Page 3169 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 18 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MRS CARNELL (11.11): Madam Speaker, I would like to add to Mr Connolly's statements about the process that was undertaken with this piece of legislation. The process was very appropriate from our side of the house because, in the first instance, we did have a number of problems with the first Bill as it was put forward. As time has gone on and in consultation with Mr Connolly and Mr Moore, those quite severe problems, in some cases, with the original Bill have been overcome. We now support the Bill in full, with the amendments to be put forward by Mr Connolly.
One of the major positives of this Bill is that it covers all forms of prostitution, not just in brothels. It does not discriminate directly against brothels. It takes on board the quite substantial problems that have occurred in Victoria, where legislation was brought in which proved to be unworkable and which proved to discriminate against some parts of the industry. Those problems, we believe, have been overcome with this legislation. We were also pleased to see the advertising ban removed from the original legislation.
Most importantly, though, the public health requirements, that obviously are central to this legislation, now cover all forms of prostitution and cover all forms of STDs. They will protect the prostitute, the brothel owner and the client. They will produce very definite obligations on all three parties in this transaction, which we on this side of the house believe is very appropriate. The area of police powers was one of contention, but we have come to an agreement. We believe that it is appropriate for police to be given the power to enter without a warrant, but only when they suspect that child prostitution is involved.
Again, I would like to fully support the process that was undertaken. I believe that this legislation will be the best and most progressive legislation in this area in Australia. It will go a long way to convince the public, or I hope it does, that this Assembly is working appropriately in the interests of the public and in the interests of public health.
MS SZUTY (11.14): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to add my support to the Prostitution Bill 1992, which is presented for debate today by my colleague Mr Moore. The impetus for moves to bring prostitution into the circle of acceptable businesses and occupations around Australia has been the spread of HIV. It is interesting to note that, once this reason for addressing the issue of prostitution was accepted, research showed that in fact prostitutes are less likely to be infected and to transmit HIV than was previously thought. As the 1991 report to the Federal Department of Health, Housing and Community Services on legal issues relating to HIV, AIDS, sex workers and their clients states:
Fearful public images of sex workers as purveyors of disease derive from the social position of sex workers which has developed through history. The myth of female pollution was linked to moral blame from which male clients were remarkably immune.
The report states that a study conducted over four years showed that, of 1,100 sex workers visiting Sydney metropolitan sexually transmitted diseases clinics, none were HIV positive. Another survey of prostitutes in 1989, which covered three cities including Canberra, again found no incidence of the virus. In Victoria yet another study found a low incidence of STDs of all types among prostitutes. That study identified overseas so-called sex holidays as being more risky than a visit to an Australian brothel.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .