Page 5038 - Week 16 - Wednesday, 27 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I think it is important to emphasise that, in the preparation of our committee report, we took into account all views and all publications that came out on law reform with reference to prostitution. I will come back to that later.
The second point that Mr Berry raised is that there is no protection for workers. What absolute nonsense! Mr Berry claims that the legislation does nothing to protect workers. I do not know who his advisers are, but they obviously can neither read nor interpret legislation. I make some simple points for the education of the Minister and his advisers. Subclause 38(1) of the Prostitution Bill makes it an offence for an owner to insist on a worker providing unprotected sex. That is a measure designed to protect the worker. Subclause 38(3) makes it an offence for a client to insist on a worker providing unprotected sex. That is another measure designed to protect the worker. Subclause 8(3) of the Prostitution (Consequential Amendments) Bill makes it an offence for a client to knowingly infect a worker with an STD. That is yet another measure designed to protect the worker.
Provisions of these Bills were specifically designed to do two major things for workers, as was clearly set out in our committee report - to protect workers' health while they are working and to empower workers with controls over their working environment. To suggest that this Bill does not protect the worker is absolute nonsense. Of course, my point was validated this morning by Fiona Patten of Workers in Sex Employment in the ACT. She said that she supported this Bill. Naturally, WISE, like the brothel owners, would like some amendments moved to get everything their way. We as legislators have to consider what we think is best, and the priority must go to what is best for all citizens in the ACT.
Mr Berry also implied that these Bills do nothing for the occupational health and safety of workers. Again, I can only assume that the Minister and his advisers are ignorant of the law and particularly of their own legislation. I must remind the Minister that one of the first pieces of legislation passed by this house in 1989 was the Labor Government's own Occupational Health and Safety Act, which applies to all workers in the Territory. Perhaps, Mr Berry, you should either change your advisers or start listening to them.
Mr Berry: There are occupational health and safety matters other than those concerned with the groin.
MR MOORE: Mr Berry interjects that there are occupational health and safety issues other than those affecting the groin. That is exactly the point I have just made, as he would have known had he been listening. Ordinary occupational health and safety legislation would apply to all sex workers in the ACT, as indeed would other provisions of normal legislation.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .