says is not actually radical. In fact, given the strength of the international scientific evidence, this bill is a guaranteed health and economic benefit for our community.

There is another important reason I support this legislation, that is, the right of every person to enjoy emotional and physical contact no matter their emotional, physical or mental abilities. What does this mean? Intimacy is something that is not only desired by every person but desperately needed. Instead of imagining that clients are sleazy blokes cruising along the street, let's think about the disabled, perhaps someone who has lived with a physical disability all their life, somebody who has not even slept alongside a person.

It is a huge misnomer that sex work is just intercourse. After speaking to many workers in the industry and the clients who utilise the services, I can tell you that, while this is the case clearly in some situations, for many, many South Australians sex work is about providing much-needed emotional and physical contact that would otherwise be unavailable to them. For whatever reason, company and comfort are missing from some people's lives. Who are we to deny this essential need, which is so easily taken for granted by those of us who are in relationships?

In undertaking extensive research in relation to sex work in South Australia, I have met with and heard many true stories from sex workers and their clients. It is an industry that can help cure loneliness and fill voids in lives that may be affected by physical disability and the related isolation. In this context, the sexual component of such services may not even be the point. Whatever the reason a person is seeking these services, it is really none of our business.

I would like to tell you the story of Anthony, a South Australian man who sustained a spinal cord injury in his early 20s. As part of his treatment he spent a considerable amount of time at the Hampstead Rehabilitation Centre, where through his friendships with other patients he met husbands, wives and partners of other people with serious disabling injuries. At first, Anthony was jealous because he thought the partners could share sexual experiences together and grow as a couple as they sexually navigated their way through to the next stage of their lives post this disability.

However, Anthony describes that many of these relationships, if not all, did not last and that each day more and more of his friends at Hampstead found themselves single and lonely, as was Anthony. Prior to Anthony's spinal injury, he never had any problems asking girls out on a date. After many years of loneliness, Anthony decided to call a sex worker. He wanted to explore forms of sexual expression that were still possible for him. Anthony had a wonderful first experience and now utilises the services of sex workers regularly.

Should he be a criminal? He would be under the Nordic model, right? Over many years Anthony has seen a number of escorts. All have been kind, caring and empathetic, in contrast to the rejection he experienced when asking women out on dates. That is not damning women for their views or values. Anthony says:

Sex workers have improved my life in many ways. Sex workers deserve the same rights and protections as workers in any other industry, and I very strongly support the decriminalisation of sex workers in South Australia and elsewhere in Australia and across the world.

Another South Australian client who has a disability but who will remain anonymous describes his various experiences as consenting adults agreeing to spend time together for mutual benefit. These mutual benefits include being nurturing and informative guides to sex and intimacy. Many people with disabilities often do not have the opportunity to explore these feelings. That upsets me.

That is not to say that this is about all people with disabilities, because I have spoken to a lot of them and they want to make it very clear that they are doing fine, but there are some, due to their circumstances, who are not. Should these people with disabilities be criminals? Should they be left without the opportunity to have intimacy? I do not think so. It is obvious that, for Anthony and others, sex workers offer intimacy and connection.

Who are we to judge, particularly in the age of the dating app, when random hook-ups are, for many, pretty normal? Even our daughters and our sons joke about it. Random hook-ups are certainly not illegal, but are they dangerous, more dangerous, or less? Obviously, for reasons I have outlined above—which are, again, none of our business—dating for some in our community can be tough and a varied experience.

Apps, such as Tinder, and online platforms used by many, like Ashley Madison, rely on appearance and snap judgements and, for those people who are physically disabled, it is hard for others to think outside the chair, so to speak. The services of a sex worker are not just about sex. Well, they are sort of, but it depends how you define it, right? In many cases, there is more intimacy than physical activity and more care, education and love. Everyone needs to feel human touch, to feel connected.

From the sex worker's point of view, I just quickly want to talk about Anya, an incredible woman who is well educated and a mother. One of her children has a disability, and sex work gives her time to care for her child while being able to access money for therapy. She is highly skilled and employable outside the sex work, but she chose to be a sex worker. She is making enormous differences in people's lives. I have seen the passion she has for helping those with disabilities live at least a somewhat conventional intimate life, like the rest of us. Her work with those people with disabilities, extreme social anxiety and awkwardness, and sometimes even impotency, which prevents them from dating or having sex in the traditional way, is simply amazing. Anya's job is an extension of the caring person that she is.

Let's be clear: sex work must be decriminalised in order to protect the workers and to provide the availability of loving, comfort and touch in an evidence-based health promotion way. I commend the bill.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (11:21): I am grateful for the opportunity to rise to speak in relation to this bill at this time. I indicate that I will be supporting the second reading debate for the reasons that I will make some brief observations about. At the outset, there has been acknowledgement of the contribution to this debate by members both presently in this house and former members, and I would like to single out and make reference to the contribution of the Hon. Diana Laidlaw in her summing up of the debate in the upper house back on 14 November 2000.

The Hon. Diana Laidlaw is a woman whom I hold in very high regard. In summing up the debate at that time in the other place, she noted that the bill then before the upper house, firstly, had been deemed a conscience vote for all members, and that is the case presently, nearly 20 years hence, and that there was at that time, indeed, a wide range of views expressed from members on all sides.

She noted then that many members, and even those who supported reform at that time, were not fans of prostitution and did not want to encourage proliferation of the sex business or encourage more people to become prostitutes. She noted her expectation that, at that time, even members who opposed the measure at the second reading would acknowledge considerable unease about the then current state of the law. I expect that that also remains the case nearly 20 years hence. The Hon. Diana Laidlaw then observed, and I adopt:

We are elected as legislators. We are paid as legislators…it is my very strong view…that our responsibility is to advance debate on measures, whether we like the measures or we feel comfortable about the measures before us, and particularly when there is…[widespread] acknowledgment…that the current laws are unworkable, unenforceable…[and] discriminatory in terms of women…

Secondly, I wish to note that I welcome the fact that this Fifty-Fourth Parliament provides an opportunity for debate in this house on this matter. My friend and colleague the member for Schubert has already made reference to the large number of times that this legislation in relation to this matter has been debated previously. Here we are in this House of Assembly debating these important matters.

I made reference in referring to the remarks of the Hon. Diana Laidlaw that bills in this place are termed conscience votes from time to time where they might be deemed to be relevant to an individual member's morals, beliefs or faith. I make the observation that in a very substantial way all pieces of legislation that come before this house I would regard as conscience matters—certainly, that is the way that we proceed on this side of the house, and I am very proud that that is central to my party's tradition. I welcome the fact that there is all the more focus in the context of this debate on the exercise of individual members' consciences.

For my part, I wish to make the observation, so far as references to faith and morals are concerned, that for me debate and reform in this area accord very much with my own personal faith and moral framework. As I observed in my first remarks in this place in May last year in praise of my mother, who had then spoken not long before that at the graduation ceremony at Saint Dominic's Priory College in memory of the great Sister Marianne Holland, my mother quoted Sister Marianne Holland and the ethos by which she lived her entire life and which in turn inspired me and my brothers:

We have a responsibility to serve others, and to welcome others. That is expressed in loving most, the smallest and weakest—the outsider, the vulnerable, the poor. And we do well to remember, that as a community, as Australians, as people in the 21st century world, we are only ever as strong as the weakest among us.

I would include among those vulnerable and weak in our community, at least so far as the law is concerned, those people who are presently the subject of criminalisation in this area. I also bring my perspective as a father of daughters to this debate. I very much respect the perspective of the member for Schubert in the same way. I have no desire to encourage—

An honourable member interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Heysen, there is a point of order.

Mr TEAGUE: I note the time, and 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