Page 3185 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 18 November 1992

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .


address of a person should not be generally available to the public. Obviously, the police have a legitimate interest in knowing. A public servant means an ACT government official. There are legitimate regulatory reasons why ACT officials need such information. A prescribed person or a prescribed class of persons can be seen to be broad, but we must always remember that under the disallowable instruments Act any prescription must be done by regulation which comes back to this Assembly.

As we have said, this legislation is new. We want to look at it as we go along. I said in my general introductory remarks that we are setting up a working party of people involved in the industry to monitor how it goes. I indicated that I would be happy to involve interested members in that process. We can perhaps convene some meetings and see how that goes. There may well be a need to expand those classes. We are doing it by prescription, but the prescription is subject to approval by this Assembly. Members are not getting rid of any control by this. It is not open slather. There is accountability to this Assembly.

Proposed new Part agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5

Amendment (by Mr Connolly) proposed:

Page 3, line 10, omit the clause, substitute the following clause:

Operating a brothel

 "5.(1) A person shall not operate a brothel except in a prescribed location.

Penalty:

 (a) in the case of a natural person - $10,000 or imprisonment for 12 months;

 (b) in the case of a corporation - $50,000.

 "(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an escort agency or premises used by one prostitute.".

MR STEVENSON (12.06): Rather than call for a division on each of the amendments, perhaps it could be taken that, as I have not read them, I will vote against their being taken up until I have read them.

MR KAINE (Leader of the Opposition) (12.07): Madam Speaker, I have a question on this amendment. Presumably, it allows the Minister to determine what a prescribed location is. There are at the moment some locations which one could regard as prescribed. Does the Minister see any likelihood of that being changed in the foreseeable future as a result of the introduction of this legislation, or are we going to continue with the same system that we have had in place for some time?


Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .