Page 3177 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 18 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Had a review taken place in Victoria within two years, they could have resolved the problems and dealt with the situation much more effectively. That is an important issue that we can learn from. It was dealt with appropriately by Mrs Carnell.
There was a series of other positive comments about the strength of the legislation. I do not see any need to reiterate those comments. I move to some of the comments made by Mr Stevenson. The first was that we are going to put our stamp of approval on prostitution. It is very easy in this house and publicly to argue in black and white. That is what Mr Stevenson does best and does most often. You simply say, "Everything about this is bad; therefore, we must ban it". That is a simple solution. The rest of the members of the Assembly have taken an intelligent approach - the same sort of intelligent approach that was taken by the Catholic and Anglican bishops.
In a minute I will read something they said, so that they are not misrepresented. Members understand that the issue is much more difficult than Mr Stevenson would have us and some members of the public, probably 2 or 3 per cent who are represented by the Federation of the Family, believe. No doubt, though, his speech will be popular in Toowoomba, Chinchilla and places like that, rather than in the ACT. The Anglican Bishop of Canberra and Goulburn is quoted in the report of the Select Committee on HIV, Illegal Drugs and Prostitution as saying:
As a necessary evil it should be accepted and controlled. That control should be by way of decriminalisation not legislation. The Church would, I do not think ever, come out in favour of legalisation of prostitution, but I think we could cope with decriminalisation.
That sentiment was echoed then by Bishop Power of the Catholic Church. The committee, in paragraph 7.8 of its report, summarised what the bishops said, as follows:
Both churches expressed deep concern for the people involved in prostitution, and voiced a need for tolerance and understanding.
If Mr Stevenson put a little more effort into tolerance and understanding we might hear a different view from him. It is important to understand that, more than any other prostitution legislation in Australia, this legislation does decriminalise. I presented two Bills. The Prostitution (Consequential Amendments) Bill, which this debate also focuses on, actually decriminalises prostitution. If that were the only Bill to go through, prostitution would be completely decriminalised.
The other Bill legalises. I think that is a reasonable way to describe it. The way we use the word "decriminalisation" here is very different from the way we used it, for example, in the debate on marijuana. The legalisation, which is very minimal, is primarily for health reasons. We can turn a blind eye and say, "Well, don't worry". Earlier I interjected, "Well, just don't do it". Mr Stevenson picked up my interjection. What he missed, though, was the irony in the tone in which it was said. No matter how much we say, "Well, just don't do it", we will not get people to respond. We need a logical, rational, intelligent approach rather than just a black-and-white approach.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .