Page 3774 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 16 October 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Members, there is no doubt that, over the next few weeks prior to this Bill being debated in the house, you will be lobbied on compulsory testing. Compulsory testing is something that was dealt with in our report - and this Bill is based entirely on that report. It recommended that there not be compulsory testing. I think you will find, in your reading of the Bill, that it does actually encourage testing; but it certainly does not provide for compulsory testing. The major disadvantage of compulsory testing as far as prostitutes are concerned is that a test is really only as good as the very next customer.
I suppose that if you were inclined to advocate compulsory testing of prostitutes you should also be advocating compulsory testing of clients, and that certainly would not be possible. As I say, testing is encouraged in this legislation, but compulsory testing is in fact discouraged because of the way it would be used. This Bill provides for the situation where somebody attempts to use a test as a method of showing that a prostitute is in some way clean, which is an entirely inappropriate way to go. I think that comes through very clearly in the Bill. So, I foreshadow that there will be some lobbying to that effect, and I think it is something that ought to be resisted.
I should also add that, since our report has come down, there has been some question as to whether or not there should be a fine for the non-use of prophylactics. My advice on this, subsequent to the report, was that, if a person goes to a prostitute and says, basically, "I want unprotected sex", the intent of the crime is there and therefore the crime is committed. If the same person went to two or three prostitutes and said the same thing, there would be enough evidence for a prosecution to be carried out. This emphasises how important safe sex measures are.
That is the main reason that the provision is there. The other reason, of course, is that the provision in the legislation for a $5,000 fine for failure to use prophylactics empowers the workers, the prostitutes, to say to people, "There is a $5,000 fine associated with this and your suggestion is, in itself, breaking the law". That way we can feel more comfortable that we will not see a spread of AIDS.
Mr Berry: How many inspectors would we want?
MR MOORE: An interjection from Mr Berry asks, "How many inspectors would we want?". It should be made very clear that at no stage do I foresee inspectors in this area. Of course, it would be very easy to make a flippant and light comment on what is a very serious matter. Mr Speaker, I seek leave to present an explanatory memorandum to the Bill.
Leave granted.
Debate (on motion by Mr Berry) adjourned.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .