Page 3172 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 18 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I believe, moreover, that we have in place here an effective regulatory regime for those who operate brothels. It is perhaps unfortunate to focus on elements of business efficacy in dealing with a matter as sensitive as prostitution, but here we have a regime which is very simple. It covers only a page or so of legislation. It provides for a registrar of brothels and escort agencies, a person who receives easily supplied information from potential operators. It is simple, straightforward and easy to administer. A complex regime of regulation, from a business point of view, would run the serious risk of being sufficiently unattractive to many potential operators in the field as to make them want to avoid it, and that would be unfortunate. This regime will work well. It might not in other circumstances, but it certainly will in this context.
The role we have settled on for police enforcement of the provisions set down in this legislation is an effective one. There was concern about the extent of police powers and the capacity for police to enter brothels, and of course there was an eye to the historical relationship between police and prostitution, that is, between police and brothels. Madam Speaker, I think that we strike a happy balance in this role. I understand that this role will be revisited from time to time to see whether it should be modified in light of the circumstances.
The final strength I see in the legislation is the regime for testing. It provides a reasonable expectation that those who work as prostitutes, particularly in brothels, will from time to time submit themselves to testing, to medical examinations, to ensure that they have not contacted diseases which might be transmitted. Obviously there are no guarantees. Nobody can rule out entirely the possibility of unprotected sex in these places or the transmission of disease; but I think we have here about as effective a regime as we could have, to minimise the risk of that taking place - short of government inspectors in every room.
Ms Szuty talked about the drawbacks in the legislation. She said that they were, if anything, perceptual. I am not sure whether that word exists; but, if it does, I agree that the problems are perceptual. The risk we run by passing legislation of this kind is that we send the message that we have normalised this activity; that it is as natural and acceptable within the community as purchasing a car or buying something in a shop. I hope that we do not do that with this legislation. I hope that we establish an arrangement which protects those we seek to protect, particularly children, but which provides that where the industry does manifest itself it does so in a way which does not occasion general harm. As I have said, I believe that we have achieved that with this legislation. I commend it to the house.
MR STEVENSON (11.27): What this legislation will do, among other things, is give a clear stamp of approval from this Assembly for prostitution. Mr Connolly referred to the perception of people in our community. That perception will be that we approve of this activity and feel that it should be legalised. Let us not go into the argument of decriminalisation. We have an exceedingly high youth unemployment rate in the ACT. When we give prostitution our stamp of approval, it will encourage some youths to work in the field of prostitution. This is a fairly logical assumption. The Australian Federation for the Family has faxed me something they asked me to read in the Assembly. I read part of it:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .