Page 3503 - Week 13 - Thursday, 26 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
"Why do you not do it?"; or they can put a motion and direct the Minister to do it. They have a full range of possibilities available. If their motion was right in line with that recommendation, I just might well support it; but I would want to see what they drew up first.
It is also interesting that Mrs Carnell should have drawn attention to recommendation 6.3: HIV/AIDS and Sex Work. Prior to the Bill going through, I stood in this Assembly and said, "The one area of difficulty that I have is the approach on health". I was the only person who stood here and said that. That is reflected in this report that has come down since. Even so, we went a long way to meeting that.
Mrs Carnell: But we did not go all the way.
MR MOORE: In consultation with Mr Connolly, Mr Humphries and you, we did move that "knowingly infect" would go beyond the commercial sexual services provided at a brothel or escort agency to wherever commercial sexual services are provided and would apply equally in both directions. That goes about 90 per cent or 95 per cent of the way to meeting that, but I would argue that it goes not quite far enough. Remembering that this was a Bill referring to prostitution, perhaps we should put that "knowingly infect" where I originally had it, in the consequential amendments to the Venereal Diseases Act, which is now the STD Act. I think it is appropriate that we repeat that in that Act as well, as that would put us in line with that recommendation.
I think the trouble is that what we have heard today is a fair bit of half the story and half the truth.
Mrs Carnell: That is just not true.
MR MOORE: I am concerned about the reason for this. What is the reason for stopping this part? You have asked the Minister again and again to clarify his position. When he comes out to clarify the very position that you have asked him to clarify, and he does so, you then move to disallow this. You have moved to disallow this instead of doing what you should have done. You should have said, "This is a bigger picture. We want to do something else about it, so we are going to take action", instead of trying to write it all off in your hope to embarrass the Minister again.
Mr Humphries: You cannot have one without the other, Michael. You have to have both.
MR MOORE: Mr Humphries suggests that you cannot have one without the other. Mr Humphries, as far as this goes, is wrong. You can. We are about to see, some time in the next hour or so, that he is wrong, and we will have one without the other.
Mr Humphries: You should not have one without the other. Let us put it that way.
MR MOORE: He now has changed his position - but that is not surprising - and now says that we should not have one without the other. I say to him that, if he really thinks that and really believes it, he should do something about it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .