Page 4842 - Week 16 - Monday, 25 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
conference I attended - and this is where Mr Moore and I have to adjust our viewpoints. They believe that they should have a level of self-regulation. Whilst I believe that they support Mr Moore's Bill, it is not clear to me that a state sanctioned, state established board is exactly what the sex workers want. But they will settle for it to get out of the situation they are in.
It seemed to me, if I interpreted them correctly - and I accept that they may be giving different views around the place - that they might want to have a self-regulatory board of the type - and I am sure my colleagues will forgive me for associating them with this matter - that lawyers have for their disciplinary and regulatory procedures; arrangements of the type that the AMA and so on have. That is a view that I put forward at this stage. I do not know whether we are going to reach the detail stage today, but these are points that we have to discuss in the debate and work our way through.
I also want to allude to the completely unsatisfactory situation of the law in the Territory for the police. This pressure for reform is not coming just from sex workers. It is a most unsatisfactory situation for the police. When I was Attorney, one of the earliest submissions that I received from the Australian Federal Police was one expressing concern about that situation. Although the legislation was explicit in creating offences for managing or being knowingly concerned in the managing of brothels, or knowingly permitting or leasing premises to be a brothel, it was clear that, because of the public policy decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions at that time, Mr Temby, the police found themselves in a de facto regulatory role. In fact, I saw reports of inspections - and enlightening they were.
Members should be aware that some years ago the Director of Public Prosecutions issued a guideline that made clear the grounds upon which the director would want to prosecute a brothel in this Territory. Otherwise, they would be, as it were, not the subject of prosecution; that is, left in limbo. The grounds were: If they operated in or near a residential area, if drug trafficking was involved, if there was the presence of minors, if there was an involvement of organised crime or association with criminals, unruly behaviour, health considerations, or complaints from the public. (Extension of time granted)
I thank members. That DPP policy was communicated to the AFP as a confidential minute, and there was no point in the police bringing forward people for prosecution thereafter, considering that the DPP would not prosecute them. The police expressed to me a number of concerns about the operation of the law and the role that they played in enforcing it. The police expressed to me the view that they required support from the Government and the Director of Public Prosecutions if - I stress the word "if" - they were to combat prostitution.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .