Page 83 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 8 April 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
One of the interesting things, I suppose, if I can digress for just one second, was a report in the Canberra Times about Bernard Collaery's comments on why the Residents Rally did not do very well in this last election. He blamed Crispin Hull, me and a series of other people, but never took responsibility for his conduct, his chopping and changing and his hypocrisy. One of the ironies that I found by reading that piece of paper was that I am in the process of trying to teach my eight-year-old son and my six-year-old son that they ought to take responsibility for their own conduct. It is something that he obviously missed out on in his own upbringing.
To get onto much more important matters, the second Bill that I will present shortly, the Prostitution (Consequential Amendments) Bill, is the Bill that decriminalises prostitution because it removes the laws that apply to prostitution as they currently stand. It removes a series of quite old and quite ridiculous laws. One of them that I understand nobody was ever charged under was that it was an offence for somebody in a bar or a coffee shop to serve a person who was a known prostitute. As I recall, there was a fine of $10 or something. That needs to be removed, as do a series of other regulations and laws that apply inappropriately to prostitution.
The committee last year, and I think the Assembly generally, felt that it was appropriate to regulate prostitution in some ways. The first Bill that you have, the Prostitution Bill, "A Bill for an Act to regulate certain aspects of prostitution", looks particularly at limiting the brothels in the ACT to Fyshwick, Mitchell and Hume. It looks at the participation of minors and ensures that there is no participation of minors, and prevents soliciting in public places.
What was suggested by the Labor Party in the debate on these Bills last year was that they should go to the Law Reform Committee and be considered by the Law Reform Committee. The Attorney-General has told me that Labor is still prepared to send these Bills to the Law Reform Committee. I am suggesting now that these Bills be tabled for consideration and that the Attorney-General refer them to the Law Reform Committee. If the Law Reform Committee would like, I am quite happy to make available the original copies of the Bills, which were in a more regulatory form, so that they can also consider those. That report could be brought back before the Assembly before we actually debate these, either in the in-principle stage or in the detail stage. I think that is an appropriate way to go and I am happy for it to be done that way.
So, Madam Speaker, what will happen now, as I understand it, I having tabled this Bill and once I have tabled the Prostitution (Consequential Amendments) Bill and the matters have been adjourned, is that they will not come back to the Assembly until after we have a report from the Law Reform Committee. That report may encourage us to make some modifications to the Bills as they stand.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (10.56): I move:
That the debate be now adjourned.
Perhaps I am somewhat out of order, but I indicate that the Government thinks that what Mr Moore is proposing is sensible - that the committee look at the Bills and come up with a package.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .