HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2015-07-29 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Statutes Amendment (Decriminalisation of Sex Work) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 1 July 2015.)

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (16:23): I rise to speak to the Statutes Amendment (Decriminalisation of Sex Work) Bill. As we know, this is an incarnation of the member for Ashford's bill, which lapsed last year in the other place due to the prorogation of parliament. Mr President, I imagine it will surprise neither you nor anyone else in this chamber that I rise to oppose this bill. For members' convenience, I indicate that this will be a reasonably lengthy contribution in the order of about 75 minutes or so—

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: You warn us.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: That is right; I offer that as assistance for members planning their whereabouts and commitments this afternoon. South Australia is not new to attempted legislative reform in this area. In fact, I believe this is the ninth attempt at changing our current legislation. Family First is opposed to total decriminalisation as we believe the evidence shows that this model will fail in its primary object, as stated by the mover, to prevent violence against prostitutes, and will not provide the protections that are touted to come under this model. My primary thesis in my argument today is exactly that: that this bill fails, I believe, in its primary objective, which is to protect those who are involved in prostitution.

I would say to members in this place, even those who are somewhat predisposed to supporting a reform in prostitution legislation or legislation around sex work, as it may be referred to, that whilst I understand that people might take that position, none of us want to see harm done to prostitutes or sex workers under any circumstances. I am sure that is true of all of us in this chamber. However, in my view, this bill fails in that regard, in its primary objective. I would say as strongly as I can to members who are considering supporting legislation to this end that this is not the bill to support, and I will outline in some detail my reasons for holding that view.

Undeniable proof that this bill fails in its primary objective (to provide protection for violence against prostitutes) can be seen on 18 July this year, just a couple of weeks ago, where The Advertiser reported that three women were assaulted in a Seacombe Gardens massage parlour after four men broke into the premises at about 1.30am. A confrontation between the assailants and a man staying at the premises also occurred and one woman was taken to nearby Flinders Medical Centre with lacerations to her head. The matter was reported to police.

The main justification for the reform of this legislation is that these matters are not reported to the police. That is not the case. This matter was reported to police, who took action against the perpetrators and, most significantly, not against the victims of the violence; that is, the particular women involved in prostitution at the premises at the time. That is an example from just less than a couple of weeks ago where the law worked perfectly in that the perpetrators were pursued by the authorities and the victims were not, as it should be.

This incident from just under a couple of weeks ago makes it clear that the claim often used to justify this sort of legislation—in particular this legislation, namely that prostitutes who are victims of violence do not report for fear of being charged—is false and simply not supported by the facts, as was the case within the last two weeks. It is an argument often used but not supported by the facts, as the events I have just outlined have proven.

This is just one of the very many similar occurrences that could be cited in order to rebut the unsubstantiated claim that these incidents are not reported to authorities. Indeed, how would anyone know that these incidents occur at all if they are not reported? We need strict laws that penalise those who are violent towards those in prostitution (and women in general) rather than proposing to introduce the most lax, laissez-faire decriminalisation model in the country, as this bill seeks to do.

Turning to the specifics of the bill, we see a number of serious shortcomings. I will briefly outline those issues before discussing them in depth later in my contribution this afternoon. Fundamentally, this bill, as I said, fails in its primary aim, to protect prostitutes and the wider community, and specifically in the following ways:

1. It places no restrictions on where soliciting or prostitution can occur, thus the resulting increase in public and private nuisance—no restrictions.

2. It allows brothels to be set up in any location without appropriate oversight, management or restriction on the number of prostitutes working on site at any given time or at the place designated.

3. It will proliferate the number of people engaged in prostitution, as I will argue and outline later.

4. It legitimises pimping, placing prostitutes in greater danger than they already are.

5. It removes the police's right of entry and oversight, again placing prostitutes in even greater danger than they currently are.

6. It creates ambiguities in the return-to-work legislation, and the cost will be borne by already burdened taxpayers.

7. It does not afford appropriate antidiscrimination provisions.

8. It places oversight and regulatory burdens on already overworked and under-resourced local councils that, according to representatives, are ill-equipped for what will be required of them under this bill.

9. It will potentially proliferate explicit sexualised advertising on billboards and other public places, including radio and even television, as we have seen in some jurisdictions.

10. It will dramatically increase the occurrence of street prostitution, so-called street walkers.

I will discuss ways in which this bill ignores the interplay between prostitution and organised crime and how it does not afford appropriate protection to those the bill seeks to protect. I have no doubt that the bill is presented in good faith, and I have no doubt that it is presented with the best intentions, but, as I have said, I believe that it fails on at least the measures I have just outlined.

Similarly, I will provide examples of how similar legislation has failed in other jurisdictions and demonstrate to honourable members the types of appalling behaviour we can expect to see should this bill come to pass. This bill, if passed, will change our society significant and it will certainly not be for the better.

First, I turn to the issue of no restrictions on soliciting specifically in this bill. Referring to my first criticism of the bill, there are no limitations or restrictions where a prostitute can solicit, and this will increase public and private nuisance complaints substantially. Unlike New South Wales, where soliciting cannot occur within 100 metres of a church, school or residential zone, this bill is silent as to any reasonable restrictions of where soliciting could occur.

It would be possible that someone could solicit or operate at a premises near a school, at the school gate even, or at the place of a religious ceremony, a church, a hospital, a nursing home, in a quiet neighbourhood, outside your house—indeed, anywhere, anytime. This may sound sensationalist, but I can assure you that it is not; it is permitted by this bill.

Hornsby council in New South Wales, in 2014, was in a stoush with two brothels operating within 50 metres of Hornsby High School. Similarly, a massage parlour in the same district was offering sexual services right next to a tutorial service for children. In October 2008, a brothel was found in the same building as a childcare centre. The director of the childcare centre said that they did not believe that they had any legal avenues to stop this practice as sex work had been decriminalised in that state, as this bill seeks to do here.

At a sex industry forum last year, Ari Reid, representing the Scarlet Alliance, made a statement to the effect that prostitutes are not a threat to children and should be able to conduct their sex work in proximity to schools and in other areas that are child focused. This arguably would include the family home. Family First is strongly opposed to this. Families want safe streets and vibrant communities; this bill is a threat to exactly that.

In leaving unaddressed the location for where sex services can be procured, this also leads to the issues of where sex may be bought and consumed. Whilst there are public order laws, other states and countries that have decriminalised sex work have found that there are significant issues with where prostitution occurs. One would hope that public parks and streets will be safe and free from such behaviour, but it is quite the contrary: public sex acts in return for payment have become quite normal in some places. Indeed, this bill raises numerous issues relating to the comfort and quiet enjoyment of one's home and the potential for both private and public nuisance complaints.

Of course, some may argue that decriminalisation will not affect the comfort and quiet enjoyment of one's home; however, this has not been the case in places such as New South Wales and New Zealand, both of which have decriminalised models of prostitution similar to what this bill seeks to enact.

A resident of Darlinghurst, New South Wales claims that she and her husband frequently witness prostitutes performing sex acts on men in a park out the front of their house. As if this is not enough, she reports that sex acts are in the middle of the day. She is quoted in the Daily Telegraph, on 9 November 2014, as saying:

On a Sunday, I can walk out my front door and see a girl giving a guy oral sex in broad daylight.

She continues:

We've had guys stripped naked in the park, we've seen prostitutes have their children with them while they are doing drugs.

She further reported that one woman punched her husband in the face after he called the police to have them removed away from their home. Another person from the same neighbourhood reported frequently being woken in the middle of night by prostitutes who were screaming outside her window and who appeared to be high on drugs. This is what happens when the situation is completely unregulated.

In New Zealand, several councils have had to actively take steps towards combatting the social change due to street-based prostitution. Manukau City Council has noted in the New Zealand Ministry of Justice report on the review of street-based prostitution in Monukau City in 2009:

Reported significant issues. Having to install and monitor CCTV cameras in trouble areas. Implement crime prevention guidelines and increase street lighting and cleaning.

After reviewing these measures, the council reported having to increase the number of public rubbish bins, having to keep public toilets open 24 hours a day, having to further increase lighting and to make available disposable needle kits. Notably, the council reports that their environmental cleaning contractors had to attend to waste up to three times per day in the areas that street prostitution is most prevalent.

Of course, these increased services will come at a hefty increase in rates for the ordinary ratepayers of the area. South Australians already feel a significant tax burden. We have an ever-increasing unemployment rate and we hear increasing reports of middle-income families seeking assistance from welfare groups to feed their families and otherwise. We cannot afford any more financial burdens on the family and yet this bill will see an increase in rates, I believe, and other enforcement measures will rise as a result and be ultimately passed on to the public.

The council reported receiving a dramatically increasing number of complaints about street-based prostitution which has caused distress to residents over several years. The council also further noted in the report the considerable time and resources it had invested in regulating prostitution. Residents and local business owners have reported rowdy, offensive and intimidating behaviour by those associated with the sex industry.

Some of the main common complaints noted in the New Zealand Ministry of Justice report included sexual activity in inappropriate and very public places; fights between those selling sexual services; abuse shouted at passing drivers; abuse of walkers passing by; increased littering, including things like syringes, condoms, bottles, food wrappers, human waste and even sexual aids; generally increased noise and nuisance; members of the public being propositioned randomly, unexpectedly and certainly unwantedly; a substantially reduced sense of public safety in the area affected, as the report outlined; and even a steep decline in property values in some areas. This is outlined in the report. Similar complaints were raised by Christchurch council. Ngaire Button, the former deputy mayor of Christchurch, has reported:

The street walkers fight about possession. They yell at each other across the road and argue, make a racket, and the cars are stopping… and there's the mess in people's yard because there are no toilets. So they've been using people's yards as toilets. Then there's the condoms and needles and other things in people's front yards and around the property and on the streets. And husbands being solicited in their driveway as they come home from work. Pimping as been an issue too. A council colleague has been to Manchester Street to talk to some of the girls. There are guys behind them with baseball bats. The exploitation has caused great problems with drug addiction.

As you can see, incidences of public and private nuisance have substantially increased post-decriminalisation in that part of the world. This proposed bill is not the making of a vibrant community where families feel safe and has the potential to be the making of a community fuelled by antisocial behaviour, as reported in New Zealand. I am sure this is not the South Australia that members of this chamber would like to see.

The Christchurch council tried to limit the placement of brothels after their law change, but was taken to court by a man who actually owned three brothels. The council lost the case which cost ratepayers in excess of $100,000. Decriminalisation placed a huge social cost and burden on the council to manage the brothels within the city.

It was claimed that decriminalisation would make prostitution safer; however, the former deputy mayor of Christchurch, Ngaire Button, said she was not aware of any prostitute being murdered before the sex industry was decriminalised, yet since that time three Christchurch prostitutes have unfortunately been murdered. The law was supposed to make it safer for these prostitutes, but Ms Button reported that the law was not effective.

Similarly, prostitutes reported to the New Zealand Prostitution Law Review Committee that they felt the law had little effect on their perception of safety and reduced violence. That is the prostitutes' own interpretation of the reform. This issue alone is sufficient to oppose the bill but, nonetheless, I turn to the others that I have outlined at the beginning of my contribution.

My second concern is that there are no appropriate restrictions placed on brothels in this bill. Under this bill there is no restriction on the number of brothels that can be set up, nor is there a restriction on the number of prostitutes allowed on premises at any one time or who might run the brothels, nor is there a restriction on the number of brothels one person could run. Potentially, South Australia could have brothels hosting up to 50, 100 or even more prostitutes at any one time. Under this bill, that same person could be in charge of another two brothels down the street which employ another 25, 50, or however many more prostitutes, which gives rise to questions about the effectiveness of a person's ability to appropriately manage such premises.

In recent times, applications have been made in Sydney for a super brothel hosting potentially upwards of 80 prostitutes at any one time and opening 24 hours a day. There is no reason to suggest that South Australia would not follow suit. Notably, both Queensland and Victoria—this is a significant point—prohibit more than 13 staff being in the premise at one time and yet this is a sensible option and certainly would be more effective for the monitoring of occupational health and safety issues. However, this bill is silent on such sensible restrictions which could give rise to issues with crowding, hygiene, amenity, planning, development, safety and other issues.

In addition, the bill provides no limitations on who can actually frequent a brothel either. The bill fails to provide adequate protection such as including a fit and proper person test, a requirement for background checks to determine suitability, including any known or reasonably suspected criminal associations for those intending to run the operations of the brothel.

In Victoria it is quite different. Brothels must be licensed, and persons with certain convictions are excluded from being able to be licensed as the brothel owners or the managers of the facility. Additionally, there are reasons to suggest that people with a background in organised crime should not be able to frequent such locations. This bill is silent on this issue again. The potential for brothels to be owned by those with multiple convictions and become a focus of organised crime is obvious.

In stark contrast to this bill, in Queensland it is only possible to manage one brothel; managing multiple premises is not permitted. Licences can be cancelled automatically upon conviction on certain offences, and conditions can be imposed on licensees. If we are serious about protecting prostitutes and combating organised crime, creating provisions that require independent ownership by a fit and proper person would be an obvious inclusion. This safety precaution does not exist in the bill before us.

Further, there should be a requirement that persons managing and entering the premises are over the age of 18. Under this bill, it is illegal to provide commercial sexual services to a person under 18—presumably there would be appropriate checks at the door conducted to a reasonable standard—but, at the very least, there should also be a requirement that persons under the age of 18 are not allowed on the premises. Again, this bill fails in that regard.

Another issue for consideration is whether brothels should be run by Australian citizens or at least legal residents. This may seem a peculiar addition to the proposed law; however, I note that New Zealand requires that persons applying for a brothel licence should be an Australian or New Zealand resident. It would certainly create an environment where a closer watch of suspected international crime syndicates (which I will touch on later) could occur, and any operator who falls outside of the residency requirement would be subject to strong penalties.

In a similar vein, there should be required and appropriate checks made on the prostitute's suitability for employment in Australia, such as residency, work visas and citizenship. Again, this bill is silent on this issue. Under this bill, there are no restrictions on alcohol, smoking or drugs on the premises—none. One may argue that, in the instance of alcohol, that would be covered by liquor licensing laws and, whilst this is true to some extent, Queensland and Victoria have both outlawed the consumption of alcohol on such premises. This is a sensible move. If we are serious about protecting those who work in the sex industry, then we should be legalising such protection. This bill does not.

Other offences that both Queensland and Victoria have implemented include a failing by the manager or licensees to supervise the brothel and operating a brothel in conjunction with an unlicensed person. This bill affords none of the usual protections that one comes to expect in instances where organised crime or exploitation may occur.

My third concern with the bill is that a change in legislation will lead to a proliferation of the number of people working in prostitution. Indeed, that is what we have seen elsewhere. Where a system is unregulated, people can be placed in locations without oversight, ever increasing the potential for under-aged and coerced people to be coerced and become involved in the sex industry. We need only look at other jurisdictions, for example, where exactly this has happened.

In Victoria, brothel numbers more than doubled after legislation was introduced and passed. There have been numerous cases of girls aged between 10 and 15 years of age being forced to work in legal brothels, and trafficking has also occurred. That is exactly what legalisation was supposed to stop, but it has failed. Dr Roger Matthews, a professor of criminology in the United Kingdom, who has studied prostitution for more than 20 years, in speaking about the Victorian model, noted that:

The expansion of the industry has been accompanied by a dramatic increase in lap dancing, phone sex, peep shows and pornography which have all become part of the expanding multimillion dollar industry. There has also been a growth in the number of illegal brothels.

New South Wales saw an explosion in the number of prostitution services post decriminalisation. In 1995, New South Wales had 150 sexual service providers; in 2010, just 15 years later, there were 421 sexual service providers. That is nearly three times higher than it was just a few years earlier. The figures do not take into account that only one-third of councils actually responded to the government's survey on prostitution, which is how they derived these figures. In real terms, the proliferation of prostitution was likely substantially higher. What this figure does do, however, is clearly show an exponential growth in prostitution post decriminalisation, as seen elsewhere.

The Daily Telegraph reported that several industry figures estimated in 2010 that the total number of prostitutes was 10,000 in New South Wales alone. That puts the decriminalised state on par with Amsterdam, the so-called sex tourism capital of Europe. A confidential government report as noted in The Daily Telegraph on 12 November 2010 revealed that in Sydney alone the number of legal brothels was double that of the whole of Victoria and Queensland combined. At that stage Victoria had just over 90 brothels and Queensland had 24. That figure alone could suggest that decriminalisation increases proliferation at a higher rate than the other models, which are legalisation models.

As the proliferation of prostitution occurs, research suggests that the visibility and availability of sex markets encourages demand. In one study conducted in Canada, 40 per cent of men reported purchasing sex due to the visibility of prostitutes, and that is a study produced by Loman and Atchinson. We have seen that decriminalisation increases the number of prostitutes. As visibility of prostitution increases, researchers found that so does the opportunistic purchase of sex, as published in Prostitution Politics and Policy.

The law of supply and demand then dictates that more prostitutes will either be street based, or advertisements for their services will be visible to any passer-by. Either way, the ordinary South Australian will see an increase in prostitution under this bill. Proliferation occurred in Victoria under a legal model for prostitution; proliferation occurred in New South Wales under a decriminalised model for prostitution; and proliferation will occur in South Australia under this bill. My fourth criticism of this bill is that pimping becomes legitimate under the proposed decriminalised model. The Safeguarding Children Involved in Prostitution Guidance Review in 2002 noted:

Research suggests that young women are more likely to be pimped than older women. A study by Barnardo's found that the majority of girls aged between 12 and 14 did not make the decision to sell sexual services, but were groomed and were coerced by men aged 18 to 25.

This process has a number of key elements, including enslaving, creating dependencies, taking control and, finally, total dominance. Academics have suggested that girls and young people, particularly of female gender, are prone to this kind of control and manipulation as it is daunting to stand on the streets, they say, find a client and negotiate the provision of sexual services, especially for the very young.

It has also been noted academically that procurers and pimps target young people in care, as they see them as vulnerable and accessible. Dr Roger Matthews notes that there are instances where procurement has come through substance abuse and addiction, where the pimp has used a drug of dependence to motivate the person to become involved in prostitution, and this appears in his publication, Prostitution Politics and Policy. These are, of course, examples. There are numerous other deployable methods used by pimps.

This behaviour should never be acceptable, yet under this bill, which provides no regulation of pimping or any unscrupulous behaviour related to pimping, this behaviour will result. Whilst current criminal law prohibits the sale of sex by persons under 18, show me a state or country where that does not occur. In the decriminalised New Zealand market, despite the prohibition of the sale of sex for persons under 18, the Prostitution Law Reform Committee survey indicated that prostitutes comprised underage people.

The terrible fact of the matter is that the selling of sex does occur for persons under 18. Similarly, to look internationally, Brazil has a decriminalised sex trade, but restricts the trade to those 18 or over. The Brazilian economy has recently been rated in the top 10 per cent in the world, yet despite this it is estimated that upwards of some 500,000 children are involved in prostitution. Horrifically, children as young as eight are selling themselves in prostitution, but some documentaries show children as young as four even to be working on the street. Whilst we do not suggest we go the way of Brazil (and I do not wish to be dramatic), it is possible that we easily could follow in the footsteps of our neighbour, New Zealand.

To allow this provision to be removed would be one more way in which we are failing vulnerable and seemingly unprotected people who are coerced into prostitution. In legitimising prostitution we are placing our children at risk of being coerced into this environment. Legitimising prostitution legitimises pimping, and since we know that pimps target children and young people we need to think carefully about how this proposed decriminalisation model will affect our already vulnerable and often unprotected children.

This bill does not afford adequate protections for children in light of what we know about the modus operandi of pimps, which I have outlined very briefly, and of course so much more could be said. Additionally, this bill fails to afford adequate protection against procuring someone with a cognitive disability or any other incapacity that affects the person's ability to unreservedly give consent to entering into prostitution.

I have grave concerns that the provisions within the Criminal Law Consolidation Act will not afford appropriate protection either. The UK provides a precedent for including provisions requiring cognisance when entering prostitution. In 2003 they introduced a provision within the Sexual Offences Act prohibiting inciting people with mental or cognitive impairment into commercial sexual activity. This legislation was drafted so that this was an offence by any person, not just a pimp. Again, this sensible protection is simply lacking in the bill before us. It is not there.

My fifth criticism is, I think, a very significant one—indeed, they all are, but perhaps this is one of the most significant. This bill removes the right of entry for police into the premises concerned. Given the intrinsic link between organised crime and prostitution, if it were to be decriminalised, there should be regular monitoring of premises to ensure that all laws are being adhered to.

The former mayor of Amsterdam has stated for The New York Times that, since legalisation, the city realised business 'is no longer about small-scale entrepreneurs, but that big crime organisations are involved here in trafficking women, drugs, killings and other criminal activities'. Whilst Amsterdam has a reputation as an open-minded city, its sex industry was attracting a criminal element beyond the scope of tolerance of the city and its authorities and, indeed, its population. Under this proposed bill, the only checks and balances that would apply would be the local council entering the premises to check building regulation compliance. They would be only checks and balances.

As the City of Sydney 's Rebecca Martin has noted, issues of organised crime are beyond the scope of council officers whose role was only to ensure brothels complied with their development consents. Council workers are not typically trained in noticing criminal activities, nor trained in detecting forced labour or debt bondage. Accordingly, the tell-tale signs of criminal activity might well go unnoticed by a council worker. Put simply, council also lack the resources to do the work of police.

Decriminalising prostitution does not remove the criminal element from the industry. It legitimises business and creates further incentive for organised crime to infiltrate by removing all controls, checks, balances and associated laws. What is extremely important to remember is that the police asked the New Zealand Prostitution Law Review Committee to review their right of entry into the premises, as monitoring underage prostitution and other policing matters were extremely difficult under the model presented—similar to the model presented here.

They noted they had no right of entry into brothels, as this bill affords as well, nor could they ask for age identification papers for those whom they suspected were underage. If for no other reason, we should take note of what has come out of New Zealand and not remove the police from monitoring this industry. Police should have a right of entry at the very least. The risk of organised crime, criminal activity, violence against prostitutes and procurement of underage girls requires us to consider this as a priority aspect.

Returning to the issue of returning to work, this is a vexed issue indeed. This bill creates ambiguities in the Return to Work Act and is silent on serious issues which should be included, should this bill actually pass. For example, a client may request to spend time with two prostitutes on one occasion. I am told it is not unheard of. This bill makes it clear that a client cannot be considered an employer. Therefore, if you have two independent contractors or operators, if you like, does one prostitute hire the other prostitute to engage in that work?

If that were the case, and if they engage in sexual acts together in the course of an employee-employer arrangement and the employee is injured, would that then not mean that the employer is exempt from liability under the relevant legislation? Similarly, in instances where an employer of brothel staff engages in sexual acts with the prostitute, would that not exclude the employer from liability, should the said prostitute be injured? The point there is that all of these questions remain unanswered by this bill and they are, of course, real world type scenarios that will eventuate.

Secondly, in order to sufficiently evidence possible loss of earnings, prostitutes would need to invoice clients and keep accurate records of all money received. In some instances, prostitutes may need to register for GST and put in place appropriate taxation practices. Presumably, this would require receipts to be given to all clients or some genuine form of notation for the purposes of compensation under this act. In practice, this sounds difficult, if not impossible.

Thirdly, one very real question that needs to be considered is, of course, occupational hazards, of which this line of work, no doubt, presents many. The law in New South Wales does not require the use of a condom, but it is recommended by New South Wales Health and WorkCover. Both Queensland and Victoria, legislatively, require prostitutes to use condoms, so it is quite different to the New South Wales law. As this bill does not require a prostitute to use a condom, should they contract a sexually-transmitted infection, would they then be subject to the return-to-work protections, and, therefore, compensation, for what was arguably a negligent act on their part?

Given the nature of prostitution, and recognising that prostitutes often have partners outside of their profession—no doubt they do—how could a determination of where the injury occurred actually be made? Some cases might be easy to determine, but some would present a significant challenge, no doubt. A simple Google search will show that clients tend to pay extra to have unprotected sex with prostitutes. A headline on news.com.au on 10 January 2012 read:

More than 500 Sydney prostitutes are offering unprotected sex to clients, raising fears they may be contributing to the spread of sexually transmitted infections.

This issue simply is not dealt with under the bill before us at all in any way, and yet it will open an absolute can of worms with respect to WorkCover provisions and also other legal issues.

Whilst there are criminal provisions regarding endangering life or creating risk of serious harm where someone knowingly or recklessly has sex with another person in instances where they have an STI (or STD, as they were once called), it is unlikely that these provisions would afford the appropriate protections to prostitutes or their clients. Again, given the nature of prostitution and the increased number of partners that inevitably follows from being involved in prostitution, apportioning blame and proving the merit of the case, or who is actually responsible, would be incredibly difficult, if not impossible—a legal nightmare.

Accordingly, for this bill to pass there should at least be a mandatory requirement that all prostitution be conducted with a condom, as there is in other states. There should also be an additional requirement that no prostitute be compelled to engage in unsafe sex practices. There should at the very least be a disclosure requirement for both the prostitute and the client in relation to STIs and significant penalties where this does not occur.

Similarly, at what point when a prostitute contracts a sexually transmitted infection are they no longer able to return to work? Who decides? There is no explanation of that in this bill either. One would suggest that for sexually transmitted infections that are treatable, it would be the treatment period until the appropriate medical certification can be provided to ensure safe work practices are adhered to, but what constitutes an injury which would prevent a prostitute from returning to their position?

There should be a prohibition on working in the sex industry when you have an infectious disease—or should there be? At what point is suitability to return to work deemed appropriate? These are important public health questions which have far-ranging impacts if they are not addressed properly. The cost to the taxpayer in the form of increased health and legal costs would be extensive, as this bill is silent on these matters.

At a forum last year, comments were made that prostitution legislation should be drafted to avoid regular health checks for prostitutes. I will repeat that: at a forum last year, comments were made that prostitution legislation should be drafted to avoid regular health checks for prostitutes. I received a letter from a concerned constituent who attended this forum and who could not agree with this position. I believe the letter was circulated to other members of parliament, and members may remember that the constituent wrote:

Health checks are appropriate work, health and safety procedures, as prostitutes deal with bodily fluids that are in a high risk category, so a higher standard is to be expected. The idea that this is a discriminatory practice towards prostitutes negates the obvious role the customer could play in having poor physical or sexual health. Workers in prostitution and customers have the ability to pass on disease. Current viruses worldwide are of great concern. Now is not the time to reduce safe health practices.

What also can, and never should be, disregarded is the risk to the unsuspecting partner or spouse who could face contamination—a real risk. Who speaks up for their protection in these circumstances? Surely their rights must also be acknowledged? The letter went on:

Condoms, oral dams or any other form of safe sex equipment can never claim 100 per cent safety. They can tear and there will always be a risk of no protection. More money is offered by customers for this service; some pimps actually encourage it with their workers, as it comes with this type of work. The appropriate protection for both worker and client is required. Paid sexual activity will always be a high-risk area.

Finally, the letter said:

Currently all workers have access to all health services via clinics or private practitioners for their personal health requirements. Those who work in the health industry do not discriminate in the giving of health care due to sex being their choice of employment.

A further question about what is covered under potential compensation provisions is whether or not abuse by a pimp or an employer be subject to workers compensation. There has been no discussion about what should be excluded, if anything, from the provisions of the Return to Work Act. This is a very serious issue, with significant financial consequences for taxpayers and the community, yet this bill is silent on this issue again.

Whilst on the subject of a safe work environment, should we not be having a more thorough discussion about requiring all brothels to have panic buttons installed, appropriate literature displayed prominently for prostitutes and clients, and access to ongoing and regular medical and best practice training, self defence classes and the like.

Should part of the debate not touch on whether drug use should be banned by client and prostitute, and should there not be random drug tests implemented and introduced? This again is for the protection of both the prostitutes and their clients and, indeed, the spouses of the clients of the prostitutes. This is common practice in high risk industries. For example, construction workers are subject to random mandatory drug tests in many cases to ensure safety on the site. There is no reason this should not be applied to the prostitution industry.

Literature shows that substance abuse is frequently involved in persons not being able to effectively negotiate the conditions of their contract with their purchaser, and it leads to people feeling they need to have unprotected sex. This bill is silent on all these critically important issues. Again, I say if people are sympathetic to supporting the legalisation of prostitution this is not the model to support.

Looking at the issue of discrimination, my seventh concern is that the bill fails to afford appropriate antidiscrimination measures. This bill creates provisions for prostitutes, both past and present, to come under the Equal Opportunity Act. We have concerns that not all rights and responsibilities under this will be adequately protected under these provisions. This bill does not provide any protection for those who have a conscientious or moral objection to providing specialised services to current prostitutes. One's right to freedom from discrimination should never come at the cost of someone's freedom from discrimination, or the right to exercise their conscience.

Let us consider someone who has applied to work in a church or a school that held specific religious views. It would be inappropriate and discriminatory to require the hiring of someone knowing that it actively goes against their faith and their ethos of that organisation. The bill clearly and specifically denies freedom of religion which is, of course, covered by international treaties and covenants to which Australia is a signatory.

Doctors are afforded exception on performing certain procedures, and there is no good reason why similar provisions could not be included in this bill for those who hold a genuine reason not to act in a certain way. As with some legislation, a simple clause allowing someone to abstain from assisting in certain prescribed circumstances would cover these situations, yet this bill simply ignores this significant issue.

Turning to local councils, my eighth specific concern is grave, as I fear members may not adequately appreciate this matter as it is more complex than it may first appear. The bill places oversight and regulatory burdens on our already overworked and often under-resourced councils. As I previously mentioned, the police will no longer be involved in ensuring compliance under this decriminalised model, and that leaves the role squarely in the realm of the local council.

I have mentioned some issues that local councils have faced in relation to decriminalisation in both New Zealand and also in New South Wales. To be specific though, in 2007 the then New South Wales Labor premier, Morris Iemma, rolled out reforms which placed the onus on councils to govern the prostitution industry. He famously and clearly incorrectly stated that the courts would be able to shut premises down in less than a week. This proved not to be the case, and quite the contrary is true. Debra Just, the General Manager at Willoughby City Council, has publicly stated:

Council does not have adequate legal mechanisms, resources or power to efficiently and effectively close brothels.

Ms Just further suggests that not only is legislative reform needed to strengthen the ability of councils to shut down illegal brothels but there is also a need for greater police assistance through enforcement. So far, in 2015, the Willoughby council has initiated litigation against purported brothels in three separate instances just this year.

Of note, the bill before us makes no provision for information sharing, nor does it provide a regulatory framework for this industry. The bill actively excludes the police from this industry, which goes against the experience in other jurisdictions where authorities are actually calling for greater police involvement. Why would it be any different here?

New South Wales clearly recognises the current issues surrounding organised crime, drugs, planning and regulatory violations, debt bondage and sex trafficking within the sex industry and significant failings of the decriminalised system. Accordingly, the government there has been considering options for several years, including a government run licensing and regulated model and the possible appointment of a Prostitution Commissioner.

In fact, due to significant issues faced by councils and unenforceable legislation and policy, New South Wales has recently launched an inquiry into brothels and prostitution legislation and the interplay between local and state government. The New South Wales Minister for Innovation and Better Regulation, Victor Dominello, stated that:

The inquiry is in response to the need for a more targeted approach so the community can have confidence in the regulation of brothels and authorities have the ability to crack down on illegal activity.

'Protections for sex workers will be considered, particularly around organised crime and sex trafficking, as well as how to maintain high levels of public health outcomes.'

The president of Local Government NSW welcomed this inquiry, stating:

Until now the burden of proof of illegal activity has rested solely on councils, and it has proven extraordinarily difficult…

He continued by saying:

Even the use of private investigation agents working undercover failed to meet this burden of proof, effectively preventing councils from being able to stamp out illegal activity and protect their residents and ratepayers. These investigations have been resource intensive and costly.

Yet that is precisely the model proposed here. Whilst councils recognise this as an extraordinary measure, they note that until the system changes they have no choice but to engage in this behaviour to be able to ensure appropriate evidence for prosecution. It is the only way they can get conclusive evidence of illegal activity yet, despite this, as I have just read from the quote from the president of Local Government NSW, even that is inadequate in many cases.

In one instance Hornsby council in New South Wales spent $100,000 defending a court matter. This is not an isolated incident, with Willoughby council confirming that it spent $60,000 over a two-year period investigating illegal activity to secure evidence for a prosecution, and the City of Sydney Council confirming that it spends, on average, $10,000 a year just on private investigators to investigate illegal brothels. Just to clarify it, this illegal activity is a breach of planning regulations and approvals but not of criminal policing matters. Of course, who ultimately bears the cost burden of all these regulation breaches and enforcement proceedings? It is the local ratepayer. This is not an acceptable outcome for the people of South Australia, but that is what is being proposed here.

One very important issue to remember is that council planning controls are extremely limited. They require adherence to form completion and general planning policy and that is it. They do not generally address broader issues such as safety, health or community attitudes. Accordingly, Local Government NSW recognises a significant failing in their current regulatory scheme. This is far from the first call for reform to this failing system.

Also of note is the fact that a council inspector in New South Wales was actually found guilty of five counts of corruptly receiving a benefit by receiving free prostitution services in exchange for overlooking breaches of regulation. We do not want this in our state, but the bill before us presents the opportunity for this exact thing to happen. It adopts the same system that is not working over there.

The New South Wales inquiry is due to report on 12 November this year. It would be prudent for us to, at the very least, wait for the outcome of that inquiry before further considering this legislation. New South Wales recognises the great challenges of supply and demand in an unregulated market and has rightly identified the issue of organised crime within the industry, but the bill before us ignores this issue.

Looking at advertising, I present this is my ninth specific concern from this bill—and it is an alarming one—that highly sexualised and upsetting advertising will proliferate under this bill. As section 25A of the Summary Offences Act will be repealed under this bill, there is no real restriction on advertising. In theory, you could be walking down the street with your five year old in tow and be handed a flyer offering sexual services, or witness flyers in windows, posters and the like. While some advertising is council controlled, much is not. Shops inside the Myer Centre, for example, would fall outside the scope of council regulation, as do many others.

Similarly, billboards advertising services can be erected. In fact, Queensland has a serious problem with outdoor advertising, and it has been the subject of a recent inquiry. It was noted that there was increasing and over-sexualised advertising displayed around the state. Many people were concerned about the advertising of adult businesses and strip clubs in the media, and significant issues were raised about the lack of age-appropriate outdoor advertising, given that children pass by these billboards on a daily basis.

The committee repeatedly heard, for example, that Queensland has issues with advertisements on bus shelters and billboards which are far too sexually explicit for the young audience that frequents such locations. This is not something we want to see in our beautiful state. Explicit sexualised advertising has a place and it is not on our streets, but it will be as a result of this bill, should it pass.

I now turn to street prostitution, about which I made a few brief remarks at the start of my contribution. This is what I would call my 10th specific concern from a decriminalised model; that is, that it will increase the incidence of street prostitution. Since decriminalisation in New Zealand it has been reported that streetwalking (as it called) in Auckland has increased somewhere in the order of 200 to 400 per cent.

Indeed, the New Zealand Prostitution Law Review Committee noted that street prostitution in Auckland more than doubled from 2006 to 2007. The New Zealand Ministry of Justice report on the review of street-based prostitution in Manukau City in April 2009 noted that the number of street walkers was estimated to have quadrupled in just one year. Residents complained about increased noise; being propositioned by street prostitutes when they returned home; aggressive, disruptive and generally antisocial behaviour; brawling; as well as other complaints of condoms, excrement and other bodily waste left in the streets, shops, car parks and even on private property. I recommend that members look at that report before making their decision on this legislation.

A similar story has been seen in Darlinghurst, New South Wales. The Darlinghurst area recorded a 460 per cent increase in prostitution charges in 2014 for street prostitutes who were soliciting within residential areas. From memory, unlike the proposed model here, New South Wales does afford some protections as to where prostitution and solicitation can occur, but despite it being specifically ruled out, it was occurring within those areas. The report also reported residents being punched in the face and being kept awake at night due to noise disturbance. It is worth repeating so that members understand: these issues are specific to the decriminalisation of prostitution. We can expect to see the same behaviour here under this proposed model.

In Ipswich in the UK, street walkers have been estimated to be 18 times more vulnerable to homicide than other women, suffering regular abuse at the hands of pimps, punters and passers-by. Over the past decade, 89 women have been murdered, and sadly that number is considered to be a low estimate by the authorities there. Five women were murdered by the same person in 2006. He was a regular, which goes to show that there is no such thing as a safe form of prostitution.

As Dr Roger Matthews noted in his book Prostitution, Politics and Policy, research has also shown that the main offenders in relation to public order offences are so-called kerb crawlers, usually men driving along the streets in their cars. Any increase in the number of prostitutes on the streets could, by virtue of this research, therefore mean an increase in public order offences. This is an academic approach; however, the issues raised in New Zealand and Darlinghurst certainly appear to support this.

There are similar issues that face councils and local and international jurisdictions that have decriminalised prostitution. In both New South Wales and New Zealand, the monitoring and enforcement burdens placed on councils, especially those that already have limited resources, are difficult if not impossible to comply with. All of these issues will be forced upon South Australians should this bill pass. We will see all of it here. What is notable is that in Sweden, since the introduction of the Nordic model, there has been a significant reduction in the street trade in particular.

Turning to a more general discussion, having dealt with the 10 most troubling aspects of this bill specifically, I would like to raise some more generic points, if I may. Nomi Levenkron, the author of The Legalization of Prostitution: Myth and Reality, notes that countries that have not made significant efforts to focus on the demand that fuels sex trafficking or countries that have legalised or decriminalised the prostitution industry have witnessed an increase in the prevalence of the sex industry and, I think most significantly, the incidence of trafficking in women and girls. Dr Roger Matthews, a professor of criminology in the UK who has studied prostitution for more than 20 years, writes:

In these liberal and libertarian accounts, however, the role of abuse, exploitation and coercion are downplayed and the free reign of market principles is emphasised…there is little regard for the concerns and experiences of those living in and around red light districts. Thus, while advocating total decriminalisation the Scarlet Alliance note that 93 per cent of the public (who were surveyed in 1998 in Queensland) expressed significant opposition to street prostitution.

He does go on to say that this opposition continues to be dismissed by lobby groups, as we see it dismissed here. Part of the current rhetoric from the pro-sex work lobby is, and I again quote him, 'We are not victims, we are not abused and we are not trafficked.' That may well be true of those speaking out. It may well be true. I do not believe this statement is true of all prostitutes and prostitution. Evidence simply does not support that.

It is estimated that at least 20.9 million (nearly 21 million) adults and children are trafficked every year. Almost 60 per cent of trafficking survivors were trafficked specifically for sexual exploitation. About two million children are exploited every year in the global commercial sex trade, and women and girls make up 98 per cent of victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation. An intrinsic link between trafficking, exploitation and prostitution cannot be ruled out or overstated. It is real. It is happening.

Additionally, for those who have researched this area for years, there is clear evidence of the pathways into the sex industry. As Dr Matthews points out, prior sexual abuse is a pathway into prostitution, with some countries estimating that 50 to 90 per cent of street prostitutes have a history of abuse and neglect—and that appears in his publication Prostitution, Politics & Policy.

In a London-based study conducted by May, Harocopos and Hough, published in 2000, entitled For Love or Money: Pimps and the Management of Sex Work, it found that almost two-thirds of prostitutes described their formative years as unhappy and over half said that they experienced some form of child abuse.

In 1999, researchers Melrose, Barrett and Brodie reported in their publication One Way Street: Retrospectives on Childhood Prostitution that 21 out of 50 (or 42 per cent) of London-based prostitute respondents reported that their first sexual experience was in the context of abuse. A later UK study conducted in 2002 by Pearce, Williams and Galvin reported in 'Is Someone Taking a Part of You: A study of young women and sexual exploitation' that 45 per cent of respondents experienced sexual abuse in childhood.

A classic study undertaken by Silbert and Pines in 1982 in 'Entrance into Prostitution' found that over 60 per cent of women from the San Francisco Bay area they interviewed reported a history of childhood physical abuse. Another study undertaken by Giobbe, 'An analysis of individual institutional and cultural pimping' in 1993 found that 90 per cent of women interviewed reported childhood physical abuse and 74 per cent were sexually abused by a family member and a further 50 per cent reported being abused by someone outside their family. This was a Michigan-based study.

A report of the Prostitution Review Committee in New Zealand noted that approximately 93 per cent of people surveyed indicated that they had financial reasons for entering and staying in the sex industry. They further noted that the most effective way of ensuring people do not enter the sex industry is to help find other alternative ways to make money. Similarly, runaways, children in care and drug addiction, to name a few issues, have repeatedly formed the complex and interconnected reasons why people have entered the sex industry.

A study conducted by Hester and Westmarland in 2004 reported that between 50 and 90 per cent of street workers in the UK were problematic drug users. This is not to say that it is true of everyone; however, it is true of some people, and we cannot be naive to this when discussing such an important change in social policy.

A role in discussing this legislation is to find the best outcome for men, women and children who find themselves affected by prostitution one way or another, be it as a direct result of working in the industry, being part of a family affected by prostitution or as part of the wider community to whom prostitution is visible. Decriminalisation will not stop organised crime from being involved in the sex industry; rather, it creates a completely uncontrolled and unmonitored market whilst providing legitimacy to operations which otherwise would not be so and which currently are not so. I turn to examples to prove this point.

The Australian Federal Police have released an article this year in their January to June 2015 Platypus magazine; I encourage every member to read this article. The article speaks of an American man who has been convicted of trafficking Australian women. One of these women was just 18 when he started using her as a sex slave. Where did these crimes take place? He moved around from Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and New Zealand, the places where it has been legalised or decriminalised, before taking the women further abroad.

Quite notably, of the so-called local jurisdictions (that is, the Australian ones), we see here that there are two legalised and two decriminalised locations. There is no way that a decriminalised system could help these trafficked Australian women. The decriminalised New South Wales sex trade is out of control despite several amendments to tighten the law since 1995. In 2000, the former police commissioner Peter Ryan said (and I quote directly):

There have been 40 shootings in Sydney's south-west suburbs in a three-month period, which were all part of a struggle between rival groups for control of the drugs and prostitution trades in the parks of Sydney.

Former federal police officer Chris Payne said that based on evidence he had seen there were hundreds of illegally imported Asian women being exploited in New South Wales brothels every day. He is also quoted as saying, and I quote directly:

On the scale we're seeing in Sydney, we used to hear some estimates of anything up to 500 Asian women illegally in Sydney.

In 2011, a source from the New South Wales government was quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald on 11 October 2011 as saying, and again I quote:

We are very concerned about issues in brothels, whether that be trafficking, girls held in debt bondage or those being forced to have unprotected sex with clients. One of the main aspects of this legislation will be to try and tighten up who is running these places and prevent criminals, or those known to associate with criminals, from being in charge.

He said this as they were trying to review the legislation. It was reported in 2011 that legal brothels in Victoria and New South Wales were operating unchecked, despite information given in court by the Australian Federal Police. The investigations, Operation Elixation and Raspberry, identified at least two Sydney and three Melbourne brothels linked to an international human trafficking and sex slavery ring. Despite this clear identification, it has been reported that the state and local authorities have taken no action against the brothels or their managers who were involved in this organised crime simply because their current laws make it virtually impossible and, again, that is what we should expect here.

Senior New South Wales police have said that the links between organised crime or sex trafficking syndicates and legal brothels highlighted the need for stronger state regulation, better information sharing between police and regulators, including across state borders, and discussion of the need for uniform prostitution laws in Australia.

Similarly, it has been recognised in New South Wales that there needs to be improved coordination between council compliance officers and other authorities, including WorkCover and New South Wales Health, to combat illegal operations and to ensure as much as possible compliance with the law or what law there is.

Senior state police in both New South Wales and Victoria have acknowledged that the policing of organised crime in legal brothels is patchy and regulation is woeful, in their words. For example, the Australian Federal Police operation Raspberry saw two witnesses testify that the manager of clubs in both New South Wales and Victoria forced two women to work as sex slaves engaged in unsafe sexual practices and working up to seven days servicing dozens of men, and every dollar they earned was returned to the syndicate to pay off the debt they were alleged to have incurred. In June 2010, the Victorian Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee in the Victorian parliament reported:

The committee believes there is a clear and close connection between sex trafficking and the illegal and unregulated sex industry. As such, it is the committee's view that a specialist unit should be established which will have the responsibility for monitoring sex trafficking as part of its wider oversight role of the Victorian sex industry.

Notably in 2007, the New South Wales ICAC referred to the licensing systems for brothels in Victoria and Queensland and, whilst not passing comment on their effectiveness, recommended a review of the New South Wales' system stating:

Not taking steps to keep criminal elements out of the industry is conducive to corruption. Consideration should be given to whether there are alternative approaches to a licensing system.

Clearly, the ICAC was indicating that the operation of the New South Wales' decriminalised system was flawed, yet the bill being presented here brings an even looser interpretation of this law into South Australia. Should this bill be passed in its current form? We should turn our minds to see what the state of brothels in South Australia might look like in the light of what we have just seen. We know where organised crime is. There is a positive correlation with weapons, drugs and sex trafficking. We have seen this in Amsterdam and other places and I have outlined several instances of that here today.

In 2000, the Netherlands actually lifted its ban on brothels in an attempt to provide better protection to vulnerable women, particularly trafficked migrant women. They found that the change in law increased the number of brothels and the number of trafficked persons, and the city actually went about purchasing premises from owners in an attempt to curb the takeover of the sex industry, but importantly they found that the change in the law actually increased the number of brothels and the number of trafficked persons.

As a side note, Sweden enacted what is known as the Nordic model back in 1999 and since enacting this legislation, that is, the criminalisation of the purchase of sex as opposed to the selling of it, Sweden has become the only country in the European Union which has a declining sex and trafficking industry.

Regardless of which model of prostitution South Australia has, any serious breach of the law should result in immediate confiscation of assets, especially when those assets come from the proceeds of crime. This bill is silent on this issue as it is on so many other issues and particularly on that of organised crime, which only further acts to marginalise those whom it seeks to protect as well as the broader community.

One reason often proffered to decriminalise prostitution is so that people feel safe to come forward and report offences committed against them. I have touched on this and I will give some more detail now. I have been informed of a woman who was brutally raped in Adelaide in recent years. It was her first time as a paid prostitute. Some people would have you believe that police will not investigate this matter because she was a prostitute. This is just simply not the case and to suggest that this is the case is plainly wrong in fact.

Detectives who work in the sex crimes area investigated this matter and I have been assured that she was treated equally and respectfully in the eyes of the law, despite having put herself in a position of danger. What I have been told is that the advocates within the sex industry were actually trying to strongly influence this woman from talking to and assisting police despite the horrendous crimes committed against her. However, the bottom line is that the police investigated, treated her well and went after the perpetrators and not after her.

The New Zealand Law Report noted that few prostitutes under their decriminalised model, regardless of whether they were working indoors or outdoors, reported any of the incidents of violence or crimes against them to police. Why did they do that? The New Zealand Law Review Committee reported that the majority of prostitutes felt that the law could do little about violence that occurred, further adding that 35 per cent reported in 2007 that they had been coerced to prostitute in the past 12 months.

Conversely, however, implementation of the Nordic model in Oslo in Norway saw serious violence decrease. For example, women reported that there was an 8 per cent decrease in the incidence of being threatened under that model or being forced into sexual acts; 24 per cent decrease in being physically restrained; 8 per cent less robberies; 8 per cent decrease in being struck with an open hand and/or fist; 9 per cent decrease in being trapped; 14 per cent decrease in rape; and a 4 per cent decrease in being thrown from a car. If we are serious about protecting prostitutes then these statistics suggest an appropriate way forward—the Nordic model clearly has advantages.

Similarly, other jurisdictions report a similar finding. The Pro Sentret Report showed that prostitutes would not report violence, especially if that violence was perpetrated by a pimp. A UK paper reported that pimps in Amsterdam were as brutal as ever post legislative change. So even after their law changed they were as brutal as ever, and their government funded a union actually set up to protect prostitutes but it has been shunned by the prostitutes themselves as they are too scared to complain because of their pimps. Pimps have been reclassified under the legislation as managers and businessmen, and the abuse suffered at their hands is now almost considered an occupational hazard. The article continued:

The Dutch government hoped to play the role of the honourable pimp, taking its share in the proceeds of prostitution through taxation. But only 5 per cent the women registered for tax, because no one wants to be known…

—as working in that industry apparently. It goes on:

Illegality has simply taken a new form, with an increase in trafficking, unlicensed brothels and pimping; with policing completely out of the picture, it was easier to beat the laws that remained.

Police now acknowledge that the red light district over there has mutated into a global hub for human trafficking and money laundering. The streets have been infiltrated by grooming gangs seeking out young, vulnerable girls in particular and marketing them to men, in many cases, as virgins who will do whatever they are told.

In 2006, an Auckland lawyer declared that decriminalisation was a disaster which had led to an explosion of children in prostitution in both Auckland and Christchurch. This was confirmed with the US Department of State Trafficking in Persons Report which noted that since decriminalisation in New Zealand there were instances of trafficking women and children, including instances of debt bondage and document confiscation.

I accessed statistics relating to prostitution under FOI and in 2014 in South Australia there was one person convicted for soliciting—just one person. There is not any evidence that the provisions within the Summary Offences Act are used abusively towards prostitutes and, again, I highlight that just one person was charged with soliciting in South Australia last year.

If people want to seek prostitution services they are not hard to find. There is a full page in The Advertiser almost every day and it is not something that it should be difficult for anyone to find. It goes on. This bill will not stop it; it is not designed to stop it but it will unleash a lot of negative consequences that I have outlined.

In conclusion, Peter Abetz, the member for Southern River in Western Australia, wrote to parliamentarians last year stating that in 1984 Victoria cited reasons for legalising prostitution as being to do away with illegal prostitution, to prevent police corruption and prevent women in prostitution from being harmed. He further stated that none of these objectives have been met and murders still occur. Likewise, Germany, Finland and the Netherlands have also stated that none of their objectives have been met.

This is a very significant bill. The bill will fail in its objectives just as every other jurisdiction has failed, as I think I have conclusively demonstrated, and it will have very many disastrous consequences for those in the sex industry and for the public in general.

According to a former ICAC and National Crime Authority investigator, who was quoted in the Daily Telegraph, the proliferation of brothels in New South Wales has resulted from dysfunctional planning laws and legislation that govern prostitution premises, so we are heading straight down that path under this bill, should it pass.

If one is strictly considering the issues seen under this decriminalised model, they must consider the sanitary and public health issues that have been raised by councils in New Zealand and New South Wales. Faeces and condoms left in public places and in people's yards is not something anyone wants to see. We do not want to see brawling or territorial arguments breaking out any more than already happens, as I have already outlined.

Remember, under this bill there are no controls as to who owns, manages or frequents a brothel; there are no probity checks, no criminal intelligence sharing provisions, and no fit and proper person test as to who owns, operates and frequents these premises. Under this bill you could have a known drug lord running a brothel and, as far as the council and the law are concerned, if all the boxes are correctly ticked then they either have to stay out of it or there is nothing whatsoever they can do about it, and they have to approve them to run this particular brothel.

This bill invites organised crime further into our state's economy. There is no requirement for panic buttons to be installed in brothels, no safety measures prior to entrance, no police checks for prostitutes, no requirement for safe sex practices, and no requirement for drug and alcohol free environments. As the Wolfenden report in the UK stated:

We are not charged to enter matters of private moral conduct, except in so far as they directly affect the public good. In this field it is the law's function, as we see it, to preserve public order and decency to protect the citizen from what is offensive and injurious, and to provide sufficient safeguards against exploitation and corruption.

Families want safe streets and vibrant communities. One of the good things this South Australian government has done is increase the vibrancy of our city. People should be able to walk down the street and it should be free from antisocial behaviour—I am sure all members would agree with that. People should be able to enjoy the quiet of their own home without witnessing inappropriate behaviour in the park across the road, or even on their front lawn in some cases. They should be able to enjoy the amenities of life, such as picking up their child from school or going to a local event, without being propositioned for sex, as has been reported and documented.

We should resist any legislation that would potentially see an increase in organised crime, exploitation and antisocial behaviours, as we have seen in other jurisdictions, and as I have outlined. Proponents of this bill have argued that decriminalisation is supported by the World Health Organisation. The way this report is relied upon and presented as a case for decriminalisation is plainly misleading.

I remind members that this report in question from the World Health Organisation was confined to examination of the HIV AIDS epidemics and the problems associated with medical treatment in low to middle socioeconomic countries. The report in question was not a holistic examination of the sex industry, and therefore does not correlate well (or, arguably, at all) to South Australia.

The report, for example, did not consider the effect of decriminalisation on matters such as sex trafficking, immigration, law enforcement, underage prostitution, planning, council regulations, societal issues, street walking prevalence, or the like. It was a work focused on health related issues, and that is predominantly all, and therefore cannot be relied on as conclusive evidence that decriminalisation is the road we should take. The report is not relevant to the situation in South Australia, nor was it ever intended to be.

I urge every member to carefully consider this bill and the effect it will have, and consider whether on the evidence this bill will prevent the harms which prostitutes may be subject to. I believe it does not. Clearly, there is significant evidence to suggest that this bill will result in South Australia going down exactly the same road as New South Wales and New Zealand, where the law has similarly been decriminalised, and I have outlined many of the problems there. Violence against prostitutes—the stated primary aim of the bill—will not be prevented, as I have demonstrated. There will be few, if any, positive outcomes and very many negative consequences should this bill pass.

My final comment is that I understand that we all want to see violence against prostitutes eliminated, and I can understand if members have particular sympathy towards changing the law to that effect, but I argue strongly that this bill does not achieve that objective, and I oppose the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. D.W. Ridgway.

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