Page 3190 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 18 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Page 5, line 24, add the following subclause:
"(4) A person shall not, at a brothel or elsewhere, while providing or receiving commercial sexual services that involve oral, anal or vaginal penetration -
(a) misuse, damage or interfere with the efficacy of any prophylactic used; or
(b) continue to use a prophylactic that he or she knows, or could reasonably be expected to know, is damaged.
Penalty (for an offence against subsection (4)): $5,000.".
On looking closely at my explanatory memorandum I see that this is the expanded use of prophylactic provision which I referred to earlier. The earlier provisions related to the medical examination which I referred to at the outset. These are the heart of those provisions that were changed as a result of discussions with the Opposition, expanding and making it clear that all parties engaged in commercial sexual services are required to use prophylactics, in all cases.
MR STEVENSON (12.15): Could the Attorney-General inform the Assembly as to how these particular regulations, particularly those requiring the use of a prophylactic, are going to be enforced?
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (12.15): We are certainly not going to have police present in or under the bed in every case of commercial sexual activity. By making it an offence, it provides significant protection for the sex worker. If the operator of the brothel says, "You are to provide sex without a condom for an additional fee", that sex worker is entitled to go to their union, and then to police, and say, "That operator was requiring me to have unsafe sex". That is an enormous sanction for the safety of the sex worker. If a client comes into the brothel and says, "I want to have sex without a condom", at the moment there could well be compelling economic pressure on that sex worker to accede to that request. This gives that sex worker enormous protection by being able to say to the client, "That is an offence".
At the moment one could well imagine circumstances where that client could say, "Well, if you refuse, I am going to complain to the brothel owner and get you flicked on and find somebody else who will comply". That sex worker can say, "You, client, are seeking to commit an offence and I will not agree". While it will not be enforced in most cases by the police, there is always the potential for someone to make a complaint. I suspect that in most cases it would be the sex worker making the complaint rather than the client, but that gives enormous protection, in an occupational health and safety sense, to the sex worker.
MR MOORE (12.17): I would like to add some emphasis. Under the Crimes Act, to intend to commit the offence is to commit the offence. Therefore, when a client says, "I want to have unsafe sex", the worker is in the position of saying, "You are committing a crime". That is the important emphasis. In that way the worker is much more empowered, as far as this issue goes.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .